Agenda of Council - 9 October 2012

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

A GUIDING CHECKLIST FOR COUNCILLORS, OFFICERS AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEES

Ethical decision making

Is the decision or conduct legal?

Is it consistent with Government policy, Council’s objectives and Code of Conduct?

What will the outcome be for you, your colleagues, the Council, anyone else?

Does it raise a conflict of interest?

Do you stand to gain personally at public expense?

Can the decision be justified in terms of public interest?

Would it withstand public scrutiny?

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest is a clash between private interest and public duty. There are two types of conflict:

Pecuniary – regulated by the Local Government Act and Department of Local Government

Non-pecuniary – regulated by Codes of Conduct and policy. ICAC, Ombudsman, Department of Local Government (advice only). If declaring a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest, Councillors can choose to either disclose and vote, disclose and not vote or leave the Chamber.

The test for conflict of interest

Is it likely I could be influenced by personal interest in carrying out my public duty?

Would a fair and reasonable person believe I could be so influenced?

Conflict of interest is closely tied to the layperson’s definition of ‘corruption’ – using public office for private gain.

Important to consider public perceptions of whether you have a conflict of interest.

Identifying problems

1st Do I have private interests affected by a matter I am officially involved in?

2nd Is my official role one of influence or perceived influence over the matter?

3rd Do my private interests conflict with my official role?

Whilst seeking advice is generally useful, the ultimate decision rests with the person concerned.

Agency advice

Officers of the following agencies are available during office hours to discuss the obligations placed on Councillors, officers and community committee members by various pieces of legislation, regulation and codes.

Contact	Phone	Email	Website
Bega Valley Shire Council	(02) 6499 2222	council@begavalley.nsw.gov.au	www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au
ICAC	8281 5999 Toll Free 1800 463 909	icac@icac.nsw.gov.au	www.icac.nsw.gov.au
Division of Local Government (DPC)	(02) 4428 4100	dlg@dlg.nsw.gov.au	www.dlg.nsw.gov.au
NSW Ombudsman	(02) 8286 1000 Toll Free 1800 451 524	nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au	www.ombo.nsw.gov.au

TO: The General Manager
Bega Valley Shire Council

Disclosure of pecuniary interests / non-pecuniary conflict of interests

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and the requirements of the Local Government Act and regulations or dispensation issued by the Division of Local Government I hereby disclose the following pecuniary interests and/or non-pecuniary conflict of interests at the meeting as indicated below:

Ordinary meeting held on _____ / _____ / 20___

dd mm yy

	Item no & subject
	Interest (tick one)	Pecuniary interest Non-pecuniary conflict of interest
	* Nature of interest
	If Non-pecuniary (tick one)	Disclose & vote Disclose & not vote Leave chamber

	Item no & subject
	Interest (tick one)	Pecuniary interest Non-pecuniary conflict of interest
	* Nature of interest
	If Non-pecuniary (tick one)	Disclose & vote Disclose & not vote Leave chamber

Signed
Print Name	Councillor

* Note: Under the provisions of Section 451(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (pecuniary interests) and Part 6.11 of the Model Code of Conduct prescribed by the Local Government (Discipline) Regulation 2004 (conflict of interests) it is necessary for you to disclose the nature of the interest when making a disclosure of a pecuniary interest or a non-pecuniary conflict of interest at a meeting.

Council 9 October 2012

AGENDA

1 Confirmation Of Minutes

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting, Standing Committee Meetings and Closed Session of 14 August 2012, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.

2 Apologies and requests for leave of absence

3 Declarations

Pecuniary, Non-Pecuniary and Political Donation Disclosures to be declared and tabled.

4 Deputations (by prior arrangement)

The following persons have been granted permission to address Council and to respond to questions from Councillors:

Regarding Planning and Environment Report 8.1: Alterations and Additions to existing unit development - Lot 15 DP 240154, 10 Cliff Street, Merimbula.

· Mr Richie McNeil on behalf of Mr Glen Taylor (applicant).

5 Petitions

6 Mayoral Minutes

7 Adjournment to Standing Committees

	Recommendation
	That the Ordinary meeting of the Council be adjourned for the purpose of dealing with staff reports to Standing Committees.

8 Standing Committee Reports – Planning and Environment (Sustainability)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor (name to be confirmed at the Extraordinary Council Meeting to be held on 5 October 2012).

8.1 Alterations and Additions to existing unit development - Lot 15 DP 240154, 10 Cliff Street, Merimbula..................................................................................................... 13

9 Standing Committee Reports – Community and Relationships (Liveability)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice , this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor (name to be confirmed at the Extraordinary Council Meeting to be held on 5 October 2012).

Nil Reports

10 Standing Committee Reports – Economic (Enterprising)

10.1 Grant of Easements over Zingel Place Reserve Trust......................................... 43

10.2 Exchange of land - Merimbola Street, Pambula................................................. 53

10.3 Acquisition of land for road widening - Tathra Road............................................ 57

11 Standing Committee Reports – Infrastructure Waste and Water (Accessibility)

11.1 Tender RFT 1/12 Merimbula Sewerage Pump Stations Electrical Control Upgrade 63

11.2 Bega Indoor Sports Stadium: Licence Renewal................................................. 67

11.3 Formalisation of Various Street Names: Bemboka, Barraga Bay, Bega and Candelo....... 69

11.4 Montreal Goldfeild Management Committee request financial support from Council for heritage centre toilets................................................................................................. 75

11.5 Floodplain Risk Management Grant................................................................. 95

11.6 Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee Meeting 5 September 2012........................ 99

12 Standing Committee Reports – Governance and Strategy (Leading Organisation)

12.1 Council's Investment Policy........................................................................... 105

12.2 Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 115

12.3 Referral of 2012 Financial Statements to Audit................................................ 121

13 Adoption of Reports from Standing Committees

14 Delegates Reports

15 Rescission/Alteration Motions

15.1 Rescission Motion 1..................................................................................... 127

15.2 Rescission Motion 2..................................................................................... 131

16 Notices of Motion

17 Urgent Business

18 Responses to Questions on Notice and Questions On Notice

18.1 There are no questions on notice carried forward from the meeting of 14 August 2012 135

19 Questions for the Next Meeting

20.. Confidential Business

Representations by members of the public regarding closure of part of meeting

Adjournment Into Closed Session, exclusion of the media and public........... 136

20.1 National Broadband Network

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

21 Adoption of reports from Closed Session

22 Resolutions to declassify reports considered in closed session

Council 9 October 2012 Item 8.1

8.1. DA No. 2011.523 Alterations and Additions to existing unit development - Lot 15 DP 240154, 10 Cliff Street, Merimbula

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Applicant	GM Taylor and RL Robins
Owner	As above
Site	Lot 15 DP 240154, 10 Cliff Street, Merimbula
Zone	2(b) Residential Medium Density Zone
Site area	842.5m²
Proposed development	Alterations and additions to existing unit development

Precis

The development application is being reported to Council as objections were received during the notification period raising concern about view loss, privacy, overshadowing and vehicular access.

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the zone and the assessment criteria under BVLEP 2002, draft BVLEP, 20102 DCP 1 – Residential Standards and DCP 7 – Off Street Car Parking.

The development application has been amended in accordance with the view sharing principles to reduce the potential impact on the adjoining unit development at 12 Cliff Street and other impacts have been sufficiently addressed as part of the redesign, through additional information and conditions of consent.

The revised development is recommended for approval subject to conditions outlined in the draft consent.

existing development

The land has an existing single storey unit development comprising 3 dwellings, ancillary parking and landscaping.

Description of the proposal

The proposed development involves alterations and additions to the existing single storey unit development to create 3 two storey attached units.

Each proposed unit would comprise 2 bedrooms plus study, ensuite, kitchen, combined lounge/family area, main bathroom, laundry, decks and parking. The height of the building would range from 6.2m to 7.5m.

Each proposed unit would have a grassed/paved and landscaped area for private recreation. The remainder of the site would be landscaped.

[Attachment 2 – Proposed plans]

Description of the site

The site covers an area of 842.5m² and is located at Cliff Street, Merimbula. The site consists of an older style single unit development in a block construction with an undistinguished appearance. The land slopes gently towards the rear.

The property surrounding the site consists of older housing stock, consisting of unit development and single dwelling houses. The majority of existing development in the immediate area is two storeys.

[Attachment 1 – Locality plan]

Planning assessment

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Staff highlight the key issues of the proposal in this report for Council’s consideration.

A copy of the assessing officers Section 79C assessment will be available at the meeting.

Zoning

The property is located within the 2(b) Residential Medium Density Zone under the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 and R3 (Medium Density Residential Development) under the draft BVLEP 2012. The proposal is permissible under the existing BVLEP 2002 and the draft BVLEP 2012. The development complies with the objectives of the zone under Clause 8 of BVLEP 2002 and general controls for development under Clause 21.

Issues

The assessment of the application has identified several key issues involving,

· View loss

· Privacy

· Overshadowing

· Vehicular access.

These matters are discussed below and in more detail under submissions.

View Loss

The site is located within a small residential precinct within the Long Point area of Merimbula. The area is quite elevated with expansive views over Merimbula Bay and towards the south-west.

The view corridors are however limited by the east-west orientation of the allotments fronting Cliff Street, where the majority of the views are obtained across side boundaries to the south-west. The area also consists of predominantly older housing stock that has not been designed well in terms of capturing or preserving views.

While the majority of the development in the area is two storeys, there is a handful of single storey development remaining, including the proposed development site. The footprint of the existing unit development and orientation make it difficult to establish a second floor without having an impact on the neighbouring properties, particularly in terms of views. In this respect the proposed development will have an impact on the neighbouring unit development at 12 Cliff Street, Merimbula.

The assessment of view loss is often hard to quantify. The impact has therefore been assessed in accordance with the draft DCP (residential chapter) and view sharing principles outlined in the Land and Environment Court, Tenacity Consulting v Warringah 2004 as detailed below;

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

This assessment has been undertaken through inspections of the site, digital photos and the erection of height poles to provide a visual reference for the proposed development.

The development application would have an impact on the views currently obtained from the existing two storey unit development at 12 Cliff Street. This unit complex consists of two attached units, one at the front and one at the rear of the building.

On this basis, a site inspection was arranged with the owners of 12 Cliff Street to undertake an assessment of the potential view loss from various rooms and positions within each unit. The existing view contains the following elements;

· Water views

· Visible interface between land and water

· The view is partially obscured by development

· Obtained across a side boundary from sitting and standing positions

· The view is obtained from living spaces, kitchens and bedrooms.

After inspecting the site it was clear the proposed development would have an impact on the existing views, particularly those obtained from unit 1. The impact of the proposal as originally lodged would be defined under the view sharing principles as being severe to devastating.

It was also apparent that every centimetre of movement closer to Cliff Street would help preserve these views.

[Attachment 3 – View Analysis]

Revision 1

These concerns were discussed with the applicant who resolved to amend the design by moving the second floor of proposed unit 3, 3.5 metres to the east towards Cliff Street.

Height poles were also placed on the property at the request of Council to help determine the potential view loss. A second site inspection was undertaken with the owners of 12 Cliff Street to assess the revised design. Although the amendment represented an improvement over the original design, concerns were still raised about the potential impact within the context of the height poles.

Revision 2

Revised plans were therefore submitted, pushing the second floor of unit 3 a further 1.8m to the east and the second floor of unit 2 a total of 1 metre to the east with a reduction in the size of the decks.

These revised plans included an increase in the floor level of the development by 1m and an overall increase in the height of the development of between 30cm at the front and 70cm at the rear to provide for additional view sharing.

This variation to the 7.5m height limit was not supported by staff as it would have a detrimental impact on the outlook and amenity of the neighbouring units and add to the overall bulk and scale of the development.

Revision 3

The final design has left the footprint of the second storey a total of 5.3m to the east from the original design and lowered the height of the proposed development to 7.5m in accordance with the height limit under DCP1.

The impact of the design has been reduced from a development that would have had a severe to devastating impact on the existing view to one that would have a moderate impact. The development complies with the other assessment criteria and the view is obtained across a side boundary.

The view corridor that would be taken is partially obscured by vegetation and any further movement of the second storey towards Cliff Street is likely to have a greater impact on the privacy of unit 1 as the living spaces and balconies of proposed unit 3 align with the neighbouring property.

The impact could be mitigated by a single storey development, but this is not considered reasonable within the context of neighbouring development and the inherent development potential of the site.

The latest design is one that reduces the view loss and provides the same amenity and development potential for the proposed development.

The applicant has provided a more skilful design that is more sympathetic to the views currently obtained from the neighbouring properties without compromising the development potential of the site.

Under the view sharing principles, the latest revision is considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

Privacy

The erection of a second storey has the potential to impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. The orientation of the proposed development within the context of surrounding development reduces this potential impact.

The neighbouring property at 8 Cliff Street is oriented to the south-west with only one window adjoining the property and is also screened by existing vegetation. The unit development at 12 Cliff Street is however oriented towards the subject site. It is therefore imperative that this elevation is screened. Proposed unit 3 has been setback 5.3m to sufficiently address the potential impact on 6 Tasman Street.

The design has included privacy screens and the majority of the neighbouring properties would be sufficiently setback to reduce the potential impact on the neighbouring properties.

Additional landscaping would be required as a condition of consent.

Overshadowing

The erection of a second storey will create additional overshadowing. The proposed development has been designed to provide adequate solar access for each of the proposed second storeys.

The footprint of the proposed development is similar to the neighbouring properties which are already two storeys in height. A site inspection has been undertaken with the owners of 8 and 12 Cliff Street to assess this impact.

The site has an east-west orientation. The development is likely to have the greatest impact on the property to the south, 8 Cliff Street. The impact from overshadowing is reduced by the orientation of the neighbouring property towards the south-west and the two storey nature of the dwelling. The amount of overshadowing would be comparable to the dense vegetation that currently divides the two properties. The impact on 12 Cliff Street is reduced as it is located on the northern side of the property.

Adequate solar access would be retained during the winter solstice in accordance with DCP1.

Vehicular Access

Additional parking is required in accordance with DCP 1 – Residential Standards and DCP 7 – Off Street Car Parking. Although sufficient spaces can be provided, the vehicle manoeuvring is limited by the proportions of the site and the footprint of the existing buildings.

The applicant was requested to provide additional information to ensure that forward entry and exit can be achieved. Turning templates were provided to confirm that the movement of vehicles is sufficient within the context of a generous road reserve and relatively quiet street.

The additional parking is in accordance with DCP1 and DCP7. Although the size of the development is increasing, the number of units is not being increased above what has already been approved and is permissible within the zone.

Submissions

The development application was notified to adjacent and adjoining owners from 16 January until 31 January 2012. This period was extended to ensure that those people affected by the proposed development had a sufficient opportunity to make a submission, particularly those who normally reside remotely from the site.

The key issues raised in submissions are discussed below followed by staff comment.

[A copy of the submissions will be available at the Council meeting].

View loss

Concerns have been raised by the adjoining owners of the unit development at 12 Cliff Street about view loss.

8 COMMENT: The impact on view loss has been undertaken in accordance with the view sharing principles. This has been undertaken through the erection of height poles and inspections with the neighbours.

The original design had an unacceptable view impact and has been revised to address this impact. The current design is more in keeping with the view sharing principles and any further amendment to reduce view loss would have a subsequent impact on privacy and compromise the development potential of the site, as mentioned previously in this report.

Privacy and amenity

The impact on privacy and amenity has been raised as an issue by the adjoining owners at 12 Cliff Street, 8 Cliff Street and 6 Tasman Street, Merimbula.

8 COMMENT: The impact on neighbouring properties has been assessed and adequately addressed through the redesign of the development and proposed privacy screens.

Additional landscaping would also be required as a condition of consent

Overshadowing

The overshadowing of neighbouring properties has been raised as an issue.

8 COMMENT: The applicant has provided additional information to assess the potential impact on overshadowing of neighbouring properties. As mentioned earlier in this report, the impact is reduced by the orientation of the site and neighbouring properties.

The proposed development complies with DCP1.

Vehicular Access

The impact on vehicular access has been raised as an issue by the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance.

8 COMMENT: The proposed parking is in accordance with DCP7 and turning templates have been provided to ensure forward entry and exit can be achieved. The development does not involve an increase in the number of units.

conclusion

The proposed development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The concerns about view loss, privacy, overshadowing and vehicular access have been adequately addressed through the redesign of the development in accordance with the view sharing principles, the provision of additional information and conditions of consent.

The existing view is being obtained across a side boundary and any further amendment of the design would have a subsequent impact on privacy and unduly compromise the development potential of the site.

The revised development is recommended for approval subject to conditions outlined in the draft consent [Attachment 4].

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Locality Plan

2 View. Proposed Plans

3 View. View Analysis

4 View. Draft Consent

Recommendation

1. Proposed Development Application No. 2011.0523 – Alterations and additions to existing unit development at Lot 15 DP 240154, 10 Cliff Street, Merimbula be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the draft consent.

2. That those persons who made a submissions be advised of Council’s decision.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 10.1

10.1. Grant of Easements over Zingel Place Reserve Trust

As part of the consent conditions for the development of the Sapphire Marketplace, Fabcot was required to ensure that easements for services were granted over various parcels of land, retained in the ownership or control of the Council.

General Manager

Background

On 9 December 2008, Council resolved to enter into contracts for the sale of land within the Bega Town Centre to Fabcot Pty Limited (Fabcot), in order to facilitate the development of the Sapphire Marketplace. Land owned by, as well as land managed by, the Council as reserve trust manager under the Crown Lands Act 1989 (CL Act).

Contracts for sale of the relevant land were entered into and the land was transferred to Fabcot in stages, the last parcel being transferred on 17 January 2012.

Attached to this report is a plan of easement and s88B instrument, prepared pursuant to the Conveyancing Act 1919, showing the location and effect of easements which Fabcot now proposes to have registered on land managed by Council and on Crown land.

Two of the proposed easements are to burden part of the Zingel Place (R97856) Reserve Trust, being that part contained in Lot 104 in DP 1151462. Those easements are in favour of Council and are to enable Council to supply water and drainage sewage through existing pipes located on that part of the Reserve (Easements).

ISSUES

Legal

Zingel Place (R97856) Reserve Trust is Crown land under the CL Act and is a reserve trust managed by Council as reserve trust manager.

Under s102 of the CL Act, an easement cannot be granted over a reserve unless the reserve trust has decided it is desirable to do so and the Minister administering the CL Act (which is the Minister for Primary Industries) has consented in writing to the proposal.

Council, as reserve trust manager, therefore now needs to consider whether it is desirable to grant the Easements.

If Council decides that it is, then the Council will need to seek to have the Minister for Primary Industries consent to the grant of the Easements.

There is no need for Council, as reserve trust manager, or the Minister to give any public notice of the grant of the Easements.

Asset

The Easements are in favour of Council and enable Council to supply water and drain sewage through the existing infrastructure on the affected land.

There is therefore no disadvantage to Council in granting the Easements. Granting the Easements makes clear Council’s rights to use the existing infrastructure for drainage and water supply purposes.

Financial

There are no financial consequences arising from the grant of the Easements.

Resources (including staff)

Staff time will be expended liaising with Council’s solicitor and the Lands Department as required, to obtain the consent of the Minister and to finalise the creation of the Easements. Legal and Lands Department fees and charges will also be incurred.

Conclusion

Council should therefore resolve to grant the Easements.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Plan of Easements

2 View. Section 88B Instrument Fabcot Easements

Recommendation

1. That Council, as reserve trust manager of the Zingel Place (R97856) Reserve Trust, resolve pursuant to s102(1) of the Crown Lands Act 1989 (CL Act) to grant the easements shown on the attached s88B instrument and the attached proposed plan of easements (Easements), over that part of the Zingel Place (R97856) Reserve Trust as is contained in Lot 104 in DP 1151462.

2. That Council delegate to the General Manager the function of writing to the Minister for Primary Industries seeking the written consent of the Minister to the grant of the Easements, pursuant to s102(1) of the CL Act.

3. That Council delegate to the General Manager and the Mayor the power to execute any documents to give effect to the grant of the Easements.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 10.2

10.2. Exchange of land - Merimbola Street, Pambula

Council intends to acquire land for drainage purposes and has reached agreement to exchange land with the affected landowner for access purposes

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Mr Max Sinclair is the registered owner of land at Merimbola Street, Pambula, described as Lot 5, Section 33, DP 758825, as indicated on the attached map. Mr Sinclair has sought access to his land, across Council land.

Council drains are located on the site and require access by right of carriageway across the site, to a width of three (3) metres, to enable machinery to access the site in order to maintain the drain.

After consideration by Council staff, options were suggested to Mr Sinclair in June 2011, as follows:

1 Council grants a right of access, of agreed width, over the Council land in exchange for a drainage easement of agreed width along the western boundary of Mr Sinclair’s land;

2 The parties jointly undertake a boundary adjustment to exchange land necessary to comply with the first option. This option involves preparation of a plan of survey.

In addition to either option, a right of access will need to be created over the adjoining Council car park.

Mr Sinclair selected the second option and Council has since agreed with Mr Sinclair to jointly undertake the boundary adjustment. This will provide Mr Sinclair a right of access over the existing driveway located on Lot 6 Section 33 DP 758825 (delineated in red on the attached map) in exchange for the drainage easement and right of carriageway along the western boundary of the land owned by Mr Sinclair (delineated in blue on the attached map). The right of access across the Council car park on Lot 7 Section 33 DP758825 is delineated in yellow on the attached map.

ISSUES

Legal

As Council owns the adjoining land, it is proposed that the boundary adjustment, being of a minor nature, be undertaken to alter the boundaries between the properties to effect the agreement between Council and Mr Sinclair.

The Council owned land is classified as operational land.

A plan of boundary adjustment will be prepared by a surveyor and lodged with the Lands Department for registration.

Subject to the adoption of this report, a deed of agreement will be entered into with Mr Sinclair.

Asset

Council requires access of approximately three metres in width across Lot 5 Section 33 DP758825 to enable machinery to access the Council drain.

Consultation

Council staff have consulted with Mr Sinclair and reached agreement satisfactory to both parties.

Financial

All costs associated with the boundary adjustment will be met by Council and are estimated to be between $6,000 and $8,000.

Resources (including staff)

Staff resources will be involved to prepare the deed of agreement, liaise with surveyors, solicitors and the Lands Department to finalise the boundary adjustment. Lands Department and/or legal fees and charges will also be incurred.

Conclusion

Council and Mr Sinclair have jointly agreed to undertake the boundary adjustment to exchange land, to enable Mr Sinclair access to his land across Council land and to permit a drainage reserve along the boundary of Mr Sinclair’s land in favour of Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. DP758825

Recommendation

1. That Council approve the proposed boundary adjustment and creation of easements and authorise its official seal to be affixed to the necessary documents under the signature of the Mayor and the General Manager.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 11.1

11.1. Tender RFT 1/12 Merimbula Sewerage Pump Stations Electrical Control Upgrade

This report outlines the need for electrical upgrades to Sewerage Pump Stations no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16A and 16B in Merimbula. The report recommends engagement of Omegalec Pty Ltd to carry out the work.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Merimbula and Pambula sewerage system consists of approximately 53km of reticulation mains, 19 Sewerage Pump Stations and one Sewerage Treatment Plant.

The switchboards at Sewerage Pump Stations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16A and 16B in Merimbula were last upgraded in 1991. The electrical control systems at these Pump Stations now require an upgrade, due to obsolescence and other age related maintenance problems.

The work to be carried out under this contract includes:

Pump Stations 1, 3 and 5:

· Supply of new auto control equipment mounting plate and door for each station.

· Supply of new power supply and backup battery enclosure for each station.

· Supply of new backup level control and standalone high level alarm systems enclosure for each station.

Pump Stations 2, 7, 14, 15, 16A and 16B:

· Supply of new auto control enclosure for each station.

· Supply of new backup level control and standalone high level alarm systems enclosure for each station.

Pump Station 4:

· Supply of new auto control enclosure.

· Supply of new power supply and backup batteries enclosure.

· Supply of new backup level control and standalone high level alarm systems enclosure.

The design specifications and drawings for the upgrade were prepared by NSW Public Works. Council subsequently called for tenders in accordance with the specification, drawings and general conditions of contract.

Tenders Received

Council advertised the Request for Tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 June 2012 and in local newspapers via the Community Link on 4, 5 and 6 July 2012.

Eleven firms requested tender documents and three tenders were received by the closing date on Wednesday, 25 July 2012, from the following firms:

· Omegalec Pty Ltd

· Central Coast Switchboards

· Switchgear Commissioning & Maintenance Engineers Pty Ltd

Tender Evaluation

The tenders were evaluated using the following assessment criteria:

Criteria	Weighting
Price	70%
Accredited systems in OH&S, Environmental Management and Quality Assurance	8%
Past experience of company in similar type of work	10%
Past performance in meeting contract requirements	10%
Construction methodology	1%
Experience and performance in liaising with the community	1%

The contractual and technical aspects of tenders were reviewed against the assessment criteria by a four person tender assessment panel.

Tenders were examined for omission against mandatory schedules. All tenderers were requested to provide additional information to fully describe their tender offers.

Tenders were assessed for technical compliance and qualifications and departures from the Tender Documents.

Non price criteria were assessed based on information provided by each tenderer, requests for further information and referee evaluations.

The final assessment scores for each tender are as follows:

Tender	Consensus Assessment Points (Total Out of 100)
1 Omegalec Pty Ltd	93.92
2 Central Coast Switchboards	91.34
3 Switchgear Commissioning & Maintenance Engineers Pty Ltd	71.33

The tender evaluation panel recommended that the tender submitted by Omegalec Pty Ltd be accepted, as it is assessed as being able to undertake and complete the works, as well as providing the best overall value to Council.

ISSUES

Environmental

The pump station upgrades will help ensure that high levels of service are maintained and the risk of adverse environmental impacts is minimised.

Asset

The upgrade is part of scheduled work contained in Council’s Asset Management Plan.

Strategic

The position will support the overall asset management strategy, as well as strategic and level of service goals.

Financial

This work is to be funded from the approved 2012/2013 capital budget.

Resources (including staff)

Significant staff and design consultant resources have been devoted to the project to date. Management of this project will be undertaken by Council staff.

Operational Plan

Upgrade of Sewerage Pump Station electrical controls will enable Council to meet the levels of service detailed in the Operation Plan.

Conclusion

The tender submitted by Omegalec Pty Ltd provides the best overall value to Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Confidential memorandum to Councillors regarding Assessment of Tender 1/12 Merimbula Sewerage Pump Stations Electrical Controls Upgrade (Councillor Only)

Recommendation

1. That council accept the lump sum price of Omegalec Pty Ltd in the amount of $231,239 (inc GST), subject to variations and provisional sums.

2. That the other tenderers be advised of Council’s decision.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 11.3

11.3. Formalisation of Various Street Names: Bemboka, Barraga Bay, Bega and Candelo

The following street names have not been formalised through Council resolution, including Lord Street and Roach Street in Bemboka, Four Winds Road in Barragga Bay, Elliot Lane in Bega and Quinn Lane in Candelo.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

The names Lord Street and Roach Street, Bemboka were recommended by the former Bemboka Area Committee. Street signs have been in place for several years and no objections have been raised, since the signs were installed. Both streets are Council owned and maintained.

The name Four Winds Road, Barragga Bay was requested by the organisers of the Four Winds Festival, as the road provides access into the property where the Festival is held. The road sign has been in place for approximately two years.

Elliot Lane, Bega and Quinn Lane, Candelo are Council owned and maintained. As there were no suggestions received from the community, the names were selected from the next available names in BVSC Policy Procedure 2.2.1(b) Schedule 1 - names of war service men and women who have died in or as a result of active service.

The names listed comply with BVSC Policy Procedure 2.2.1(b) – Road Naming criteria under section (i), (iii) and (vi) and as follows:

“(i) Names of war service men and women who have died in or as a result of active service and those names nominated and their respective localities are attached to Schedule 1.

(iii) Either full names or surnames may be used for roads as appropriate names that acknowledge eminent persons within the locality or historical property in the area or of an historical background. Such names may include long term property owners, early explorers, settlers or persons who have excelled in some community oriented or other activity.

(vi) Names that are part of a common theme for road names in a locality.”

The Geographical Names Board (GNB), Surveyor General (SG) and Registrar General (RG) have reviewed all the names under the GNB Guidelines for the Name of Roads and there is no objection to their use.

ISSUES

Operational Plan

There is no impact on Operational Plan apart from advertising, which is provided for in the current budget.

Conclusion

The proposed formalisation of the names is in accordance with the road naming procedure as required by Council and the formal name process should now be commenced.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Location Map of Roach Street and Lord Street, Bemboka

2 View. Location Map of Four Winds Road, Barragga Bay

3 View. Location Map of Elliot Lane, Bega

4 View. Location Map of Quinn Lane, Candelo

Recommendation

1 That Council, by public advertisement, invite submissions for a period of 28 days to the proposed street names of Lord Street and Roach Street in Bemboka, Four Winds Road in Barragga Bay, Elliot Lane in Bega and Quinn Lane in Candelo.

2 That if no objections are received within the submission period then authority be given to the General Manager to formalise the naming of these streets without further referral to Council.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 11.5

11.5. Floodplain Risk Management Grant

Council has been offered a grant of $80,000 by the Office of Environment and Heritage under its Floodplain Risk Management Grants Scheme for the 2012/2013 financial year. The grant is to facilitate the completion of the current Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study project, which is still in progress. The grant requires formal acceptance by Council, by returning the supplied funding agreement to the Office of Environment and Heritage by 29 October 2012, executed with the General Manager’s signature.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

The Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study at Bega commenced in December 2011, with the assistance of a successful grant application to the Office of Environment and Heritage for $80,000 under its Floodplain Risk Management Grants Scheme during September 2011.

The grant scheme has undergone a transition from an annualised funding cycle in 2011/2012 to a project based funding cycle in 2012/2013, commencing 1 July. The current grant offer of $80,000 for 2012/2013 reflects the Office of Environment and Heritage’s continuing commitment to fund the completion of the existing continuing project under the new project-based funding arrangements.

The flood study forms an initial stage towards development of a comprehensive Floodplain Risk Management Plan, in accordance with the NSW Floodplain Risk Management Manual 2005.

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), formerly the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW) is supporting Council, by providing funding and technical assistance for the project.

The data acquired during the flood study will be essential for development of detailed rainfall/runoff (hydrology) and flood (hydraulic) models. The models will provide the technical analysis required for the flood study and development of a Floodplain Risk Management Plan sometime in the future.

ISSUES

Legal

The 2012/2013 grant offer will require formal acquittal in September 2013, by formal execution with the General Manager’s signature, with supporting financial documentation attesting to the full and proper expenditure on approved activities under the funding agreement.

Policy

The acceptance of the 2012/2013 grant offer will allow completion of the flood study project that will ultimately provide Council with contemporary flood risk mapping and information in accordance with the NSW Floodplain Risk Management Manual 2005 requirements.

Environmental

The outputs of the completed flood study will form a technical input into Council’s current Coastal Hazard Management study.

Asset

Once the flood study is completed, a review of protection of Council assets may be required.

Social / Cultural

Once the flood study is completed, a review of emergency response and access issues during flood events may be required.

Strategic

The acceptance of the 2012/2013 grant offer has a number of strategic implications.

The completed flood study outputs will form further inputs into a subsequent floodplain risk management study and floodplain risk management plan for the Bega and Brogo River catchments. The current flood study outputs, subsequent floodplain risk management study and floodplain risk management plan outputs will together produce inputs into Council’s current Development Control Policy 4.1.1, its underlying procedure 4.1.1(l) Flood Prone Land – Determination, the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 with its underlying Development Control Plans and the Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan once gazetted.

The flood study outputs also provide essential information in planning emergency response during flood events, planning for disaster resilience prior to flood events and securing further funding from the NSW Government for future potential projects such as the flood risk management study and flood risk management plan and its implementation.

Consultation

Acceptance of the 2012/2013 grant offer has a number of consultation implications.

Consultation with the community is an integral part of the flood study completion process. To date, a number of media releases, radio interviews, State Government agencies and residents within the Bega and Brogo catchment areas have been consulted.

Further consultation activities will be required and include public information meetings, public exhibition of the draft flood study, processing of submissions and presentation of the completed report to Council by the flood study consultant.

Financial

The grant offer is made on the basis of 2:1 (State:Council) dollars. Not accepting the grant offer will mean having to find the additional funds of $80,000 from internal Council sources not yet allocated to the flood study project that may have impacts on other projects commencing as scheduled.

Funding source

Amount

Office of Environment and Heritage

80,000

$

Resources (including staff)

Council’s 2012/2013 budget allocation for the completion of the flood study project is currently set at $60,000.

Additional resources required will be the efforts of operational staff from within Council’s Infrastructure, Waste and Water and Planning and Environment Groups.

Operational Plan

Completion of the flood study will provide inputs into achieving a number of aims in the Operational Plan namely:

E1 Business Growth and Capacity

E7 Advocacy for Infrastructure

S1 Natural environment protected

S6 Preparing for climate change

S7 Protecting natural systems

A1 Transport Infrastructure developed and accessible

A3 Asset planning and management of Council infrastructure

A5 Locating facilities to meet community needs

A9 Emergency planning

Conclusion

There is significant policy, strategic and financial advantages for Council by accepting the 2012/2013 grant offer of $80,000 from the Office of Environment and Heritage.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That the grant offer of $80,000 from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for completion of Council’s Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study be accepted and the funding agreement executed by the General Manager.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 11.6

11.6. Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee Meeting 5 September 2012

This report recommends that Council adopt the advice of the Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 5 September 2012

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee held a meeting on 5 September 2012, the minutes of which have been distributed separately. It is a requirement that Council formally adopt the recommendations, prior to action being taken. All recommendations were supported unanimously by the Committee.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That Council note the advice of the Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 5 September 2012 and approve the following:

Remembrance Day March and Service, Merimbula – 11 November 2012

1 That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Merimbula RSL Sub Branch Remembrance Day March and Service on 11 November 2012 be approved and deemed a Class 4 special event.

2 That sections of Council roads at Main, Market and Beach Streets, Merimbula be temporarily closed on Sunday, 11 November 2012 for the Merimbula RSL Sub Branch Remembrance Day March and Service, as per the Traffic Control Plan.

3 That the Police supervise the marshals appointed by the Merimbula RSL Sub Branch to man the traffic barricades.

Eden Whale Festival and Street Parade – 3 November 2012

1 That, subject to conditions, Imlay Street, Eden be temporarily closed from the Bass Street to Chandos Street intersections between 8.30am and 11.30am on Saturday, 3 November 2012 for the Eden Whale Festival.

2 That, subject to conditions, Imlay Street and Albert Terrace, Eden be temporarily closed from the Mitchell Street intersection to the Eden Wharf precinct between 9.30am and 11.30am on Saturday, 3 November 2012 for the Eden Whale Festival street parade.

3 That the proposed traffic arrangements involving the temporary closure of Imlay Street and Albert Terrace, Eden for the Eden Whale Festival street parade on Saturday, 3 November 2012, be deemed a Class 2 special event and it be conducted under an approved Traffic Control Plan, in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Traffic Control Manual.

4 That persons involved in the preparation and implementation of the Traffic Control Plan must hold the appropriate RMS accreditation.

5 That organisers fully implement an approved Special Event Transport Management Plan.

6 That organisers have approved public liability insurance of at least $20 million indemnifying Council, Police and Roads and Maritime Services by name for the event.

7 That organisers have written Police approval prior to conducting the event.

Eden 2012 Christmas Promotion – 20 December 2012

1 That, subject to conditions, Imlay Street, Eden be temporarily closed from the Bass Street to Chandos Street intersections from 4.30pm to 9pm on Thursday, 20 December 2012 for the Eden 2012 Christmas Promotion.

2 That the proposed traffic arrangements involving the temporary closure of Imlay Street, Eden from the Bass Street to Chandos Street intersections for the Eden 2012 Christmas Promotion on Thursday, 20 December 2012, be deemed a Class 2 special event and it be conducted under an approved Traffic Control Plan in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Traffic Control Manual.

3 That persons involved in the preparation and implementation of the Traffic Control Plan must hold the appropriate RMS accreditation.

4 That organisers fully implement an approved Special Event Transport Management Plan.

5 That organisers have approved public liability insurance of at least $20 million indemnifying Council, Police and Roads and Maritime Services by name for the event.

6 That organisers have written Police approval prior to conducting the event

7 That the event achieves all conditions of Council’s issued Land Use approval.

Intersection of Minyama Parade and Prospect Street, Bega

1 That subject to review by affected bus operators, the Stop sign currently facing traffic entering the Minyama Parade and Prospect Street intersection from Newtown Road, Bega be removed and replaced with a Stop sign facing traffic entering the intersection from Prospect Street and that this be accompanied by appropriate line marking.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 12.1

12.1. Council's Investment Policy

Council is required to resolve it investment policy and procedures in order to give authorised staff the necessary direction in placing and administering Councils investment portfolio.

Finance Manager

Background

Each year Council is required to resolve its investment policies.

The Division of Local Government sets boundaries around how a Council can and cannot invest its funds. The Division of Local Government has also issued Investment policy guidelines for Councils to comply with.

The attached policy and procedure amends the previous policy and procedure, while still complying with the Division of Local Government’s policy guidelines.

The main changes to the policy are outlined below:

• Providing the policy and procedure in the format prescribed by the Division of Local Government.

• Reducing the total percentage of investments held with each Authorised Deposit Taking Institution (ADI) from 50% to 35%. The reasoning behind this reduction is with the advent of electronic quoting, it is far easier to check a wider range of ADI’s. As a result we should be able to spread our investment portfolio across more ADI’s.

• The policy now states that an ADI must hold a BBB or higher Standard and Poor (S&P) rating. Standard and Poor ratings are not a guarantee of financial viability, in fact many investments have failed on institutions with a high S&P rating, likewise many investments have thrived on lower S&P ratings. But for Council’s purposes, only investing in cash for short periods of time, minimises our risk going forward. The reason for choosing BBB is that most Australian building societies cannot rate above a BBB rating due to constraints with their liquidity ratio’s.

• The policy now stipulates that authorised staff (General Manager and Finance Manager) can approve investments of up to two years for up to 10% of Council’s investment portfolio to take advantage of the changes to the finance markets. See the Financial section below for more information.

• The Division of Local Government believe that all Councils should have an investment advisor guiding their investment decisions. Bega Valley Shire Council has never had the need for an advisor as we only invest in cash. If Council was of a mind to diversify its portfolio then it is recommended consideration be given to engaging an expert. There is a recommendation in this report asking for Council to resolve on whether it requires the services of an investment advisor. It is the recommendation of the Finance Manager that unless Council wishes to undertake a strategy of higher risk investments there is no need for Council to utilise the services of an investment advisor.

• The policy clearly outlines how Council intends to account for its interest returns. It is becoming increasingly common, particularly with Capital grants for the grant agreement to require the interest earned on the grant be applied to the project which is the grant recipient. Traditionally, Council has not applied interest in this way. Most Councils in NSW held a position that while interest was not being applied to the grant, not all of the expenditure and overhead costs of administering that grant were being applied also. The theory being that two netted each other out. Now that funding bodies are moving to applying interest to their grants, Councils are going to have to consider their position in relation to assigning overhead expenditure to the administration of grant funds. At this stage, the procedure recommends that Council apply interest to the grants and funds as is required, but all other interest is distributed across the general, water and sewer funds.

ISSUES

Policy

The attached Policy 1.3.2 will replace existing policy 1.3.2.

The attached procedure 1.3.2(a) will replace procedures 1.3.2(a) and 1.3.2(b)

Financial

There exists an opportunity for Council to capitalise on a shift in the Australian cash markets. Traditionally, domestic ADI’s have sourced the majority of their funds from overseas markets. Because cash could be sourced overseas cheaply, the domestic term deposit market was rather flat. Following the global financial crisis hit, those cheaply sourced international markets became very expensive. This played a large part in the interest rate increases experienced domestically and the move in domestic ADI’s moved their interest rate patterns from the Australian Federal Reserve Bank.

At this time domestic ADI’s realised that they needed to begin sourcing domestic cash to then in turn lend out as borrowings. The problem with term deposits for the banks is that they have a very short turnover. For example, the banks takes term deposits for 6 months or one year, but lend those funds for up to 30 years. They are effectively exposing themselves to a potential cashflow risk. As a result, ADI’s commenced running “specials” on term deposit with longer than usual terms. In order to offset the increased risk to customers, the ADI’s had to offer higher than usual returns.

The opportunity exists for entities with a large wholesale class (> $1m) portfolio to take advantage of longer term deposits with interest rates up to 2%-2.5% higher than shorter term deposits.

The chart above illustrates the trending of term deposit spreads over time. You can see that pre-crisis the term deposit market was flat, however post-crisis and presently the margins spike considerably when a term deposit is pushed out greater than one year.

The attached policy and procedure grants the General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer the delegation to take advantage of these “specials”. Up to 10% of Council’s portfolio can be invested in longer term deposits.

Council’s investment portfolio is generally between $40m - $50m, generating approximately $2m in interest return. If Council was to position 10% of Council’s portfolio with even a conservatively estimated 1% “special” rate that would grant Council an extra $50,000 interest return.

A second concept that requires a Council resolution is the use of deposit brokers. It is becoming common now for ADI’s to approach an agent/broker who is offered a “special” that would be out of the reach of most entities. That ‘special” may be a 1% bonus if the agent can attract $20m in deposits. Council on its own would not be able to utilise such a special but as a larger group of depositors Council could. The agreements are always between the ADI and Council. The agent/broker is an introducer only. The agent/broker is paid from the ADI for achieving the “special” and introducing the depositor to the ADI.

If Council was able to leverage its investment portfolio within its current policy of cash term deposits only by just 1%, the increase in revenues could be as high as $400,000-$500,000.

Conclusion

Councils has been very successful in the past with its investment policies. It has avoided many of the pitfalls that have befallen other Australian Councils. However, there are however ways of leveraging Council’s position within the parameters of our policy that could result in significant increases to Council’s investment yields. Councils attached policy and procedures allow Council staff to better position Council in the fixed term deposit market to better realise investment returns, thereby putting Council in a better financial position.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Investment Policy 1.3.2

2 View. Investing Council's Funds 1.3.2(a)

Recommendation

1. That Council adopt the attached policy 1.3.2 – Investment Policy.

2. That Council adopt the attached procedures 1.3.2(a) – Investing Council’s Funds.

3. That Council resolves its position as to whether or not Council requests the services of an Investment Planner.

4. That Council moves to make longer term investments in line with the attached policy and procedure.

5. That Council utilises the services of an agent in procuring the most suitable term deposit, while ensuring that all aspects of Council’s policy and procedures are met.

6. That all Council’s investment agreements are between the Authorised Deposit-Taking Institution (ADI) and Council and no payment is made by Council to such agents.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 12.2

12.2. Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993

To report the details of Council’s investments during the month of August 2012.

Finance Manager

Background

Under the legislation and regulations mentioned below, the Responsible Accounting Officer must present to Council on a monthly basis the status of the investments held by Council. The Responsible Accounting Officer must detail the investments held, and their compliance with both internal policy and external regulation under the Ministerial Order of Investments.

In accordance with the recommendations made by the Division of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines, published in May 2010 the Finance section has made the monthly Investments report an attachment to the Business Paper. This allows a stand-alone report to be published on Council’s website for the public to view without having to peruse the Council’s Agenda for the relevant meeting.

ISSUES

Legal

Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 determines that money may only be invested in a form of investment authorised by order of the Minister for Local Government published in the Local Government Gazette. The most recent Ministerial Order of Investment was published February 17, 2011.

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 determines that the Responsible Accounting Officer must provide Council with a written report setting out details of all money that Council has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The report must also include a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the regulations and the Council’s investment policy.

Policy

Council holds an Investment Policy published under policy number 1.3.2. This policy is reviewed annually.

Council’s current policy allows for investment of funds in cash term deposits only with rated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s). Council does not hold any investments in sub-prime or managed fund products.

Financial

The attached report indicates a current investment portfolio of $ 50,038,829. These funds can be broken into the following Funds:

Funding source	June	July	August
General Fund	$37,758,006	$32,412,682	$35,445,364
Water Fund	$8,749,118	$8,749,118	$8,749,118
Sewer Fund	$5,844,348	$5,844,348	$5,844,348

8 Each fund’s allocation can only be utilised on its specific operations. For example, Water Fund cannot use its financial resources on General Fund projects, etc.

8 Externally Restricted is defined by purposes that are “restricted” by external legislation or regulations, such as unspent grants or loans tied to a specific project, or development contributions held for expenditure in accord with an adopted s94/s64 contributions plan.

Internally Restricted is defined by “restrictions” placed upon the use of these funds by Council internally, such as asset replacement, weeds, property, employee entitlements and the like.

Unrestricted funds are available for day to day operational uses, or emergencies. Those funds are reviewed daily for short term investment, depending on revenue cycles such as rates instalments.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Attachment - Investment Report August 2012

Recommendation

1. That the attached report indicating Council’s Investment position be received and noted.

2. That the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted.

Council 9 October 2012 Item 12.3

12.3. Referral of 2012 Financial Statements to Audit

In accordance with Section 413 of the Local Government Act 1993 Council must “refer to audit” the financial reports for the financial year ending 30 June 2012

Finance Manager

Background

Section 413 of the Local Government Act advises that Council must refer its financial reports to audit prior to them being audited.

Councils audit of financial reports for the financial year ending 30 June 2012 will commence on 15 October, 2012.

Section 413 of the Local Government Act advises that Council must make a statement in the approved form as to its opinion on the preparation of the general purpose financial report (and by extension the special purpose financial report).

The following recommendation also provides the necessary authority for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer to complete the general purpose and special purpose financial reports after audit. ISSUES

Financial

The financial reports represent a summary of the financial result of Council operations for 2011/2012.

The recommendations in this report do not represent the Councils’ approval of the 2012 financial reports.

Financial reports are prepared for and audited by independent entities. The Council does not approve the annual financial reports. This report is solely to meet the requirements under the Local Government Act and to meet directions issued by the Division of Local Government.

After Council has finalised its audited financial statements, Councillors will be provided with a workshop to discuss the final results in detail. There will also be a public address from both the Responsible Accounting Officer (Finance Manager) and the Auditor in November.

Conclusion

Adoption of the recommendation will ensure Council complies with end of financial year reporting requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council resolve that

a) The Council’s general purpose financial report is prepared in accordance with:

b) The Local Government Act 1993 (as amended) and the Regulations made there under; and

c) The Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements; and

d) The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting; and

e) Presenting fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position for the year; and

f) According with Council’s accounting and other records.

2. The Council’s Special Purpose Financial Reports are prepared in accordance with:

a) NSW Government Policy Statement “Application of National Competition Policy to Local Government”; and

b) Department of Local Government Guidelines “Pricing and Costing for Council Businesses: A Guide to Competitive Neutrality”; and

c) The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting; and

d) The Department of Water and Energy Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines.

e) Presenting fairly the operating result and financial position for each of Council’s declared Business Activities for the year; and

f) According with Council’s accounting and other records.

3. That the signatories be required to confirm they are not aware of any matter that would render the reports false or misleading in any way, and include such information in the statement.

4. That Council authorise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer to execute the statement required by Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993.

5. That Council endorse the referral of General Purpose Financial Report and Special Purpose Financial Reports to Council’s Auditor for audit.

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 1*	*Locality Plan*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 2*	*Proposed Plans*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 3*	*View Analysis*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 4*	*Draft Consent*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 10.1 - Attachment 1*	*Plan of Easements*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 10.1 - Attachment 2*	*Section 88B Instrument Fabcot Easements*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 10.2 - Attachment 1*	*DP758825*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 10.3 - Attachment 1*	*Site plan - Tathra Road*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 1*	*Location Map of Roach Street and Lord Street, Bemboka*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 2*	*Location Map of Four Winds Road, Barragga Bay*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 3*	*Location Map of Elliot Lane, Bega*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 4*	*Location Map of Quinn Lane, Candelo*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 11.4 - Attachment 1*	*letter of request, supporting documentation and development application paperwork*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 1*	*Investment Policy 1.3.2*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 2*	*Investing Council's Funds 1.3.2(a)*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 12.2 - Attachment 1*	*Attachment - Investment Report August 2012*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 15.1 - Attachment 1*	*Rescission Motion No 1 - Revised Merimbula Airport and Precinct Strategy*

Council	9 October 2012
*Item 15.2 - Attachment 1*	*Rescission Motion 2 - Merimbula Airport Resurfacing Tender RFT 34/12*