Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Monday, 9 February 2026

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 9 February 2026

NOM-1

Motions Of Which Due Notice Has Been Given

NOM-1 NOTICE OF MOTION - INCREASE PAEDIATRIC SERVICES IN WAGGA WAGGA

Author: Councillor Karissa Subedi

Summary:

This Notice of Motion seeks to acknowledge the growing demand for paediatric services in Wagga Wagga and the Riverina region, and the significant impacts current service gaps have on children, families and carers. It proposes that Council advocate to the NSW Government for the establishment of a dedicated Paediatric Emergency Department (ED) and Specialist Out Patient Services (SOPS), informed by advice on current and planned service initiatives.

Recommendation

That Council:

a acknowledges the growing demand of paediatric services in Wagga Wagga, across both physical and mental health, and recognises the profound impacts this gap has on carers, families and the wider community

b writes to the NSW Minister for Health, the Hon. Ryan Park MP, with a copy to the Member for Wagga Wagga, Dr Joe McGirr MP:

i requesting advice on any current or planned initiatives to expand paediatric emergency and specialist outpatient services in Wagga Wagga, including service scope and indicative timeframes; and

ii advocating for consideration of the establishment of a dedicated Paediatric Emergency Department (ED) and Specialist Out Patient Services (SOPS) in Wagga Wagga as a first step toward addressing these needs

Report

Background

Council acknowledges the dedication and commitment of health professionals in Wagga Wagga, specifically paediatrics staff, as the focus of this report. They continue to provide the best care possible despite the significant gaps in service availability. Their efforts are deeply valued by families and the community, yet the limitations of current resources mean that many needs remain unmet.

Families across Wagga Wagga and the Riverina region face significant challenges due to the limited paediatric services currently available. Many are required to travel outside Wagga to access specialist or urgent medical care. This travel often results in:

· Disruption to family routines, with siblings’ schooling and daily life affected.

· Financial burdens, including:

o Travel costs and accommodation expenses.

o Loss of income of parents due to time away from work.

o Childcare costs for siblings left at home.

o Increased medical and prescription expenses when care is fragmented.

o Additional food and living costs during extended stays away from home.

· Loss of employment, as parents or carers may be forced to take extended time away from work to seek treatment for their child.

· Emotional and relational strain, with marital pressure and stress on carers.

· Unmet needs of other siblings, who may be left without adequate support during prolonged absences.

· Greater challenges for families with children with special needs, who require consistent, specialised care and face heightened difficulties when services are irregular or distant.

· Added stress to families and patients in a completely new environment, highlighting a significant concern to mental health cases where admissions are currently referred to Sydney or Orange.

· Significant risks travelling long distances

Community members and health professionals have consistently raised concerns about the need for local services to reduce referrals and transfers for cases such as:

1. Oncology treatments – chemotherapy regimens lasting an average of six months.

2. Mental health admissions requiring specialised paediatric support.

3. Burns management and follow-up care.

4. Complex musculoskeletal conditions and bone surgeries.

5. ENT procedures, including cleft lip and/or palate repair.

6. Neurological conditions, including seizures and epilepsy.

The establishment of a dedicated Paediatric ED and a consistent SOPS would:

· Provide safe, child-focused care environments.

· Ensure consistency of specialist services.

· Reduce the need for families to travel long distances for care.

· Decrease the number of hospital admissions, as consistent and specialised treatment would become readily available, preventing conditions from escalating to emergency levels.

· Position Wagga Wagga as a regional leader in paediatric health services, setting a benchmark for quality and excellence.

Council’s Role

Although paediatric services fall under the State Government, Council plays a critical role as the closest tier of government to families. Council is uniquely placed to:

· Advocate and represent community needs directly to state decision-makers.

· Demonstrate regional leadership, ensuring Wagga Wagga is recognised as a hub for equitable health services.

· Support partnerships with health agencies, NGOs, and community groups to strengthen delivery and awareness.

· Advance community wellbeing, as health services directly affect liveability, resilience, and family stability.

As part of this advocacy role, Council may formally seek advice from NSW Health on any existing or planned initiatives to expand paediatric services in Wagga Wagga. This enables Council to understand current service planning and timeframes, and to clearly articulate the case for further investment where gaps remain.

By leading this advocacy, Council ensures that the wellbeing of children and families in Wagga Wagga is prioritised.

Financial Implications

N/A

Policy and Legislation

Wagga Wagga City Council Code of Meeting Practice

Link to Strategic Plan

Vibrant

A healthy community

Work with the health sector, government and community to improve access to health services.

Risk Management Issues for Council

There are no material or direct risks arising from this Notice of Motion. The proposed actions are advocacy-based and within Council’s role as a representative of community interests. Failure to advocate on this issue may present a reputational risk, given the known service gaps and community concern regarding access to paediatric health services in the region.

Internal / External Consultation

No formal consultation has been undertaken at this stage.

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 9 February 2026

RP-1

Reports from Staff

RP-1 DA25/0067 - MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, INCLUDING MONOPOLE AND COMPOUND

Author: Steven Cook

General Manager: Peter Thompson

Summary:

The report is for a development application and is presented to Council for determination.

Section 1.10 of the Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2010 requires any application that is the subject of 10 or more objections be referred to Council for determination.

A full assessment of the development application is provided as an attachment to this report. The assessment has considered and addressed all relevant matters raised in the submissions.

Recommendation

That Council approve DA25/0067 for a ‘Mobile Telecommunications Facility, Including Monopole and Compound’ at Lot 2 DP 731292, 20 Kapooka Road, San Isidore, subject to the conditions outlined in the s4.15 Assessment Report.

Development Application Details

Applicant	Chris Hayes, Waveconn Operations Pty Ltd Directors: Grant Stevenson, Stanislava Prnjatovic, Helen Wilkes, Kevork Sahagian.
Owner	Justin Paul Foley and Megan Faith Foley
Development Cost	$110,000
Development Description	Mobile Telecommunications Facility, Including Monopole and Compound

Report

Key Issues

· Site selection

· Detrimental visual impact on rural/residential character of the area

· Flooding impacts

· Bushfire impacts

· Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy impacts

Assessment

· A full assessment is in the attached Section 4.15 Assessment Report which assesses all relevant matters in detail. The following is a brief summary of the assessment.

· The application is for a 30m high, slimline monopole, and 12m x 12m compound area. Electrical units, and antennae are not proposed under this Development Application.

· The applicant is Waveconn. Waveconn are not a telecommunications carrier, but rather an infrastructure owner. Waveconn seek carriers to locate on their infrastructure. No carriers have been secured at this time and Waveconn have advised the tower will not be constructed until a carrier elects to locate on it.

· Any future installation of antennas would be subject to assessment and approval at the time the works are proposed. Many types of telecommunications equipment may be installed as exempt or complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021.

· Under the provisions of the Wagga Wagga local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP), the subject site is within the R5 Large Lot Residential zone. The application has been assessed as being consistent with the objectives of the R5 zone and consistent with all relevant clauses under the LEP.

· The development is subject to the provisions of Division 21 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (the SEPP) which deals with telecommunications and other communications facilities. Clause 2.143 (subclause (1)) of the SEPP identifies that development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on any land.

· Clause 2.143 (subclause (2)) of the SEPP requires the consent authority to take into consideration the NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline, Including Broadband. The application has been considered against all relevant principles.

· The principles under the guideline include site selection principles including the requirement to consider alternate sites and also potential co-location and upgrade opportunities. Alternatives sites were not reasonably available. Colocation and upgrade options were not viable given the distance to existing towers.

· The principles under the guideline include impacts associated with minimising visual impact. An assessment of visual impacts has determined the visual impact of the development is acceptable.

· The principles of the guidelines include consideration of health standards for exposure to radio emissions. No radiating equipment is proposed under this application. There is a requirement for the future equipment to comply with Commonwealth legislation in this regard.

· Having regard to all of the relevant principles under the guideline, no matters have been identified that would warrant refusal of the proposal.

· The application has been assessed as being consistent with the relevant provisions of the Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP) including the public notification requirements under section 1.10.

· A total of 19 public submissions were received during the notification period, all in objection to the proposal. 16 of the objections were variations of the same form letter and three were unique letters. All matters raised in submissions have been considered in the assessment of the application.

· The site adjoins bushfire prone land to the south and east. The development has been assessed as being consistent with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

· A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) was carried out for the site to investigate potential contamination. The PSI identified that contamination may be present on the site, particularly per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which may have migrated from the army base. Given the nature of the use, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

· A comprehensive assessment report completed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is provided as an attachment to this report. This assessment addresses all matters

A drawing of a tree

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 – Tower Elevation

Reasons for Approval

1. The application is compliant with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 including the requirement for consideration against the NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline, Including Broadband.

2. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010.

3. The proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives and controls of the Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2010.

4. The impacts of the proposed development are acceptable subject to the inclusion of recommended conditions of consent.

5. The site is considered suitable for the proposed development and is in the public interest.

Site Location

The site, being Lot 2 DP 731292, 20 Kapooka Road, San Isidore, is located on the western side of Kapooka Road, approximately 2km south of its intersection with the Sturt Highway.

The site of the development is a large lot residential allotment containing a dwelling and, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed development, substantial vegetation. The site also contains a dam and watercourse in proximity to the development site.

The site is immediately to the north of Commonwealth land associated with the Kapooka Military Area, however it is outside the base proper, being the site of the Kapooka Army Training Accident Memorial. To the north and west are large lot residential lots, while to the east is heavily vegetated state government owned land.

The character of the area generally is rural to rural-residential.

Aerial view of a pond surrounded by trees

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2 - Submitted Site Plan

A map of land with red lines

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3 - Location Plan

Financial Implications

N/A

Policy

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010

Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2010

Link to Strategic Plan

Sustainable

Sustainable built environment

Balance the built and natural environment in planning decisions.

Risk Management Issues for Council

Approval of the application is not considered to raise risk management issues for Council as the proposed development is consistent with SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, LEP and DCP controls.

Internal / External Consultation

Full details of the consultation that was carried out as part of the development application assessment is contained in the attached s4.15 Report.

Mail

Traditional Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news

Media release

Media opportunity

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meeting(s)

Community meeting(s)

Stakeholder workshop(s)

Drop-in session(s)

Survey/feedback form(s)

Have your Say

Email newsletter

Social media

Website

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Other methods (please list specific details below)

Attachments

1.	DA25/0067 - Section 4.15 Assessment Report - Provided under separate cover
2 .	DA25/0067 - Site Plans - Provided under separate cover
3 .	DA25/0067 - Statement of Environmental Effects and Additional Information - Provided under separate cover
4 .	DA25/0067 - Photomontage - Provided under separate cover
5 .	DA25/0067 - Flood Assessment and Additional Information - Provided under separate cover
6 .	DA25/0067 - Preliminary Site Investigation - Provided under separate cover
7 .	DA25/0067 - Submissions (Redacted) - Provided under separate cover
8 .	DA25/0067 - Submissions (Unredacted) This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as it deals with: personnel matters concerning particular individuals. - Provided under separate cover

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 9 February 2026

RP-2

RP-2 INITIAL CLASSIFICATION OF LAND - LOTS 281, 282, 283 & 284 IN PLAN OF SUBDIVISION, BEING LAND DEDICATED TO COUNCIL UNDER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

Author: Matthew Dombrovski

Executive: Fiona Piltz

Summary:

This report deals with the proposed dedication of land at Lloyd and the classification of this land pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993.

Recommendation

That Council:

a agree in principle to classify the land described as Lots 281, 282, 283 and 284 in a plan of subdivision as operational land in accordance with section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 upon registration of the plan

b authorise the General Manager or their delegate to place the proposed resolution on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and invite public submissions

c receive a further report following the exhibition and submission period addressing any submission made in respect of the proposed classification

Report

Council has recently approved a subdivision of land for the residue block at 80 Lingiari Drive, Lloyd. As part of that subdivision four (4) lots were identified as land to be dedicated to Council. Three (3) lots are identified as drainage reserves, and the remaining one (1) lot contains easements that benefit Council.

The location of the four identified lots are shown in Figure 1 below

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 showing locations of proposed Lots to be classified as operational land

The Local Government Act 1993 (LGA) provides that all land owned by Council must be classified as either operational or community land. Section 27 of the LGA provides that the classification of land occurs either through a local environmental plan or in certain circumstances, through the resolution of Council. More specifically section 31(2) of the LGA provides:

(2) Before a council acquires land, or within 3 months after it acquires land, a council may resolve (in accordance with this Part) that the land be classified as community land or operational land.

There are specific provisions in the LGA that would need to be considered if the land was to be dedicated as community land. These include obligations for Council to have adopted a Plan of Management outlining how these parcels of land are managed and used, and limiting the dealings that Council can have with such parcels of land.

It is also noted that Council’s current Recreation, Open Space and Community Strategy and Implementation Plan 2040 (ROSC) specifically requires that any active or passive open spaces will not be located under major power lines, or in detention basins or evidence must be provided to show that the identified location of those assets will not reduce the functionality or amenity of the open space.

Given the constraints referred to above and noting the easements proposed over the identified parcels of land to be dedicated, Council officers are of the view that classification of the identified parcels as community land is not considered appropriate. It is therefore recommended that Council classify these parcels of land as operational land.

Included in the LGA is the requirement for Council to publicly notify its intention to classify the land for a period of 28 days. During this time, the public may make submissions in relation to the proposed classification.

Upon completion of the public exhibition a further report will be provided to Council noting any submissions received and seeking endorsement of a final resolution to classify Lots 281, 282, 283 and 284 as operational land upon registration of the plan of subdivision.

Financial Implications

N/A

Policy and Legislation

Local Government Act 1993

Recreation, Open Space and Community Strategy and Implementation Plan 2040

Acquisition, Disposal and Management of Land Policy POL038

Link to Strategic Plan

Growing

Enabling infrastructure

Provide essential infrastructure; including sewer, roads, key housing enabling infrastructure to support growth.

Risk Management Issues for Council

If Council does not classify the land as operational within the legislative time, the land will automatically be classified as community land under the Local Government Act 1993. Community land is subject to significant restrictions – it cannot be sold, leased or used for commercial or operational purposes unless strictly in accordance with an adopted Plan of Management.

The land being acquired, through dedication, is intended for operational purposes. If reclassification is required at a later stage, it would involve a costly and time-consuming process including the preparation of a planning proposal.

Should Council act in a manner inconsistent with the community land classification, it may risk breaching the Local Government Act, potentially exposing Council to legal challenges, judicial review or injunctive relief.

Internal / External Consultation

Internal consultation has been undertaken within the Economy, Business and Workforce and Infrastructure Services directorates.

Public exhibition of the proposed resolution is required pursuant to section 34 of the Local Government Act.

Mail

Traditional Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news

Media release

Media opportunity

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meeting(s)

Community meeting(s)

Stakeholder workshop(s)

Drop-in session(s)

Survey/feedback form(s)

Have your Say

Email newsletter

Social media

Website

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Other methods (please list specific details below)

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 9 February 2026

RP-3

RP-3 INITIAL CLASSIFICATION OF LAND - LOT 574 IN PLAN OF SUBDIVISION, 1 WATERHOUSE AVE LLOYD, BEING LAND DEDICATED TO COUNCIL UNDER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

Author: Matthew Dombrovski

Executive: Fiona Piltz

Summary:

This report deals with the proposed dedication of land at Lloyd and the classification of this land pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993.

Recommendation

That Council:

a agree in principle to classify the land described as Lot 574 in a plan of subdivision of 1 Waterhouse Ave Lloyd, as operational land in accordance with section 31(2) of the Local Government Act on its dedication to Council.

b authorise the General Manager or their delegate to place the proposed resolution on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and invite public submissions.

c receive a further report following the exhibition and submission period addressing any submission made in respect of the proposed classification.

Report

Council has recently approved a subdivision of land for the residue block at 1 Waterhouse Ave, Lloyd. As part of that subdivision one (1) lot has been identified as land to be dedicated to Council. Lot 574 is identified in the plan as a drainage reserve which contains easements that benefit Council.

The location of the lot 574 is shown in Figure 1 below and outlined in green:

A blueprint of a land with numbers and a green line

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 showing location of proposed lot to be classified as operational land

The Local Government Act 1993 (LGA) provides that all land owned by Council must be classified as either operational or community land. Section 27 of the LGA provides that the classification of land occurs will occur either through a local environmental plan or in certain circumstances, through the resolution of Council. More specifically section 31(2) of the LGA provides:

There are specific provisions in the LGA that would need to be considered if the land was to be dedicated as community land. These include obligations for Council to have adopted a Plan of Management of how these parcels of land are managed and used, and limiting the dealings that Council can have with such parcels of land.

It is also noted that Council’s current Recreation, Open Space and Community Strategy and Implementation Plan 2040 (ROSC) specifically requires that any active or passive open spaces are not located under major power lines, or in detention basins or if they are, evidence must be provided to show that the identified location of those assets will not reduce the functionality or amenity of the open space.

Given the constraints referred to above and noting the easements proposed on the identified parcel of land to be dedicated, Council officers are of the view that classification of the identified parcel as community land is not appropriate. It is therefore recommended that Council classify this parcel of land as operational land.

Upon completion of the public exhibition process, a further report will be provided to Council advising of any submissions received and seeking endorsement of a final resolution to classify proposed Lot 574 as operational land upon registration of the plan of subdivision.

Financial Implications

N/A

Policy and Legislation

Local Government Act 1993

Recreation, Open Space and Community Strategy and Implementation Plan 2040

Acquisition, Disposal and Management of Land Policy POL038

Link to Strategic Plan

Growing

Enabling infrastructure

Provide essential infrastructure; including sewer, roads, key housing enabling infrastructure to support growth.

Risk Management Issues for Council

If Council does not classify the land as operational within the legislated time, the land will automatically be classified as community land under the Local Government Act 1993. Community land is subject to significant restrictions – it cannot be sold, leased or used for commercial or operational purposes unless strictly in accordance with an adopted Plan of Management.

Should Council act in a manner inconsistent with the community land classification, it may risk breaching the Local Government Act 1993, potentially exposing Council to legal challenges, judicial review or injunctive relief.

Internal / External Consultation

Internal consultation has been undertaken within the Economy, Business and Workforce and Infrastructure Services directorates.

Public exhibition of the proposed resolution is required pursuant to section 34 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Mail

Traditional Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news

Media release

Media opportunity

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meeting(s)

Community meeting(s)

Stakeholder workshop(s)

Drop-in session(s)

Survey/feedback form(s)

Have your Say

Email newsletter

Social media

Website

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Other methods (please list specific details below)

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 9 February 2026

RP-4

RP-4 KERBSIDE COLLECTION CONTRACT - RURAL/VILLAGE CONSULTATION OUTCOME REPORT

Author: Andrea Baldwin

Executive: Fiona Piltz

Summary:

This paper provides an overview of the results from the recently held rural village community consultation programs to determine if kerbside services need to be an option as part of the next Kerbside Collection Contract due for release mid 2026.

Recommendation

That Council

a note the results of the Community Consultation for the rural residential premises located within Councils LGA as outlined in this report.

b support the results of the community consultation which indicate that the villages and rural residential areas of Collingullie, Currawarna, Galore, Humula, Downside do not participate in the future kerbside services contract

c support the residents of San Isidore with an opt in service for kerbside collection under the new contract

d note the requirement for improvements in service delivery options at all existing rural transfer stations including additional options for residents with regards to separation of waste and greater resource recovery.

e note that the Resource Recovery and Waste Management Strategy will consider the option of a future potential site (transfer station) to the north of the city that may accept some waste types to accommodate the growing population

f note that through Council planning processes whereby new subdivisions are constructed in the future, kerbside services are considered as part of the development process.

Report

During November 2025 consultation commenced in relation to community engagement across the villages within the Wagga municipality to ascertain if Council need to consider additional services as part of the next kerbside collection contract due for tender release mid-2026.

Areas of our community are not currently supplied a kerbside service, this was an opportunity to engage with them and seek their inclusion to be supplied with a household kerbside service. Along with this, the NSW EPA has mandated food organics and garden organics (FOGO) recycling, requiring collection services for households by July 2030. The exception to this is that if the household does not currently have a residual service, they are not mandated to have a full three bin kerbside service. For Wagga, some of the villages do not have kerbside services and therefore can be exempt from the introduction of a FOGO bin and or other bin services as supplied by Council.

The Consultation Framework

The consultation sourced feedback on access to a three-bin service which consists of a residual bin (red lid), commingled recycling bin (yellow lid) and food organics and garden organics bin (green lid bin) and the use of the rural transfer stations.

A Communications and Engagement Plan was developed identifying key items which included community concerns, potential costs, timeframes, the proposed consultation activities, and the villages in which these activities would be undertaken.

If rural villages were to consider adopting a three-bin system, the following benefits to the community were identified:

· Convenience – Provides residents with a regular, reliable, and easy way to manage household waste without the need to transport it to a facility.

· Improved recycling outcomes – Enables better separation of waste streams (e.g. recycling, FOGO, general waste), reducing contamination and increasing resource recovery.

· Environmental benefits – Diverts waste from landfill, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports more sustainable waste management practices.

· Cleaner townships – Reduces illegal dumping, backyard burning, or uncontrolled waste accumulation, leading to tidier and healthier communities.

· Cost efficiencies – Shared service delivery across a community can lower long-term waste management costs compared to individual or ad-hoc arrangements.

· Support for organics recycling (FOGO) – Allows food and garden waste to be processed into compost, returning nutrients to the soil and supporting local circular economy outcomes.

· Equity of access – Ensures all residents have the same waste management opportunities, regardless of personal capacity to self-manage waste.

· Public health improvements – Regular collection reduces vermin, odour, and health risks associated with unmanaged waste.

· Alignment with state/territory policy goals – Positions the community to comply with, or benefit from, broader regulatory requirements such as organics-to-landfill bans and FOGO mandates.

· Enhanced community reputation – Demonstrates a commitment to sustainability, which may support tourism, local pride, and regional development initiatives.

· Job creation – implementation of service, leads to creation of jobs and resources

What are the concerns of the community?

Community concerns were anticipated to centre on the perceived fairness of implementing the service. Issues were expected to arise in relation to requiring participation from residents who did not wish to receive the service, or conversely, withholding the service from those who had expressed a desire to participate. There was a high likelihood of negative feedback, expressed through social media channels, and raised through other avenues of community advocacy.

Additional concerns were anticipated regarding the impact on household cost of living, with residents questioning the affordability of the service.

Furthermore, feedback was expected to indicate a preference for a one bin service only, or for an opt-in model, rather than the proposed whole-of-township approach.

The community was also expected to seek clarity on the factors influencing Council’s decision-making regarding the approval and implementation of the service. Residents were likely to want a clear understanding of what level of community buy-in would be considered sufficient, how this would be measured, and the extent to which their feedback would directly shape the final decision. Transparency around these criteria was considered important to manage expectations, build trust in the process, and demonstrate that Council’s resolution was guided by both community sentiment and service viability.

Table 1 shows the activities carried out as part of the consultation process:

Activities	Method	When	Completion
Working committee meetings	Regular meetings which included internal working committee members contributing to the development of the consultation process	Completed monthly	Completed monthly
Preparation of consultation activities	· Survey creation and approval · Social media prepared and approved · Direct mail out (Letter + FAQ sheet) creation and distribution · “Have Your Say” page created and approved · All consultation and marketing material refined and approved	Prior to consultation	Completed September – October 2025
Councillor update	Overview of the project, information on consultation activities and provide updates including updates to timelines	At the initiation of consultation - Prior to first consultation sessions	Completed 23 October 2025
Council news article	Overview of the project, what consultation looks like and what we wish to achieve	At the initiation of consultation - Prior to first consultation sessions	Completed 31 October 2025
Drop in consultation sessions	· Council set up at various locations with council staff in attendance · Opportunity for community to have their say on/or suggest changes	Throughout the consultation month	Completed throughout November 2025
Mail out to all Owners and Residents	Letter with FAQ sheet mailed out to affected residents and owners	At the initiation of consultation - Prior to first consultation sessions	Completed end of October – Start of November 2025
Have Your Say	· Launch of the page · Link to survey/s · Provide updates including updates to timelines	To go live at the start of the consultation initiation	Completed throughout November 2025
Survey	Link to survey on “Have your say”	To go live at the start of the consultation initiation	Completed throughout November 2025
Council website	Banner and notifications on Council website	To go live at the start of the consultation initiation	Completed early November 2025
Social Media Campaign	· Digital marketing tiles and collateral · Paid social media ads	To go live at the start of the consultation initiation	Completed throughout November 2025
Static Display – Civic Centre Foyer	· Council set up in customer service · Opportunity for community to have their say on/or suggest changes · Collate feedback	To be set up at the start of the consultation initiation	Completed at start of November 2025
Collate feedback	Analyse and collate data	Upon completion of consultation	Completed December 2025
Councillor update	Updates on community consultation outcomes	Upon completion of consultation	January 2026

Stakeholders

The engagement was directed towards residents and property owners within rural townships that currently do not receive a kerbside collection service. It is important that we included both owners and tenants, as property owners (ratepayers) will bear the cost of the service, which may also be viewed as adding value to investment properties, while tenants are likely to be the primary users and beneficiaries of the service. Targeting both audiences ensured that the full range of perspectives was captured.

Table 2: Summary shows the number of properties in our LGA Villages and townships currently receiving and paying for a kerbside waste service:

Suburb	Number of Properties	2025/26 Total Charges	Current services
Tarcutta	125	$55,875	3-Bin System + Transfer station located in Tarcutta
Uranquinty	331	$147,957	3-Bin System + Transfer station located in Uranquinty
Mangoplah	47	$21,009	3-Bin System + Transfer station located in Mangoplah
Ladysmith	118	$52,746	3-Bin System

Tables 3: Identified villages and townships for consultation:

Suburb	Number of Properties	Current services
Collingullie	181	Transfer station located in Collingullie
Currawarna	183	Transfer station located in Currawarna
Downside	97	No current Council bin services + access to GWMC
Galore	105	Transfer station located in Galore
Humula	160	Transfer station located in Humula
San Isidore	126	No current Council bin services + access to GWMC

A consultation process was required to engage with rural residential communities that currently do not participate in a kerbside collection service to determine if they support transitioning to this service or not as part of the new contract due to start in 2027/28. Noting this opportunity is unlikely to be offered again within the next ten-year period.

For the consultation, the goal was to focus on kerbside collection services, that is residents been provided access to a three-bin service which consists of a residual bin (red lid), commingled recycling bin (yellow lid) and food organics and garden organics bin (green lid bin).

This report provides an overview of the consultation process carried out and results to inform the decision-making process of which additional areas or villages may or may not be included as part of the next contract.

Engagement Outcomes

The rural residential kerbside collection consultation program was supported by an engagement plan, this articulated all aspects of the why to engage, how to engage and particulars to ensure a seamless consultation process occurred, this was developed in conjunction with our communication team and delivered as part of their engagement to the community during November 2025.

Initially a letter was developed and delivered to 2644 recipients, this letter was sent to properties focused around the areas of Collingullie, Currawarna, Downside, San Isidore, Humula and Galore. The letter was sent to the owner of the property and or tenant where applicable. The letter provided initial information on the engagement sessions to occur for these areas, a FAQ sheet and a link to the survey to be completed.

Consultation Session Outcomes

In person engagement sessions were held during November at the following locations, with representatives from the Resource Recovery Team and Communication teams present.

Table 4: Consultation session attendance summary and by location:

Consultation session	Number of attendees
Collingullie	5
Currawarna	12
Galore	4
Humula	13
San Isidore	40
Oura	4

In addition, we received 3 phone calls to the Resource Recovery Facilities Manager. This feedback has been included in the responses.

As a result of the engagement sessions, these were well received with good attendance and feedback overall at all sessions.

Social Media Campaign Outcomes

A paid social media campaign formed part of our engagement process with results as follows:

· Advert over 14 days from 4 November to 18 November at a cost of $251.83

· the advert reached 17,660 viewers with the main demographic being 65 plus and over

· 973 landing page views

· 13 shares

· 1326 link clicks

· 6 comments

· 47,273 impressions

Overall, the engagement program provided good engagement.

Have Your Say Survey Outcomes

A Have a Say Survey was developed to gather information from our community around their actions and preferences, the questions included the following:

· Base details of name, address, demographic

· Owner versus tenant, occupier of a home

· How far they reside from current services

· How they manage their waste currently

· Would they like a three-bin service, if Yes/No Why, how important this is

· Use of the local transfer station and acceptance level and or improvements

· Costs associated with service, benefits and concerns

The survey was made available early November and concluded 30 November. Council received a total of 202 responses.

Primarily the results supplied are based on the Have a Survey responses however anecdotal information as supplied by some residents during the engagement sessions will also be included for consideration.

Chart 1: 202 Have a Say Surveys were completed, of these 110 responses provided a Yes to introducing a kerbside service and 92 responses said No.

Chart type: Clustered Column. 'Summary of numbers'

Description automatically generated

The following data provided has been summarised as an overview of the survey responses of key feedback.

Table 5: To represent the Yes vote to a kerbside service the following table provides the Why to wanting a service:

Reason	Number of responses
Convenience.	70
I don’t have transport options to move the waste I generate at my household.	13
Convenience and cost of taking waste to the tip.	3
We have to pay council rates and we have to pay for a skip bin service also.	1
Don’t always have access to transportation.	2
Having council bin services at my property would make a huge difference in maintaining cleanliness and proper waste management. At the moment, disposing of household waste responsibly is difficult without access to council collection, and it increases the risk of waste build-up and pests. Regular bin services would not only improve hygiene and convenience for residents but also help keep the area in line with council sustainability and community standards. I’d really appreciate it if this request could be considered further.	1
Convenience and cost. Also disappointed in the recycling facility at Gregadoo.	1
I am happy to pay for waste services as part of rates as I believe it would reduce amount of waste dumping in our area.	1
Would save paying for our current disposal.	1
While we can physically manage loading bins on the trailer at the moment it is challenging. We wish to remain living here so the collection service would support that.	1
We pay for rates just like everyone else in Wagga, but we live on a dirt road that isn't maintained, and do not have a bin service. What are we paying rates for?	1
I already have this service.	3
We currently don’t recycle and would start if we had a regular service	1
We pay rates and part of that is kerbside collection, I would love a weekly garbage collection and it to actually be able to utilise the one free hardware pick up per month however as a set day cannot be provided it is too dangerous due to people setting fire to hard waste left sitting for more than a day.	1
The physical demands of lifting and transferring large waste amounts poses a risk to musculoskeletal health and it is very inconvenient and costly in terms of time.	1
Make life a whole lot easier and be good to be a part of the WW recycling . also something for our rates.	1
Money - we currently pay approximately $80 for garbage and recycling whilst paying more rates to council due to our land size than the residents in town who get bins for free.	1
We pay council rates and still have the added expense of a bin service.	1
Inadequate fortnightly collection.	1
Nothing should go to landfill. Everything is recyclable.	1
Not enough room in a smaller red bin.	1
We pay enormous rates on our farmland, a bin service would be appreciated.	1
I would only want it for recycling and general waste.	1

Table 6: To represent the No vote to a kerbside service the following table provides the why to not wanting a service:

Reason	Number of responses
Prefer to drive to a local waste transfer station.	5
Prefer to continue to manage this myself.	30
Don’t want to pay for a service.	32
Would only use Yellow (mainly) and Red (for mostly non putrescible non recyclable materials). And as we need to load up bins to take to a road side location, Its only 10min further to drop at the Transfer Station.	1
I believe that on rural properties, larger skip bins collected less frequently would be better. That these services be covered instead of smaller bins collected more frequently.	1
Looking at this from a farm point of view. Green waste we can handle on site easy. Being a farm it is a household and a business so to do your system justice we should do the business waste and recycling too. 1.5 m^3 front lift bins recycling and one for general waste on about a 4 weekly basis at a guess.	1
Don't need green lid bin for waste/ organic collection. We mulch garden organic waste and feed chooks with food waste.	1
Prefer a weekly red bin and fortnightly green and yellow.	1
All bins need to be the 240L. The smaller red one is not big enough. The green waste can be smaller as some weeks it only has 2 green waste bags.	1
By the time I pull a bin down the driveway to a local pick up point I have gone past the tip already!! I have very little in the way of rubbish and take it to the tip once a quarter	1
1) end of driveway is half the distance to tip 2) will probably cost too much	1
We need a recycling collection service only, preferably monthly or fortnightly	1
I don’t believe it would be cost effective to run a three bin service at Borrambola. Too far from town and too few residents.	1
Need larger red bin	1
General waste isn’t big enough and there’s no point having a green waste bin	1
Skip bin is reasonably priced and they come up to the house to pick up.	1
Not necessary, prefer to manage it more efficiently myself and don't want to pay extra	1
To make an informed decision I would need to know the cost of the proposed bin service	1
Big Springs Rd is incredibly narrow with little to no verge for large rubbish trucks	1
We have a good contractor (Smallmon Bros) who drive I to our property to empty our bin and I take my recycling to transfer station approximately every three months. This works well. I don't require a food /green waste bin as I use these for chickens and compost.	1
I have the option through my local contractor of how often my general waste & recycling gets emptied. The WWCC red bin is not suitable for the amount of general waste. We dispose of our own cans and green waste is composted & fed to animals.	1

The responses can be further considered under their respective suburbs, the below table shows the yes and no results regarding all areas that submitted a response via the Have Your Say survey. Other areas responses have been provided, these results have been reflected in the below table and include the above village responses for a complete overview:

Table 7: Total responses for Yes and No by suburb

Suburb	Total responses	Yes	No
Alfredtown	1	1	0
Big Springs	4	2	2
Bomen	4	4	0
Book book	2	1	1
Borambola	5	2	3
Bourkelands	1	1	0
Brookdale	1	1	0
Brucedale	5	4	1
Collingullie*	10	4	6
Currawarna*	15	7	8
Dhulura	2	1	1
Downside*	9	4	5
Estella	2	2	0
Euberta	2	2	0
Eunanoreenya	3	0	3
Eunony	1	0	1
Forest Hill	2	2	0
Galore*	8	0	8
Gelston Park	11	7	4
Glenfield Park	3	3	0
Gobbagombalin	6	5	1
Gregadoo	6	1	5
Hillgrove	1	1	0
Humula*	8	4	4
Kooringal	6	4	2
Kyeamba	3	3	0
Ladysmith	4	4	0
Lake Albert	4	3	1
Maxwell	1	1	0
Mount Austin	3	3	0
Oberne Creek	5	3	2
Rowan	2	0	2
San Isidore*	34	9	25
Springvale	2	2	0
Tarcutta	1	1	0
Tatton	1	1	0
The Gap	4	4	0
Tolland	1	0	1
Turvey Park	2	2	0
Uranquinty	4	2	2
Wagga Wagga	7	5	2
Wallacetown	1	1	0
Westby	1	0	1
Yarragundry	4	3	1
	202	110	92

*highlights the key villages for consultation purposes, noting that many other areas provided feedback.

San Isidore is a few kilometres out of the town boundary, it currently has approx. 126 properties, these properties are serviced by local waste management service providers. Residents in this area outlined that current contracts were cost effective for some residents, whilst others indicated that they were not cost effective for residents recently moved to the area. Many have long driveways and felt this was an issue along with large properties whereby they burn the material rather than take it to a facility, majority felt no real need for the services, generally all premises are placing all items into one residual waste bin.

Given the feedback from this part of the community and the proximity to existing three bin system collection areas (e.g. Llyod, Flowerdale), this report recommends that Council support the residents of San Isidore with an opt-in service for kerbside collection under the new contract.

From the above results Collingullie, Currawarna and Galore showed through the survey that most responses did not support a service but some residents in these areas do. Humula was a divided result. It needs to be noted considering the quantity of properties within these townships, a large portion of village residents did not provide a response to the consultation process.

Some of the areas as noted above have provided a response but are not eligible to receive a kerbside service due to their location, it is generally not cost effective to engage the waste contractor to travel long distances unless full truck loads can be accommodated. It remains that the following areas are under consideration for a future kerbside collection service, that is, Collingullie, Currawarna, Galore, Humula and San Isidore.

Specific responses around other key criteria are explained further below.

How do you currently manage the waste generated from your household?

· 13% Dispose of waste at the Gregadoo Waste Management Centre

· 24% Use a local contractor or skip bin service

· 24% I use recycling facilities for items such as can and bottles, charity shops

· 24% I feed any food scraps to my animals

· 15% I have my own compost set up

Of the residents that responded, generally they find a way to manage their waste.

Do you use the local transfer station within close proximity?

· 68 responses said “Yes”

· 66 responses said “No”

· 31 responses said “I dispose of my material at Gregadoo Waste Management Centre”

· 25 responses said “No facilities were close to them for their use”

This is a mixed response, however looking at our available resourcing across the municipality, seven rural transfer stations are available along with a landfill facility, the shortfall may be in the north where limited facilities exist for waste management. Feedback generally supported the use of rural transfer stations however feedback supported that these sites could provide additional service options, if improvements occurred at these sites this would limit the need for kerbside services and increase use.

In person Engagement Outcomes

From the one-on-one engagement sessions where feedback was supplied direct to Council officers, the following provides an overview of results.

· Residents from Collingullie were divided – no clear preference

· Residents that attended from Currawarna were mainly outside of the town boundary and although were supportive would be ineligible to participate due to their location.

· Residents from Galore provided a No response, not wanting a service.

· Oura residents provided a Yes response

· Humula residents provided a No response.

· San Isidore’s engagement was highly attended with over 40 people present, results showed that whilst some residents are happy with their current arrangements with a private waste provider, others are not. Due to the proximity to town, many were able to access waste alternatives for the management of their waste, burn it, provide to animals, recycle it at local businesses or take the material to the Gregadoo Waste Management Centre.

The results outline no clear direction in relation to villages, however considering services to the north of town is generally supported by residents.

Financial Implications

Using current financial year information, the existing Domestic Waste Management Charge (DWMC) is $447 (incl GST) per household. This service provides a three-bin service and access to the home based collection (or hardwaste) service. In the future it is unlikely due to transport costs that a home-based collection service can be offered to the entire community due to the geographical area therefore consideration of appropriate charges will need to occur if kerbside services to villages progresses. In the absence of this pricing consideration, any consultation will reference the current domestic waste management charges.

In relation to costs for the service, approximately 65 persons responded that additional costs would be a barrier. This figure represents 32% of the respondents providing feedback. 44 respondents (22%) advised they were too far from the roadside to wheel bins to the nearest collection point and 38 (19%) respondents advised they thought the bin sizes were inappropriate for their needs. The remainder 28% had mixed responses around bins been lightweight, concerns for road damage, and only want to choose a bin of their choice rather than the suite of bins offered.

The DWMC is a direct charge for service delivery, if increased services occur, income will increase however expenditure is equalled to balance the additional costs.

Policy and Legislation

Food and Garden Organics mandates come into effect from 2030 for all households across NSW. Exemptions apply to this, which include those households that currently are not supported by a Council bin service, this applies to our current villages who are not under the existing kerbside service arrangement, therefore the mandate does not apply.

Link to Strategic Plan

Regional Leadership

Good governance

Provide professional, innovative, accessible and efficient services.

Risk Management Issues for Council

Limited financial risk for Council to support additional services in the village areas, as Domestic Waste Management Charges are apportioned to each household to cover costs of the service. It is noted with the current cost of living, adding additional charges to households is perceived as a barrier for some.

Delivery risk is high; it would appear from the results that the community is quite divided and no clear indication of residents or village areas wishing to progress introducing kerbside services is present. It must be noted that households within the village boundaries would need to all be included in the service for future viability and maximising transport costs to these areas.

Village area waste is predominantly managed using rural transfer stations and or other methods. The majority of this waste is landfilled and for these areas of the community, recyclable or organic waste will continue to be landfilled and not recovered, thus continuing to add volume to the landfill facility with no diversion of material undertaken. This method does not support the direction and state targets for waste management therefore upgrading rural transfer stations or providing additional initiatives at these locations will help to reduce the impact of material being landfilled.

Limited business risk at this time by not introducing a kerbside service in the villages.

Where subdivisions are earmarked for the future in villages or other areas within the municipality, the introduction of kerbside services needs to be a consideration as part of the planning development. Ensuring these developments include kerbside services assists with reducing consultation processes into the future and provide adequate waste services for residential homes.

Internal / External Consultation

Extensive community consultation has been undertaken. The results of the report will be shared with our community.

Mail

Traditional Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news

Media release

Media opportunity

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meeting(s)

Community meeting(s)

Stakeholder workshop(s)

Drop-in session(s)

Survey/feedback form(s)

Have your Say

Email newsletter

Social media

Website

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Other methods (please list specific details below)

Attachments

1 ⇩.

Consultation session and phone call summary (Redacted)

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 9 February 2026

RP-5

RP-5 REVALUATION OF PROPERTY LAND VALUES AND RATING PURPOSES - BASE DATE 01/07/2025

Author: Craig Katsoolis

Executive: Carolyn Rodney

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to detail the results of the recent General Revaluation Base Date 01/07/2025 that has been undertaken by the Valuer General NSW on all land within the Wagga Wagga Local Government area, and the likely impact on ratepayers from 2026/27 rating year.

Council’s current land value rating base applies land values with a Base Date 01/07/2022. The General Revaluation recently completed by the Valuer General of NSW with a Base date of 01/07/2025 will be used for the calculation of the 2026/27 Wagga Wagga City Council rates.

The City of Wagga Wagga’s total rates income for 2026/27 is only permitted to be increased by 3.2%. This is as per the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) allowable annual rate peg percentage for 2026/27.

Recommendation

That Council:

a note that NSW Valuer General has conducted a general revaluation of all parcels of land within the Wagga Wagga Local Government Area - Base Date 01/07/2025.

b note that the new land values will be applied for all properties for the 2026/27 rating year

c note that Council is only permitted to increase the total rates income received by the IPART allowable rate peg percentage, which is 3.2% for the 2026/27 rating year

Report

The NSW Valuer General has advised that a general revaluation of all land within the City of Wagga Wagga Local Government Area has been undertaken. General revaluations occur every three years and Council must, in conjunction with the preparation of the Long-Term Financial Plan determine the rating structure on an annual basis in accordance with section 494 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The Valuer General since December 2025 has been issuing to Wagga ratepayers their respective Base Date property valuation as at 01/07/2025 which will be used to calculate the 2026/27 property rates.

On average land values across Council’s Rating categories have risen approximately 16% over the last three years although there is significant variation between rating categories - for example Residential Wagga land values have increased on average 33% in the last three years; Farmland land values have decreased on average by (-4%) since the last general revaluation (01/07/2022). Refer Table 1: Total Land Values by Category:

Table 1: Total Land Values by Rates Category Wagga City Council Base Date 01/07/2022 and Base Date 01/07/2025

Rating Category	2022 Rateable Land Valuations	2025 Rateable Land Valuations	% Variation
Residential – City and Suburbs	4,637,198,786	6,190,236,447	33%
Residential – Other	570,515,570	733,694,030	29%
Residential – Villages	145,192,620	192,524,040	33%
Business – City and Suburbs	1,019,207,213	1,274,319,233	25%
Business – Villages and Rural	49,328,470	52,193,680	6%
Farmland	4,677,707,780	4,485,066,030	(-4%)
Totals and Average %	11,099,150,439	12,928,083,460	16%

The above land values are used in the calculation of the annual rates of each rateable property in the local government area. It is important to note that a property’s annual land rates will not increase by the same percentage increase of their property valuation the rate in the dollar used to calculate a property’s rates is adjusted, ensuring that Council only receive the total allowable rates income across all rating categories.

Total 2025/26 Notional Rates Income and the 2026/27 Permissible Rates Income Amount Allowed

Under Section 509 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is only permitted to increase the total rates received by the annual IPART allowable rate peg percentage, which is 3.2% for the 2026/27 rating year

To calculate the allowable 3.2% increase in rates, Council’s 2025/26 Notional Income is used to determine the 2026/27 Permissible Income. Note Notional Rates Income is the rate income that Council would raise if it simply applied the same rate in dollars as the current rating year for 2025/26 (using the 01/07/2022 Base date) i.e., no rate peg increase applied.

The Permissible Rates Income amount is the Notional Income amount increased by the approved IPART Rates Cap i.e., 3.2% for 2026/27 plus any existing catch up and adjusted for movements between rateable and non-Rateable status of properties throughout the current rating year. The summary below details Council’s projected Notional Rates Income for 2025/26 and the Permissible Income amount permitted to be raised for 2026/27.

025/26 Notional Rates Income	$55,207,083
3.2% allowable 26/27 IPART increase	$ 1,766,626
Add catch up 2025/26 refer annual statements	$ 68,000
Total 2026/27 Permissible Rates Income Allowed	$57,041,709

Proposed Rates Structure 2026/27

To ensure Council does not exceed the IPART Rates Cap for 2026/27 approved for Wagga Wagga City Council of 3.2% total rates income, it is necessary to reduce or increase the respective rate in the dollar levied for each rate category. Refer to Table 2 that follows details the proposed rate in dollars for 2026/27 rating year.

The 2026/27 Ad Valorem rates and minimum rates are to be included in Council’s Draft 2026/27 Revenue Pricing Policy.

Table 2: Comparison between 2025/26 rates in dollar (ad Valorem) and 2026/27 rates in dollar (Ad Valorem) and proposed minimum rate by Rating Category for 2026/27.

Rating Category	2025/26 Current		2026/27 Proposed
Rating Category	Ad Valorem Amount	Minimum Rate	Ad Valorem Amount	Minimum Rate
Residential - City and Suburbs	0.00666133	$841.00	0.0052372	$868.00
Residential - Other	0.00371356	$376.00	0.00298275	$388.00
Residential – Villages	0.00382762	$313.00	0.00297369	$323.00
Business - City and Suburbs	0.01366905	$804.00	0.011291110	$830.00
Business - Villages and Rural	0.00334717	$132.00	0.00323130	$136.00
Farmland	0.00127279	$362.00	0.00137186	$374.00

It is noted that the overall percentage of income from each existing rate category remains approximately the same. A catch up in rating income not taken up in 2025/26 of approximately $20,000 (from Rateable to Non rateable which includes some Homes NSW Properties which across areas of the city are currently vacant during reconstruction) has not been factored into the 2026/27 proposed rates in the dollar which may be taken up by Council in future rating years.

This small buffer is factored in when setting the rate in dollars for the new financial year to ensure Council does not exceed the set IPART Rates Cap.

Table 3 below: details the proposed rating structure for 2026/27.

Rating Category

25/26 Notional Income

% Of total Income per rates Category

Notional Income 25/26

Apply 3.2% rate cap increase per rates category

Add catch up for 25/26 carry forward to 26/27

Permissible Income 26/27 at proposed rates in $ including catch up

% Of total

Income

per rates

Category

Proposed

to be

levied 26/27

Residential – City and Suburbs

$32,345,402

58.59%

$33,380,455

$39,841

$33,420,295

58.59%

Residential – Other

$ 2,124,586

3.85%

$ 2,192,572

$ 2,617

$ 2,195,189

3.85%

Residential – Villages

$ 579,843

1.08%

$ 616,974

$ 736

$ 617,710

1.08%

Business – City and Suburbs

$13,982,111

25.33%

$14,429,539

$17,222

$14,446,761

25.33%

Business – Villages and Rural

$ 169,994

0.31%

$ 175,434

$ 209

$ 175,643

0.31%

Farmland

$ 5,987,147

10.84%

$6,178,736

$7,375

$6,186,110

10.84%

Total including Catch up

$55,207,083

100.00%

$56,973,709

$68,000

$57,041,709

100.00%

Impact on ratepayers

Whilst Council is only permitted to increase its total rate income by 3.2% for the 2026/27 rating year, the application of the 1 July 2025 Land Value Revaluation will impact on ratepayers whose land values have moved either greater than or less than the average percentage for their respective rate category.

For example, Residential Wagga rating category land values have increased on average by 33.0% from the 2025 base date land values as shown in Table 1: Total Land Values by Rates Category Wagga City Council Base Date 01/07/2022 and Base Date 01/07/2025

Some residential suburbs have recorded land value increases lower than the overall average increase of 33% as shown below in Table 4: These suburbs on average will be levied a rate increase less than the rates cap of 3.2%.

Table 4 Residential land values per suburb lower than the 33% average increase

Conversely the following residential suburbs on average have had from the 01/07/2025 revaluation process recorded land value increases higher than the Residential Wagga rating category average land value increase of 33%.

These suburbs on average will be levied a rate increase higher than the rates cap of 3.2%

Table 5: Residential land values per suburb higher than the 33% average increase

The examples of rates payable in Attachment A of this report demonstrates the impact of rates payable increases /decreases when the land value increase for a property is higher or lower than other properties in its rating category.

Financial Implications

The adjustments to land values applicable to the 1 July 2025 revaluation does not net Council any additional income. The rate in the dollar for each rating category has been adjusted down or up as applicable to achieve the IPART rates cap for 2026/27 to ensure that there is overall only a 3.2% increase in total rates income plus approved catch up allowance to be received by Council for the 2026/27 financial year.

Policy and Legislation

Local Government Act 1993, section 494

This will have an impact on Council’s Revenue and Pricing Policy for 2026/27

Link to Strategic Plan

Regional Leadership

Good governance

Provide professional, innovative, accessible and efficient services.

Risk Management Issues for Council

N/A

Internal / External Consultation

The Valuer General NSW has provided commentary on the 2025 Revaluation for the City of Wagga Wagga (from 2022 to 2025) available on their website. Wagga Wagga City Council Ratepayers have been receiving receive their Notice of Valuation from approximately December 2025. A ratepayer may object to the Valuer General directly if they disagree with the Valuation advised.

Mail

Traditional Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news

Media release

Media opportunity

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meeting(s)

Community meeting(s)

Stakeholder workshop(s)

Drop-in session(s)

Survey/feedback form(s)

Have your Say

Email newsletter

Social media

Website

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Other methods (please list specific details below)

Attachments

1⇩.

Attachment A - Revaluation Report

Report submitted to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Monday 9 February 2026

RP-6

RP-6 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PLAN

Author: Michael Casey

Executive: Scott Gray

Summary:

The draft Community Engagement Strategy and draft Community Participation Plan was publicly exhibited from 28 October 2025 to 25 November 20255, with one submission received. Adoption of the Strategy and Plan is recommended.

Recommendation

That Council:

a note public submissions received on the draft Community Engagement Strategy and draft Community Participation Plan during the public exhibition

b note and accept recommended amendments to the draft Community Engagement Strategy and draft Community Participation Plan

c adopt the draft Community Engagement Strategy and draft Community Participation Plan

Report

In accordance with legislative requirements and Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework, the draft Community Engagement Strategy and draft Community Participation Plan were placed on public exhibition. Council at its meeting on 27 October 2025 resolved as follows:

RP-11 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PLAN

25/001 RESOLVED:

On the Motion of Councillors T Koschel and G Davies

That Council:

a endorse the draft Community Engagement Strategy and draft Community Participation Plan and place on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 28 October 2025 to 25 November 2025 and invite public submissions during this period:

b receive a further report following the public exhibition period:

i addressing any submissions made with respect to the draft documents

ii proposing adoption of both documents unless there are any recommended amendments deemed to be substantial and requiring a further public exhibition period

CARRIED

Council staff visited villages and suburbs in person throughout the public exhibition period to promote the Community Engagement Strategy and Community Participation Plan. Staff received feedback from residents, recorded specific queries and customer service requests and promoted the Have Your Say site while encouraging involvement in public exhibitions.

The public exhibition and community engagement events were promoted through Council News online, via the weekly email and in the Weekend Advertiser, as well as via social media posts which included paid advertising.

Council received three (2) submissions during this period. A summary of the points raised in the public submissions is provided below.

Public Submission Summary	Comment
After being born bred in Collingullie and going to school here to high-school age and remembering a hotel that was open 7 days a week, and three service stations, I am now devastated at the state of our "village".	Concerns from this resident have been submitted as customer service requests to provide specific responses to issues that were identified in the community engagement process. This feedback does not impact either the CES or CPP.
“An audit of street signs, removal of old signs, and out of date signs local government say in signage. Roadworks good to see.”	This feedback does not impact either the CES or CPP.

Changes around specific language and terminology have been made to both documents following recommendations from staff. The language changes centre around terminology for First Nations community members, and people living with disability and their carers.

A suggestion for an easy read version of the Community Engagement Strategy is being implemented to make the strategy more accessible, while an easy read version of the participation plan is being explored.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications for Council associated with this update.

Policy and Legislation

Sec 402A or the Local Government Act 1993 states “A council must establish and implement a strategy (called its community engagement strategy) for engagement with the local community when developing its plans, policies and programs and for the purpose of determining its activities (other than routine administrative matters)”

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) Sec 2.23 (1) Community participation plans – preparation states “A planning authority to which this Division applies is required to prepare a community participation plan about how and when it will undertake community participation when exercising relevant planning functions”

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) Sec 2.23 (4) Community participation plans – preparation states “A council need not prepare a separate community participation plan if it includes all the matters required under this section in its plan and strategies under the Local Government Act 1993, section 402A”

Link to Strategic Plan

Regional Leadership

Engaged Community

Provide real opportunities for our community to engage.

Risk Management Issues for Council

Regulatory challenge

The draft Community Engagement Strategy (CES) and Community Participation Plan (CPP) addresses the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and NSW IP&R Guidelines (2021) relating to legislative compliance and service delivery. Failure to adhere to the CES and the CPP may expose Council to legal or regulatory challenge.

Council reputation

Poorly scoped and conducted engagement activities could damage Council’s reputation, increase complaints and result in service delivery that is inconsistent with the priorities established in the Community Strategic Plan, Wagga Wagga 2050.

Community expectations

The CPP details minimum standards for engagement which may differ to individual community member expectations. Increasing the standard levels of engagement comes at an additional time and cost and may have detrimental impact on activity levels.

Internal / External Consultation

Internal consultation was undertaken with relevant service areas to prepare the final documents for exhibition.

To ensure transparency and facilitate engagement a community engagement plan has been developed that incorporates the following consultation activities:

· community drop in sessions

· community meetings at villages

· stakeholder workshops with the building and planning industry

· the documents were promoted through Council’s social media channels and direct communication channels, such as through Council’s weekly Council News email and publication in the Weekend Advertiser.

The public exhibition was for a period of 28 days from 28 October 2025 to 25 November 2025, which was extended until Sunday 30 November to accommodate additional engagement activities.

Mail

Traditional Media

Community Engagement

Digital

Rates notices insert

Direct mail

Letterbox drop

Council news

Media release

Media opportunity

TV/radio advertising

One-on-one meeting(s)

Community meeting(s)

Stakeholder workshop(s)

Drop-in session(s)

Survey/feedback form(s)

Have your Say

Email newsletter

Social media

Website

Inform

Consult

Involve

Collaborate

Other methods (please list specific details below)

Attachments

1 ⇩.	Community Engagement Strategy
2 ⇩.	Community Participation Plan
3 ⇩.	Submissions received during the public exhibition period

Councillor	Amount spent YTD 2025/26	Remaining budget 2025/26
Allana Condron	$ 5,230.15	$ 2,769.85
Georgie Davies	$ 0.00	$ 8,000.00
Richard Foley	$ 0.00	$ 8,000.00
Jenny McKinnon	$ 5,553.99	$ 2,446.01
Amelia Parkins	$ 7,368.97	$ 631.03
Karissa Subedi	$ 1,543.60	$ 6,456.40
Lindsay Tanner	$ 1,570.54	$ 6,429.46
Dallas Tout	$ 999.31	$ 7000.69

1 ⇩.	Minutes Wagga Airport Special Purpose Committee - 28 January 2026
2 ⇩.	Submission - Senate Inquiry into Regional Aviation