There was one motion from Mick and questions
Mick’s motion was:
14.1 Notice of Motion 1 – Cr Mick Graham
2025/415 RESOLUTION
(Moved Cr M Graham/Seconded Cr P Beazley)
That the General Manager look into ways of making the Manning Entertainment Centre more financially sustainable by:
1. Providing a detailed report to the next Council meeting outlining the operations and financials for the past 5 years.
2. Apply benchmarking and performance indicators to ensure financial sustainability can be
monitored and maintained into the future.
3. Hold a meeting open to councillors, staff and public to look into options and new innovations to increase financial sustainability.
For: Cr C Pontin, Cr J Miller, Cr P Beazley, Cr M Graham, Cr J Irving, Cr M
McKenzie, Cr T O’Keefe, Cr A Tickle, Cr N Turnbull and Cr D Wilson
Against: Nil
Absent, did not vote: Cr P Howard
Mick had 2 questions:
Question 1
Could the General Manager please advise on how much money Midcoast Council spends on Community engagement each year?
Question 2
Could the General Manager provide information as to whether Midcoast Council is proceeding forward with the process of applying for a future Special Rate Variation, and what would the increase be and where would the extra funds be spent?
Responses by the General Manager
Response to Question 1
All NSW Councils are required to develop and implement a Community Engagement Strategy under the Local Government Act 1993. Council adopted the MidCoast Community Engagement Strategy on 30 June 2025. The strategy states that –
“We are committed to engaging with our community in a meaningful way to make sure our community is at the heart of all we do”.
To deliver on this strategy there are currently three staff employed ($283k) to deliver community engagement activities as part of the Communication, Engagement and Marketing department.
The operational budget for this team (in addition to wages) is $12,000 to cover the cost of venue hire, printing and other materials required.
Given that community engagement is a core part of how we work with our community it also involves other staff from different parts of the organisation depending on the projects and programs that are underway.
Response to Question 2
Council has made no decision to apply for a Special Rate Variation (SRV). Any decision to apply for an SRV is required to be by resolution of Council. The application process is through the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), and applications are required to be lodged by 2nd February 2026 for the 2026/27 financial year. The application process is detailed, and extensive community engagement is required. Council could not apply for an SRV for 2026/27 given these requirements.
If Council chose to apply for a SRV at some time in the future it would be a decision of Council on the level of the increase and as to where the additional funds would be spent.
Council has the following in its adopted Financial Sustainability Action Plan:
I had 3 questions:
Question 1
In reference to Figure 56 – Road Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Deterioration & Intervention Costs Model on page 91 of the MidCoast Council Road Strategy, can the General Manager explain this graph and its relationship to the need for regular intervention work on our transport assets?
Question 2
In reference to Figure 57 – MCC Road Asset Condition Overlayed on Deterioration Model on page 91 of the Road Strategy, can the General Manager explain this graph and its ramifications for our network?
Question 3
In reference to Figure 59 – Impacts of Failing to Meet Maintenance & Renewal Ratio Benchmarks on p.92 of the Road Strategy, can the General Manager explain this graph and how it relates to the requirements for increased maintenance funding and its relationship with the principle of intergenerational equity?
Response by Director Infrastructure & Engineering Services
Response to Question 1
The graph shown in Figure 56 of the MidCoast Road Strategy outlines the relative costs of preserving road pavements through regular renewal treatments (at the lowest lifecycle cost) in contrast to allowing pavement to deteriorate with considerably higher treatment costs.
Research from multiple sources consistently identifies regular pavement preservation through actions like resealing as being six to ten times cheaper than allowing roads to deteriorate before more significant intervention.
Further, the rate of pavement deterioration accelerates over time. The current condition of our transport network shows that without a change in the amount of maintenance and renewal; our roads will deteriorate around twice as fast in the future as they have in the past. This will substantially increase the backlog of work and the costs to restore the network to acceptable condition in future.
Response to Question 2
Figure 57 demonstrates that the MidCoast Road Network on average has already deteriorated beyond the point where regular preservation interventions can provide for the lowest lifecycle cost.
This means that our road network will cost more in the long term to maintain and renew whilst it can be expected to deteriorate faster than a network in optimal condition. This will continue to worsen unless there is a substantial change.
Response to Question 3
Figure 59 diagrammatically represent the impact of asset renewal and maintenance ratios on the average road network condition. In years where the ratios exceed the benchmark target of one the condition is expected to climb slightly back up the curve (i.e. we are renewing it faster than it is deteriorating). In years where it is less than one, the average condition will slip further down the curve.
In relation to the concept of intergenerational equity, allowing the road network to deteriorate further will encumber future generations with relatively higher life cycle costs to address the declining asset condition resulting from use by the current generation. In short, doing nothing now to address the maintenance and renewal gap for the road network diminishes intergenerational equity.