Attachments of Ordinary Meeting

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 04 October 2016

Page 97

IPART

Level 15, 2-24 Rawson Place

SYDNEY NSW 2000

Council Reference: 8923E (D16/136903)

Your Reference: Rating Review

Attention: IPART

Review of Issues Paper for the Review of Local Government Rating System

List of Issues on which comment is requested.

Taxation Principles

1. Do you agree with our proposed tax principles? If not, why?

Yes Council agrees with the proposed principles of taxation:

· Efficiency – given they are a wealth tax on land or property values

· Equity – given they are based on the property value, therefore increase with greater land value or implied greater wealth.

· Simplicity – they are easily understood, they are difficult to avoid, as property is immovable

· Sustainability, they are enduring and should grow with economic development.

· Competitive neutrality should be maintained as Councils have the ability to establish rates based on levels of service and based on similar amounts in like business areas.

They are reasonably stable, visible and accountable.

Assessing the current method for setting rates

2. What valuation method should be used as the basis for determining the ad valorem amounts in council rates? Should councils be given more choice in selecting valuation method, as occurs in other states, or should a valuation method continue to be mandated?

The valuation method currently in use ie unimproved land value (UCV), does not adequately cover undeveloped land and land with multi-story buildings. To cover for these examples and other development / property or rating anomalies the capital improved value (CIV) may be a better basis for rates calculations, and is more readily understood by the public.

The use of CIV adding value to a number of issues is raised throughout this paper.

Important to note that if the same valuation method is not mandated then neighbouring councils may implement very different models for their ratepayers and hence drive behaviours across council borders, causing competitive neutrality issues, along with inequities and inconsistencies, particularly when comparing the basis of rates for different council areas.

The negative in using a CIV is a possible detrimental impact on investment within the Local Government area.

3. Should councils be required to use the Valuer General’s property valuation services, or should they also be able to use a private valuation firm (as occurs in Victoria and Tasmania)?

Most valuations are done by local firms on behalf of the Valuer General, so making a change to who can do these valuations may not make a significant difference to the work being carried out. Given that most of these valuations are now a desk top review, as opposed to field work, a review of the costing structure might also be timely. In conjunction with this more regulation over the increases to valuation might be opportune to keep these within a “rate peg” structure. Any objections to valuations would still need to go through the Valuer General Department.

4. What changes (if any) should be made to the Local Government Act to improve the use of base and minimum amounts as part of the overall rating structure?

The use of a base or minimum rate ensures that all rate payers are paying the same amount to cover public good or those which provide collective benefits ie parks, roads etc.

However the maximum of 50% towards base rate could be more flexible in terms of allowing a slightly higher proportion of rates to be collected as a base to cover public goods provided and less reliance on the ad valorem driving incremental income which is based on the wealth of the landowner. Ie if land values go up higher in one area over another there will be a greater shift in rates, with a higher ad valorem.

But overall no significant issues to this remaining as is.

5. What changes could be made to rating categories? Should further rating categories or subcategories be introduced? What benefits would this provide?

There are a couple of issues with rating categories which needs to be addressed:

a. Currently bed and breakfast, serviced apartments and holiday accommodation is rated within either the business or the residential rating category, depending upon whether the definitions can be established. However to have clarity or further definitions around these type properties would benefit when trying to rate these dwellings, therefore a separate category/ies for Bed and Breakfast/Serviced Apartments/Holiday accommodation is recommended, with clarity around the definitions to enable ease of definition and therefore rating. Some of the criteria which could be used in determining these type dwellings would be:

I. The property is advertised for use

II. They have 3 beds or more available for use

III. They are utilised for more than 100 nights per year

IV. They are registered as business with an ABN

V. They can be managed or owned

VI. Links to the ATO data for level of income ie over $20,000 from these type activities.

These properties would be rated within this category in the first instance and then have an option to appeal if they can prove they are residential or business

b. Everything that does not fall into the Residential, Farming or Mining categories falls by default into the Business category, however some things do not fit within this category ie grave sites, jetties, non-descript small parcels of land of low value would be unfairly rated if a base or minimum rate were to be applied. Another category for low value, low usage land would improve equity of these ratings.

c. The Centre of Activity wording for the basis of a rate sub category can also cause issues as some categories would be better placed being based on the type of activity or population as opposed to where they are located, eg industrial properties might be scattered in a number of different locations within the Local Government area as opposed to one location, therefore 2 (or more) sub categories would be required, as opposed to one for the like type businesses.

d. The Rural Residential Rate Sub Category causes a lot of confusion with ratepayers and councils alike particularly with the definition surrounding the restriction on land size and occupation conditions. Either the conditions need to be reviewed and amended or this Sub Category should be removed.

e. There could be some merit to a “vacant land” category also, (only applied if UCV is maintained and Developer Allowances removed) to allow a lower rate to be charged where land is not in use. However, this may increase speculative holding of lands, and may increase incentives to hold lands and by default discourage development.

f. The Mining category should be expanded to allow for types of mines other than that of metalliferous and coal (including sand mining).

g. Separate categories for Crown land/Reserves, Defence, Private Schools / Universities or Government Organisations which may be valued at a subsidised level to other rating categories. Much of this land would need to have new valuations done by the Valuer General, as currently many of these properties are not valued. Rates should be charged at full commercial rates where the State/Federal Government are operating commercial activities eg State Forests.

h. A full review of the criteria defining non rateable properties is required as Section 555 & 556 are outdated and onerous. Ie a building occupied by a teacher or caretaker, land belonging to a school being a government school or a non – government school, land belong to a public benevolent institution or charity particularly given the current concerns with CHP’s having such a large impact on council revenue etc etc

6. Does the current rating system cause any equity and efficiency issues associated with the rating burden across communities?

With the current system and the proposed merger of councils one of the key issues raised has been the level of rates in one LG area to the other merger proposal area. This is obviously driven by the level of service provided in each council, along with differing land values in each Local Government area. However there will be significant issues when trying to bring the two disparate systems together into one rating system.

Given that the Shoalhaven is a major tourist attraction during the summer season, Council spends significant monies during these months to cater for tourists, at the expense of local rate payers. This is not something which can be fixed through the rating system, however Grant funding from State and Federal Government (currently via FAGS) should cater for this cross subsidisation.

7. What changes could be made to current rate pegging arrangements to improve the rating system, and, in particular, to better streamline the special variation process?

In terms of the rate peg the IPART calculations for the Local Government Cost Index do not take into consideration key variations to costs within specific Councils, see examples below for Shoalhaven City Council:

a. The award increase for wages will be 2.8% for 2016/17. The LGCI used 2.4%

b. Step changes for employees were not considered which are 2.5% for approx. 50% of the employee base ie an additional 1.25% increase in wages

c. Contracted electricity increases at a maximum of 27% over the next three years. The LGCI used a reduction of 6.6%

d. The requirements to maintain expenditure on roads and infrastructure at 3% incrementally year on year, as well as try to increase the overall maintenance carried out across Council. The LGCI used 1.3% for Road, footpath, kerbing, bridge and drain building materials

e. Increases in depreciation due to revaluation of assets, which can add millions to Council’s cost structure, thereby affecting the operating result before capital grants, which is one of the key measures for Fit for the Future.

f. Emergency Services Levy at 1.5%, whereas the increase for Shoalhaven for Emergency services was $811k, an increase of 79% on the out year budget.

It would be more beneficial to allow Councils to make the calculation as to what the rate peg should be, taking into account Council specific costs and then putting a proposal to IPART to approve the recommended adjustment to rates.

Perhaps a template to capture this data would be appropriate for comparative purposes with other Councils. The requirement to submit this document might only apply if the increase to be requested is over a certain threshold ie > 2% of average household income.

With regard to Special Rate Variations, there are a number of factors to consider – there is considerable effort involved in applying for a special rate variation from both a Council and an IPART perspective, a simpler approach is required.

If a Council has included the Special Rate into their IP&R documentation, held community consultation and the increase is within the 2% of average household income then there should be no need for further approval, as covered above.

If the increase is above this amount the process could be streamlined to the following:

a. Confirmation the proposed rate increase is included in IP&R documentation

b. Confirmation that community consultation has been carried out

c. Completion of the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI)

d. Acceptance of proposal by IPART

8. What changes could be made to the rating system to better encourage urban renewal?

By utilising Capital – Improved Value, it may assist mums and dads and Developers until developments are up and running or homes completed, as they would be rated on land value which will be lower than the improved value. Administering this process could be difficult although some suggestions are:- at practical completion of the project or occupancy certificate (interim or final) stage for a residential dwelling or when bins are being ordered for a property a CIV is requested from the VG or Council apply a higher ad valorem rate to vacant land (no base rate) or two valuations are granted for vacant land with the second valuation being a proposed valuation for a developed site based on surrounding CIV which the property owner could have the option of objecting to based on VG criteria for objections.

Incentives might be better placed in the contributions plan for Developers.

9. What changes could be made to the rating system to improve council’s management of overdue rates?

Agree the current process of accumulating interest at 8.5% does deter somewhat from speeding up collections. It also is a constant issue with rate payers the high level of interest charged. The rate is so far out of alignment to current interest rates also, given that returns from banks on large investments are in the high 3’s.

The recent increases in legal costs to take overdue rates through court are as a deterrent for Councils.

Any pensioner deferral policies in place also make it difficult to manage debts.

One area for improvement would be coordinating with Centrelink to take rates payments out of all pensions before payment to the individual. This would speed up collection processes, spread payments out for pensioners and reduce outstanding. If this were to happen, a review of the current cost per transaction would need to be carried out, given that the current charge is .90 cents per transaction per month.

Another ongoing issue for Council is electronic serving of rates notices, this needs to be addressed in any changes to the rating system, such that the guidelines are very clear. This should by default speed up delivery and payment of rates if using electronic means and be more cost effective based on the increasing cost of postal services.

Assessing exemptions, concessions and rebates

10. Are the land uses currently exempt from paying council rates appropriate? If a current exemption should be changed, how should it be changed? For example, should it be removed or more narrowly defined, should the level of government responsible for providing the exemption be changed, or should councils be given discretion over the level of exemption?

All properties categorised as residential or business and occupied should be rateable regardless of ownership as ALL such properties utilise Council services, and in some cases provide a greater drain on Council resources than rateable properties. See below examples of issues with the current arrangement which need to be addressed to relieve the burden on local ratepayers within the LG area.

a. Defence land being non rateable where there is significant impact on local infrastructure, eg the Beecroft Weapons Range in Currarong, NSW (Land holding of $2.8m). Defence are carrying out works within the range which results in substantial road activity by large truck and trailer combinations. This causes the condition of the road to deteriorate, requiring Council to allocate funds for its repair. Defence should work with Councils in areas of substantial activity to devise a long term plan to upgrade roads and maintain them accordingly. To upgrade roads to cater for increased activity would possibly be funded by Grant funding, however from an ongoing perspective Defence should be accountable for paying rates to maintain the road quality. This area is also a tourist site and attracts large numbers of tourists to the area who utilise (but do not pay for) Council resources.

b. Burrill Lake Tourist Park is owned by Royal Australian Navy Central Canteen Board. They have been receiving non rateable status from at least 2002. The current land value on the property is $1,500,000. Although the park gives priority to Defence Force personal the park is very popular with the general public and is regularly booked to capacity generating presumably very high returns . The returns from this investment are taken out of the community and result in increased rates for local residents. Any Commercial enterprises, regardless of owner should be rateable.

c. Department of Housing currently does not gain exemptions from rating, however when they vest these properties to Community Housing Organisations, these organisations are requesting non-rateability, although the houses are being used for the same or similar purpose. This issues revolve around the definition of benevolent associations, but from a Council perspective to change these properties from rateable to non-rateable would impact significantly on Councils rating income. Regardless of ownership these properties should continue to be rateable.

d. From a Department of Housing perspective also they only pay rates when the property in question in occupied. They are very quick to let us know when a property has no tenants but not so quick informing Council when a new tenant has been placed in the property. This results in less revenue for Council. There is no incentive to turn these properties over quickly, so the rateable/non rateable status should not exist.

e. For private schools to be non-rateable they must not be operating commercial activities, where they do have commercial operations than they should be rated accordingly.

f. Land uses for religious or charitable purposes, if there is a portion of their operations which are profit generating then they should pay rates for this portion.

g. Oyster farmers have the ability to earn income from commercial operations so should not be exempt from paying rates. The value of their properties need to be included in the Capital Value and rates charged accordingly.

h. Private hospitals and Universities both are commercial operations, so should not be exempt from paying rates, but perhaps are charged under another category at a lower rate.

i. National Parks and Crown hold vast areas of land in the Shoalhaven area and need to be rated even if at a reduced rate.

11. To what extent should the exemptions from certain state taxes (such as payroll tax) that councils receive be considered in a review of the exemptions for certain categories of ratepayers?

No comment

12. What should the objectives of the pensioner concession scheme be? How could the current pensioner concession scheme be improved?

The financial contribution from Councils to support this scheme increases as the population of the Local Government area ages. The effect on this is further burden on less tax payers, so is neither sustainable nor equitable.

In addition to these limitations, the Council Rebate for water and sewer is a fixed concession for eligible pensioners jointly funded by the NSW State Government and Local Councils. The rebate a pensioner in an area not serviced by Sydney Water or Hunter Water is based on the following as contained within the Local Government Act:

• 50% of a water charge up to a maximum $87.50 concession

• 50% of a sewerage charge up to a maximum $87.50 concession

So an eligible pensioner in these areas can receive a maximum of $175 off their total water and sewer charges.

These maximum available concessions have been in place for many years, without any adjustments. Therefore, as water and sewerage bills have increased in real terms over time, pensioner rebates decline in value relative to the total water and sewerage bills.

Councils contribute 45% of these concession costs, through lost income to the water and sewer funds.

The pensioner rebates for eligible Sydney Water customers are calculated in a different way, and are far greater. Those rebates are 100% of the water access charge and 83% of the sewer access charge. These rebates are funded from the state government as CSOs. It is noted that in the 2008 IPART pricing determination for Sydney Water, the following was stated by IPART:

“IPART considers that customer-impact mitigation is primarily the responsibility of the Government as part of its broader social policy. IPART recommends that the Government evaluates the current suite of social programs, along with the enhancements proposed by Sydney Water in its initial submission, to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to assist financially disadvantaged customers………………………

The Pension Rebate should be increased with CPI or in line with the Rate Peg and should only apply to aged pensioners or those on disability pensions, therefore not include unemployed or sole parents unless asset tested.

Freezing existing rate paths for newly merged councils

13. We have interpreted the rate path freeze policy to mean that in the four years after a merger, the rating path in each pre-merger council’s area will follow the same trajectory as if the merger had not occurred. Do you agree with this interpretation?

Yes we agree with that interpretation. The issue is where one interprets the starting point of the trajectory from. The current information stated publically indicates the starting point is if an IPART SRV has already been approved. This is not the starting point of the trajectory for the rating path. If a Council has undertaken the necessary planning, has consulted with the community, included the proposed rate increases in their DPOP and their Fit for the Future applications then these rate increases are clearly on the Council’s rating path and should be permitted in the merged Council. These strategies included a Special rate over 2 years to achieve the desired outcomes. These had been communicated to the community as part of the Delivery Program from 2015/16. However, these plans seem to have been totally ignored from an OLG/IPART perspective and in their place the OLG/IPART have reverted to plans from 2014/15. If Council is to merge or not then the trajectory from 2015/16 plans should allowed to be followed.

Below is a diagrammatic of the process followed and the point at which the process has been aborted.

14. Within the rate path freeze period, should merged council’s be permitted to apply for new special variations:

· For Crown Land added to the rating base?

· To recover amounts that are “above the cap” on development contributions set under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979?

· To fund new infrastructure projects by levying a special rate?

Yes, no further comment.

15. Are there any other situations where merged councils should be able to apply for new special variations within the rate path freeze period?

Merged Councils should also be able to apply for a new special variation under the additional scenarios below:

a. If it was in their Long Term Financial Plans and community consultation had been previously carried out

b. If it is for new infrastructure projects where a special rate is required to be levied ie paper subdivisions

c. If an extraordinary situation arises that requires Council to take immediate action to increase the rating base ie a natural disaster or community or global crisis, where funds need to be raised to rebuild infrastructure.

d. In circumstances where a local community wants an additional service and is prepared to pay an additional special rate – i.e. Sussex Canal development area to pay a special rate to replace Jetty fees.

16. During the rate path freeze period, should merged councils only be able to increase base amounts and minimum amounts each year by the rate peg (adjusted for any permitted special variations)?

No, pre-merged Councils should still have the ability to make changes within each individual councils rating structure to account for reallocation of service costs, or more equitable distributions of the rating burden within each of the individual councils. These type changes are made on an annual basis within an individual council and this process should not be stymied.

If a revaluation occurs during the “freeze” period, which for Shoalhaven Council it will then dependent upon how the land values are affected, the current rating structure may need to be reallocated to maintain a fairer rating system.

17. During the rate path freeze period, should merged councils be able to allocate changes to the rating burden across rating categories by either:

a. Relative changes in the total land value of a rating category against other categories within the pre-merger council area, or

b. The rate peg (adjusted for any permitted special variants)?

See response to question 16. above.

18. Do you agree that the rate path freeze policy should act as a ‘ceiling’, so councils have the discretion to set their rates below this ceiling for any rating category?

Agree but don’t see this as a practical option for our Council, given the deficits we will be running if a special rate is not permitted. The current rating path trajectory includes a SRV rate increases of at least 7.5%

19. What other discretions should merged councils be given in setting rates during the rate freeze period?

If Councils advance in their merger proposal and start to bring the disparate rating systems onto one system, then Councils should be able to start aligning rates for the two councils into the one structure earlier than the expiration of the “freeze” period.

Council should also be permitted to include any catch-up from previous rating years into their rating base.

20. We considered several options for implementing the rate path freeze policy. Our preferred option is providing the Minister for Local Government with a new instrument-making power. What are your views on this option and any other options to implement the rate path freeze policy?

Preferred option would be the one:

a. With the least administration requirement

b. Which can happen in the shortest timeframe

c. One which can be reverted back easily if/when required.

Establishing new, equitable rates after the 4-year freeze

21. Should changes be made to the LG Act to better enable a merged council to establish a new equitable system of rating and transition to it in a fair and timely manner? If so, should the requirement to set the same residential rate within a centre of population be changed or removed?

Being able to levy rates within a centre of population will allow Councils to levy rates on two or more distinct pre-merged council areas, so this requirement should be acceptable although not mandatory as it may be more practical to base the rates on like type activities or use which would be more flexible and reduce the need for multiple categories.

22. Should approved special variations for pre-merger councils be included in the revenue base of the merged council following the 4-year rate path freeze?

Yes any special variations approved either prior to the merger or after the merger should be included in the revenue base for the merged council. These increases should only apply to the Council which had them in their plans.

23. What other rating issues might arise for merged councils after the 4-year rate path freeze period expires?

Aligning rates from the two disparate councils will require significant consultation and if a decision is made to align the rates into one residential rate as opposed to two rates for the separate centres of population, then one rate goes up and the other down and if this is the case then a full review of service levels would also be required in both LG areas.

If two different residential rates prevail then the argument will always be there with regard to the different levels of service provided.

Any review of the services provided by either council with a view to include, eliminate or modify services will be a costly and time consuming exercise, given that a lot of community consultation will have to be undertaken. A poor decision by council will have a very negative effect on the ratepayers which will reflect badly on the new council.

If you need further information about this matter, please contact Pamela Gokgur, Corporate & Community Services Group on (02) 4429 3322. Please quote Council’s reference 8923E (D16/136903).

Yours faithfully

Pamela Gokgur

Chief Financial Officer

12/05/2016

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 04 October 2016

Page 267

ATTACHMENT D – COUNCILS RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Review of the Local Government Rating System

Feedback in terms of the 34 draft recommendations which have come out of the Draft report on the Local Government Rating System, are below. Where Council is in agreement with the recommendation – minimal comment is made. Where Council thinks there are other issues to consider, comments have been made to state Councils position.

Recommendations

1. Councils would be able to choose either the Capital Improved Value, based on its market value (ie land value plus capital improvements) or Unimproved Value method to set a property’s rates. A council’s maximum general income should not change as a result of the valuation method they choose.

a. This recommendation is in line with Councils Submission to the review and is a much more equitable approach

b. It caters for undeveloped land, strata property and multi-story building issues

c. However may impact on investment within the Local Government area, as rates increase when capital constructions are carried out.

d. AGREE

2. Minimums amounts should be removed from the rate structure, as councils would have the option to use CIV there would be no need to retain this fixed rate component in the system. Section 497 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to remove minimum amounts from the structure of a rate, and Section 548 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be removed.

a. Council does not currently utilise Minimum rates and therefore is not impacted by this recommendation

b. Given the changes to the Valuation method and also the inclusion of new categories for land, this inferior method of recovering fixed costs would no longer be required.

c. It will simplify the rating structure

d. AGREE

3. Councils’ general income would increase (outside the rate peg) in line with the growth in CIV which arises from new development in their area. The growth in rates revenue outside the rate peg should be calculated by multiplying a council’s general income by the proportional increase in Capital Improved Value from supplementary valuations.

a. This would allow rates to increase to match costs of new development

b. Councils Income would increase in line with the increase in rateable properties

c. Would not impact on rates per household

d. Special Rates would only be required when increases in service levels are required or for major infrastructure projects

e. AGREE

4. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to allow councils to levy a new type of special rate for new infrastructure jointly funded with other levels of Government. This special rate should be permitted for services or infrastructure that benefit the community, and funds raised under this special rate should not:

- Form part of a Council’s general income permitted under the rate, nor

- Require councils to receive regulatory approval from IPART

a. More information is required on how this would work and what would be required if not a Special Rate Variation.

b. AGREE in principle

5. Section 511 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to reflect that, where a council does not apply the full percentage increase of the rate peg (or any applicable Special Variation) in a year, within the following 10 year period, the council can set rates in a subsequent year to return it to the original rating trajectory for that subsequent year.

a. This would increase flexibility in setting rates and effectively increase the catch-up period to be 10 years rather than a 2 year period.

b. AGREE

6. Council’s would have the option to set different residential rates to reflect differences in access, demand or costs across their area. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to remove the requirement to equalise residential rates by “centre of population”. Instead, councils should be allowed to determine a residential subcategory, and set a residential rate, for an area by:

- a separate town or village, or

- a community of interest

a. This recommendation is in line with Councils Submission to the review and is a much more equitable approach, particularly for Merger Councils

b. It allows for different residential rates for new developments as opposed to established suburbs or for different levels of service in disparate villages.

c. AGREE

7. An area should be considered to have a different “community of interest” where it is within a contiguous urban development, and it has different access to, demand for, or costs of providing council services or infrastructure relative to other areas in that development. New Councils, formed by the recent mergers, would also be able to choose to keep existing rate structures where there are different communities of interest, or equalise residential rates and transition to the new rates over time.

a. This was highlighted as an issue as part of Councils submission, so this approach will allow a smoother transition for merged councils

b. AGREE

8. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended so, where a council uses different residential rates within a contiguous urban development, it should be required to:

- ensure the highest rate structure is no more than 1.5 times the lowest rate structure across all residential subcategories (ie, so the maximum difference for ad valorem rates and base amounts is 50%), or obtain approval from IPART to exceed this maximum difference as part of the Special Variation process, and

– publish the different rates (along with the reasons for the different rates) on its website and in the rates notice received by ratepayers.

a. Council sees no issue with this recommendation

b. AGREE

9. At the end of the 4-year rate path freeze, new councils should determine whether any pre-merger areas are separate towns or villages, or different communities of interest.

- In the event that a new council determines they are separate towns or villages, or different communities of interest, it should be able to continue the existing rates or set different rates for these pre-merger areas, subject to metropolitan councils seeking IPART approval if they exceed the 50% maximum differential. It could also choose to equalise rates across the pre-merger areas, using the gradual equalisation process outlined below.

- In the event that a new council determines they are not separate towns or villages, or different communities of interest, or it chooses to equalise rates, it should undertake a gradual equalisation of residential rates. The amount of rates a resident is liable to pay to the council should increase by no more than 10 percentage points above the rate peg (as adjusted for permitted Special Variations) each year as a result of this equalisation. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to facilitate this gradual equalisation.

a. Shoalhaven City Council are not affected by this recommendation

b. AGREE in principle

10. Sections 555 and 556 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to:

- Exempt land of the basis of use rather than ownership, and to directly link the exemption to the use of the land, and

- Ensure land used for residential and commercial purposes is rateable unless explicitly exempted.

a. This is a good start to correcting the inequities currently in place around exemptions, both result in private benefit and therefore should not be eligible for exemptions at all

b. A pro-rata approach to rates is a fairer model

c. We need further clarity around Defence and the types of activities they carry out on currently exempt land, these activities can have a detrimental impact on council services and there is no recovery, resulting in higher rates for all other rate payers.

d. Making non rateable properties now rateable should be reflected in an overall increase in Council income, rather than having to be built in with no increase, resulting in a reduction of rates to all other ratepayers.

e. AGREE to part of the recommendation but there are specific areas which are still unclear and the restriction on an increase to the Councils income should not be part of the recommendation.

11. The following exemptions should be retained in the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW):

- Section 555(e) Land used by a religious body occupied for that purpose

- Section 555(g) Land vested in the NSW Aboriginal Land Council

- Section 556(o) Land that is vested in the mines rescue company, and

- Section 556(q) Land that is leased to the Crown for the purpose of cattle dipping.

a. Section 555(g) applies only to vacant land so should not apply to land that is being used for a commercial or residential purpose.

b. AGREE

12. Section 556(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to include land owned by a private hospital and used for that purpose.

a. Agree to this change, as long as the land used is not for commercial purposes, if however the land is used for Commercial purposes than it should be rateable.

b. Clarity may also be required for Nursing Homes linked to Private and Public Hospitals.

c. CLARITY required.

13. The following exemptions should be removed:

- Land that is vested in, owned by, or within a special or controlled area for, the Hunter Water Corporation, Water NSW or the Sydney Water Corporation (Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) section 555(c) and section 555 (d))

- Land that is below the high water mark and is used for the cultivation of oysters (Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) section 555(h))

- Land that is held under a lease from the Crown for private purposes and is the subject of a mineral claim (Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) section 556(g)), and

- Land that is managed by the Teacher Housing Authority and on which a house is erected (Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) section 556(p))

a. Shoalhaven City Council does have some oyster leases that would be rateable if this exemption is removed

b. AGREE

14. The following exemptions should not be funded by local councils and hence should be removed from the Local Government Act and Regulation

- Land vested in the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust (Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) section 556(m))

- Land that is leased by the Royal Agricultural Society in the Homebush Bay area (Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 reg 123(a))

- Land that is occupied by the Museum of Contemporary Art Limited (Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 reg 123(b)), and

- Land comprising the site known as Museum of Sydney (Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 reg 123(c)).

- The State Government should consider whether to fund these local rates through State taxes.

a. Shoalhaven City Council are not impacted by this recommendation.

b. AGREE

15. Where a portion of land is used for an exempt purpose and the remainder for a non-exempt activity, only the former portion should be exempt, and the remainder should be rateable.

a. This was part of Shoalhaven City Councils submission

b. Clarity around how will this be audited

c. AGREE in principle

16. Where land is used for an exempt purpose only part of the time, a self-assessment process should be used to determine the proportion of rates payable for the non-exempt use.

a. More detail is required on appeals to assessments/audits.

b. Clarity required around the method of self-assessment and how this will work.

c. AGREE in principle

17. A Council’s maximum general income should not be modified as a result of any changes to exemptions from implementing our recommendations.

a. The recommendation includes a statement that “Removing some exemptions means that rates would go down for ordinary ratepayers”; however if exemptions increase one would assume that rates would go up for ordinary ratepayers, is this correct.

b. Council’s position is that regardless of changes in categories the current base rate and ad valorem would not change and any changes to rateability would be picked up in either less revenue or additional revenue.

c. DISAGREE with this

18. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to remove the current exemptions from water and sewerage special charges in section 555 and instead allow councils discretion to exempt these properties from water and sewerage special rates in a similar manner as occurs under section 558(1).

a. No issues from a Shoalhaven Water perspective

b. AGREE

19. At the start of each rating period, councils should calculate the increase in rates that are the result of rating exemptions. This information should be published in the council’s annual report or otherwise made available to the public.

a. To allow this to be calculated we would need to maintain a register to record the land values of the exempt properties along with the rating category applicable if there was no exemption.

b. This will increase the administrative burden

c. DISAGREE

20. The current pensioner concession should be replaced with a rate deferral scheme operated by the State Government.

- Eligible pensioners should be allowed to defer payment of rates up to the amount of the current concession, or any other amount as determined by the State Government

- The liability should be charged interest at the State Government’s 10-year borrowing rate plus an administrative fee. The liability would become due when property ownership changes and a surviving spouse no longer lives in the residence.

a. This recommendation needs more information on how this scheme would operate ie:

i. Clarity around who would be responsible for what components and when these concessions would be “reimbursed” is required?

ii. In which books will the interest from deferred rates sit?

iii. The draft is unclear whether the reference to ‘liability’ is the State Government or Council. Will the State be providing payments of the deferred rates to councils or will they simply be paying interest? Or is the interest to be charged to the pensioner or Council? If the State does not pay Council the amount of the deferred rates what happens to the interest charged by Council?

iv. Would this information then need to go on the Section 603 certificates, as it will ultimately be a debt to the property?

v. How will this debt be communicated from the Office of State Revenue to Council

vi. This would slow the Section 603 certificate process down considerably

vii. Would/could this be managed by a caveat on the property?

b. From a Water perspective, the recommendation has not made reference to the water and sewer concession. As water and sewerage charges are directly necessary for the provision of this essential service, it is not recommended that it be treated in the same manner as the general rate.

c. Submissions to the LG Act review have previously been made to alter the method of calculating the concession for eligible pensioners in respect of water and sewerage charges. The concession available being allowed on the basis of 50% of a charge should be removed to ensure the concession can be applied efficiently and in a manner understood by concession holders.

d. AGREE in principle to the NSW Government fully funding the rebate scheme but further detail required, particularly with regards to impacts on Council’s cash flow and operating result.

21. Section 493 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to add a new environmental land category and a definition of “Environmental Land” should be included in the LG Act.

a. This would replace the “Residential – Non Urban” category which Council currently has in place

b. This would allow a reduced charge against this land, the use of which is restricted.

c. AGREE with the change

22. Section 493, 519 and 529 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to add a new vacant land category, with subcategories for residential, business, mining and farmland.

a. As part of Council’s submission it was highlighted that there was a need for a vacant land category

b. However Council did raise issues of speculative holding of land by developers, if they had lower rates for vacant land ie this may lower development

c. However if rates on vacant land are made higher it might encourage development and urban renewal but is not consistent with taxation principles when assessing the level of council services provided. As per the recommendations guidelines should be introduced to ensure these rates are not excessive.

d. AGREE in principle but very aware of the implications for ratepayers and getting the balance correct.

23. Section 518 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to reflect that a council may determine by resolution which rating category will act as the residual category.

- The residual category that is determined should not be subject to change for a 5 year period

- If a council does not determine a residual category, the Business Category should act as the default residual rating category.

a. At present the business category acts as the default location for all properties difficult to classify.

b. Most of these properties fall into the definitions of jettys, burial plots etc

c. The introduction of choice will allow greater flexibility

d. The introduction of a vacant land sub category will assist in this area more than a choice of residual category.

e. AGREE in principle.

24. Section 529 (2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to allow business land to be subcategorised as “industrial” and or “commercial” in addition to centre of activity.

a. This was covered in Council’s submission, particularly with regard to the current restriction of having to use a “centre of activity” for subcategorization

b. This will assist with equitable allocations based on the level of service provided in the two different types of business activities.

c. AGREE

25. Section 529 (2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be replaced to allow farmland subcategories to be determined based on geographic location.

a. Council had not requested changes in this area in its submission, as this level of subcategorization is not required

b. A further categorisation by geographic area may assist if like farming enterprises are centred around different locations but this may not always be the case

c. A subcategorization based on farmland type might be a better indication of intensity of usage eg dairy farmers, wineries etc

d. NOT REQUIRED

26. Any difference in the rate charged by Council to a mining category compared to its average business rate should primarily reflect differences in the council’s costs of providing services to the mining properties.

a. No mining properties in the Shoalhaven, so Council are not impacted

b. AGREE in principle

27. Councils should have the option to engage the State Debt Recovery Office to recover outstanding council rates and charges.

a. It is unclear how this would operate in practical terms

b. There are some concerns about the recovery rate of 75% of all debt through the SDRO, Council currently recovers 94.5% of all debt

c. How would this debt be transferred or will factoring arrangements be put in place?

d. There are substantial volumes of debt which council currently chases up, what would be the cost if these debts were transferred to the SDRO, or would this all be recovered as part of the debt?

e. What time limit would be put in place before a debt would be transferred to the SDRO?

f. What would be the mechanism to ensure that debts with the SDRO are shown as part of the Section 603 process and recovered when properties are sold.

g. When the SDRO negotiates flexible payment plans will they take into consideration that instalments fall every 3 months. Council would not want an extended payment period which would then lead to the ratepayer accruing more overdue rates and again be subject to debt recovery action.

h. The idea is worth considering but does need more detail to allow Councils to make an informed decision.

28. The existing legal and administrative process to recover outstanding rates should be streamlined by reducing the period of time before a property can be sold to recover rates from five years to three years.

a. AGREE – this would improve recovery times for outstanding rates

29. All councils should adopt an internal review policy, to assist those who are late in paying rates, before commencing legal proceedings to recover unpaid rates.

a. Councils Hardship Policy does allow ratepayers to apply for hardship and put payment plans in place to pay off outstanding Debt

b. Council will not take any further action if payment plans are maintained

c. Council will waive interest if payment plans are met

d. Council has a hardship committee which reviews any hardship applications and what plans are put in place for payment

e. This committee always takes a lenient view to ratepayers who are genuine in terms of their circumstances.

f. DISAGREE – the internal review policy should be part of the Hardship and Debt Recovery Policies

30. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended or the Office of Local Government should issue guidelines to clarify that councils can offer flexible payment options to ratepayers.

a. Clarity around the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) would be beneficial

b. Council does currently offer flexible options to ratepayers, but it would be good if this were consistent with the Act or Local Government Guidelines.

c. It would also be beneficial for all other payment options and garnishee arrangements to be covered in the LG Act.

d. AGREE

31. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to allow councils to offer a discount to ratepayers who elect to receive rates notices in electronic formats eg via email.

a. This would result in a saving to Council of approximately $4 per ratepayer, so any discount offered would be minimal

b. Clarity around issuing electronic notices needs to be covered as part of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) review. Particularly where services such as BPay View are used. This service sends an SMS or email advising a bill is available to be paid and the ratepayer needs to login to their internet banking portal to download the rate notice.

c. Amendments are required in relation to requests in writing to commence or withdraw the electronic delivery of notices. Most systems in place at the moment seem to allow the ratepayer to opt in or out of the service electronically.

d. AGREE, but perhaps not enough incentive for individual ratepayers to change to electronic notices, an alternative may be to charge more for paper notices, as is the case with Telstra

32. The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) should be amended to remove section 585 and section 595, so that ratepayers are not permitted to postpone rates as a result of land rezoning, and councils are not required to write-off postponed rates after five years.

a. This would decrease administrative burden of Council

b. AGREE

33. The valuation base date for the Emergency Services Property Levy and council rates should be aligned.

- The NSW Government should levy the Emergency Services Property Levy on a Capital Improved Value basis when Capital Improved Value data becomes available state-wide.

a. Levying at a different time would be confusing for ratepayers

b. It would add additional costs of sending out separate notices, it just makes sense to align the two dates.

c. Councils need clarity around whether the Capital Improved Value or the Unimproved Land Value will be used. This will need to be flexible in the Act.

d. AGREE

34. Councils should be given the choice to directly buy valuation services from private valuers that have been certified by the Valuer General.

a. This is in line with Councils submission to the review

b. Valuation services need to be accredited and align to the Valuer Generals approach for consistency

c. AGREE

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 04 October 2016

Page 284

Total responses to Q4a: 345

Total responses to Q4b: 242

Total responses to Q5: 340

Further suggestions/comments for Question 4:

These waste facilities are running at a significant and increasing annual loss. Please number in order of preference (1 through to 10) which of the following options you consider appropriate to improve the efficiency of the facility, with one (1) being your most preferred option and ten (10) being the least preferred option. Please number all boxes. Do you have any further suggested options?

1	1 weekend per month
2	1) Have a 'general waste' council clean-up / domestic collection every 3 months. 2) Provide domestic properties with large green waste bins for collection weekly
3	1) Necessary to open - school holidays when most people are there and clean-up 2) Also one day week and certainly not to go to Nowra, Huskisson or Ulladulla
4	2 day decrease is a 50% decrease. Friday for commercial and local users, and Saturday allows residents to utilise the tip. We prefer afternoons as it allows morning to work and clean up and afternoon to tip.
5	8,9,&10 are all equally the worst options
6	A local facility is mandatory. If the operation must be reduced use the options above please
7	A regular green waste pickup from kerbside in Bawley Point area
8	Absentee owners are not always there for regular kerbside pickup - bins are left out etc. These people should be able to use the waste depot as an alternate to the kerbside service at no cost to them.
9	Absentee owners given access to the local street garbage bins particularly when departing for home
10	AS a ratepayer who uses the facilities of garbage collection in peak periods only, I am entitled to have a facility to dispose of rubbish excess to garbage collection. My house is not rented and only used by family
11	As absentee owners we do periodic clean-ups- usually on weekends - and need access to a reasonably close facility to dispose of garden waste or building material on a weekend.
12	As population increases so will the amount of waste increase. There needs to be more thought put into allowing growing for growth through the Shoalhaven, not less services
13	Ask community for a more detailed survey of what’s needed
14	Bawley/Kioloa get comparatively less value for rates than Nowra & Ulladulla - to stop collection of green waste would not go down well
15	Be aware that closing the facility would result in more expense for council as people would dump waste in ???? reserves/ bushland and thus require more labour and equipment to service at present.
16	Be careful of dumpers
17	bring back buyback at the tip
18	Bury heads in the sand
19	Business model for green waste seems wrong. Why not drop off for free and sell the mulch? You get your raw materials free of charge and make the profit on the final product. Individually they may not be 'cost-effective' but council is providing a service for all residents. The notion of cross-subsidising is not a problem when looked at the whole operation.
20	Buy back already closed which is a huge waste, lots of people in the area used the facility.
21	By closing Kioloa transfer station will encourage people dropping waste in reserve thus causing more costs to clean it up.
22	Charge for collecting mulch, free drop off of garden waste.
23	Closing or severely restricting the service would likely lead to a big increase in illegal dumping in the local environment which would be a big negative for our locality.
24	Closing the facility is not realistic - Kioloa is simply too far from centralised facilities to be practical. People will go back to dumping in the bush and on the beach
25	Closing the facility will increase illegally dumped rubbish into reserves, as is already the case. Cost to council for these clean-ups would increase
26	Closing the Kioloa facility will lead to illegal dumping in the area. Therefore council will need to employ more rangers to police dumpers
27	Closing the tip will lead to illegal dumping. What are our rates for? The current services to the Bawley area are poor.
28	Considering the number of absentee owners (all paying full rates) & the significant increase of visitors to our local area (4 caravan parks in area) all ??? to a major increase of waste material. How could we not have a local facility? Cost verses tourism?
29	Considering the rates paid by owners in our immediate area based on land value compared to rates paid in the centres where the main waste facilities are located and the lack of services and facilities provided by SCC to our immediate area, the subject proposal is disgraceful.
30	council should become more efficient not take facilities away try limiting jaunts etc. Bawley point Kioloa population has increased over years centre should open 5 days every week, maybe reduce hours, if centre closes or is unavailable the bush areas will become dumping grounds council should work smarter, not cut facilities or just put up charges
31	Council’s role is to service residents. Return the tip how it use to be i.e. no attendant and gates open 24/7 with distribution bins.
32	Delete tip vouchers Place a charge on mulch Provide household with green waste bin
33	Do not change
34	don't charge rate payers for green waste drop off instead charge to get mulch receipts to customers for drop offs
35	Don’t close the tip!!!
36	Encourage to recycle own waste, such as garden waste, kitchen waste in home compost systems
37	Give Bawley Point a fair go. Bawley has been on the end of the line with the Shoalhaven Shire with regard to services before.
38	Give each household a green waste bin pick up fortnightly and a bi-annual house clean up. This will allow the closure of Kioloa.
39	Green household waste bins and 6 monthly household clean-up campaign of large waste items e.g. washing machines, old furniture, mattresses etc.
40	Green waste collection bin service every other week. This could also include food waste as they do in Coffs Harbour to reduce waste in red bin (General waste) collection
41	Green waste for mulching - should not be a charge. This would bring Shoalhaven council in line with most other councils in NSW/Aust.
42	Green waste removal otherwise green waste is going to increase into general waste bins thus creating another problem
43	Half day per week may 2 day in holiday periods
44	Have a green bin collection once a month.
45	Have another look at your 'independent, external review'. I don't believe a transfer station such as Kioloa can be over $400,000 in deficit annually. Is it possible to see the criteria and findings of that review? Regards Alan
46	Have gates permanently open for recycling and increase cost for general waste and sell green waste composite and lessen cost for green drop off.
47	Have large bins for general waste & recycling - This would suit people who own holiday houses etc.
48	Having the tip open more during our busy season Christmas till Easter and closing to maybe only one day a fortnight or week during the off peak!!
49	Here is Kioloa we are 30-45min away from Ulladulla. 'Too far'
50	I am happy with the current situation, but can accept a reduced operating programme. closing will create waste dumping
51	I can see finding an acceptable balance between reducing costs of operation and maintaining a viable community service but I don't understand the operating at a loss bit. It’s a service not a profit making business like a factory or retailer etc.
52	I think that expecting stupid thinking. Let’s close the railways. My preferred option is to reduce the wages of the bureaucrats rather than kit citizens
53	I would not like to see anyone lose their job, but maybe use volunteers to man the site 2 days and pay workers 2 days, rather than close the facility
54	Ideally 1-2 days p/week with one day being a weekend. Say Friday and Saturday
55	If a green waste bin was provided reduce TIP hours
56	If closed, gate entrance will be a stockpile for dumped rubbish or it will be dumped somewhere else locally.
57	If facility is closed I envisages a serious increase in illegal waste disposal. Road side bins are often overflowing.
58	If Kioloa closes we will need pick-ups from home
59	If my ticks above were considered it may help reduce operating costs enabling Kioloa tip to remain open, avoiding the illegal dumping of rubbish in other areas, around Bawley and Kioloa
60	If no operation some people may dump rubbish
61	If our exorbitant illegal rates were not wasted on junkets and councillor vehicles, perhaps there would be extra funds to actually fix the goat track into Kioloa. Do the jobs our illegal rates pay for
62	If the Kioloa facility is closed or made beyond the financial reach of residents the local area will become an unsightly rubbish tip. Citizens should be encouraged to responsibly dispose of rubbish by the provision of an accessible waste disposal facility
63	If the tip closes the rubbish etc. will be dumped in the Murramarang national park
64	If there is no waste facility, people will start either dumping illegally &/or burning off.
65	If this is closed, I predict you will see even more rubbish dumped in the national park off Forest Rd.
66	If you close the tip, dumping in the state forest will increase.
67	Impractical to take green waste all the way to Ulladulla. Please maintain a green waste option.
68	improve the productivity, culture and attitude of employees - more money could be made from reclaimed/recycled items if it was done better use internet, have sales days etc.
69	In our opinion it is not an option to close waste transfer facilities
70	In our opinion it is not an option to close waste transfer facilities
71	Include a garden/green waste bin in the fortnightly collection
72	Increase gate fees over summer holiday period this won't penalize local ratepayers as much. Kioloa is an important facility for this part if the coast as transporting green waste and recyclables on busy highway to Ulladulla is highly dangerous
73	Increase kerbside recycling
74	increase rates
75	Increase rates to cover costs - removing the service or making it too difficult to access (e.g. up front cost) will result in cost transfer in terms of illegal dumping and spread of rubbish along roads during private transfer to more remote facilities
76	Increase services in holiday periods.
77	Increased days during holidays. Consistent receipts fees
78	It works okay now.
79	Keep annual vouchers & just reduce hours or days - ensuring that at least one day on the weekend remains open
80	Keep something open or rubbish will be dumped in the reserve and forest
81	Key to gate be controlled by local man shed at entrance to depot at Kioloa. Same procedures as at Ariah Park NSW
82	Leave as is, no change
83	Leave it the same
84	Maintain the voucher system, our rates at work.
85	Make green waste tipping free and pay for mulch as in Sydney
86	Make the ratepayer suffer decline of services
87	Many in our community are weekend residents, we at least need Saturday operational
88	May I comment that as a member of Kioloa bush care we already spending time and effort collecting dumped waste. Some people dump their waste in the bush, then take an empty trailer to collect free mulch. Charge for the mulch
89	Maybe council could start a proper green waste collection service like other councils in Australia
90	Means unregulated dumping, including my box number 7. The current service is brilliant, it means residents do not stock rubbish in their yards or leave on the footpath when otherwise they might. It allows people to dispose of rubbish themselves other than rely on council clean up days
91	Must be convenient living in a large town
92	My preference is to have Kioloa facility open for 2 mornings, 2 days per week with all parts of operation open and possible increased fees. If green waste is stopped, it is likely that people will start burning it to get rid of it, therefore less mulch, more pollution and increase bushfire risk.
93	No
94	No, but it's great that you are asking for input.
95	None - We have increased numbers of locals here every year and we like our tip service to remain as is.
96	None - Why should we as rate payers travel 60km+ to and from Ulladulla to use a tip when the Kioloa tips works effectively on limited hours and days
97	One weekend every 2 weeks
98	Operate all day Friday for commercial waste, then operate Sat & Sun 1pm - 5pm for domestic waste. Most people do gardening on the weekend and go to the tip middle to afternoon time of day.
99	Our concern is if council decides to close the waste facility some members in our community may dump their waste in the bush. e.g. Ulladulla to far etc.
100	our rates pay enough already for employees keep it open longer hrs each day
101	Owner’s rate payments should at least partly subsidise operating costs at Kioloa. It is a community service, not a luxury
102	People won’t drive to Ulladulla to dump. Our bush will become the tip.
103	Please can we receive more than 2 free vouchers yearly? I am 81 years old, love gardening and have to visit tip many times at a cost of $5.40 each time for car full of garden refuse
104	Please ensure public landfill and recycling bins for the general public in town for routine small volume collection
105	Please keep open - maybe charge more fees
106	Provide a bin for green waste
107	Provide green waste bins to residents for fortnightly collection
108	Provide Large bins to all Premises
109	Really would like to keep this (Green waste)
110	Recycling be open for the general public 7 days a week should the facility be closed - least desirable outcome.
111	Recycling bins are inside secure gate put so accessible to people. Centre only open till one - some days a week, surely that can remain
112	Re-directing to Ulladulla will result in significant dumping of waste around the village.
113	Reduce days open but maintain socially responsible services i.e. -recycling, disposal of toxic materials, return facility to responsibly dispose of fluorescent tubes
114	Reduce significantly the excessive grass mowing beside footpaths and foreshore reserves and divert the monies then saved to the continuance of the smaller waste facilities
115	Remember that there are 4 Caravan Parks in this area not service by council.
116	Residents cannot carry green or general waste to other waste transfer’s facilities. We expect this service as part of our rates. Please charge more rather than mess with it
117	Reverse green waste payment system. Should be free to drop off green waste and pay to take mulch. Current system results in waste being dumped in local bush
118	Running efficient recycling shop (Charity Op shops make lots of money from free clothes and goods)
119	Sack 2 fat cats. Will pay for this community asset.
120	Scheduled bulky waste collection or on call bulky waste.
121	Sell mulch made from the green waste.
122	Stop sending 4 council workers to put a bucket of 'hot mix' in a pothole. Maybe the council will save money instead of trying to cut back our services
123	Supply residents with green waste bin - to be collected like garbage bins
124	Supply skip and public recycling
125	Surely one of the functions of council is to provide garbage collection and waste disposal facilities. If you close our facility, I'm sure that there will be an increase in illegal dumping
126	Take no action. Tip to stay open
127	taking no action is not an option that will improve the facility, there are very few council services in Bawley and Kioloa already e.g. local community built the footpaths , This contrasts with other areas e.g. Huskisson Vincentia rates are high never the less It would be unreasonable to further reduce our services.
128	The best is comprehensive, but the point to keep in mind is that we pay our rates and should not be disadvantage relative to other communities
129	The population is increasing both permanent and holiday weekenders, retirees etc. and council wants to 'cut back'. Why? Would the people of Nowra put up with these cut backs! To cut costs take away perks for elected officials and management staff of SCC.
130	The tip is a service to the community. Given our isolation and lack of other services, the tip is vital. It services the local caravan parks and yard maintenance people. Without it local jobs will go
131	There are 3 tourist’s parks and a camping park at Pretty Beach. I don't see how closing Kioloa will achieve a cost effective solution
132	There are no other options. Not everyone lives near Ulladulla, or West Nowra. Kioloa is needed as people have to travel west of Termeil (and often North Durras)
133	There are none. We have lived here over 30 years. I do not believe closing this tip is an option
134	There is no option but to keep open otherwise you will have illegal dumping in the area
135	this is a community service not for profit, helps keep our bushland free of dumping
136	This is a service you need to provide as a Council
137	Tip and rubbish removal is one of council’s primary responsibilities and must be maintained running at a loss or not.
138	Tip are core council responsibility, paid for by rates. No increase charge.
139	We are very happy with our tip days, time and vouchers, but have suggested minor changes for efficiency improvements.
140	We cannot really comment on the above time suggestions, but have had to answer before we could continue the survey - not a good option to be forced into making a selection! However, we would like to see some facility retained at Kioloa. Our residence in Bawley Point is not a permanent living place. We only avail ourselves of the free vouchers for landfill and green waste. We consider the cost of taking the green waste is much too high. Also forcing residents (permanent or otherwise) to take rubbish to Ulladulla will only increase the likelihood of people dumping waste on roadsides or in the SCC public park bins. In spring, when the garden is growing well we make at least fortnightly visits to Bawley Point to mow lawns and there is a great temptation to put the clippings into our landfill bin, but we don't. We have been piling the clippings and pruning’s until we have a trailer load to use our voucher. Also, on some occasions we have even taken a trailer full of clippings and pruning’s back to Canberra where green waste disposal is in most cases free! We also notice the paper survey questions differ from the on-line questions - there are 10 here and only seven on our paper one!
141	We feel if you close this tip, the place will look like a pig sty, and I can’t see the caravan parks, taking their waste to Ulladulla daily. People will dump there rubbish in the forest, and there will be an even bigger problem.
142	We need a large green bin for green garden waste which would keep it separate from landfill. VIP The council also need to recycle AA size batteries and long life globes
143	We pay rates for services, so closing the facility should not be considered. Council has annual losses from the entertainment centre and other facilities but disposing of waste should be made easy so no-one dumps in the bush.
144	We pay rates to support public services including a local waste facility. This should not be seen as a profit centre but a public service to rate payers
145	Weekend visitors might prefer Sun & Mon but tradies could possibly prefer Fri/Sat. Maybe fewer days of operation in winter, more in summer
146	Which is 4 days a week or open more days which would keep workers/ small businesses. Recycling shouldn't have to be cost effective. Pay for it in the rates. This society has to pay for the amount of while good. TV etc. they keep tossing
147	Work with the caravan parks to establish an option to drop off general waste and recycling there. The caravan parks already manage large quantises of general waste and recycling on site and dispose of those through council facilities
148	You cannot close down, if so people will go bush
149	You have it covered above

Comments for Question 5:

If waste facilities were closed, what services would you like to see in the area?

1.	"on call" bulky waste collection days as well
2.	$50 Reduction in rates to cover petrol to Ulladulla. Use land for community combined skate park for kids & dog off leash & agility area etc.
3.	2 half days per month
4.	5or6 scheduled waste collections per year
5.	A reduction in the outrageous council rates I pay for which i get pretty much nothing back for. Total rip off for absentee owners
6.	Add green bins for vegetation
7.	Add green waste collection
8.	And see above
9.	And you will see a lot of dumping of all sorts of rubbish.
10.	As above
11.	As Above. Stop wasting money on street scapes
12.	AS long as there was some form of bulky waste disposal. Can we get green bins?
13.	At no fee, or allocate 2 vouchers for free pickup
14.	Autumn and spring green waste bulky collection and major storm green waste collection. We keep our streets and sidewalks clear, after a significant storm green waste needs a pickup and shred. Thanks for the opportunity to put in feedback.
15.	Availability to take green waste to a recycling facility or have "green" bin collections.
16.	But how would we get rid of green waste? Introduce vegetation (Green) bins
17.	Closing the facility is unacceptable. We pay rates, provide the service.
18.	collection out the front the same as Batemans bay
19.	continue issuing tip vouchers if we have to travel to Ulladulla
20.	Council clean up days with pick up on kerb
21.	Council provide regular clean-ups of local bush because that's where rubbish will be dumped if facilities closed
22.	Currently its good
23.	Do not change
24.	Do not close
25.	Do not close the facility
26.	do not close the facility
27.	don’t close
28.	Don’t close
29.	Don’t see this as an option
30.	Drop off centre for green waste
31.	Either
32.	Expect major electoral consequences if tips are closed. how about providing rubbish compaction equipment to those who use transfer facilities and open a little less frequently
33.	fortnightly green waste bin alternate to yellow bin like most other councils
34.	Fortnightly green waste collection similar to other councils
35.	Fortnightly green waste pick up
36.	Free 2 pick-ups a year
37.	Free tipping at Ulladulla
38.	Free tipping of green waste and mulching of this.
39.	Garden material bin collection
40.	Garden waste bin for collection say once a fortnight
41.	Garden waste bins for all households.
42.	Garden waste bins, or trash bags
43.	Garden waste collected once a fortnight from September to the end of March
44.	Garden waste collection at least once a month
45.	Garden waste collection especially tree and shrub cuttings. Alternative is a mulching service
46.	Garden waste days
47.	Garden waste pick up
48.	Garden waste pick up frequently or a green bin for garden waste
49.	Green and general waste collection once a fortnight
50.	Green Bin
51.	Green bin
52.	Green bin
53.	Green bin collection monthly/fortnightly
54.	Green bin fortnightly
55.	Green bin fortnightly for garden waste
56.	Green bin supplied
57.	Green bin. As above
58.	Green Bins (but we would need Green Skips!)
59.	Green bins for garden waste
60.	Green bins for recycling garden pruning’s, leaves etc.
61.	Green bins provided then people would stop putting green waste in their red landfill bins. Lots of people do this
62.	Green waste
63.	Green waste
64.	Green waste
65.	Green waste bin
66.	Green waste bin
67.	Green waste bin
68.	green waste bin
69.	Green waste bin
70.	Green waste bin. Skip bins for public use
71.	green waste bin/ skip bins
72.	Green waste bins
73.	Green waste bins
74.	Green waste bins
75.	Green waste bins
76.	Green Waste Bins
77.	Green waste bins
78.	Green waste bins
79.	Green waste bins collected with recycle bins
80.	Green waste bins like Nowra. Remember there is an election this year, please beware of voters
81.	Green waste bins or pick up service
82.	Green waste bins per household picked up every fortnight
83.	Green waste bins provided
84.	Green waste bins with on call collection closure of the tip would increase illegal dumping especially in busy holidays periods
85.	Green waste collection - there is none at present. Will save expected dumping by persons if facility closes.
86.	Green waste collection
87.	Green waste collection
88.	Green Waste Collection
89.	Green waste collection
90.	Green waste collection
91.	Green waste collection
92.	Green waste collection
93.	Green waste collection
94.	Green waste collection
95.	Green waste collection available weekends
96.	Green waste collection either weekly or fortnightly
97.	Green waste collection from residence
98.	Green waste collection service
99.	Green waste collections
100.	Green waste collections on a fortnightly basis
101.	Green waste facility is a must for the area.
102.	Green waste fortnightly
103.	Green waste Option
104.	Green waste pickup, provision of bigger bins
105.	Green waste. If there is no green waste facility, I fear many residents will dump their green waste on crown land with the view it is Biodegradable (eventually) and if Local Government removes the facility then Local Government is tacitly endorsing dumping.
106.	Green/Garden waste collections
107.	Have bins in certain locations to allow residents to use. We are in a fire zone area and need to get rid of branches and green waste
108.	Have green waste bins or street hoppers
109.	I'd like it to stay open
110.	I’m happy the way it is - its good
111.	In our opinion it is not an option to close waste transfer facilities
112.	In our opinion it is not an option to close waste transfer facilities
113.	Increase recycle pickup to every week instead of fortnightly
114.	Increase yellow bin collection.
115.	It can’t get closed!
116.	It is a long way from Kioloa to Ulladulla to take rubbish, recycling, garden clippings etc. By closing Kioloa waste station, we feel that the council will then have a big problem with illegal dumping!
117.	It should not close or you will get dumping in the bush.
118.	Keep it open
119.	Keep Kioloa open
120.	Kerbside garden waste collection
121.	Kioloa to remain open. Any other solution would not meet the amount of waste generated by the number of tourists visiting the area.
122.	leave as is
123.	Leave it alone
124.	Leave it alone. Its worked well
125.	Leave it as it is please
126.	Leave it the same as is
127.	Like some other councils that collect bulky domestic waste every 6 months
128.	Maintain schedule collections - add garden waste bin
129.	Metal recycling & green waste recycling very well used at Kioloa
130.	Minimum of 4 general bulky waste collections from kerbside for annium and tip vouchers (free) continue
131.	More rangers to check illegal dumping
132.	N/A
133.	No closure of our local tip
134.	None of these options. Replace the necessity of being able to take our own prunings to a nearby facility.
135.	Not Applicable.
136.	on call garden collection
137.	once a month scheduled bulk waste collection and additional post storm damage (trees) collection days
138.	Our concern is if council decides to close the waste facility some members in our community may dump their waste in the bush. if Ulladulla to far etc.
139.	Particularly green waste
140.	Phone booking for household clean waste as Sutherland council does. Weekly yellowing recycling pickups instead of bi/weekly
141.	Plus green waste bins
142.	Provide a green waste collection service via another bin for green waste, collected fortnightly. Red, Yellow, Green
143.	Provide green waste bins
144.	Provide green waste bins for bi weekly kerbside collection as in Eurobodalla shire
145.	Provision of green waste bins collected fortnightly
146.	Recycling
147.	Recycling bank areas & green waste collection.
148.	Recycling centre not to be closed. Distance to far to other locations
149.	Recycling every week
150.	Recycling facilities
151.	Recycling stations - allowing Kioloa residents to drop off materials to be recycled at their convenience
152.	Regular green waste collection
153.	Regular placement of skips around town for 2 days then removal
154.	Removal garden waste
155.	rubbish will be tossed wherever to travel to Ulladulla and return is approx 90-100km will council reduce my rates my rates accordingly
156.	Same
157.	Scheduled green waste collection
158.	Schedule toxic waste materials and chemicals collection days
159.	Scheduled bulky waste collection
160.	Scheduled bulky waste collection days.
161.	Scheduled bulky waste collection days. Green pick up
162.	Scheduled green waste collection
163.	School holiday collections
164.	See above
165.	So long as it doesn’t matter what kind of bulky waste saves us going to tip in Ulladulla for one item and rest pick up at curb side.
166.	stay the same
167.	Stop the 'Free' vouchers for tipping to help with costs
168.	Storm damaged trees etc. removed free of charged.
169.	Storm damaged trees, shrubs etc. picked up free of charge.
170.	Supply green waste bins. Off week collection to recycling bins
171.	Television, mobile phone service, improved roads.
172.	The same as it is
173.	These types of services are unacceptable
174.	These will make a mess, most are holiday homes so above may not work
175.	This would need to take into account significant quantities of green waste
176.	Waste facilities should remain open
177.	Weekly recycling
178.	Weekly recycling
179.	Weekly recycling
180.	What about garden waste? This isn’t a solution.
181.	What services do you provide in our area as part of rates anyway?
182.	Will council pick up in rural areas?

Comments for Question 7:

Do you have any other comments on how your local waste facility could provide a better customer experience for you?

1	If waste facility was closed we will see more dumping in the forest and bush area that surrounds our locality. Council could look at cutting other loss making services that are not deemed 'essential' services it provides
2	Would this not increase illegal dumping? What is the cost of this? Why is this a problem? Nowra also has more facilities than Bawley Point, explains why it is more successful.
3	If facilities were closed it would only encourage people to illegally dump in the bush so it would end up costing council to clean up. We don't want rubbish in our backyard.
4	Unfortunately dumping will become the norm, with waterways & gully’s ultimately the ocean being the losers. We have a responsibility to ensure the safe deposit & removal of waste & opportunity to recycle.
5	I would not like to see illegal dumping. That could increase if local facility closes. ON occasions we see cases of illegal dumping now, we could expect this to increase in the absence of the Kioloa facility
6	Not having this facility would result in more bush dumping
7	AS part of the local RFS Brigade we already come across rubbish dumped in forest etc. If this facility is closed this will increase
8	If tip was closed, I believe you would find people dumping in bushland rather than travel to next nearest tip.
9	We must have a local facility as the trip to Ulladulla is too far and a cost in time and petrol.
10	All rate payers in the Shoalhaven shire should have access to waste transfer facilities in their area without having to travel extra distance to an alternate site.
11	People will dump in the bush (what a shame)
12	We routinely need to dispose of grass clipping, pruning’s and occasionally broken/old furniture equipment and appliances. So the service would need to be comprehensive. Suggest a 3rd good size (same as yellow top) bin would centre for green waste - grass, pruning's etc., so bulky items could be collected less frequently.
13	We have lots of trees down in storms in this area, and we need the mulch generated to save water on our gardens and the community garden at A.N.U campus. If not this, then a third bin for green waste. (The latter would surely cost council more, hiring yet another contractor)
14	My property is a battle axe entrance. It is no easy for trucks to access it.
15	We don't live there as yet in Kioloa, so we don't use the facility. I'm sorry we can’t be of further assistance
16	Major risk of illegal dumping in bush areas if facilities are not provided. Particularly during holiday period.
17	This facilities should not close. Running to Ulladulla puts more cars on the road, going to Ulladulla.
18	There are very few services provided to rate payers at Bawley Point and surrounding areas. Waste services should be kept.
19	Facility should not be closed as we fear that people will throw waste away in surrounding forests. We already have to clean up after extensive visitor times i.e. schools holidays, Christmas, Easter, Long weekends etc.
20	New contact details
21	You idiots will now have to employ rangers to protect our surrounding bush and forest from illegal dumpers.
22	You will be faced with having to collect rubbish dumped illegally - that's what happens - You would also have to bear brunt of commercial premises Bawley shop/terminal BP having their bins filled every weekend by visitors/campers etc. They will generate a lot of rubbish and don't sort recyclables. Perhaps recycling drop offs for general public with plenty of education along with cameras and fines for recalactrants
23	We need to be able to clean up when we go to the coast, otherwise the town will be very dirty and unkept. Keep Kioloa looking loved.
24	Don't touch it - Its good as it is
25	Fence the national park as the amount of waste dumped there will turn it into the tip.
26	Before Christmas and Easter the place looks like paradise, after the holidays there's rubbish everywhere. Some people live like pigs and don't care
27	Closure of the site will DEFINITELY see an increase in rubbish dumping throughout whole area. People will not travel to Ulladulla. We don't even have Green bin collection.
28	Closing facility increase illegal dumping of rubbish and green waste
29	Could understand commercial being directed to Ulladulla but if you don't have domestic service will start dumping waste anywhere they shouldn't e.g. side of road or bush
30	Much less unnecessary grass mowing beside footpaths and foreshore reserves.
31	We pay our rates, same as everyone else. Just because our facility runs at a loss, this is no reason to reduce our access to waste disposal. We are already working hard to provide a footpath to link our villages. I note that in Ulladulla, footpaths are replaced without assistance from residents
32	Given we get very little services for our rates, it is outrageous that the council is considering closing the station
33	Because we don't live in Bawley Point we would have difficulty keeping our tree and shrubs trimmed and our garden tidy if we were away from Bawley around scheduled collection days.
34	What about our rates? Ulladulla is too far and 'employment' for locals
35	Something will have to be done regularly to remove illegal dumped rubbish in the bush as this is already a problem and closing the transfer station will only add to the problem
36	Please don't disadvantage Bawley/Kioloa ratepayers any more than necessary.
37	Green waste collection or the maintenance of tipping facility for green waste only would not have to be manned only processed on a demand basis. We feel that residents are sufficiently responsible as to not abuse such a facility
38	Do not close waste facilities
39	Closing the facility or increasing gate fee only leads to more illegal dumping
40	Some form of green waste collection
41	If you close the tip, there will be a problem with holiday people and dumping. They don't care because they get to leave their rubbish for other people.
42	Weekly recycle collection
43	Reinstate buy back facility
44	Free green waste disposal
45	To be kept open, if it is shut it will lead to more illegal dumping.
46	No
47	I think it is great - love being able to have garden waste facility close and also to be able to collect free mulch - I would worry about illegal dumping if the facility closed - and costs associated with that clean up - people will just dump stuff rather than go a distance up or down the highway.
48	No - Kioloa works well for us as holiday home owners with mostly green waste
49	The facility is currently providing good service. Significant reduction in service will have negative outcomes on the community and environment through illegal dumping and spread of rubbish along roads during private transfer to more remote facilities.
50	Allow free dumping of green waste and normally charge for mulch (value added). This would be fairer and potential minimise illegal dumping of GW
51	Service to stay the same or more hours. We pay our rates, NOW continue the service.
52	If the Kioloa waste tip is removed how do they expect local Bawley, Kioloa residents to drive 35 minutes with ute full loads of waste into Ulladulla
53	No, the Kioloa depot meets all our needs.
54	Enable better trailer access to bins. We don’t have bin services, so all our waste comes in via trailer
55	It is a long way to Ulladulla to take loads of rubbish. If you take these facilities away, or keep charging there will be more dumped rubbish around the area
56	Do not close the facility or cost associated with illegal dumping will be much higher. The service could be a lot better and cheaper to run if staff oversighted correct unloading and recycling and got more active with 2nd hand/reclaimed items. Refund on bottles and cans is coming in and will help with income if managed correctly
57	It seems to provide everything for those living in the area - as I will shortly be living in the area I anticipate using this facility on a regular basis.
58	Kioloa is a great operation and this local infrastructure should not be lost
59	no
60	We are a holiday area and as such, we think that there must be adequate waste facilities provided for visitors and absent owners, such as every day during school holiday periods. This could be something like mornings only.
61	Actually the employee at the Kioloa site is thorough but fair. He is diligent in checking loads and ensuring waste separation. Best we have had so far.
62	The permanent population of BAWLEY Point is increasing so closing the Kioloa facility is short sighted and stupid
63	No problems in the past
64	Allow trailers of green waste to be piled as high as is safe.
65	Remain open on weekends
66	Service is always excellent

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 04 October 2016

Page 304

Total responses to Q4a: 909

Total responses to Q4b: 474

Total responses to Q5: 915

Further suggestions/comments for Question 4:

1	1 weekend per month except holiday periods, because visitors commonly dump waste in the bush, if the tip is close (or not) during the holidays
2	1) Remove councillors and staff who outsource their surveys to 'green based' survey companies instead of making decisions that the rate payers paid them. 2) Ignore state government demands
3	1) Retain the excellent services of Gary 2) As a bush care volunteer 3 days per week, I think it is vital to keep Sussex Inlet facility open so that: (a) weed waste from bush care can be disposed of, & (b) So as to discourage illegal dumping in the bush
4	1) Run 5 days per week. Tuesday to Saturday and close Sunday and Monday 2) Only need one person to operate site 3) Stop giving vouchers to residents
5	1) There is a big enough population in Sussex Inlet to warrant a tip. 2) It would take too long and prove costly to drive to another trip. 3) People tend to dump their rubbish in the bush 4) Tip provides employment 5) Used to love the 'Tip Shop'
6	1. Run the buyback shop properly to generate income. 2. Give men's shed access to timber that is dumped 3.Accept that waste collection is expensive and run at a loss, otherwise illegal dumping increases which is also expensive, bad for ecology and wildlife. Looks bad and bad for tourism and a little illegal dumping cause by frustrated locals encourages more people to do it
7	1/ Establish a 'free cycle' service on council website. 2/ View whole region united, if W Nowra can afford to subsidise then you are not operating at a loss overall. Closing sites will lead to illegal dumping which damages local environment and land value and incurs costs
8	180 more houses to be built near golf course - means operation needs to be continued as is or increased.
9	2 or 3 pickups a year from home
10	2nd hand dilapidated books (past usable). We are a voluntary organisation who donates takings to S.I organisations and others. Much valued in our village.
11	4 days per week is not necessary. 2 days per fortnight is all that is needed. Please do not close the facility.
12	700 new home sites approved, waste facility essential. No waste facility will mean increased dumping in bush. Not all council services have to run at a profit, rates should cover tips. What would caravan parks do with their summer waste?
13	800 new home sites have been approved by council. All your doing is encouraging dumping in the bush - there's plenty of bush to do it in
14	A facility is definitely needed otherwise people will dumped things in the bush nearby
15	A 'Green' bin as well as the red and yellow.
16	A local tip is a service to the community. If elderly residents have to pay to clean their yards it will add min 2 and half to 3 hours travel time to other tips ( I think I just wasted my time writing this)
17	A lot of Sussex residents are aged pensioners more likely to use buyback but much more unlikely to travel to distant buyback centres.
18	A majority of people in susses are aged pensioners with a restricted licence and also if there isn't a tip, tourists will leave rubbish everywhere
19	A reasonable rates increase
20	A tip should remain in Sussex Inlet, otherwise we will see people disposing of rubbish along the road side etc. At least once a month
21	Absolutely ridiculous - this will cause major illegal dumping. Most people wont travel to dump - it will be in our bushlands
22	Action to reduce services means more dumping of rubbish in bushlands. We already see it happening.
23	Add green waste bin for collection and increase everyone's bins to 240L for waste, recycle and green like other councils do.
24	All the above will cause roadside dumping
25	Along with the reduced operation of Sussex Inlet it could be useful to get access one weekend per month to the closest facility such as Ulladulla or Nowra
26	Alternate weekends open with West Nowra, Huskisson and Ulladulla.
27	Always wondered why there is no large green bins supplied to households as in Sydney. Is it a cost factor or would it overall save money if bins were supplied and collected?
28	Any alterations will only increase illegal dumping. Most cost to council and ratepayers
29	Area growing lot more, land open for housing. Closing would result in rubbish being dumped in our national parks and reserves. Does council realise Sussex has 23 caravan parks in area and 2 clubs and a tavern and supermarket.
30	Areas of low population density have to be subsidised when it comes to community services like garbage tips. If the tip at Sussex were closed, council would be required to come and collect rubbish dumped in the bush at considerable cost.
31	As a rate payer the current operations at Sussex Inlet must not be reduced at all AND buyback facility must be re-instated. Any change in this essential service will result in illegal dumping and risks to health and safety. Sussex Inlet waste facility is a basic local govt. service not a vehicle for cost saving.
32	As an absentee owner - as most people are in Cudmirrah - the tip Is a vital source
33	As rate payers who pay the same as people in more central centres, we deserve close facilities without losing services. Otherwise we should be discounted for inconvenience.
34	As this is a service the council needs to recognise that such facilities don't have to run at a profit. That's why we pay rates.
35	At least 4 scheduled bulky waste collection days per year. If there are no other options than closure of the facility.
36	Be aware that if the tip is closed permanently, there will be an increase in illegal dumping
37	Be aware you may start an illegal dumping problem in a national park area, so a complete closure is a risky decision.
38	Being open weekends only is easier to remember than for example reducing hours or making it one weekend a month. Sussex Inlet also has a new subdivision so more people. It is worth keeping it open definitely, otherwise people may dump illegally
39	Bring back Buyback
40	Bring back buyback. Need green waste bin
41	Bring back the buyback. Consider allowing a local community group to run this.
42	Builders need to use the tip on week days Mondays to Fridays.
43	Burn you own waste or put it in the bush
44	Buyback should be reinstated at Sussex facility, it was great for getting items that could be reused.
45	By closing this facility will result in dumping of rubbish between Sussex and the nearest dumping facility. Any consideration given to council’s approval of increased population for Sussex area?
46	Caution - Unfortunately residents/holiday makers will resort to dumping waste in bushland or national parks effecting the environment. Retrieving waste maybe difficult and costly.
47	Changing things only leaves more mess or rubbish. Old mattresses all over the place even now are an eye sore for visitors. Prices are too high so some people throw them everywhere
48	Charge more for commercial waste. Add green waste bin to weekly collection in town.
49	close and get scheduled bulky waste collection days service and we need regular garden waste bins
50	Close Bendalong, Lake Conjola, Kioloa & Kangaroo Valley. Leave open Berry, Sussex, Nowra, Husky, Ulladulla
51	Close Berry, Kangaroo Valley, Bendalong, Lake Conjola
52	Close Kioloa, Lake Conjola, Bendalong & Kangaroo Valley. Leave open Berry, Ulladulla, West Nowra, Callala, Huskisson & Sussex Inlet
53	Close my house on Fri, Sat and Sun. I take waste back to Wollongong
54	Close the facility for domestic users but retain on reduced hours for our commercial users. We must assist our caravan park owners and operators as they bring vital economic pluses to our area.
55	Close the library (or other similar underutilised service). We actually utilise the 'tip' & consider a fundamental service provided by our rates
56	Closing any of the above will result in illegal dumping and cost council to remove anyway. Closing the Sussex tip will discriminate against the many elderly residents who are unable to drive safely to alternate locations
57	Closing Sussex Inlet will result in more pollution (Extra Fuel to access alternative facilities) and will encourage dumping
58	Closing Sussex tip will cause an increase in illegal dumping. Many people, pensioners, low income families, could not afford or would not have a trailer to travel to Huskisson and it would cause financial hardship to many small businesses who use the tip on a regular basis. What would happen I’d Sussex had no tip and we had another flood event like August 2015 - would the entire township and the caravan parks on the river have to travel to Huskisson to dispose of flood damaged property? I am a caravan park owner - our tipping times vary due to the seasonal nature of our business. We definitely need a tip open 7 days a week (as it is now) during periods 20th Dec - to end of January and Easter, long weekends etc.
59	Closing Sussex will result in an increase in general litter and illegal dumping to its isolation. Please don't.
60	Closing the facility will lead to more illegal dumping. What is the breakdown of the $3 million
61	Closing the tip will lead to rubbish being dumped in bushland
62	Closing the tip will only encourage more dumping which will cost the council even more so that is not an option
63	Closing this tip will cause an increase in illegal dumping
64	Closure of the facility will result in the dumping of waste material in national parks and waterways plus additional roadside dumping. The Sussex facility is a service that rate payers are entitled to by council regardless of both financially viable or not.
65	Council are there to provide a service to ratepayers. This is one of the most important services council provides. Just do it. Run the tip and recycle centre again
66	Council could learn to manage the operation and our council fees without wasting money (Council rates pay for this service)
67	Council should provide full and accurate cost break up to enable residents to make an informed decision not just a questionnaire (loaded at that)
68	Council should support a state wide system of cash deposits on all recyclable containers (e.g. S.Aust) to encourage less into landfill. Low income earners could be state govt subsidised for the initial cost outlay
69	Council to subsidise tip remaining as is. With the new developments occurring in Sussex, the tip will get busier. Leave it as is
70	Current major development and recently approved rezoning for future development in Sussex will certainly change the usage over the coming 5 years
71	Cut back on office staff and their entitlements like the struggling small businesses do otherwise there will be no taxes to pay their wages
72	Cut council expenses at its admin levels
73	Dear enough, that's why only 2 times a year with vouchers
74	Def no increase in fees rate payers should be exempt from fees
75	Definitely do not close facility. Leave operations as is. Decrease opening hours has majority of votes
76	Discontinue free vouchers
77	Do not close facility. You know what will happen to all the extra waste generated by additional occupants during weekends and holidays.
78	Do not close Sussex inlet waste transfer facility service is already limited to a few days per week. No green bin garden waste (lawn & tree/scrub) clippings are collected by council regularly from kerbside. What do we pay rates for, if not a regular convenient waste collection service save money elsewhere?
79	Do not close the tip. People will dump everything on the side of the roads and in the bush. The whole area will become a tip.
80	Do not shut the Sussex inlet Recycling and Waste Facility as it will significantly increase the illegal dumping in the adjacent National Parks
81	Do your job and keep providing services for our area. What are you doing with the money - garbage collection rates? From the houses that are not used expect during holidays. No bins put out 80% of the year
82	Does it really have to run at a profit? Does the library service run at a profit? Does the mayor or councillors run at a profit?
83	don't change the service facility
84	Don't close our tip. People & builders will just dump rubbish into the environment. Other tips are too far away.
85	Don't close Sussex Inlet tip! The local need it! The town is growing in size!
86	Due to the size of the population this service will never be profitable. Not knowing the number of employees to reduce the numbers may be and answer
87	Due to transport problems it is not possible to go elsewhere. Closing Sussex Inlet tip is not an option
88	educate people to recycle more efficiently way to many recyclable goods end in landfill
89	Eliminate waste vouchers and use fee for use. Too many people trade or sell the voucher. Also the increased cost is better than not having a local tip.
90	Everyday service
91	Everything at Sussex is good the way it is. Given the approved future developments, Sussex Inlet needs their own waste facilities or you will see this area of the Shoalhaven with increased illegal dumping
92	Expand the buyback centre and shed to protect items such as lounges, timber furniture from the weather
93	First option would be a household collection of residents kerbside either councils dates yearly or as Wollongong does- 2 kerbside clean-ups per year at their convenience
94	For goodness sake, catch up with other councils 90% offer green waste bin pick up. Your tips costs are overpriced at present. Remember this is a service not a profit making business. We pay rates for this.
95	For old people green waste is a must as one can’t cope with it without a green bin as in other council areas.
96	Fortnightly green waste bin collections. Free yearly curb side waste collection.
97	Get rid of the overpaid dead wood out of the Taj Mahal council chambers if you want to save money
98	Given the amount of recycling items littering the area now a regular, free pick up service for bulky goods
99	Given what little service we get from the Council overall, a reduction in service will never be a surprise.
100	GO back to providing crushed concrete and brick for driveways and soil to public
101	Green bins emptied fortnightly
102	Green collection. 3 quarters of my red bin is garden waste every week
103	Green Waste bin for fortnight collection would help
104	Green waste collection or bin
105	Green waste collection would be useful say fortnightly in summer.
106	Green waste should be free and recycled into potting mix for resale.
107	Green waste will be an issue, hopefully dumping will not increase
108	Half days as above would suit most locals
109	Happy with services
110	Have a buyback centre like Moss Vale tip and employ dole people
111	Have a free council collection services from the front of all homes, every 2 weeks. Same as we already do with the recycling bins. Less likely to have people dumping rubbish in the bush, parks, soccer fields, boat ramp etc if there's a free service
112	Have a third green waste bin.
113	Have heavy users pay more. Have an after-hours drop off point, have the facility unmanned. Must be opened on weekends or users will dump along the road
114	Have metal recycling bins
115	Have regular green waste collections on the alternate 'recycling bin' week as happens at Sutherland Shire council.
116	Have you factored in the cost of rubbish etc? dumping in the bush etc. Bet you haven't this is what will happen roadsides will be defector dumps you won’t save anything
117	Having moved here from Bankstown, over the years the tip function was reduced from free to ratepayers to closed and moved out of the district & fully charged - resulting in roadside dumping
118	Hold car boot/trailer sales/exchange on regular basis at tip. Involve local artists in recycling 'found' material workshop at tip. Provide delivery service (at cost) for composted/mulch green waste. Not everyone has means to collect bulk. e.g. I have a very large garden and could take very large amount of mulch but do not have truck or bobcat etc.
119	How about due to the proposed increase in population to Sussex inlet you leave the tip as it is.....There's that and also supply a green waste bin would help too
120	I am a bit worried if the tip is closed people may start using the bush track to dump there rubbish
121	I am really impressed with the available service. The guys there are excellent! It’s always neat and tidy. They are friendly and helpful. Well done
122	I can see no alternative to keeping this S.I facility open. Should it close, I am sure residents (especially seniors) will not travel at least 35km to the closest waste facility at Huskisson. Also there would be surely be an increase in illegal dumping in the surrounding bushland, especially during holiday times
123	I currently live in the ACT. Want to move permanently to Sussex, the loss of waste disposal facilities would be a huge mistake. There's no bulk waste collection here and it costs a fortune to go to the tip. Trust me you will have problems if there's no facility
124	I don't agree with any of the options other than keeping the tip open in its present form. How will the data be used to get the outcome you are looking for?
125	I don't agree with reduction of any kind. Of course it’s going to run at a loss, its waste. Increase Buyback to generate income. Buyback is successful at other facilities because it is considerably larger
126	I don't drive as I'm in my 90's & have to rely on the generosity of friends to take my rubbish to the tip, & this is when they have spare time to do so for me. I certainly could not ask them to travel longer distances as they are doing me a favour. Why do we not have green waste bins like other councils?
127	I don't think the Sussex Inlet tip should close as it is extremely well run. I don't think every department within the council needs to be a money making concern. If the tip was to close there would be an increase in rubbish being dumped in the bush. Our property has a lot of trees around it constantly dropping branches and leave so we always have a lot of vegetation to dispose of. Fortunately I have a ute so I can easily take a load to the tip
128	I don't want to find that people dump rubbish in the bush because council close the tip
129	I have not numbered '7' as I don't agree with closing parts as all parts reduce landfill and help the community especially the buyback with so many rental properties. The other parts are also needed and reduce dumping of rubbish/recycling and green waste.
130	I really like the way Sussex Inlet tip is operated. 100% better than the local tip at Bargo in the Wollondilly Shire
131	I think it is vital that the tip is open but maybe weekends only.
132	I think we should have a green bin for plants and cuttings
133	If closed people will dump more in bush areas we think. We have people on restricted licences who need this facility
134	If closed people will start to dump in bush and that is not good.
135	If closed some people will dumped rubbish etc. in our bushlands. We do not wish for that to happen
136	If closing is the only solution, why not have 'over a month' green bin collection or increase vouchers. The other tips are far away and we will see an increase in 'dumpers' if nothing is provided
137	If council makes any changes it will attract residents to dump unwanted items and rubbish in the bush, which in turn will cost council ( or should I say rate payers more in the long run) to clean up.
138	If council takes away the facilities they will surely have higher costs from cleaning up waste being dumped on the side of roads or in our beautiful bushland
139	If facility closes Sussex residence receive more tip vouchers
140	if green waste bins were supplied the need for going to the facility would be greatly minimised but would need to be collected weekly through the summer months
141	If green waste is to be shut down then add a green bin to collection alternate weekends to recycling bin. Twice yearly pickups of tree branches esp after storms and twice yearly removal of house wastage eg furniture, mattress
142	If open only 1 day a week, the hours would need to be 8am - 5pm
143	If Sussex Inlet waste facility is reduced ratepayers should expect a reduction in our council rates
144	If Sussex tip is closed where would the rubbish go? By the road? In the bush? Too far to travel to other options
145	If the facility is closed the bush will be filled and the environment 'pays'. We would not object to an extra cost
146	If the facility is closed there will be more dumping of rubbish in our national parks and surrounding bush. We need plan to stop this
147	If the facility is closed, illegal dumping will increase dramatically generating an even more expensive clean up.
148	If the Sussex centre has to close, it will only increase the illegal dumping in the area - not all council services are able to operate cost neutral.
149	If the Sussex Inlet facility closes there would be an increase in dumping in the bush and roadsides. An area of this size of Sussex Inlet needs a waste facility. Surely there are areas where 'losses' can be minimised - council vehicles for e.g.? Why reduce services to a growing area.
150	If the tip at Sussex Inlet is closed or have reduced hours, the bush surrounding the area is the alternative for rubbish dumping. This happened the last time hours were reduced.
151	If the tip is closed more and more rubbish will be dumped in the national parks and council areas. Who will be responsible for the removal of the rubbish?
152	If the tip was closed, Sussex Inlet would turn into a tip. I’ve seen it happen all over the past 25 years when the tip closes.
153	If the waste facility were to close people would dump rubbish in bushland and isolated streets, costing council a lot of money to clean up the mess
154	If tip closes what is cost of clean up after dumpers?
155	If tip is closed our bush areas & streets will be littered with debris. Locals who cannot drive to Huskisson will have no other options - discrimination
156	If tips close all together, than we will see more people dumping rubbish.
157	If we do not have this it will go back to everyone dumping anywhere
158	If we don't have a waste depot there will be a lot of rubbish around the area that would be a BIG problem
159	If you close any of the tips there would be a lot of rubbish in the bush as people would not travel
160	If you close it unfortunately many idiots will dump in the bush. We don't want this
161	If you close it will only lead to dumping
162	If you close Sussex Inlet tip, it will end up in the bush we get it now.
163	If you close the tip are you willing to clean up the bush, springs road, Sussex road
164	If you close the tip you better have plenty of workers to collect the rubbish on the side of the roads.
165	If you close these facilities it will lead to our streets and area turned into dumping areas.
166	If you close this tip completely you will have a major increase in dumping in the national park
167	If you do not have some sort of local facility available- they will just dump it in the bush, as they did before.
168	If you provide green waste to houses fortnightly, you could then operate tip at lesser opening times. Green is biggest issue
169	If you shut down this service, it will no doubt result in more unlawful dumping in the bush - a most unwelcome prospect
170	Improve efficiency in other councils areas e.g. road works take a ridiculous amount of time using excess wages and other costs - improve other areas - leave waste depots alone.
171	Improve weekly waste pickup alternate 1) Waste/recycling 2) Waste/green Provide larger bins for recycling/green waste Quarterly council clean-up
172	In local paper it stated that a new local development off Sussex Inlet Rd will be constructed. As a result more people will be in this area. If it is closed down a lot of people will be travelling a long distance to drop off waste.
173	In some other areas there is provision (unmanned) to drop cardboard/paper for recycle 24 hours/7 days a week
174	In such a large council area multiple facilities for waste/recycling are essential. Closure will almost certainly result in illegal dumping of waste. Profitability of the facility is not paramount. Council rates are for paying for these facilities. Reduced days and hours is a compromise that at the very least, must be considered.
175	In summary it does not matter what we say. The Council shall look for the most cost effective way to solve this problem. whilst our land rates continue to rise
176	In the event of the facility being open on 3 days, hours of operation should be 7:30am - 4 pm
177	Include green waste collection in home garbage service
178	Increase commercial charges i.e. obvious trucked builders waste. Reduce staff
179	Increase operation to 5 working days. This is a growing region in a sensitive area (National parks, state forest) to reduce waste management. Beggar’s belief council couldn't employ enough rangers to police illegal dumping.
180	Increase operations to 5 days per week. This is a growing region surrounded by national parks. No price can be put on priorities to keep this area rubbish and litter free
181	Increase price of buyback items slightly
182	Increase service to 7 days a week, 365 days per year and reduce gate fees.
183	Introduce a green waste bin with fortnightly pick up
184	Introduce a large green bin facility for green waste, on a fortnightly basis to replace reduced operations.
185	is this facility was to be closed there would be more illegal dumping costing the council more
186	Issue 1 free voucher per year to rate payers but allow these to accumulate over 2-3 years. I am concerned that closing the facility or increasing fees will see more rubbish being dumped in our bushland.
187	Issue a windscreen sticker for local waste operations e.g. Sussex inlet rate payers and increase the gate fees for people not displaying one.
188	Issue the 240L green waste bin to all premises. this will reduce the need for ratepayers to visit the facilities
189	It would be very inconvenient to have to travel 40 minutes to get to a tip from Sussex just to take a trailer load of rubbish to the tip....
190	It’s going to cost more for council to employ staff to remove waste dumped on the side of the road or in the bush, that's what will happen if you close the tip. It’s happening now with all the doles around here
191	Just keep things as is because the town is getting bigger
192	Keep as existing or reduce your rates and subsidise ratepayers to travel to up to 20kms to do something. Council is obliged to supply.
193	Keep as is. Tip is cleanest and tidiest I have ever visited. Current employee should be congratulated.
194	Keep facility open to prevent illegal dumping
195	Keep Gary at tip at Sussex
196	Keep open to reduce junk dumping in other areas
197	Keep services as is but carry out street waste pick ups
198	Keep the facilities open and avoid dumping and littering keep our Shoalhaven beautiful I was not and still not sure recycling has to be a profit orientated business. Its original and stated benefit was to save land fill and re-use resources Plus reduce dumping a littering
199	Kerbside Pickups
200	Large skips bins placed around area at regular times. Left for a day or two and then removed
201	Large waste bins at each residence - same size as recycle bin.
202	Larger residential lot (1650m2) with sizeable quantity of green waste, with a green bin service. Local tip essential
203	Leave as is
204	Leave as is
205	Leave as is
206	Leave as is
207	Leave as it.
208	Leave Garry there to keep the facility running smoothly
209	Leave it alone. It is a community asset that minimises illegal dumping and keeps the community clean and tidy by being low cost
210	Leave it alone. We (the town) need somewhere to take our waste. The added amount of trailer traffic to other facilities would be terrible
211	Leave our tip as is
212	Leave Sussex tip and buy back open.
213	Leave the service as it is, as it is a service that is required by the local residence.
214	Leave the tip as it is. Many residents in Sussex Inlet have 'Sussex 'drivers licences so cannot leave town to go elsewhere.
215	Leave tip opening days the same. More houses are being built so demand will increase.
216	Lobby state government to assist council in managing waste thru subsides for rural councils to fund their waste facilities - the waste levy money government collect could be used for this
217	Lobby state government to reduce cost of disposal, so it does not affect the residents of lower socio-economic areas and pensioners who can't drive to Nowra/Ulladulla
218	Local development will increase, need for tip to remain and hope this could just be an excuse for developers for more money.
219	look at costs in other councils for waste management and perhaps an increase in that cost with 4 rate instalments ratepayers could budget the increase
220	Look, you have not provided details of cost implications of any of the options above, and the forced 1-10 ranking strongarms all respondents to select reduced hours of operation as the options of least harm. Couldn't you just be honest and say "we need to reduce opening hours across the seven regional facilities to reduce total cost of operations. Your Sussex Inlet facility is currently open on these days/times, we need to cut out a full day or two half days, tell us which is the least painful option". Council has the information about usage patterns, Council has details of operational costs, if you want an informed response then give us the information so we can provide informed feedback, otherwise give us an options paper with the cost/benefit information to support an informed dialogue. This survey is poorly designed, it is incapable of providing meaningful information and has the community running around in a panic that Council is closing these regional facilities. That may not be the intention but that is how I heard about the current consultation process, I was told "Council wants to close the Sussex waste facility". Cue the hysteria. Come on, you can do better than this.
221	Make greens free - you sell it as a compost
222	May reduce the days but make them alternate days and hours of the weeks/fortnight. E.g. one week Fri, Sat, Sun. The Sun, Mon, Tues the next. 1pm - 5pm to give people time to get up and clean up. 9am - 1 pm for the elderly early birds
223	Maybe have items for buy back again to recoup some small costs?
224	More free dumping days, better signage when facility is open
225	Most Definitely take no action Leave tip service as is this is what our rates are supposed to cover and it is a service council is elected to provide
226	most of our waste is put in the bins supplied we are only two elderly people so do not make a lot of waste when we moved to this address we went to the Sussex tip 47 times to clean the garden and other rubbish that we inherited items , were trailer loads of course now we only use the tip once a year during the time we clean up the yard etc. Thank goodness the tips were free then.
227	My wife & I are very happy for the (waste facility) tip to operate one day a week so as we can keep it in Sussex Inlet
228	N/A we only come down occasionally and don't really use the tip
229	Need green waste bin
230	Need the tip, otherwise rubbish is dumped in the bush
231	Need to consider and place a value on environmental impact of illegal dumping which will occur in event of facility closing.
232	Needed during holiday periods
233	Nil
234	No
235	No
236	No free vouchers or increase gate fees
237	No money ever gets spent on Sussex Inlet. Just another blow to our little town. Watch out councillors in the next elections
238	No other options 'given we pay our rates the same as the other areas' mentioned. We strongly object to any reduced services given the distances mentioned as options. What do our rates and tipping fees cover? If not for operating costs?
239	No other options to consider. Tip should be as above and tip vouchers to be still sent.
240	No other options. The rate of illegal dumping will increase significantly with the clean-up bill being left to council.
241	No tip will increase illegal dumping and damage to the environment
242	None
243	None, unless you will pay my petrol costs to drive to Huskisson 60km, 30km each way, to Ulladulla/ Nowra 100km, 50km each way
244	Note: Closing the tip will only generate illegal dumping which will in turn cost the council further costs which would exceed the cost of running the tip.
245	Note: If you make it difficult, people will dump in the bush. Cross subsidisation (e.g. Civic Theatre) occurs for other services. Waste services are essential for the environment.
246	One weekend One day per week per week, no preferred days
247	Open 3 x half day/week e.g. Mon, Wed Fri pm.
248	Open 5 days a week and charge more for landfill waste (Double the price) but build larger shop and encourage more sales
249	Open buyback up
250	Open every day top. Stop rubbish been dump in our bush area. Drop the gate cost. To many old people cannot drive to Nowra Do not close our tip
251	Open facility in holiday periods
252	open for a week or month every 6 months
253	Open from 10am to 4pm
254	Open the buyback/recycling again
255	Open the tip 7 days per week. It is a major inconvenience not having the tip open during the week for business operators. This is a service that should be run by council for rate payer’s weather running at a profit or a loss. With the gate prices charged it is hard to believe that the tips run at a loss. Shoalhaven Council is one of the few councils that do not offer a green waste bin to residents.
256	Open twice a month all day (Fri & Sat)
257	Open up the Buyback again
258	Operate Buyback system - Council closed it.
259	Operate half day on several days a week including weekends & holidays (school & others) periods.
260	Or: Rubbish out the front once a month, or green waste bins/grass No charges for having larger bins More vouchers if service moves to Husky
261	Our major concerns are if partially reducing or closing Sussex Inlet waste depot may create issues with people dumping rubbish. We participate in clean up Australia day regularly and are amazed by what we find.
262	Our tip at Sussex Inlet should be kept open as this is a holiday town and when these holiday makers come here and we have no tip what is going to happen to their rubbish??? also lots of pensioners live here how are some of them expected to get to the other places to dump their rubbish.
263	People are only going to drop waste in the surrounding bushland there needs to be a functioning tip.
264	People with holiday homes pay the same rates as owner/occupiers full time but cannot avail ourselves of many services. What can council do for us?
265	Perhaps common sense could prevail here. A waste depot is an essential service. Without it you/we would see a drastic increase in the illegal dumping of all measure of rubbish on our roadsides, parks, and the bush. If we don't have the facility or if fees are increased - poor &/or ignorant people will not prioritise rubbish disposal responsibility. If reducing days is to be an option - the facility must include at least a Saturday &/or Sunday to provide for the many absentee owners who utilise their cottage during holidays and weekends. I also believe that Christmas holiday and Easter holiday operational hours remain exactly as they are.
266	Permanent residents need green waste collection if tip closed. Perhaps communal waste deposit area in Cudmirrah/Berrara (small villages) for holiday house users to leave small volumes of general waste/recycling/green waste in skips. Would avoid part filled bins left on street before and after collection. There is no alternate collection for green waste. Limited 'on-request' pick up services for garden waste are inadequate.
267	Plan for the future - Sussex Inlet is going to grow and this is an essential service.
268	Please do not close this facility. There would be even more waste dumping in our town.
269	Please do not shut our tip! We already deal with so much illegal dumping (which we take to the tip ourselves) this will only make it worse
270	Please don't close it. Has been there forever and there are always multiple cars there each time we visit which is once or twice a month
271	Please don't close the facility. Closure would be a backward step for the community. Closure could encourage illegal dumping
272	Please find copy from the In letter inside. we agree whole heartily with it
273	Please introduce domestic green bins to Sussex and Shoalhaven
274	Please note, that if the local facility is closed there will be a lot of dumping in the bush which will in turn cost significantly to clean.
275	Prefer at least 1 day operation per week
276	Prefer to keep as if but if needed make 3 days a week. This is highly needed in the township of Sussex inlet.
277	Proposed now approved development at golf course will necessitate increased use.
278	Provide a green waste bin to all full time residents collected fortnightly in summer
279	Provide a weekly or fortnightly green (garden waste) bin collection service to reduce need for attendance at facility.
280	Provide fortnightly green bin.
281	Provide green bin for garden refuse. Council to provide bin to be collected and emptied fortnightly
282	Provide green bins and you will have less visits from ratepayers. In an area with so much vegetation, it is ridiculous that there is no bin provided to householders for this purpose
283	Provide green waste (large) bin and collect fortnightly If tip closed, waste dumping will increase dramatically
284	Provide green waste bins collected fortnightly, and then reduce number of facilities to Nowra/Ulladulla etc.
285	Provide green waste bins like most other councils
286	Provide green waste bins to households the same as other councils. Composting not an option for most residents
287	Provide green waste bins. Buyback is recycling as those needing the item pay & take it home to use. Buyback facilities are already in place no set up problem, & little waste.
288	Provide weekly green waste bin pickup
289	Put a levy on rates call it "Environmental Waste Management Fee"
290	Put our SCC rates to better use by keeping these facilities open rather than road site picnics/camping areas where tourists abuse the facilities & put no money into the community
291	Put recycling into general waste
292	Recently I registered and dumped 'suspected' asbestos sheeting at Nowra tip in accordance with council requirements. Later I observed many fibro sheets dumped in local bushland. Council now must have removed these at some cost. I suggest council provide a more efficient asbestos dumping process as there is a lot of fibro dwelling in the area.
293	Reduce bureaucracy, increase size, reduce restrictions
294	Reduce Christmas opening to 2 days per week
295	Reduce hours as specified. Put up gate fees to $2-0.0 and over. The council would surely get someone to work 5 hours per day and weekends, one per month
296	Reduce labour from 2 to 1 person
297	Reduce the cost of tipping fees, so that people would be encouraged to use the local tip more, and stop legal dumping
298	Reduce the number of free waste vouchers (that arrive with rates notices) from 2 to 1.
299	Reintroduced Buyback at Sussex waste transfer station
300	Remember we do pay council rates and you are obligated to provide a service. Staff at Sussex tips are fabulous
301	Rent out buyback centre so if you need parts or steel or wood etc. or cycle parts like a garage sale, all day
302	Retain Sussex Inlet direct Lake Conjola to Sussex Inlet withdraw holiday and voucher concessions.
303	Review operating processes - staffing, cost structures. The big issue with closure is increase distance, cost of travel time to another tip. Need full details of operating costs to answer further
304	Roadside Collection
305	Run all waste facilities in a similar fashion to Moss Vale, and use charitable organisations and work for the dole subsidised staff. Closure or reduction in services results in increase illegal dumping which will be more expensive to clean than running the tips
306	Run at a loss. As this is a holiday area council rarely empties all household bins. The profit from charging for a service that isn't used must be huge.
307	Sack councillors, Gash & all the other no good grubs. Where all excess rubbish is at peak holiday times going to go, caravan parks etc. Roadside don't work over bush periods, from experience
308	Save money by stream lining the councils work efficiency. There is a lot of time wasting compared to private sector.
309	Scavenging should be allowed for true recycling
310	Sell more through by back crush brick and concrete for road base and sell. Set aside more bottles and cans for next year 10c rebate
311	Shame on you. What next - cancel road mending in areas too far away from Nowra because it’s 'too expensive'? Cross - subsidies keep communities together. Increase all rates if necessary
312	Should these facilities close, our forest will become a tip. Maybe the EPA or forestry might think of investing some money to protect our forests
313	Some actions will increase illegal dumping's. Council must remember they are there to provide services to the community. Not a profit making centre
314	Sometimes I feel if residents can’t afford to pay for fees, they tend to leave it on the roadside.
315	Sometimes you have to have a loss to win Leave our tip at Sussex alone
316	Stop the waste depot vouchers with rates
317	Stop wasting rate payer’s money on councillors. Reduce their rate of pay. Sussex needs a tip
318	Sub-contract the facility to a private company - make it just for recycling only
319	Supply a green waste bin.
320	Supply green bins to households
321	supply green waste bin
322	Supply green waste bin collected fortnightly and increase the kerbside recycling to 4 per year and on-call garden and bulky waste pickup and this could be offset by cancelling 'No charge' domestic tip vouchers
323	Supply green waste bins
324	Supply green waste bins at no extra charge
325	Supply green waste bins for fortnightly pickup
326	Supply households with a green bin
327	Supply our homes with separate green waste bins to be collected fortnightly
328	Supply residents with a green waste bin
329	Supply residents with green waste bin
330	Supply trailers and petrol vouchers for what is a Council responsibility - since when is Council supposed to make a profit
331	Surely council doesn't want rubbish dumped into the bush &/or water. Some council services may run at a "loss" in the smaller areas that's why Sussex is part of the Shoalhaven council, to equalise cost across the community
332	Sussex has a lot of elderly residence that cannot travel out of town, closing the tip would only make things difficult and also that we don't have green waste bins. I personally wouldn't like to drive all the way to Husky to go to the tip.
333	Sussex has already gone from a waste depot to transfer station and reduced to 4 days a week
334	Sussex Inlet has 23 caravan/camping sites. What happened to their collective garbage and green waste if the tip is closed? I understood the tip to be a council service to ratepayers, what has changed. Some services do not make profits - it is a service
335	Sussex Inlet is only to get larger with new building planning and also no dump will cause illegal dumping
336	Sussex is growing - I do not want to drive to Huskisson. Dumping will increase. This is a service, not a profit making scheme. If people want it ten should pay a little more to share the load.
337	Sussex tip cannot close. Council has just approved 700 new house lots. There will be more and more people. We do not want to see waste dumped into the Nat. Park. Pensioners who can’t drive to Ulladulla or Husky. What do they do??
338	Sussex tip should be making money not losing with the amount of usage it gets. Do your sums and get better management as the alternative will be disastrous.
339	Take no action
340	Take the gate off. If money is a problem, people will dump in bush and side off road.
341	Thank you for consulting but surely some council services can run at a loss, otherwise we would not need to pay rates (the other option)
342	the $3 million cost is creative accounting
343	The council business and the rate payers should get together to find ways of recycling the waste
344	The current tip services are a must to limit illegal dumping of garden waste and waste goods in our bushlands areas. This is a holiday village and many private holiday homes. Owners need access to the tip on the weekends.
345	The facility needs to be retained. Customers would not have 50km + to dispose of waste, they will dump it nearby.
346	The inevitable result of closing or even severely reducing the Sussex Inlet tip will be to encourage more illegal dumping in the bush
347	The operation at Sussex is very well run. Hard to believe that is a 'significant' loss. Cost of illegal dumping "clean ups" will be significant and be eyesores.
348	The option for on call clean ups is good if council allows at least 12 pickups every calendar year.
349	The recycle/tip is an essential service to the area and our services should not be reduced. Litter and illegal dumping is enough of a problem now.
350	The tip is a service for local communities not a profit making or break even business of council. I pay council rates in order to receive council services. I will not drive 90km round trip to go to another tip. With another housing development planned for Sussex Inlet, services should be increased.
351	The tip should be open 4 days a week for households, tradespeople and holiday makers Fri- Mon (ind)
352	The tip should stay open over the Christmas period as it does now, for garbage/paper/bottles as we always have to take the above at least twice in this period as well of having the normal pickups.
353	The town is increasing rapidly in size. We must produce the amenities to suit.
354	The town needs the tip. Try only opening at the end of the week and alternate Sundays
355	There are no other options. The building of new estates equals increased population, no one will drive 45mins to a tip, instead of reduced services we should be getting improved services
356	There are no other options. We demand this basic right. Make your 'financial adjustments' elsewhere in the council budget, for example - EXCESS STAFFING in Administration/Management positions
357	There is a need for a local waste station otherwise people will became irresponsible and dump illegally, which will cause more problems
358	There is no other options we can see for our area, as our waste facility is a vital part of our community, otherwise we will be seeing our bush filled with rubbish.
359	There should be green waste bins like most other councils have.
360	There's already a lot of dumping of illegal waste in the area. Closing the tip or increasing fees will only exacerbate the problem
361	Think of our rights. We pay rates. If you change our dump times you must reduce our rates.
362	This should be a service provided by the council and covered by the rates
363	this survey is not easy to fill in, was it deliberately designed to exclude seniors who are the majority down here
364	this waste facility is very much needed by the local community who the majority are elderly there is also an 800 lot submission planned to go ahead in the next 12 months
365	This whole area would become a dump if residents are expected to travel over 40kms (each way) there and back to a tip. A large holiday area where holiday home owners would not appreciate not tip!
366	This whole cross subsidy is literally rubbish. Council cross subsidises playing fields, libraries and nearly every other service and they are funded from rates. If you really want to save money close the entertainment centre which is funded by millions from the general funds
367	Tip at Sussex is needed. There are a number of elderly residents and having to travel elsewhere would be unacceptable
368	Tip is only open now Fri, Sat, Sun, and Mon. If it closes or reduced people will just dump it in the bush or on the side of the roads. Yes - this will happen. People will not travel to Husky
369	To close would be council’s best option and stuff. The business and rate payers and holiday residents, they can go elsewhere. You must look at other alternatives, gate cost yes, used days, shorter hours per day
370	Too far to travel, it would increase illegal dumping
371	To look at when people most use the depot/recycling - waste e.g. school holidays/ summer and winter operations. What they are there for
372	Twice a month
373	Un manned transfer station
374	Unlimited green waste for ratepayers
375	Use 35 years of past wharf fees collected to help with finances, as no maintenance has been carried out on canals
376	Use a 'green waste' bin as in Sutherland Shire and Eurobodalla - maybe once every 2 weeks or once a month (it works for me at Eurobodalla)
377	Use Sussex Inlet rates for Sussex Inlet facilities only. So what, holiday homes owners pay the same rates as permanent residences & therefore are subsidised such other residents
378	Very well maintain friendly staff always willing to help. Buyback is best to be open as people will start to dump on side of road. There is needy people that use this buyback. Better than going into landfill. Council does make a profit on buyback as no cost to council to buy.
379	Waste collection should be a natural part of council services funded from rate payments. It is not naturally expected to be other than an expense (day to day) of council operations
380	We are a holiday accommodation service. With no tip facility in town would add to time away from job. Cost increase for recycling etc. Absolutely ludicrous
381	We are not in Sussex Inlet that often so we could if necessary fit in with the second part of Q4
382	We are pleased with the management of that facility.
383	We are self-funded pension. Too expensive to go to other towns for tip. The buyback at Sussex is fantastic and staff. The buyback has helped us over time in Sussex and many residents in Sussex too. Council will see illegal dumping around our town. There is a lot of building subdivision in Sussex consider the extra population coming.
384	We believe closure of Sussex Inlet facility would result in huge increase in illegal dumping of rubbish in surrounding bushland areas.
385	We cannot leave our bins out as it is not secure. Please keep the facility open to provide us with a way to remove rubbish even though we have to pay extra for a service that we don't receive.
386	We cannot travel 60 or 100km (return trip) with waste in our station wagon. Closing tip will mean 'dumping'. Prices are already high (tip fees). We are seeing more dumping now.
387	We feel some services should be provided by council irrespective of cost, tips are definitely an essential service, otherwise dumping will happen in surrounding bushland
388	We have a clean responsible town. Closing our tip &/or recycling buyback facilities would not be in the best interest of our town. Owner occupier ?? not the rates are paid. We are not going to be the poor cousins to Nowra or Husky
389	We need a regular green waste collection i.e. fortnightly. This would also discourage the dumping of domestic green waste in bushland which has increased markedly since tipping fees were introduced.
390	we need green bins
391	We need the Sussex Inlet facility to take out overflow household and garden waste to this site. Needs to stay open all day 9am - 5pm
392	We need the tip, keep it the same because not only for domestic waste. I am a local concreter and need to drop my old concrete and waste materials there. It costs too much for me to take it to Husky or Nowra tip.
393	We need the tip, other too far away
394	We need the waste depot as Sussex Inlet is a growing area. If it shuts the bush will be full of illegal dumping
395	We need this tip facility especially in holiday times as people just dump their rubbish at the gates or on the road/in bush
396	we pay our rates for services this is a service if you close Sussex tip all that would happen is people would dump illegally that would cost council money
397	We really value this service. We would be really disappointed if this service was cancelled. We don't really use a lot of services in our community and this is one that we want and use.
398	We seem to do ???? about this a lot. Introduce green waste bins like the rest of Australia
399	We want buyback, Sussex is going backwards, does council have to make a profit and tax payers get bugger all. Just cost risers only, and I have to say no action
400	We want our tip - it is a service and if it costs us, so be it. It does not needs to make a profit. S.I is growing and we need this tip
401	We would like our local tip hours and days to remain they are. As a growing community and more land leasing opened up for housing blocks, the need for our tip will only need to be open more often not less. If our tip closes rubbish will be dumped in the bush
402	What is the cost going to be for the dumping of rubbish. No one is going to do a 100 km round trip to then also pay for tip fees.
403	Why close tip when there are another 1000+ homes planned for Sussex
404	Why do we pay rates? It's not meant to make money it's as service not a business.
405	Why is Sussex Inlet facility running at the highest loss? When it is only opened 4 days per week & opened by one person
406	Why should Sussex Inlet be a target for recycling & waste disposal expenses? Higher council rates that we pat should cover any operating cost of this necessary community service.
407	With Berrara/Cudmirrah surrounded by national park, I'm concerned that illegal dumping will happen if all services disappear at Sussex
408	With Buyback reopened
409	With future development of the Ralph Lucas estate (800 homes + commercial + retirement villages) Sussex Inlet tip needs to be kept open. Waste will be dropped in bushland if the tip is closed. This is a health issue for our area.
410	With the number of housings proposed at Sussex, the tip will be required more and cutting services is not a progressive council. We have worked to get swimming pool, ambulance service and others
411	Without this valued service, it will lead to illegal dumping of all our pristine bush and coastline, costing the council more to clean it up.
412	Would like itemised list of income and outgoing plus a meeting with EPA justifying how our $ are spent
413	Yes
414	Yes it's disappointing to know that SCC are willing to let go of long standing experienced and knowledgeable staff for the sake of a drivers licence. With the future increase of residents and tourists to the Sussex area over the next 5 - 10yrs especially aged residents and it's isolated location, it's disappointing that SCC would consider closing down the waste facility.
415	You forget that council is employed to service the rate payers - not to make profit on everything they do. We deserve the same rights as rest of the Nowra community & pay the same rates with less services
416	You know if you close these facilities, waste will end up in the waterways and bush as people will not travel far to dump.
417	You must allow local tradies regular access to the tip to avoid waste dumping in the national park, forestry land or near beaches & reserves. Most have 4 x4's to access these areas.
418	You must continue to have a dump at Sussex Inlet (at any cost) otherwise people will dump into the National Park. Also the recycling helps to make our planet sustainable.

Comments for Question 5:

If waste facilities were closed, what services would you like to see in the area?

1.	"Community service" To Sussex does not include trips to west Nowra- we are a community and should be serviced. Recycling shed at Sussex must have, cut down on landfill.
2.	1) All residents be given the larger red lid waste bin. 2) Introduction of green lid, green waste bin
3.	1) Bulky recycling collection 2) Regular green waste collection in separate bins
4.	1) Green Bins, 2) Paper/cupboard, 3) Glass/Plastics, 4) General waste. 4 bins like other councils, e.g. Warringah- Northern Beaches
5.	2 Annual collection days a year and free in pickups
6.	2 clean ups per year as per Sydney
7.	2 'On Call' bulky waste collections like Wollongong City Council provides there rate payers.