I recently issued a Press Release calling for the Liberal Party to disclose their donors before the Council elections (see below).
I was interviewed by WIN TV today. It seems both Kellie Marsh (Lib) and Marianne Saliba (Lab) have attacked me, saying the new Councillors needs to work together and accusing me of promoting disunity!
Media Release
Call for Liberals to come clean on donations.
Peter Moran, Independent candidate for Shellharbour Council, today called on the Liberal team to come clean on who is financing their campaign.
“Last Friday the Shellharbour Liberal Party held a fundraiser at the Seascape Function Centre. I call on the Liberals to name those who attended and donated to their campaign.”
“Current election funding laws allow political parties to not identify small donors, and large donors do not have to be reported until after the election. As their campaign literature says they will promote transparency here is a chance for them to prove it” Mr Moran said.
“Councillors vote on Development Applications. The community deserves to know who is supporting candidates before they vote for a new Council. I have no doubt that the Liberal Party will obey the letter of the law. However, they could and should go further and operate a system of continuous disclosure. The community deserves no less.”
“Just for the record, my team is accepting no donations. I am fully funding my own campaign.”
Wednesday 31 August 2011
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Why should you pay for the marina?
WHY SHOULD YOU PAY FOR THE MARINA?
For over 20 years the community has been told that we will not have to pay for the marina. It was all going to be paid for from profits from land sales. Now that the funding model has fallen over, we are told the community will have to borrow at least $20m to build it. We may need to borrow up to $80m to complete it. The interest payments alone could be up to $4m p.a.
Council’s own figures show the Marina will create only 33 tourism related retail jobs and an average of only $500,000 tourism expenditure each year (Macroplan study, 2011)
The total cost of the Marina will be at least $140m. While Council is preparing to borrow funds for this, we are charging our children to use cold water pools and sports fields because Council cannot afford to maintain them.
Council cannot afford even basic services for our community. In recent years, Council has reduced mowing in suburban parks all across the City, except in Shell Cove, to once every 6-8 weeks in summer. In this year’s budget, Council allocated an extra $50,000 for maintenance of parks in Shell Cove. Other suburbs get less mowing but have to pay more for Shell Cove! On top of this, we subsidise the Links Shell Cove golf course by almost $400,000 each year. Council needs to get its priorities right and realise there is more to our city than just Shell Cove.
A residential subdivision in a coastal area near a major population centre will always make a profit for the developer. We could continue with the residential aspect of Shell Cove, and the commercial and retail, and the business park, which Council says will create 1000 jobs. This would make a profit to provide services to the rest of the city. We do not need to spend $140m on a marina which will be a constant drain on Council’s resources, as we pay to maintain it.
VOTE 1 FOR A ‘BACK TO BASICS’ COUNCIL
VOTE 1 FOR ALL OF THE CITY, NOT JUST SHELL COVE
VOTE 1 FOR PETER MORAN (GROUP G)
Friday 26 August 2011
ALP caucusing
Wollongong ALP Lord Mayoral hopeful Chris Connor has declared that no ALP councillors on the new Wollongong Council will caucus. This sounds fine in principle but it contravenes ALP rules, which require caucusing. Is Mr Connor going to risk expulsion from the Party, or is he planning to have the rules changed?
Meanwhile, in Shellharbour, David Boyle, who is NOT running as an ALP candidate even though he is an ALP member, has indicated he will engage in caucusing with any ALP councillors. Not much consistency from the local ALP, is there?
Meanwhile, in Shellharbour, David Boyle, who is NOT running as an ALP candidate even though he is an ALP member, has indicated he will engage in caucusing with any ALP councillors. Not much consistency from the local ALP, is there?
Saturday 20 August 2011
Letter to the Premier
Shell Cove funding - an alternative view.
Here is a copy of a letter we (Sue and I) sent to Premier Kristina Kenneally on 23/05/2010. It is in response to Shellharbour Council's attempt's to attract State Government funding for the Shell Cove project. Joanna Gash, Member for Gilmore, regards this as somehow improper. I regard it as a reasonable and responsible attempt to ensure that ALL information and all perspectives are available to the funding authorities.
Council has always had an overly optimistic view of this project, and this shows not just in their funding applications. Former ALP Mayor Cec Glenholmes offered the Shell Cove marina as a venue for the yachting events at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games! If they had taken Council up on it's offer we never would have heard that phrase "best Olympics ever" as the games would still not be over!
Sue & Peter Moran
24 Barton St
OAK FLATS NSW 2529
23 May 2010
The Hon. Kristina Keneally MP
Governor Macquarie Tower
Level 39, 1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Via e-mail: premier@nsw.gov.au
Dear Ms Keneally
SHELLHARBOUR CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION FOR LOW COST LOAN TO FUND BOATHARBOUR SHOULD BE REJECTED
I am writing to you because Shellharbour City Council (SCC) is seeking government funds, either through grants or low-interest loans, to fund construction of the boat harbour component of the Shell Cove Project.
In 1993, SCC signed a Management Agreement with Australand (then Walker Corporation) to develop ’Shell Cove’, a new town of 10,000 people, 3000 residential lots, marina, golf course and compensatory wetlands. Under the Agreement, SCC is the developer and supplies the land, and Australand is the Manager and finances the project. Apart from the Management Agreement itself which is perfectly clear on the issue, and many, many other documents, Council acknowledges that Australand are supposed to finance the project, in the following documents:
http://www.halledit.com.au/conferences/lginfrastructure/2008/agenda.pdf
http://www.lgsa-plus.net.au/resources/documents/Phil-Woodcock_1403081.pdf .
The financing arrangement is also confirmed in the Shell Cove Quarterly Reports to SCC, each of which states, ‘Australand finances the Project… and this supplements the profits from land sales to fund future land development and major infrastructure costs, such as the boat harbour and golf course’. SCC advise that Australand have announced that they have put on hold construction of the boatharbour ‘indefinitely’, and SCC are pursuing every avenue to secure the funding from other sources despite it being Australand’s responsibility.
Management Agreement
Both entities draw fees during the life of the project (Australand 5% (3.75 & 1.25 in separate fees) and SCC 1.75%) based on a percentage of residential land sales at Shell Cove. Once the boat harbour is complete, both parties will split the net profit from each financial year 50/50 as time goes on. If there is anything left at the end of the agreement, i.e. when all the land & commercial space is sold, then SCC keeps the balance.
Australand manages the project by drawing up the Feasibility Studies, Annual Programs and Monthly
Reports required under the Management Agreement, and by performing the works contained in the Annual Programs. They were selected out of a number of applicants based on the timetable, costings and profit structure that they put forward in 1992/1993, even though they were rated 3rd best tender overall out of the 3 acceptable tenders. To date, the project has developed about 1300 of the 3000 residential lots in Shell Cove. They have also developed the golf course and ‘compensatory wetlands’, both of which are constant drains on SCC finances.
Golf Course
Despite being contracted to build the golf course, Australand would only commit to spending $10.1 million on it. They and SCC General Manager Brian Weir convinced the council to take it over saying it would require an extra $1.9 million
( http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/questions-still-remain-over-shell-cove-deal/1322997.aspx?storypage=1 ) .
To date the golf course has cost Shellharbour residents upwards of $13 million on top of the original $10.1 that was paid by the Project. All current predictions are that the golf course will not turn a profit in the foreseeable future. The only part of it that makes a dollar is the sale of alcohol, which in our view should not be the business of Council.
(Compensatory?) Wetlands
The 1996 Minister’s approval of the boat harbour required ‘compensatory’ wetlands to be constructed, almost 3km north of the boat harbour site. This was supposedly to compensate for the destruction of SEPP 14 wetlands that construction of the boat harbour would necessitate. The Project has funded part of the new man-made wetlands. General Manager Brian Weir convinced Councillors to incorporate sporting facilities at the site, at Council’s sole expense. The community was told, ‘The sporting facilities proposed were determined following an extensive recreational user survey that was conducted prior to the development of the Section 94 Plan in 2000.’
http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/FileData/pdf/28.2.06_11.9.pdf .
However, up until this month, Council has been unable to convince sporting groups to use the new fields, despite years of negotiations.
In December 2005, Councillors were told that Myimbarr sportsfields would cost residents just over $5 million http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/FileData/pdf/11.9%2013%20Dec%2005.pdf.
Myimbarr has cost ratepayers several millions of dollars with no sign of the cost abating. Council is currently proposing to dedicate a landscape maintenance crew to Myimbarr 2 days per week, while at the same time announcing that it will cut mowing of other public parks in the LGA (except at Shell Cove) from every 3-4 weeks to every 6-8 weeks during summer. This is a continuation of a pattern of unreasonable allocation of council/community resources to the whole Shell Cove project at the expense of the rest of the community.
Residential and Boatharbour
Australand have made many, many millions of dollars out of the Shell Cove project. They stand to make many, many more millions from development and sale of the remaining residential lots, most of which will be aimed at the high end of the market. The majority of the remaining lots will be developed around the proposed boat harbour/marina, in what is called the Harbour Lands.
In 2008, SCC announced that Australand had notified SCC that they would not fund construction of the boat harbour due to the down turn in the property market. SCC stated at first that construction of the boat harbour was delayed ‘indefinitely’ and lately they are saying that construction was delayed until 2012/2013. SCC have so far refused to allow the community to see the advice from Australand, despite the Ombudsman directing SCC to release those documents (in response to our FOI application).
Ever since that announcement, SCC, under the direction of General Manager Brian Weir and Administrator David Jesson, have been seeking government funding to ‘kickstart’ the boat harbour/marina. Brian Weir has been the Town Clerk/General Manager of SCC since 1985 and has been the main proponent for the project. He and Shell Cove Business Division Director Phil Woodcock and employee Kevin James have been involved since the beginning. They have convinced SCC Councillors many times over the years to make certain concessions to Australand that have turned out to be detrimental to residents. Briefly, some of those concessions include the loss of the community golf course, the take- over of the Project golf course by SCC (relieving Australand of their duty) as mentioned above, the substitution of works-in-kind to the tune of almost half a million dollars in s94 funds and changing the Management Agreement in 2007 by adding 8 years to the project life.
Even in 2007, Australand were reluctant to proceed with construction of the boat harbour. See report dated 3 July 2007:
http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/FileData/pdf/13.1%2024%20Jul%2007.pdf .
In an effort to convince Australand to continue, a concession was made whereby Australand would be able to purchase commercial land within the Harbour Precinct prior to development of that land. The previous arrangement was that the harbour would be developed first, before any of the residential and commercial within the Harbour Lands. The 2007 amendment provides that, ‘In order to provide sufficient funds to augment the Boatharbour Development Program, Australand are offering to acquire the town centre site in stages, which will enable additional Development Funds to be provided if a shortfall in residential cash flow occur’,
and that, ‘Australand would enter into a contract for the Town Centre where it makes part
payments of the price into the Trust Fund (or other) on call for Boatharbour construction costs.’
There is a shortfall in residential cash flows now. The Management Agreement amendment provides for Australand to purchase these ‘SuperLots’ (commercial) within the Harbour Lands, so that there would be sufficient cash flow to build the boat harbour etc. That purchase should take place now as we are in precisely the situation that this amendment envisaged.
We have reason to believe that Australand have advised SCC that they will not build the boat harbour at all and that SCC have not passed that information on to residents. Rather, they are implying that this is only a temporary hiccup.
Residents who want the boat harbour to go ahead have been waiting since 1993. If Australand say they will commence its construction in 2012/2013 then that is not very much more time to wait, in the scheme of things. There is no real reason for SCC or the State Government to take over financing the project just to bring it forward by 2 or 3 years.
One of Australand’s senior NSW staff stated at a recent Australand AGM that they have no intention of building ‘council infrastructure’, being the boat harbour, which they said was agreed to by Walker Corporation, not Australand. We have put this to SCC at a recent council meeting and it was not refuted.
We believe that Australand have decided not to build the boat harbour at all. We believe that Australand do still want to finance and construct the residential and commercial components of the ‘Harbour Precinct’, but not the boat harbour itself. Australand has a financial interest in the residential and commercial components as they will receive their fees from sales of those components. They do not have a financial interest in the boat harbour.
To date, the community, and Councillors, have not had access to all of the information relating to Shell Cove. Councillors have never had all of the history in front of them when asked to make decisions. They were never allowed to have a copy of the Management Agreement and were only allowed to view it in a ‘chaperoned’ room in the Council building. Council has refused to release a consolidated version of the Agreement; only the original and 6 amendments,
(http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/default.aspx?WebPage=131).
Councillors never saw what promises were made to previous Councillors and had no yard-stick with which to measure the Project’s success. The only people on board from the beginning are General Manager Brian Weir, Shell Cove Business Division Director Phil Woodcock, and Shell Cove Project Engineer Kevin James. As a result of our appeal against Council’s refusal to release project related documents under FOI, the NSW Ombudsman recently directed Council to reconsider its determination and release most of the documents. Within 2 weeks of the Ombudsman’s direction, Mr Brian Weir announced that he would retire on 27 August 2010, after more than 25 years in the role.
Funding
General Manager Brian Weir and SCC Administrator David Jesson are ‘exploring every avenue’ to bring forward construction of the boat harbour. They have applied for every government grant and/or low cost loan of $20-$30 million to ‘kickstart’ the marina. So far they have been unsuccessful. Seemingly, government departments consider hospital beds and roads to be more deserving of government funds than boat harbours, which are playgrounds for the wealthy.
Should the government provide funds for this development, the main beneficiary would be Australand, a private company whose main shareholder company (CapitaLand) is owned by the Singapore Government. Why would the NSW Government make such a donation to the Singapore government?
SCC has indicated that a Government loan could be repaid out of the Administration Fee that council receives from Shell Cove land sales. This raises many concerns, including the following:
1. The Administration Fee that council earns is meant to reimburse council for expenses it incurs in administering the project.
2. That fee does not currently cover SCC’s Shell Cove expenses, which are currently covered by council’s general revenue, in effect by ratepayers’ funds. For example, SCC’s 2010/2011 budget estimates Shell Cove income of $275,000 and expenditure of $682,460. This is typical for any year. There is an extremely high risk that Council would not be able to afford the loan repayments.
3. To suggest that Council would repay the loan is an admission that Council is willing to take over the financing of the boat harbour, without necessarily changing or reducing the amount by which Australand will benefit from the project.
4. The timing of receipt of the Administration Fee, being based on land sales, is an unknown. It is possible that council would be unable to make a repayment that is required under the loan agreement.
5. It has recently come to light that the bonus of $30,000 p.a. that Mr Weir receives for overseeing the Shell Cove Project is funded out of the Administration Fee. Councillors were always told, and Mr Weir told me himself, that his bonus was paid out of ‘the Project’, which implies that SCC (residents) are only responsible for half of that bonus.
6. The Administration Fee is only expected to total about $8 million from day one until the end of the project, about $3.3 million of which has already been received. It will never be enough
to repay a $20 million loan. This would unnecessarily expose ratepayers to commercial risk.
7. There has never been any community consultation regarding this project. The Administrator says that successive councils approved the project going forward, but those successive councils never had all of the facts before them at any one time, since the agreement was signed in 1993. Most importantly, those councillors were always told that the project would be funded through land sales and finance from Australand. No sitting of council has ever decided that the project should be funded by ratepayers or by government handouts or loans.
8. Any finance scheme other than that already approved would change the very fabric of the Management Agreement, and show the ad hoc nature that the project has progressed over the last 16 years.
9. It would be a poor business decision for the government to provide $10 million or $20 million towards a project that has a projected cost of about half a billion dollars
http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/fileData/pdf/13.1%2022%20May%2007.pdf (Financial Overview: Boatharbour and Harbour Precinct development costs).
The Boatharbour itself has a price tag of $140 million @2007.
10. Should the Federal or State Governments agree to provide the requested funding, you would be contributing to a process that has not been put to the community to ascertain their wishes.
11. As Australand is a major donor to the ALP, it would, yet again, raise the spectre of developer donations influencing government decisions, should these applications be granted.
General Manager Mr Brian Weir has acknowledged that this is his ‘pet project’ (Illawarra Mercury 15 May 2010), and that it has been an ‘obsession of his’. Mr Weir has recently announced that he will retire on August 27, 2010, but that he will do all he can to see a start to the boat harbour/marina before he goes. It is unlikely that Australand would now finance the boat harbour, or agree to repay any loan that SCC obtains, seeing that SCC are showing themselves to be willing to go to any length to progress the project. SCC have shown themselves to be determined to bring forward the start date of construction of the boat harbour, come hell or high water.
We believe that Mr Weir is pushing for commencement of the boat harbour because it would suit his ego to do so. To retire without a start on the boat harbour will be seen as a failure on his part of monumental proportions. We believe that he has personal reasons for pushing this rather than it being in the best interests of residents. As we have explained, above and below, there are many reasons why this project needs to be looked at objectively.
Employment generation
Administrator Mr David Jesson spoke on ABC Illawarra radio on Friday 28 August 2009 about this topic. He said that if the council’s funding applications were successful, ‘7000 jobs would be available right now’
( http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/28/2669762.htm ).
This is simply not true. 7000 direct and indirect jobs would be or have been created over the life of the whole Shell Cove residential and commercial project from 1993 to beyond 2020. Contrary to the Administrator’s statement, the number of jobs directly related to the boat harbour precinct is estimated at only 900 (http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/default.aspx?WebPage=1280 )
and the number of jobs related to the boat harbour as opposed to the harbour precinct is unknown, but is within the said 900. The Management Agreement provides that at least 50% of employment on the project must be local. Far from the 7000 jobs directly related to construction of the boat harbour as promulgated by the Administrator, there are only 450 (minimum) of locally sourced jobs related to the harbour precinct of which a minimum are directly related to the boatharbour itself.
The bulk of the 7000 jobs for the whole project have occurred, or will occur, even if the boat harbour did not go ahead.
Proponents for the project keep calling it a tourism/residential development, supposedly in order to enthuse the community. They say it would diversify the economy. The majority of past Councillors swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The concept plans for the Harbour Precinct were recently on public exhibition and it came to light that only about 6,000m2, or 20%, of the FSA in the Commercial Precinct woud be ‘tourism retail’. The only other provision in the Harbour Precinct for tourism related activity is the proposed Hotel site and the boat harbour itself. The Commercial Precinct is only 8ha of the 100ha Harbour Precinct. Tourism related retail is only 0.15% of the total Shell Cove project which covers 400ha. This is a RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. There isn’t even a picnic area, barbecues, playground or anything else that might make the Harbour Lands a tourist spot, apart from the proposed tavern and hotel. The boating fraternity will either stay on board or look to high quality hotel accommodation and food. High quality hotel accommodation and restaurants are not feasible in this residential precinct where the only confirmed outlets are a small public library and an Aldi grocery store.
We acknowledge that there will be employment generated during construction and development of the Harbour Lands. We contend:
1. That most of that employment would be generated without the boat harbour, through construction of the precinct around the harbour.
2. That there will be minimal employment generated post construction from either the Harbour Lands or the boat harbour. On the contrary, the mix of residents to employment will be even worse than it is now. This is primarily a residential development.
We would prefer that the development of the ‘Harbour Precinct’ occur around a rehabilitated wetland and garden area, rather than the proposed boat harbour and marina. This would be far less destructive to the environment and far less expensive to build and maintain. If that were to occur, the Harbour Precinct (with a more appropriate name of course) would still attract a high end residential apartment market because of the ocean views the precinct would afford (at least from upper levels).
Shell Cove Business Division Director Phil Woodcock gave a presentation to the Local Government and Shires Association in which he stated that, ‘The projected financial returns from the proposed 300 marina berths do not justify the $100 million (AUD) development costs to construct the boatharbour/marina. The development costs can only be justified by the substantial increase in value added to the immediate adjoining 70ha village centre site and also the projected increase in tourism to both the city and the region.’
Basically, what Mr Woodcock is saying is that Shellharbour City Council, or the NSW State Government, or the Australian Government, should pay for the boat harbour, so that Australand’s profits could be increased when the village centre is sold. Council would be left with an unprofitable boatharbour to maintain forever after
. Council have admitted that they have not prepared a business case for the boat harbour.
We say that having a boat harbour and marina in view of the residential buildings would not add much more value than ocean views would provide naturally, considering the cost to build and maintain the boat harbour. Expansion of economy created through development of the hotel, retail, library and business park could occur whether or not a boat harbour and marina went ahead. The area has natural beauty which attracts business, visitors and residents in its current form.
The addition of rehabilitated wetlands, garden and/or some other appropriate use of the area (for example activities for children) could only enhance its appeal.
There are many other things that $120 million of State Government or SCC resources could be spent on, including:
o $13 million to maintain Killalea State Park. According to the Department of Lands and the Killalea State Park Trust an extra $13 million is all it would take to maintain the park for 52 years.
o $8 million or less to rehabilitate Wetland 376. SCC and Australand have spent that amount creating man-made so-called ‘compensatory’ wetlands at Myimbarr. We would expect it to cost far less to rehabilitate the existing Wetland 376 to its former glory.
o $2 - $5 million developing the site adjoining the wetland as a conference centre/education centre/ interpretive centre and provide real employment opportunities based around the natural beauty of the area.
o Other items in SCC’s proposed 2010/2011 budget that are currently unfunded:
o Bush Fire Management – to protect our natural and built assets
o External defibrillators for our beaches and pools – to save lives
o Shade structures for our pools – to protect our children from skin cancer
o Procurement Manager to ensure good governance related to procurement
o Management Plan for wetlands at Dunmore
o Appropriate mowing programs for open space
o Implementation of Council’s Community Engagement Policy in full
o Acceptance and implementation of Council’s Draft 2008 Shared Use Path policy
o Provision of pools and sportsfields for free so that our most disadvantaged can have access to healthy
outdoor activities
.
It is not appropriate for Shellharbour City Council or the Federal or State Governments to fund the project. The real beneficiary would be Australand, as it relieves them of their obligation to fund the project.
If the local, state or federal government contributes anything towards this development, it must take on the whole project and contribute $140million, because there is no point in putting in $20 million & then having the project stagnate again until SCC comes grovelling again for more funds
.
Yours Sincerely,
Susan (Sue) and Peter Moran
OUR PERSONAL CONTACT DETAILS ARE NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Cc:
Barry O’Farrell MP Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Stoner MPLeader of the Nationals, Brad Hazzard MP Shadow Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Mike Baird MP Shadow Minister for Treasury, Joanna Gash Member for Gilmour,
The Hon. Eric Roosendaal MLC Treasurer, The Hon. Tony Kelly MLC Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, The Hon. Barbara Perry MP Minister for Local Government, Matt Brown Member for Kiama, Lylea McMahon Member for Shellharbour, David Boyle ALP Candidate for Gilmore,
Stephen Jones ALP Candidate for Throsby, Jennie George Member for Throsby,
Sylvia Hale MLC Greens spokesperson for Planning and Local Government, John Kaye MLC Greens Spokesperson for Treasury, Cate Faehrmann Greens MLC Elect, Ben van der Wijngaardt Greens Councillor for Kiama and Greens Candidate for Gilmour,
Regional Development Australia Illawarra
Place Leaders Association
Here is a copy of a letter we (Sue and I) sent to Premier Kristina Kenneally on 23/05/2010. It is in response to Shellharbour Council's attempt's to attract State Government funding for the Shell Cove project. Joanna Gash, Member for Gilmore, regards this as somehow improper. I regard it as a reasonable and responsible attempt to ensure that ALL information and all perspectives are available to the funding authorities.
Council has always had an overly optimistic view of this project, and this shows not just in their funding applications. Former ALP Mayor Cec Glenholmes offered the Shell Cove marina as a venue for the yachting events at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games! If they had taken Council up on it's offer we never would have heard that phrase "best Olympics ever" as the games would still not be over!
Sue & Peter Moran
24 Barton St
OAK FLATS NSW 2529
23 May 2010
The Hon. Kristina Keneally MP
Governor Macquarie Tower
Level 39, 1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Via e-mail: premier@nsw.gov.au
Dear Ms Keneally
SHELLHARBOUR CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION FOR LOW COST LOAN TO FUND BOATHARBOUR SHOULD BE REJECTED
I am writing to you because Shellharbour City Council (SCC) is seeking government funds, either through grants or low-interest loans, to fund construction of the boat harbour component of the Shell Cove Project.
In 1993, SCC signed a Management Agreement with Australand (then Walker Corporation) to develop ’Shell Cove’, a new town of 10,000 people, 3000 residential lots, marina, golf course and compensatory wetlands. Under the Agreement, SCC is the developer and supplies the land, and Australand is the Manager and finances the project. Apart from the Management Agreement itself which is perfectly clear on the issue, and many, many other documents, Council acknowledges that Australand are supposed to finance the project, in the following documents:
http://www.halledit.com.au/conferences/lginfrastructure/2008/agenda.pdf
http://www.lgsa-plus.net.au/resources/documents/Phil-Woodcock_1403081.pdf .
The financing arrangement is also confirmed in the Shell Cove Quarterly Reports to SCC, each of which states, ‘Australand finances the Project… and this supplements the profits from land sales to fund future land development and major infrastructure costs, such as the boat harbour and golf course’. SCC advise that Australand have announced that they have put on hold construction of the boatharbour ‘indefinitely’, and SCC are pursuing every avenue to secure the funding from other sources despite it being Australand’s responsibility.
Management Agreement
Both entities draw fees during the life of the project (Australand 5% (3.75 & 1.25 in separate fees) and SCC 1.75%) based on a percentage of residential land sales at Shell Cove. Once the boat harbour is complete, both parties will split the net profit from each financial year 50/50 as time goes on. If there is anything left at the end of the agreement, i.e. when all the land & commercial space is sold, then SCC keeps the balance.
Australand manages the project by drawing up the Feasibility Studies, Annual Programs and Monthly
Reports required under the Management Agreement, and by performing the works contained in the Annual Programs. They were selected out of a number of applicants based on the timetable, costings and profit structure that they put forward in 1992/1993, even though they were rated 3rd best tender overall out of the 3 acceptable tenders. To date, the project has developed about 1300 of the 3000 residential lots in Shell Cove. They have also developed the golf course and ‘compensatory wetlands’, both of which are constant drains on SCC finances.
Golf Course
Despite being contracted to build the golf course, Australand would only commit to spending $10.1 million on it. They and SCC General Manager Brian Weir convinced the council to take it over saying it would require an extra $1.9 million
( http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/questions-still-remain-over-shell-cove-deal/1322997.aspx?storypage=1 ) .
To date the golf course has cost Shellharbour residents upwards of $13 million on top of the original $10.1 that was paid by the Project. All current predictions are that the golf course will not turn a profit in the foreseeable future. The only part of it that makes a dollar is the sale of alcohol, which in our view should not be the business of Council.
(Compensatory?) Wetlands
The 1996 Minister’s approval of the boat harbour required ‘compensatory’ wetlands to be constructed, almost 3km north of the boat harbour site. This was supposedly to compensate for the destruction of SEPP 14 wetlands that construction of the boat harbour would necessitate. The Project has funded part of the new man-made wetlands. General Manager Brian Weir convinced Councillors to incorporate sporting facilities at the site, at Council’s sole expense. The community was told, ‘The sporting facilities proposed were determined following an extensive recreational user survey that was conducted prior to the development of the Section 94 Plan in 2000.’
http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/FileData/pdf/28.2.06_11.9.pdf .
However, up until this month, Council has been unable to convince sporting groups to use the new fields, despite years of negotiations.
In December 2005, Councillors were told that Myimbarr sportsfields would cost residents just over $5 million http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/FileData/pdf/11.9%2013%20Dec%2005.pdf.
Myimbarr has cost ratepayers several millions of dollars with no sign of the cost abating. Council is currently proposing to dedicate a landscape maintenance crew to Myimbarr 2 days per week, while at the same time announcing that it will cut mowing of other public parks in the LGA (except at Shell Cove) from every 3-4 weeks to every 6-8 weeks during summer. This is a continuation of a pattern of unreasonable allocation of council/community resources to the whole Shell Cove project at the expense of the rest of the community.
Residential and Boatharbour
Australand have made many, many millions of dollars out of the Shell Cove project. They stand to make many, many more millions from development and sale of the remaining residential lots, most of which will be aimed at the high end of the market. The majority of the remaining lots will be developed around the proposed boat harbour/marina, in what is called the Harbour Lands.
In 2008, SCC announced that Australand had notified SCC that they would not fund construction of the boat harbour due to the down turn in the property market. SCC stated at first that construction of the boat harbour was delayed ‘indefinitely’ and lately they are saying that construction was delayed until 2012/2013. SCC have so far refused to allow the community to see the advice from Australand, despite the Ombudsman directing SCC to release those documents (in response to our FOI application).
Ever since that announcement, SCC, under the direction of General Manager Brian Weir and Administrator David Jesson, have been seeking government funding to ‘kickstart’ the boat harbour/marina. Brian Weir has been the Town Clerk/General Manager of SCC since 1985 and has been the main proponent for the project. He and Shell Cove Business Division Director Phil Woodcock and employee Kevin James have been involved since the beginning. They have convinced SCC Councillors many times over the years to make certain concessions to Australand that have turned out to be detrimental to residents. Briefly, some of those concessions include the loss of the community golf course, the take- over of the Project golf course by SCC (relieving Australand of their duty) as mentioned above, the substitution of works-in-kind to the tune of almost half a million dollars in s94 funds and changing the Management Agreement in 2007 by adding 8 years to the project life.
Even in 2007, Australand were reluctant to proceed with construction of the boat harbour. See report dated 3 July 2007:
http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/FileData/pdf/13.1%2024%20Jul%2007.pdf .
In an effort to convince Australand to continue, a concession was made whereby Australand would be able to purchase commercial land within the Harbour Precinct prior to development of that land. The previous arrangement was that the harbour would be developed first, before any of the residential and commercial within the Harbour Lands. The 2007 amendment provides that, ‘In order to provide sufficient funds to augment the Boatharbour Development Program, Australand are offering to acquire the town centre site in stages, which will enable additional Development Funds to be provided if a shortfall in residential cash flow occur’,
and that, ‘Australand would enter into a contract for the Town Centre where it makes part
payments of the price into the Trust Fund (or other) on call for Boatharbour construction costs.’
There is a shortfall in residential cash flows now. The Management Agreement amendment provides for Australand to purchase these ‘SuperLots’ (commercial) within the Harbour Lands, so that there would be sufficient cash flow to build the boat harbour etc. That purchase should take place now as we are in precisely the situation that this amendment envisaged.
We have reason to believe that Australand have advised SCC that they will not build the boat harbour at all and that SCC have not passed that information on to residents. Rather, they are implying that this is only a temporary hiccup.
Residents who want the boat harbour to go ahead have been waiting since 1993. If Australand say they will commence its construction in 2012/2013 then that is not very much more time to wait, in the scheme of things. There is no real reason for SCC or the State Government to take over financing the project just to bring it forward by 2 or 3 years.
One of Australand’s senior NSW staff stated at a recent Australand AGM that they have no intention of building ‘council infrastructure’, being the boat harbour, which they said was agreed to by Walker Corporation, not Australand. We have put this to SCC at a recent council meeting and it was not refuted.
We believe that Australand have decided not to build the boat harbour at all. We believe that Australand do still want to finance and construct the residential and commercial components of the ‘Harbour Precinct’, but not the boat harbour itself. Australand has a financial interest in the residential and commercial components as they will receive their fees from sales of those components. They do not have a financial interest in the boat harbour.
To date, the community, and Councillors, have not had access to all of the information relating to Shell Cove. Councillors have never had all of the history in front of them when asked to make decisions. They were never allowed to have a copy of the Management Agreement and were only allowed to view it in a ‘chaperoned’ room in the Council building. Council has refused to release a consolidated version of the Agreement; only the original and 6 amendments,
(http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/default.aspx?WebPage=131).
Councillors never saw what promises were made to previous Councillors and had no yard-stick with which to measure the Project’s success. The only people on board from the beginning are General Manager Brian Weir, Shell Cove Business Division Director Phil Woodcock, and Shell Cove Project Engineer Kevin James. As a result of our appeal against Council’s refusal to release project related documents under FOI, the NSW Ombudsman recently directed Council to reconsider its determination and release most of the documents. Within 2 weeks of the Ombudsman’s direction, Mr Brian Weir announced that he would retire on 27 August 2010, after more than 25 years in the role.
Funding
General Manager Brian Weir and SCC Administrator David Jesson are ‘exploring every avenue’ to bring forward construction of the boat harbour. They have applied for every government grant and/or low cost loan of $20-$30 million to ‘kickstart’ the marina. So far they have been unsuccessful. Seemingly, government departments consider hospital beds and roads to be more deserving of government funds than boat harbours, which are playgrounds for the wealthy.
Should the government provide funds for this development, the main beneficiary would be Australand, a private company whose main shareholder company (CapitaLand) is owned by the Singapore Government. Why would the NSW Government make such a donation to the Singapore government?
SCC has indicated that a Government loan could be repaid out of the Administration Fee that council receives from Shell Cove land sales. This raises many concerns, including the following:
1. The Administration Fee that council earns is meant to reimburse council for expenses it incurs in administering the project.
2. That fee does not currently cover SCC’s Shell Cove expenses, which are currently covered by council’s general revenue, in effect by ratepayers’ funds. For example, SCC’s 2010/2011 budget estimates Shell Cove income of $275,000 and expenditure of $682,460. This is typical for any year. There is an extremely high risk that Council would not be able to afford the loan repayments.
3. To suggest that Council would repay the loan is an admission that Council is willing to take over the financing of the boat harbour, without necessarily changing or reducing the amount by which Australand will benefit from the project.
4. The timing of receipt of the Administration Fee, being based on land sales, is an unknown. It is possible that council would be unable to make a repayment that is required under the loan agreement.
5. It has recently come to light that the bonus of $30,000 p.a. that Mr Weir receives for overseeing the Shell Cove Project is funded out of the Administration Fee. Councillors were always told, and Mr Weir told me himself, that his bonus was paid out of ‘the Project’, which implies that SCC (residents) are only responsible for half of that bonus.
6. The Administration Fee is only expected to total about $8 million from day one until the end of the project, about $3.3 million of which has already been received. It will never be enough
to repay a $20 million loan. This would unnecessarily expose ratepayers to commercial risk.
7. There has never been any community consultation regarding this project. The Administrator says that successive councils approved the project going forward, but those successive councils never had all of the facts before them at any one time, since the agreement was signed in 1993. Most importantly, those councillors were always told that the project would be funded through land sales and finance from Australand. No sitting of council has ever decided that the project should be funded by ratepayers or by government handouts or loans.
8. Any finance scheme other than that already approved would change the very fabric of the Management Agreement, and show the ad hoc nature that the project has progressed over the last 16 years.
9. It would be a poor business decision for the government to provide $10 million or $20 million towards a project that has a projected cost of about half a billion dollars
http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/fileData/pdf/13.1%2022%20May%2007.pdf (Financial Overview: Boatharbour and Harbour Precinct development costs).
The Boatharbour itself has a price tag of $140 million @2007.
10. Should the Federal or State Governments agree to provide the requested funding, you would be contributing to a process that has not been put to the community to ascertain their wishes.
11. As Australand is a major donor to the ALP, it would, yet again, raise the spectre of developer donations influencing government decisions, should these applications be granted.
General Manager Mr Brian Weir has acknowledged that this is his ‘pet project’ (Illawarra Mercury 15 May 2010), and that it has been an ‘obsession of his’. Mr Weir has recently announced that he will retire on August 27, 2010, but that he will do all he can to see a start to the boat harbour/marina before he goes. It is unlikely that Australand would now finance the boat harbour, or agree to repay any loan that SCC obtains, seeing that SCC are showing themselves to be willing to go to any length to progress the project. SCC have shown themselves to be determined to bring forward the start date of construction of the boat harbour, come hell or high water.
We believe that Mr Weir is pushing for commencement of the boat harbour because it would suit his ego to do so. To retire without a start on the boat harbour will be seen as a failure on his part of monumental proportions. We believe that he has personal reasons for pushing this rather than it being in the best interests of residents. As we have explained, above and below, there are many reasons why this project needs to be looked at objectively.
Employment generation
Administrator Mr David Jesson spoke on ABC Illawarra radio on Friday 28 August 2009 about this topic. He said that if the council’s funding applications were successful, ‘7000 jobs would be available right now’
( http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/28/2669762.htm ).
This is simply not true. 7000 direct and indirect jobs would be or have been created over the life of the whole Shell Cove residential and commercial project from 1993 to beyond 2020. Contrary to the Administrator’s statement, the number of jobs directly related to the boat harbour precinct is estimated at only 900 (http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/default.aspx?WebPage=1280 )
and the number of jobs related to the boat harbour as opposed to the harbour precinct is unknown, but is within the said 900. The Management Agreement provides that at least 50% of employment on the project must be local. Far from the 7000 jobs directly related to construction of the boat harbour as promulgated by the Administrator, there are only 450 (minimum) of locally sourced jobs related to the harbour precinct of which a minimum are directly related to the boatharbour itself.
The bulk of the 7000 jobs for the whole project have occurred, or will occur, even if the boat harbour did not go ahead.
Proponents for the project keep calling it a tourism/residential development, supposedly in order to enthuse the community. They say it would diversify the economy. The majority of past Councillors swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The concept plans for the Harbour Precinct were recently on public exhibition and it came to light that only about 6,000m2, or 20%, of the FSA in the Commercial Precinct woud be ‘tourism retail’. The only other provision in the Harbour Precinct for tourism related activity is the proposed Hotel site and the boat harbour itself. The Commercial Precinct is only 8ha of the 100ha Harbour Precinct. Tourism related retail is only 0.15% of the total Shell Cove project which covers 400ha. This is a RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. There isn’t even a picnic area, barbecues, playground or anything else that might make the Harbour Lands a tourist spot, apart from the proposed tavern and hotel. The boating fraternity will either stay on board or look to high quality hotel accommodation and food. High quality hotel accommodation and restaurants are not feasible in this residential precinct where the only confirmed outlets are a small public library and an Aldi grocery store.
We acknowledge that there will be employment generated during construction and development of the Harbour Lands. We contend:
1. That most of that employment would be generated without the boat harbour, through construction of the precinct around the harbour.
2. That there will be minimal employment generated post construction from either the Harbour Lands or the boat harbour. On the contrary, the mix of residents to employment will be even worse than it is now. This is primarily a residential development.
We would prefer that the development of the ‘Harbour Precinct’ occur around a rehabilitated wetland and garden area, rather than the proposed boat harbour and marina. This would be far less destructive to the environment and far less expensive to build and maintain. If that were to occur, the Harbour Precinct (with a more appropriate name of course) would still attract a high end residential apartment market because of the ocean views the precinct would afford (at least from upper levels).
Shell Cove Business Division Director Phil Woodcock gave a presentation to the Local Government and Shires Association in which he stated that, ‘The projected financial returns from the proposed 300 marina berths do not justify the $100 million (AUD) development costs to construct the boatharbour/marina. The development costs can only be justified by the substantial increase in value added to the immediate adjoining 70ha village centre site and also the projected increase in tourism to both the city and the region.’
Basically, what Mr Woodcock is saying is that Shellharbour City Council, or the NSW State Government, or the Australian Government, should pay for the boat harbour, so that Australand’s profits could be increased when the village centre is sold. Council would be left with an unprofitable boatharbour to maintain forever after
. Council have admitted that they have not prepared a business case for the boat harbour.
We say that having a boat harbour and marina in view of the residential buildings would not add much more value than ocean views would provide naturally, considering the cost to build and maintain the boat harbour. Expansion of economy created through development of the hotel, retail, library and business park could occur whether or not a boat harbour and marina went ahead. The area has natural beauty which attracts business, visitors and residents in its current form.
The addition of rehabilitated wetlands, garden and/or some other appropriate use of the area (for example activities for children) could only enhance its appeal.
There are many other things that $120 million of State Government or SCC resources could be spent on, including:
o $13 million to maintain Killalea State Park. According to the Department of Lands and the Killalea State Park Trust an extra $13 million is all it would take to maintain the park for 52 years.
o $8 million or less to rehabilitate Wetland 376. SCC and Australand have spent that amount creating man-made so-called ‘compensatory’ wetlands at Myimbarr. We would expect it to cost far less to rehabilitate the existing Wetland 376 to its former glory.
o $2 - $5 million developing the site adjoining the wetland as a conference centre/education centre/ interpretive centre and provide real employment opportunities based around the natural beauty of the area.
o Other items in SCC’s proposed 2010/2011 budget that are currently unfunded:
o Bush Fire Management – to protect our natural and built assets
o External defibrillators for our beaches and pools – to save lives
o Shade structures for our pools – to protect our children from skin cancer
o Procurement Manager to ensure good governance related to procurement
o Management Plan for wetlands at Dunmore
o Appropriate mowing programs for open space
o Implementation of Council’s Community Engagement Policy in full
o Acceptance and implementation of Council’s Draft 2008 Shared Use Path policy
o Provision of pools and sportsfields for free so that our most disadvantaged can have access to healthy
outdoor activities
.
It is not appropriate for Shellharbour City Council or the Federal or State Governments to fund the project. The real beneficiary would be Australand, as it relieves them of their obligation to fund the project.
If the local, state or federal government contributes anything towards this development, it must take on the whole project and contribute $140million, because there is no point in putting in $20 million & then having the project stagnate again until SCC comes grovelling again for more funds
.
Yours Sincerely,
Susan (Sue) and Peter Moran
OUR PERSONAL CONTACT DETAILS ARE NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Cc:
Barry O’Farrell MP Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Stoner MPLeader of the Nationals, Brad Hazzard MP Shadow Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Mike Baird MP Shadow Minister for Treasury, Joanna Gash Member for Gilmour,
The Hon. Eric Roosendaal MLC Treasurer, The Hon. Tony Kelly MLC Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, The Hon. Barbara Perry MP Minister for Local Government, Matt Brown Member for Kiama, Lylea McMahon Member for Shellharbour, David Boyle ALP Candidate for Gilmore,
Stephen Jones ALP Candidate for Throsby, Jennie George Member for Throsby,
Sylvia Hale MLC Greens spokesperson for Planning and Local Government, John Kaye MLC Greens Spokesperson for Treasury, Cate Faehrmann Greens MLC Elect, Ben van der Wijngaardt Greens Councillor for Kiama and Greens Candidate for Gilmour,
Regional Development Australia Illawarra
Place Leaders Association
Friday 19 August 2011
Caucusing on Council
ALP still does not get it.
David Boyle has indicated in the Mercury that, if elected, he would caucus with other ALP members on Council.
This should alarm all community members. I sent a letter to the Mercury in response but, sadly, it has not been published. It is reproduced below and is pretty self-explanatory.
David Boyle has indicated in the Mercury that, if elected, he would caucus with other ALP members on Council.
This should alarm all community members. I sent a letter to the Mercury in response but, sadly, it has not been published. It is reproduced below and is pretty self-explanatory.
Dear Sir.
David Boyle has indicated that, if elected in Shellharbour, he would caucus with other ALP councilors.
At the inquiry into Shellharbour Council, Commissioner Colley was quite scathing of the practice of caucusing. These are but 4 of the statements Commissioner Colley wrote in his report.
“…caucusing can give rise to a situation where individual members of a caucus do not vote in accordance with their own considered view as to what is in the best interest of residents and ratepayers.”
“The practice of caucusing also appears to give rise to a situation where Councillors are making their mind up on at least some decisions of Council prior to having had the benefit of hearing the views of their non-ALP councillors, prior to having heard the views expressed in public participation and prior to having benefited from hearing the answers to questions asked of council officers at the Council meeting.”
“As caucusing occurs in private, there can be no assurance that good governance practices in relation to dealing with conflicts of interests are being maintained.”
“In a 7 member council, with 4 ALP councilors, 2 councillors could effectively determine the decisions of that council.”
The very outcomes that so worried Commissioner Colley are the outcomes David Boyle and other ALP candidates are seeking. Perhaps Mr Boyle thinks he knows better than Commissioner Colley.
Peter Moran
Aged Care in Shellharbour
Bouquets for Briggs.
Shellharbour candidate Don Briggs has called for Shellharbour City Council (SCC) to become directly involved in the provision of aged care facilities in the City. Mr Briggs envisions council taking a role similar to that taken by Kiama council with it's outstanding and successful Blue Haven facility. Well done! This is an idea well worth the support of all candidates and community members.
Aged care is one of those sectors that acts as a glue for our society, allowing our elderly residents to remain in the loving embrace of their families and community as they age with respect and dignity.
My only problem with the call from Mr Briggs is that it did not come earlier. In 2002, when a council of which Mr Briggs was a member, was considering selling Lot 100 at Oak Flats, I raised the possibility of using that site for a facility along the lines of Blue Haven. At that stage Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed our local government area had a shortfall of 650 aged care beds. My calls fell on deaf ears. The land was sold. Aged care was definitely not on then-Councillor Briggs' agenda at that stage.
Shellharbour candidate Don Briggs has called for Shellharbour City Council (SCC) to become directly involved in the provision of aged care facilities in the City. Mr Briggs envisions council taking a role similar to that taken by Kiama council with it's outstanding and successful Blue Haven facility. Well done! This is an idea well worth the support of all candidates and community members.
Aged care is one of those sectors that acts as a glue for our society, allowing our elderly residents to remain in the loving embrace of their families and community as they age with respect and dignity.
My only problem with the call from Mr Briggs is that it did not come earlier. In 2002, when a council of which Mr Briggs was a member, was considering selling Lot 100 at Oak Flats, I raised the possibility of using that site for a facility along the lines of Blue Haven. At that stage Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed our local government area had a shortfall of 650 aged care beds. My calls fell on deaf ears. The land was sold. Aged care was definitely not on then-Councillor Briggs' agenda at that stage.
Thursday 18 August 2011
Shell Cove Marina
No debt to construct Marina
Since the Shell Cove Marina was first proposed in the 1980's there has been one constant in the business plan. That is that Council would not be funding construction. Indeed, the quarterly Shell Cove report presented to Council says that it is Councils role to provide the land and it is Australand's responsibility to provide finance.
This was why Australand was allowed to take a bigger fee from project land sales than Council.The larger fee accounts for the fact that Australand is required to take on any commercial risk associated with the project.
Now that the business plan for the project has fallen over Council (i.e. ratepayers) are taking on the commercial risk yet Australand continues to collect the larger fee!
The business plan, as set out in the Shell Cove Management Agreement, tells us that all construction costs will come from either project funds (profits from land sales) or borrowings by Australand. We know there are not sufficient funds available from land sales to build the $140 million plus marina. That is why the project has stalled. Council has written to me stating that there is sufficient money to build the first of 3 stages in the marina ($30m). Then the money runs out. There is no money to build stages 2 or 3. Taking into account money already spent this will leave the project some $90 million short.Council has proposed to borrow approximately $20m to get stage 2 underway, but has no plan in place to finance the rest! Australand told their shareholders during an AGM that they have no intention of using shareholders funds to construct Council infrastructure. It follows that Council will have to borrow all of the shortfall in construction costs. After all, if Council shows they are prepared to borrow money for construction costs why would Australand risk their own money? Once Council has $20m of ratepayers funds sunk into the marina, they will have to continue funding it in order to get any value for money back for the ratepayers. This is not what we signed up for!
Council's own figures show that the Marina will be directly provide less than 50 jobs in tourism related retail. Is it good value for money for Council to borrow up to $90m to create 50 jobs? I think not.
There is a way forward for this project. A residential/commercial development on the coast near a major population centre will always be sucessful. We do not need to build a $140m Marina to make this project succeed. The biggest single jobs-producing aspect of this project is the associated business park, which is projected to create 1000 permanent full time jobs. Below is a press release I issued showing how we can benefit from these jobs without the huge debt associated with the Marina. It is time to start thinking outside the square when it comes to this troubled project.
Since the Shell Cove Marina was first proposed in the 1980's there has been one constant in the business plan. That is that Council would not be funding construction. Indeed, the quarterly Shell Cove report presented to Council says that it is Councils role to provide the land and it is Australand's responsibility to provide finance.
This was why Australand was allowed to take a bigger fee from project land sales than Council.The larger fee accounts for the fact that Australand is required to take on any commercial risk associated with the project.
Now that the business plan for the project has fallen over Council (i.e. ratepayers) are taking on the commercial risk yet Australand continues to collect the larger fee!
The business plan, as set out in the Shell Cove Management Agreement, tells us that all construction costs will come from either project funds (profits from land sales) or borrowings by Australand. We know there are not sufficient funds available from land sales to build the $140 million plus marina. That is why the project has stalled. Council has written to me stating that there is sufficient money to build the first of 3 stages in the marina ($30m). Then the money runs out. There is no money to build stages 2 or 3. Taking into account money already spent this will leave the project some $90 million short.Council has proposed to borrow approximately $20m to get stage 2 underway, but has no plan in place to finance the rest! Australand told their shareholders during an AGM that they have no intention of using shareholders funds to construct Council infrastructure. It follows that Council will have to borrow all of the shortfall in construction costs. After all, if Council shows they are prepared to borrow money for construction costs why would Australand risk their own money? Once Council has $20m of ratepayers funds sunk into the marina, they will have to continue funding it in order to get any value for money back for the ratepayers. This is not what we signed up for!
Council's own figures show that the Marina will be directly provide less than 50 jobs in tourism related retail. Is it good value for money for Council to borrow up to $90m to create 50 jobs? I think not.
There is a way forward for this project. A residential/commercial development on the coast near a major population centre will always be sucessful. We do not need to build a $140m Marina to make this project succeed. The biggest single jobs-producing aspect of this project is the associated business park, which is projected to create 1000 permanent full time jobs. Below is a press release I issued showing how we can benefit from these jobs without the huge debt associated with the Marina. It is time to start thinking outside the square when it comes to this troubled project.
MEDIA RELEASE
A new way forward for Shell Cove – the NBN
Peter Moran, Independent candidate for Shellharbour Council, today called on the Shellharbour City Council , Australand and the Federal Government to work together to find a new way forward for the troubled Shell Cove project.
“The current funding model has failed the community. That is why Council is approaching both State and Federal Governments to help fund the boat harbour construction. Meanwhile, the Shell Cove Business Park, expected to create 1000 permanent full-time jobs, languishes on the back-burner. The Business Park is not dependent on the construction of the boat harbour but Council chooses to put the boat harbour first. The Business Park is not expected to create a single job before 2018, and most likely not until at least 2020."
“I urge the Council to seek a new way forward, a way that will produce real jobs, real soon. Instead of asking rate-payers and taxpayers to relieve Australand of their burden to fund the project, Council should be requesting Australand to accelerate construction of the Business Park, using project funds, and asking the Federal Government for assistance to hook the Business Park into the National Broadband Network (NBN). The Business Park is planned to sit at the southern end of the Shell Cove project, just 4km as the crow flies from Minamurra, one of the test sites for the NBN. Shellharbour could host one of the first business parks in Australia located near a major population centre and connected to the NBN. That would be a real shot in the arm for the local economy and a boost for local jobs” Mr Moran went on to say.
“The current model for the project depends on a process that destroys a wetland in order to construct a marina that Council’s own figures show will directly create less than 50 jobs. The marina has been over 20 years in the planning and still we do not have a firm start date. Why hitch our community’s future to a failing plan when we could seize the opportunity create 1000 green jobs in the new economy?”
“I call on Shellharbour City Council, Stephen Jones, MP for Throsby, Gareth Ward, MP for Kiama, Anna Watson, MP for Shellharbour, Arthur Rorris, of the SCLC and all candidates for Shellharbour Council to support my plan.”
“The future is here. Let’s take advantage of it for the sake of ourselves, our children, our community and our environment” Mr Moran concluded.
Peter Moran
Independent candidate for Shellharbour City Council
0403 752838
Tuesday 16 August 2011
Kiama Community Cabinet Meeting
Sue and I attended the Kiama Community Cabinet meeting last night. I was fortunate enough to be able to ask a question so I asked Mr Hazzard, Minister for Planning, about Shellharbour City's Local Environment Plan.
I spoke about the rezoning, at the Department's request, of the TAFE and all-bar-one of the local schools, as reidential. I also asked about the Departments requirement that Killalea be zoned to allow development in all areas of the Park.
Mr Hazzard told me that Councils would now have much more autonomy in deciding local zonings and that the standard template for LEP's (mandated by the Department) is a thing of the past. Happy days are here again!
The Councils 2011 LEP is going out on exhibition again. All concerned residents should make their views known to the Council on these issues.
In my submission I urged Council to zone all schools and the TAFE as the same zoning as the Hospital. This provides maximum protection for them and would make it harder for any future government to subdivide and sell off parts of their grounds.
Killalea should be treated as it was in the October 2010 version of the Draft LEP. This allows for development only in the area near the current caravan/camping area.
Make a submission. Ensure your voice is heard.
I spoke about the rezoning, at the Department's request, of the TAFE and all-bar-one of the local schools, as reidential. I also asked about the Departments requirement that Killalea be zoned to allow development in all areas of the Park.
Mr Hazzard told me that Councils would now have much more autonomy in deciding local zonings and that the standard template for LEP's (mandated by the Department) is a thing of the past. Happy days are here again!
The Councils 2011 LEP is going out on exhibition again. All concerned residents should make their views known to the Council on these issues.
In my submission I urged Council to zone all schools and the TAFE as the same zoning as the Hospital. This provides maximum protection for them and would make it harder for any future government to subdivide and sell off parts of their grounds.
Killalea should be treated as it was in the October 2010 version of the Draft LEP. This allows for development only in the area near the current caravan/camping area.
Make a submission. Ensure your voice is heard.
Killalea
No Fees for Killalea.
The Killalea State Park Trust has recently floated plans for a $10 gate fee for entry to Killalea. This would make Killalea the only place in NSW where locals have to pay to use their beach.
I am a member of the Save Killalea Alliance. I was one of those who fought to protect this park from the Babcock and Brown development which would have alienated the community from many of the most iconic and accessible areas of the Park. I think Parks such as Killalea should be open to the all community. I oppose any gate fee
On the WIN TV news last night ALP candidate Marianne Saliba was quoted as saying she "agrees with the Trust's plans for a gate fee." Marianne and the ALP support this gate fee even though the Trust has produced no business plan to support its case. Even Lands Minister Hodgkinson said she would await a business plan before making any decisions on this matter.
The Killalea State Park Trust has recently floated plans for a $10 gate fee for entry to Killalea. This would make Killalea the only place in NSW where locals have to pay to use their beach.
I am a member of the Save Killalea Alliance. I was one of those who fought to protect this park from the Babcock and Brown development which would have alienated the community from many of the most iconic and accessible areas of the Park. I think Parks such as Killalea should be open to the all community. I oppose any gate fee
On the WIN TV news last night ALP candidate Marianne Saliba was quoted as saying she "agrees with the Trust's plans for a gate fee." Marianne and the ALP support this gate fee even though the Trust has produced no business plan to support its case. Even Lands Minister Hodgkinson said she would await a business plan before making any decisions on this matter.
Sunday 14 August 2011
Statement of Electoral Objectives
Some Electoral Objectives
1) Openness and Transparency in the decision making process.
- Decrease in the number of decisions made in the Committee of the Whole (i.e. in confidential session of Council)
- Reconstitute Internal Audit Committee so as to have no link between members of that committee and organizations that benefit from Council decisions.
2) Move away from “user pays” in the provision of basic sporting facilities.
Council should not be imposing fees for the use of cold water pools and sporting fields. The provision of these facilities is one of the core responsibilities of Council. The imposition of fees on these facilities hits the lower socio-economic groups in our community the hardest. The budget for the 2011/12 financial year provides for a surplus of more than $150,000. Council could remove fees on cold water pools and sporting fields and not go into deficit. We believe this would be a better outcome for the community.
3) Shell Cove Project
- Project Finance
- The Shell Cove Management Agreement anticipates that Australand will provide any finance not derived from the project’s own resources. The Shell Cove Quarterly Report to Council states that it is Australand’s responsibility to finance the project. Council should adhere to this principle. The community should not be accepting commercial risk in relation to this project under the current terms of the Management Agreement. Council should not be seeking loans to progress what is clearly Australand’s responsibility.
- Business Park
- The Shell Cove Project provides for a Business Park to be developed in the Quarry Buffer Zone. Council anticipates this facility would provide 1000 direct jobs. Council should explore ways of bringing forward the construction of the Business Park.
- Golf Course
- The Links Shell Cove Golf Course lost approx $379,000 last financial year. It lost a similar amount the year before and will probably lose a similar amount this year. Council has recently resolved to lease out the hotel facility on this site and retain management of the golfing facilities. Given that Council has determined to lease out those parts of the operation that are profitable and retain those parts which are loss making, the community should be provided with a business plan which clearly lays out the way forward for this facility.
4) Planning for a sustainable future
- Council should explore ways to encourage all developments to be planned for sustainability. Subdivisions need to be planned with a street/lot layout which maximizes solar access for each dwelling.
- New subdivisions should provide cycleways and should be public transport friendly.
- Council should explore ways to encourage sustainability in each individual development. We should be using Councils position to promote the use of solar panels, water capture devices and passive solar/thermal design encouraging reduced reliance on power.
Killalea still needs help
A number of us from the Save Killalea Alliance recently met with Gareth Ward, Member for Kiama. Gareth indicated that he believes the Dep't of Planning may have a different perspective on the issue of Killalea now there is a new government. The previous government had a gung-ho attitude to development in the park. Hopefully, those days are gone.
Now that submissions for the 2011 Draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) have been re-opened, I urge everyone to make a submission to Council asking for Killalea to be treated as it was when the 2011 Draft LEP was first presented to Council on 19 October 2010.
The Draft LEP of 19 October 2010 made an important provision in relation to Killalea. It proposed that, unlike the 2000 LEP, large areas of the park be quarantined from development. Any future development would be confined to a small envelope surrounding the pre-existing caravan/camping area. This has the effect of preserving the most iconic and most well used parts of the park from development. This is in line with the community's wishes. It also allows for the Killalea State Park Trust to establish a small income generating facility in a relatively unobtrusive area of the park.
Council proposes to defer consideration of Killalea from the 2011 LEP pending further discussions with the Dep't of Planning, The Land and Property Management Authority, The Killalea State Park Trust and the Shellharbour community. This leaves the Park under the provisions of the 2000 LEP which allows for development in most of the park. It would remain zoned 7(f2), a zoning which allows for hotels, motels, serviced apartments. souvenir shops etc.
The community has made its views known in a number of ways.
There has been a 15,000 signature petition collected, opposing over development of the park.
There have been numerous well attended public meetings opposing over development of the park.
The local media has been full of stories opposing over development of the park.
I commend Shellharbour Council for the way they approached Killalea in the October 2010 Draft LEP. It appeared to be entirely consistent with the community's expressed wishes whilst still allowing the Trust some freedom to generate extra income.
I urge council to reinstate their preferred treatment of Killalea into the Draft LEP as this would provide the greatest level of protection to this much loved site.
Wednesday 10 August 2011
10 Reasons to vote for Peter Moran
for Shellharbour Council.
1) I know how Council works. I have attended nearly every Council meeting over the last 10 years. This is more than any other candidate, even those who used to be Councillors.
Not one of the ALP or Liberal candidates have attended more than a couple of meetings since the Administrator was appointed over three years ago. Many have attended no meetings.
.
2) I have been involved in Council through the writing of submissions. In the last three years I have, on a number of occasions, had my suggestions adopted by the Administrator and incorporated into Council policies. After I spoke at a Council meeting recently (31 May, 2011) the Administrator said “…..the matters raised by Mr Moran were, as one would expect, legitimate concerns."
”
3) I care about how my community works. That is why my wife and I wrote a submission to the recent Council budget, as we have done in years past. Among other things, I called for the abolition of cold water pool fees. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CARED ENOUGH ABOUT POOL FEES, OR ANY OTHER COUNCIL BUSINESS, TO WRITE A SUBMISSION. I make numerous written and verbal submissions to Council each year on issues that affect our community. Most of the other candidates only take an interest when elections roll around.
.
4) I ask questions. The only reason the community knows about the $176,000 legal fees and the $1.3 million “unliquidated damages” attached to the recent write-off of over $400,000 in relation to the Links golf course is because I questioned Council staff. Council was not going to tell the community about these costs otherwise.
.
5) I have been responsible for saving Council time and money through attention to detail. At a Council meeting on March 30, 2010 I pointed out a mistake by Council staff where a land swap was going to take place with the wrong piece of land being swapped. The Mercury reported this as an “embarrassing backdown” for council.
.
6) I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is. In 2003 I spent over $17,000 of my own money taking Council to the Land and Environment Court to force them to take decisions in accordance with the Local Government Act. Council (including then Mayor Joan Vinton as well as other current candidates Briggs, Murray and Cicolini) had improperly taken several decisions relating to the sale of public land in confidential session. I forced Council to obey the Act and do things in an open and transparent fashion.
.
7) My team includes Sue Moran (my wife) who has been responsible for the release of the Shell Cove Management Agreement and other documents relating to this troubled project. Previous councillors had been unwilling or unable to have this document released. Sue took on Council using Freedom of Information and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and had information released. After 12 years of being told these documents were secret ratepayers now can see what we signed up for and why this project is in such financial trouble. Sue has succeeded where others, including previous councillors, have failed.
.
8) Other members of my team include a retired magistrate and a JP. These are highly regarded local people who know how proper processes are supposed to work.
.
9) I have a plan to provide jobs in the area. The Shell Cove project includes a business park expected to provide 1000 permanent full-time job. Under the current plan these jobs will not come until 2018 at the earliest. Even that date depends on Council borrowing many millions to construct the marina first. I believe Council should use project funds to build the Business Park now. We should seek Federal Government support to hook this Park into the National Broadband Network which is on line just 4 km down the road at Minnamurra. We can wait at least 7 years for a marina that may never be built and use that to support jobs, or we can build the first NBN-connected Business Park near a major population centre in NSW and attract those jobs now. Most other candidates think those jobs should wait.
.
10) I do not believe in Party politics in local government. I am a member of the Greens but I am standing as an Independent, accepting no money or support from the Greens. If elected I would be answerable only to the community, not the Greens. I have fought for the local community’s interests for over 10 years – long before I joined the Greens. If elected I would continue to fight for the local community. Others, including the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, wish to entrench Party politics in your council.
Tuesday 9 August 2011
Shellharbour Heritage Precinct
The Draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) being considered by Council includes a heritage precinct over Shellharbour Village. While heritage protections have a valuable place in our community, this proposal is way off beam. The aim of the listing of the village is to protect the atmosphere of the area. Sadly, council is about 20 years too late. The horse has well and truly bolted. It seems no one at Lamerton House has noticed the new 3 story buildings up and down the street, dwarfing the single level, 19th century shops/cottages.
Blanket heritage provisions such as these should only be used where there are a significant number of heritage-worthy items in close proximity to each other. That is not the case here. Of course, perhaps the council thinks those new buildings so beaut they deserve heritage protection!
The Draft LEP should have the Shellharbour village precinct removed from it before it is sent off to the Minister. Council should identify those items with real heritage value and protect them.
It is also my belief that Council should lobby the Government to provide for rate reductions for private property with a heritage listing. These items cost the owner more to maintain than a non-heritage building. The community as a whole benefits from having heritage buildings protected. The community as a whole should make a small contribution to their upkeep.
All items on the State Heritage Register should have their rates paid by the State Government. Any item on the local heritage lists should be entitled to a rate rebate or a complete rate holiday. Both of the above scenarios would require legislative change to enable them to happen. If elected I would be working towards Council putting this proposal both directly to the State government and also to the Local Government and Shires Association.
Blanket heritage provisions such as these should only be used where there are a significant number of heritage-worthy items in close proximity to each other. That is not the case here. Of course, perhaps the council thinks those new buildings so beaut they deserve heritage protection!
The Draft LEP should have the Shellharbour village precinct removed from it before it is sent off to the Minister. Council should identify those items with real heritage value and protect them.
It is also my belief that Council should lobby the Government to provide for rate reductions for private property with a heritage listing. These items cost the owner more to maintain than a non-heritage building. The community as a whole benefits from having heritage buildings protected. The community as a whole should make a small contribution to their upkeep.
All items on the State Heritage Register should have their rates paid by the State Government. Any item on the local heritage lists should be entitled to a rate rebate or a complete rate holiday. Both of the above scenarios would require legislative change to enable them to happen. If elected I would be working towards Council putting this proposal both directly to the State government and also to the Local Government and Shires Association.
Tuesday 2 August 2011
Shell Cove Business Park
Nick Hartgerink (“NBN puts us up with the best” Merc 1/8/11) is impressed with the potential of the National Broadband Network. Nick recognizes the opportunities for employment created by super fast connections, opportunities centred around IT businesses. I feel the same way and hope we in the Illawarra do not lag behind the rest of the country as we do in so many other areas of the economy.
There is one way in which we can seize the day and give ourselves a head start.
The Shell Cove project involves a Business Park that Shellharbour Council expects will create 1000 permanent full-time jobs. The Council tells us the Park is dependent on the construction of the marina. Sadly not one of the jobs in this Park will be delivered before 2018 under the current plans, and most do not expect these jobs to come on-line until at least 2020.
Instead of waiting for the marina to be built I believe we could accelerate construction of the Business Park. Instead of hoping for Federal and State Gov’t funds to help build the Marina we should be asking the Federal Gov’t for help to connect the Park to the NBN which is coming on line just 4km down the road at Minamurra. Instead of waiting at least 6-8 years for these jobs we could start to create them next year.
If we had a brand new business park with connection to the NBN the Shellharbour area would be in a position to capitalise on a new way of doing business and attracting employment. We could have the first employment generating development in close proximity to a major population centre hooked into the NBN.
What is more likely to attract new businesses to our area – a nice view or a new way of engaging in the economy?
Let us take the Shellharbour area forward into a jobs-rich future by taking advantage of the exciting new opportunities on our doorstep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)