There was 1 motion, mine. 3 questions from Miller, 3 from Mal.
- My motion was
That Council:
1. Recognises the findings of the 2024 seven-year acoustic monitoring study of koala populations led by Dr Bradley Law, the principal research scientist at the NSW Department of Primary Industries, and supported by researchers from Forestry Corp of NSW and the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital, which demonstrates:
(a) A stable koala occupancy across 224 forested sites.
(b) Minimal regional impact from the 2019 bushfires.
(c) No measurable effect from timber harvesting or low-severity fire on koala populations.
(d) The effectiveness of passive acoustic monitoring as a cost-efficient method for ongoing koala population assessment.
2. Acknowledges that the current Mid Coast Koala Conservation Strategy:
a) Is not aligned with the latest scientific evidence.
b) Imposes unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens on landholders, staff, and ratepayers.
c) Diverts resources from more effective, evidence-based environmental management practices.
3. Requests the General Manager to provide a report to the October meeting detailing:
(a) The expenditure provided by Council and the Federal and State Governments towards the current Koala Conservation Strategy.
(b) The regulatory and financial burden placed on all development taking place in the Mid Coast.
(c) The possibility of using current staff engaged in the Mid Coast Koala Conservation Strategy to undertake ongoing passive acoustic monitoring of koala populations and strategic fire management and fuel reduction programs.
4. Advocates to State Government agencies and relevant Ministers to similarly review their koala strategies in light of the new evidence, and to support local governments using cost-effective, science-driven conservation methods.
Staff dealing with MCC Koala Strategy were brought in to the pre-meeting briefing by I know not who and made sure to gaslight the other councillors and make certain that they voted against my motion. The substantive parts of my motion were not considered during this meeting, as normally happens when these matters are considered from a purely ideological viewpoint.
I withdrew it.
2. Millers Questions with Notice were:
Question 1
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 29 July that “Councils across the state are bracing for a hefty blow to their budgets as the cost of holding local government elections soars”. Have costs increased across recent MidCoast Council elections and what has driven any increases?
Question 2
When MidCoast Council engages the NSW Electoral Commission to manage an election, what controls does Council have to manage cost overruns by the NSWEC or variations to their quote?
Question 3
Given that the number of polling places is a large driver of the cost, what capacity does Council have to review or reduce the number of polling places without disadvantaging voters?
Response by Director Corporate Services
Response to Question 1
Costs have increased for each MidCoast Council Election since amalgamations when MidCoast Council was formed. The graph below shows the election cost increases since amalgamation.
Council has not received any information from the Electoral Commission to advise the reasons for the cost increases, so it is not clear what has driven the cost increases.
Response to Question 2
Council currently estimates what the likely cost of the next election may be and budgets an annual amount to go into the election reserve each year to ensure that it has enough funds to cover the election that falls on each four-year cycle. When the Electoral Commission provides an election estimate (close to the election) the final year budget is set to reflect that amount (noting the election is in September). In the event of a cost overrun/variation from the estimate provided by the Electoral Commission Council does not have any control to manage any cost overruns. The establishment and annual funding of an election reserve minimises the budget impact in the election year.
Response to Question 3
Council has the capacity to request the Electoral Commission to add or remove polling places. The actual impact of this has only a minor impact on costs. The Electoral Commission has recently reduced Pre-Polling to one week in some areas, but this had no impact on cost reduction.
Reduction of polling places may have an impact on voters so would need to be carefully considered.
3. Mal had 3 questions.
Question 1
For the benefit of the public, noting that the storm water outlets serving the CBD sub-catchment have what are called “non return flaps” on the stormwater outlets, please explain how these operate?
Question 2
What level are the stormwater outlets in relation to the Chapman St Car Park and what level does the river have to fall to before drainage is re-established?
Question 3
What arrangements are in place to deal with storm water ponding in Chapman Place Car Park behind Victoria Street, Taree, during any flood event (including a minor flood) and is there any State or Federal money available under category D for a pump solution?
Response by Director Infrastructure & Engineering Services
Response to Question 1
The outlets have flaps on the downstream side of them. As the water level in the river rises it exerts pressure on the flap closing and sealing them. Water can’t flow back up the stormwater pipes whilst the flap is sealed closed. If the stormwater level behind the flap is higher than the river level the pressure difference will push the flap open allowing water to be discharged.
Response to Question 2
The non return flaps are within the stormwater pits in Fotheringham Park, significantly lower than Chapman St Carpark. However the stormwater outlets will function based on water levels and the net pressure difference. If the river level is above the stormwater level then there will be no discharge.
When this occurs, the stormwater is effectively dammed within the carpark unable to get away. When the river level is lower the pressure of the stormwater will be greater, allowing water to be discharged into the river.
Response to Question 3
There are no specific arrangements to deal with the stormwater that becomes dammed when the river levels are higher. In a minor flood the stormwater will eventually drain away when the river levels recede. For major floods the river level will eventually reach the height where floodwater flows over land adding to the stormwater trapped within the carpark, Again, it will gradually drain away as the river levels recede.
The only way to alter this situation would be to add a pump to the carpark to lift the stormwater higher than the river level allowing it to be discharged. in major floods it would not have any benefit. There are significant operating/maintenance and capital costs associated with this. The feasibility study identified a very low cost benefit ratio and as a result there is not likely to be funding from either the state or federal governments under any of the current grant programs for floodplain management.