What Worked Elsewhere, and What Could Work Here
REGULAR READERS PLEASE IGNORE - THIS IS PERSONAL It applies to my community only.
[The full report is linked below]
On Tuesday April 7, Kiama Municipal Council met in an extraordinary session to consider a plan that will reshape the services, workforce, and strategic direction of this community for years to come. The agenda was honest, sometimes stark. It deserves a thoughtful public response.
This analysis draws on comparable councils across Australia, established corporate turnaround frameworks, and the NSW Government's own Fit for the Future programme to assess what's been proposed — and what alternatives exist.
The plan is logical, but incomplete
The three-level remediation plan follows a sensible sequence: operational efficiency first, then discretionary service reductions, then workforce cuts. Level 1 targets $3.4M in procurement savings, IT rationalisation, and improved Blue Haven revenue. These are broadly uncontroversial and should proceed without delay. Level 2 proposes $2.7M in savings through reducing or ceasing youth services, cultural programs, tourism, and community development. Level 3 seeks a further $1M net through approximately 20 redundancies — around 9% of the workforce.
The numbers add up. But roughly 85% of the savings come from cutting costs and people. Only 15% comes from growing revenue. Corporate turnaround research consistently shows that cost-only strategies produce short-term results but fail structurally. A 50/50 balance between cost reduction and revenue growth is considered the minimum for sustainable recovery.
What three comparable councils teach us
Moree Plains Shire Council entered administration in 2015 with a structural deficit driven by constrained rates revenue and growing costs — a situation directly comparable to Kiama's. The administrator cut costs and divested assets, but the fastest path to recovery came from revenue diversification, particularly commercial leasing of council land. Recovery took four years.
Wingecarribee Shire Council faced significant financial stress in a coastal and hinterland setting remarkably similar to Kiama's. Resolution came through cost reduction combined with improved commercial management of tourism assets. The lesson: place-based tourism assets, when professionally managed, can generate $500K to $1M annually in comparable councils.
Campaspe Shire in Victoria managed a retirement village divestment through a community-owned trust model — retaining local governance while eliminating the financial liability from the council balance sheet. This is directly analogous to Blue Haven Terralong, and it is not privatisation. The village remained community-controlled. Council's balance sheet was protected.
The Blue Haven question
Blue Haven Terralong is the most consequential strategic decision Kiama faces, and it deserves honest analysis. The AssetFuture condition report shows that $51.2M is required over the next ten years for capital upgrades, fire safety rectification, and maintenance. Blue Haven has been generating approximately $1.3M in positive cash flow annually. Set against $51.2M in required expenditure, that implies a payback period of around 39 years — not a commercially viable position without structural change.
The immediate $10M fire safety borrowing is non-negotiable and should proceed. But the deeper question — whether operating a retirement village is the right role for a council of Kiama's size and financial capacity — deserves an independent options analysis, not a political decision made under pressure. That analysis should take 120 days and examine four realistic paths: retain and refurbish with council capital, retain under a specialist operator agreement, transition to a community trust model, or structured divestment with strong resident protections.
What hasn't been fully explored
Twelve alternative strategies are identified in the full report. Four deserve particular attention here.
A place-based tourism enterprise could transform Kiama's tourism function from a cost centre into a semi-commercial operation with its own profit and loss account, a destination levy in partnership with accommodation providers — a model operating successfully in Byron Bay — and Kiama brand licensing. Potential revenue: $300K to $600K annually within three years.
A partial air rights sale over the Manning Street precinct, retaining the ground floor for council administration, is a model used widely in New Zealand and increasingly across NSW. Combined with a Community Land Trust structure, this approach can compress catalyst site development timelines from five years to eighteen months.
A Power Purchase Agreement for council facilities requires zero capital outlay, delivers immediate electricity cost reductions of 20 to 30%, and generates surplus generation revenue. Several comparable councils have extended this to rural land lease agreements for solar farms.
A Regional Services Authority with Shoalhaven, Wollondilly, and Shellharbour councils — sharing IT, legal, payroll, and internal audit — is supported by the NSW Regional Collaboration Fund, which offers grants of up to $1.5M for setup costs. Potential savings: $500K to $1.2M annually at scale.
What the community should ask
Several of the services proposed for cessation — youth services, cultural programs, community development — could survive under community-led delivery models if given the genuine opportunity to prove it. A 60-day co-design process is not delay; it is the difference between a community that experiences change as something done to it, and one that helps shape what comes next.
The full strategic analysis report — covering all twelve alternative strategies, the Blue Haven options assessment, and fifteen prioritised recommendations — is available to download.
