Last night’s mammoth 6 hour Council meeting voted to review components of the financing and potential make-up of the contentious proposed CCC in Gordon Street.
In response to a motion recommending Councillors approve the GM to negotiate the sale of the Castle Street Chambers, Rigby House, the Museum and the CHCC property in Rose Avenue a new motion was put as follows;
Moved by Cr. Townley, seconded by Cr. Swan. Voted for unanimously.
1. Decline to accept the amounts tendered via the expression of Interest process for the sale of Council properties that concluded on 9 April 2020, being. a. Property (a) Administration Building,2 Castle St, Coffs Harbour (Lot 2 DP 566885, Lot 1 DP 566855, Lot 8 Sec 6 DP 758258), b. Property (b) Rigby House, 27-29 Duke Street Coffs Harbour (Lot 110 Sec DP 777398), c. Property (c) Museum, 215A Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour (Lot 101 Sec DP 1041655)
2. Place a temporary pause on the inclusion of Property (a) Administration Building and Property (b) Rigby House from any Expression of Interest for sale process.
3. Authorise the General Manager to engage in negotiations with prospective buyers via the commercial real estate agent engaged by Council under the current agency agreement with a view to achieving a reasonable offer in line with market value for Property (c) above (Museum Building) and Property (d) 169-171 Rose Ave, Coffs Harbour (Lot 100 Sec DP 861850)
4. Note that a report will be brought back to Council in regard to property sale negotiations.
5. Request a report detailing alternative funding options for the Cultural and Civic Space Project for the funding component relating to property asset sales.
6. Receives a report detailing the financial implications of the removal the proposed functions of Council staff offices and associated working spaces within the Cultural and Civic Space, (other than Library, Gallery and Museum staff) and exploring opportunities for alternative uses for the space including community and/or commercial uses.
Editors note: An outbreak of sanity and bi-partisanship? Is it possible there is some link between the above motion, as welcome as it is, and the ‘Clayton’s Clause’ on Council Administration that went through State Parliament unsuccessfully this week?