Agenda of Council - 3 July 2013

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 3 July 2013 Item 9.1

9.1. General Halls and Building Committee - funding allocation

This report details the recommendation of the General Halls Committee relating to the allocation of funds for 2013/14 and seeks Council endorsement of the Committee recommendation.

Group Manager Community & Relationships

Background

Council’s 2012/13 budget provided $74,000 of operating expenditure for projects at Council’s public halls. In 2012/13 projects receiving funding from the facility maintenance budget included new roofing, new ceilings, insulation, accessible entries, painting, restumping and minor repairs. There are several projects still requiring completion, however it is expected that these projects will be completed this financial year.

There are 19 halls that are managed by community committees and volunteers, with the assistance and support of Council staff. The amount of funding recommended for each committee is determined through discussion at a General Halls s355 Committee meeting. All halls have a delegate to the general committee and they present bids for consideration. This process has been in place for some years and is well supported by the individual halls management committees.

The most recent General Halls Committee was held in May 2013. The meeting discussed and agreed on a recommendation to Council about the allocation of available funding. Details of the funding allocation recommendations of the General Halls Committee are:

Hall	Project	Funding
Rocky Hall	Interior lining and painting	$5,000.00
Kiah	Repair asbestos and paint	$15,000.00
Tanja	Replace wall	$15,000.00
Bemboka	Replace hot water and drainage	$5,000.00
Quaama	External repairs	$5,000.00
Brogo	Internal painting	$12,000.00
Murrah	Minor repairs	$5,000.00
Unscheduled maintenance		$12,000.00
	TOTAL	$72,000.00

Funding allocation requests were received from ten of Council’s hall management committees. Works proposed were varied and include; roofing, painting, asbestos removal/repair, hot water service replacement, access for people with disabilities and general repairs.

Discussion at this meeting included the reiteration by all participating hall committees that priority should be given to those projects which were of the highest order and that achievability and affordability of their projects was a key element of their applications.

ISSUES

Asset

The Council’s halls are managed and operated by volunteer committees and coordinate maintenance and utilisation. The Council’s adopted Buildings Asset Management Plan is providing a framework to develop individual facility management plans (FMP) which will be finalised over the next 12 months with the hall committees.

Consultation

The General Halls s355 Committee is Council’s peak advisory body in relation to the management of these important community facilities. The General Halls Committee undertake a bi-annual tour of all halls so that the Committee members are aware of the state of various facilities and so that the decision making process was as informed as possible. This tour took place last year and most of its members participated.

Once council staff received the nominated projects for 2013/14, a presentation was made to the Committee including photos of projects so that a recommendation could be made.

The Committee has made recommendations on the expenditure for the 2013/14 draft budget and has requested that Council consider.

Financial

The recommended allocation of funds amounts to $62,000 of the $74,000 provided in the draft 2013/14 budget. The recommendation is for the remaining $12,000 to be utilised for unforseen maintenance projects throughout the year for halls which have little reserve funds of their own to undertake projects outside of operational expenses.

Conclusion

The General Halls Committee continues to be a good forum for participative decision making and resource allocation. The committee voted unanimously to put the below recommendations forward to Council for endorsement.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That Council adopt the General Halls Committee recommendations regarding allocation of $74,000 to community buildings for the 2013/14 year in accordance with the following list:-

Hall	Project	Funding
Rocky Hall	Interior lining and painting	$5,000.00
Kiah	Repair asbestos and paint	$15,000.00
Tanja	Replace wall	$15,000.00
Bemboka	Replace hot water and drainage	$5,000.00
Quaama	External repairs	$5,000.00
Brogo	Internal painting	$12,000.00
Murrah	Minor repairs	$5,000.00
Unscheduled maintenance		$12,000.00
		$72,000.00

Council 3 July 2013 Item 11.1

11.1. Tathra Ring Road

This report summarises the design and estimate carried out for the Tathra Ring Road, as instructed by Council on 27 September 2011.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

In 2009, Council engaged Worley Parsons to assess the feasibility of reconstructing the Tathra Ring Road, which had been destroyed by high seas prior to 1970. Much of the underlying formation has since been further eroded by natural erosion, high seas and storm wave action.

In April 2010, Worley Parsons produced the report entitled, “Tathra Ring Road Reconstruction Wave Overtopping and Preliminary Options Investigation”. This report contains preliminary geotechnical assessment by ACT Geotechnical and a study of the storm wave action on the headland. Two possible options were presented for realising a new ring road and preliminary construction estimates.

Council considered further action on 26 July 2011 and resolved not to proceed at that time. However, Council reversed that resolution on 27 September 2011 and resolved:

“That Council, consistent with Tathra Foreshore Reserves Plan of Management and the decisions of Council on 11 November 2008, 2 February 2010 and 23 February 2010, proceed with and prepare the necessary detailed design for the Tathra Wharf Ring Road in accordance with Option 2 of the Worley Parsons Report of April, 2010, including the recommended wave deflector barrier and flow diversion channel, within budgeted funds for such project, to enable Council and or the community to apply for government funding for the constructions works.”

Accordingly, following a tender process Council engaged Tasman Engineering to:

· evaluate previous studies;

· carry out geotechnical investigation;

· identify and prove up the best option for the road and other structures; and

· design and document that best option so that a reliable estimate could be established.

On the basis of the ‘best option’ design, Quantity Surveyors DCWC have developed an estimated cost for the works.

ISSUES

Design

The ‘best option’ design, drafted by Tasman Engineers draws on the previous works completed. After further geotechnical investigation by ACT GeoTechnical, a staged solution has developed that addresses a range of design and engineering issues in this exposed and highly eroded location. These include cliff stabilisation, stormwater drainage, constructability, construction access, wave deflection wall, overland flow channel and pedestrian access, while eliminating the need for a suspended bridge platform. The design incorporates a one way single lane solution, using a reinforced earth wall system for the elevated sections.

Environmental

The proposed Ring Road will come under the aegis of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the NSW Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as well as the LEP. Consequently, a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. The proposal will have to comply with a range of stringent environmental conditions and is likely to require approval from the relevant Ministers at both Federal and State levels. It should be noted that the project will affect Aboriginal midden sites along the cliff top. For this and a number of other factors, obtaining the Federal and State Government approvals for this project may prove challenging.

Social / Cultural

The Tathra and surrounding communities have been functioning without the Ring Road with little apparent impediment for over 40 years. Apart from enabling bus services to access the wharf and subsequent tourism benefits, there appears to be little other benefit from a new ring road.

Economic

The distinguishing practical advantage of the Ring Road is that buses would be able to transport patrons to the door of the Wharf cafe, rather than at a short distance away, albeit along relatively steep paved road. For the significant expenditure, the actual financial return to the cafe, Tathra businesses and the community cannot be determined. The economic benefit is therefore considered to be small.

Financial

Funds have been brought forward from previous years for the feasibility and cost estimate studies. No funds are allocated for further necessary environmental, heritage, cultural studies and other documentation required. As anticipated by the Council resolution on 27 September 2011, further funds for this project are to be sourced by Council or the community, from State and/or Federal Governments.

However it is understood the federal and state local members have facilitated financial contributions from both their governments towards the project, requiring and equal contribution from Council. Those funds are not contained in the LTFP.

Cost Estimate

The construction cost estimate by DCWC, based on Tasman Engineering’s ‘best option’ design is as follows:

Stage 1 Works includes prelims, site clearing, early works, temporary / construction drainage, rock excavation, cliff stabilisation, construction access road, specialist engineer supervision	433,000
Stage 2 Works includes prelims, reinforced earth retaining wall system, road construction, pathways and stairs, access ramp, wave deflection wall, drainage, rock batters, flow channel, and engineer’s supervision	1,146,000
DCWC Sub total	1,579,000
Plus other items not included above:
Building Price Index escalation p.a. (allow one year)	90,000
Finalised Detail Design and Documentation, inc. tech specs	75,000
Authorities Fees (estimate)	10,000
Asbestos Removal	NIL
Latent Conditions RISK (allow 3%)	50,000
Out of hours labour costs (allow 200 hours)	10,000
Removal and replacement of unsuitable sub base, below profile depths noted on drawings (allow 100m³)	10,000
Updated RET quote for reinforced earth wall at 8 May 2013	11,000
Estimate risk and contingency (allow 10%)	150,000
Total of Other Items	406,000
TOTAL	1,985,000
Note: Estimate does not include: · Council staff and administration costs; · Any costs involved in further EIS preparation and/or Federal and State approvals process; or · Any costs involved in dealing with affected Aboriginal Sites.

Conclusion

The Tathra Ring Road works will cost approximately $1,579 million, with a further $0.4 million provisional and contingency costs likely.

The project will require an EIS and may well encounter delays or impediments to obtain State and Federal Government approvals. Council should confirm the offers of federal and state government funding from the local members.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Tathra Ring Road Design Plan

Recommendation

1. That Council note the report of the Tathra Ring Road design and estimate.

2. That Council determine the future of the Tathra Ring Road project.

Council 3 July 2013 Item 11.2

11.2. Merimbula Effluent Options Study

This report outlines the process undertaken to investigate and recommend a preferred effluent management strategy for Merimbula STP, with particular focus on improving the main problem of effluent disposal.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Sewage effluent is a product available to provide further benefits. The existing effluent reuse schemes for Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), the Pambula Merimbula Golf Course and Oaklands Farm, will enable a significant proportion of effluent to be reused from year to year from the STP. Future expansion of effluent reuse opportunities are also possible, particularly with climate change, new treatment technologies and a desire to reduce the impact on the natural environment. Notwithstanding, an effluent disposal option is required of all STPs by NSW EPA, as reuse is not always available due to weather conditions or peak holiday loads exceeds irrigation and storage capacity of the reuse sites.

All large sewerage schemes require an appropriate effluent disposal system to deal with the volume of effluent unable to be reused. The Reclaimed Water Management Scheme (REMS) in the Shoalhaven for example, which links STP’s and effluent produced via a pipe and storage network for use on farms and open space areas, has an ocean outfall for effluent disposal. In 2011/12, 75% of effluent produced by the REMS scheme was disposed via this outfall due to above average rainfall limiting reuse potential for the year. As a proportion of all effluent produced in the Shoalhaven, 9% was reused in 2011/12 due to the above average rainfall and 91% was disposed to the environment.

Unfortunately Merimbula STP does not have an appropriate effluent disposal system. The beach face ocean outfall no longer meets NSW environmental objectives and community expectations and the disposal of effluent to the dunal exfiltration ponds is limited by groundwater level impacts and long term sustainability issues. An alternative, more acceptable and sustainable disposal system is needed for effluent disposal from Merimbula STP.

The Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) produces approximately 700 megalitres (ML) of effluent per year to an advanced secondary standard. Each year approximately 75-85% is disposed via the dunal exfiltration ponds situated in the back-dunes of Merimbula Bay or the ocean outfall situated opposite the STP on the beach, with the remaining 15-25% used to irrigate the golf course of the Pambula-Merimbula Golf Club (PMGC) - the lower percentage during wet years and the higher percentage during dry years.

In 2008 the Bega Valley Sewerage Program (2004-2008) constructed a pump-station and pipeline to Oaklands property on the Pambula River flats to provide effluent to a new agricultural irrigation reuse scheme approved in July 2006 under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The effluent storage on the Oaklands property was completed later by Council in 2012/13. The scheme commenced limited irrigation operations in February 2013.

The PMGC and Oaklands reuse schemes have the potential to increase existing 2013 STP effluent reuse to approximately 25-50% per year, once the Oaklands scheme is fully established across the full 40 hectare irrigable area and providing the landholder continues to manage effluent reuse appropriately from year to year. Future 2030 reuse potential of the PMGC and Oaklands reuse schemes is estimated to be around 33% per average rainfall year, allowing for future population growth and an associated increase in effluent produced. This would leave approximately 67%, or around 600 ML per year, for disposal in an average rainfall year.

The Bega Valley Sewerage Program (BVSP) also included the broader scope of developing an effluent management scheme for Merimbula STP inclusive of an improved effluent disposal system. The BVSP used an Options Evaluation Matrix to assess and compare scheme alternatives and select a preliminary preferred effluent management scheme.

The preliminary preferred effluent management scheme selected by the BVSP was a shallow dunal exfiltration system for effluent disposal and the new effluent reuse scheme at Oaklands. Also part of the preferred scheme was the addition of chlorine dosing at the STP and retaining the existing PMGC reuse scheme.

The ocean outfall options considered by the BVSP and not preferred, were extending the outfall 500 metres offshore or retaining the existing beach face outfall.

The preliminary preferred effluent management scheme of the BVSP was discussed with government agencies and key local stakeholder groups at workshops in September 2004. The broader local community were also informed of the preliminary preferred scheme through the distribution of newsletters, local media advertising and two community information sessions in September 2004.

The preferred effluent management scheme, inclusive of shallow dunal exfiltration disposal, was formally adopted by Council on 26 October 2004. Further investigations were undertaken thereafter on the preferred scheme as part of the EIA process.

It was soon recognised by the BVSP that there were a number of issues associated with a shallow dunal exfiltration system that would take considerable time to resolve, particularly in relation to Aboriginal archaeological heritage. A proposal to reduce the length of a dunal exfiltration system from 400 metres to 100 metres (to minimise construction impact) and retain the existing ocean outfall for peak wet weather discharges, was presented and endorsed at a Council workshop in April 2006. However in June 2006 the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) indicated that for a dunal exfiltration system to be approved, regardless of length, significant environmental investigations and justifications would be required in relation to impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, local groundwater and Merimbula Lake.

In May 2007 the Project Leadership Group of the BVSP resolved to exclude the dunal exfiltration trench disposal system from the BVSP due to the difficulties encountered. The scope of the program was changed and only Oaklands transfer pump and pipeline and the STP upgrades proceeded with.

In May 2008 the EPA issued a Pollution Reduction Program (U1 PRP6) in Council’s Environment Protection Licence for the Merimbula Sewerage System (EPL1741) in response to the BVSP excluding an improved effluent disposal system for Merimbula STP from the program. PRP6 required Council to fully consider all reasonable and feasible disposal options, as well as the range of beneficial reuse options, and undertake a sound and adequate assessment of the options and the impacts on environmental values, sustainability, Aboriginal cultural heritage and other issues. PRP6 also required Council to consult with stakeholders to nominate a preferred strategy for the disposal and beneficial use of effluent.

In early 2009 Council called for tenders for the Merimbula Effluent Options Investigation (MEOI) project to satisfy the requirements of PRP6. In July 2009 AECOM Pty Ltd were awarded the tender from 11 tenders received. AECOM and Council have worked on the project since 2009.

In March 2011 a stakeholder Focus Group was established by Council resolution. The role of the Focus Group was to consult, guide, review and discuss the available project information and to recommend a preferred effluent management strategy to Council. Representatives of the Focus Group included persons from the Merimbula Lake Shellfish Quality Assurance Program, Pambula Lake Shellfish Quality Assurance Program, NSW Environment Protection Authority, NSW Office of Water, Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Bega Valley Shire Council (Councillors and staff) and community (2 representatives). The Focus Group has met four (4) times at workshops facilitated by AECOM.

Four (4) independent investigative studies have been undertaken as part of the project:

§ Pilot Water Quality Model Final Report Merimbula Effluent Outfall (AECOM 2010)

§ Merimbula Bay Algal Bloom Study, Elgin Associates (2013)

§ Disposal of Effluent form Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant by Dunal Exfiltration – Investigation and Assessment of Impacts on Groundwater Levels and Water Quality of Merimbula Lake and Bay, Ian Grey Groundwater Consulting (2013)

§ Ecological Assessment of the Potential Impacts on Merimbula Lake from Shallow Dunal Exfiltration of Effluent, AECOM and Elgin Associates (2013)

These studies have advanced knowledge around many of the issues relevant to the project.

At the first Focus Group workshop in May 2011 a long-list of effluent disposal and reuse options was presented, discussed and shortlisted by the group using available information. The shortlisted options were developed further by AECOM into disposal system options, reuse scheme options and treatment plant upgrade options as outlined below.

The three (3) short-listed effluent disposal system options were:

§ Deep water ocean outfall with a submerged diffuser outlet at approximately 40 metres depth located approximately five (5) kilometres off-shore, beyond the limits of Merimbula Bay. This depth and distance off-shore was based on the AECOM 2010 study findings and contrasts starkly with the original 500 metre distance considered by the BVSP.

§ Shallow dunal exfiltration trench of approximately 400 metres in length in the highest and widest part of the dune system east of the airport terminal. This length and location was based on the IGGC 2013 study findings and is similar to the original BVSP planned length and location.

§ Deep alluvial aquifer injection wells into a deep confined alluvial sequence beneath the dune system. Information on the viability of this disposal system option was based on a report by Parsons Brinckerhoff 2004. This report suggested potential was likely to be limited to average dry-weather flows only and recommended further investigations involving drilling, long-term pump tests and modelling to determine capacity, issues and the number of wells needed to cater for peak discharge volumes.

The eight (8) short-listed effluent reuse scheme options were:

§ Existing PMGC and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

§ Scheme 1. PMGC Expansion and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

§ Scheme 2a. Pambula Open Space, PMGC and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

§ Scheme 2b. South Pambula Agricultural, PMGC and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

§ Scheme 2c. Lochiel Agricultural, PMGC and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

§ Scheme 3a. Millingandi Agricultural, PMGC and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

§ Scheme 3b. Wolumla Agricultural, PMGC and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

§ Scheme 4. Yellow Pinch Dam Indirect Potable Reuse, PMGC and Oaklands Agricultural Irrigation

The Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade options were:

§ Phosphorous reduction

§ Improved chlorine disinfection

§ Ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection

§ Nitrogen reduction via a constructed wetland

§ Nitrogen reduction via biologically active filters and de-nitrifying filters with methanol dosing

Sixteen (16) Fact Sheets were developed by AECOM and Council to summarise relevant project information for existing and future scheme options including descriptions, infrastructure requirements, potential effluent reuse volumes and disposal volumes, capital, operating and net present value costs, greenhouse gas emissions and key opportunities and constraints.

The Fact Sheets, specialist reports and other information enabled AECOM and the Focus Group to develop a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) process to compare the disposal system, reuse scheme and treatment plant upgrade options. This was done in a series of Focus Group workshops in March, April and May 2013.

The non-cost criteria used for the MCA process included public health, receiving water quality and aquatic ecology, aboriginal heritage, regional economy, aesthetic and recreational amenity, construction impact, operation and maintenance, reliability and greenhouse gas emissions. Each of the criteria was weighted and then scored by the Focus Group for the disposal system options in combination with each of the reuse scheme options. Costs were then included for consideration with the non-cost criteria and treatment plant upgrades.

The outcome of the MCA process was recommendations from the Focus Group on a preferred effluent management strategy for Council’s consideration. The Focus Group recommendations were:

	Focus Group Recommendations	Estimated 30-year net present value (NPV) cost	Estimated up-front capital cost
1.	As a minimum, upgrade the sewage treatment plant to reduce phosphorus concentrations and improve disinfection.	$4.6M	$2.1M
2i.	A Deep Water Ocean Outfall is the favoured effluent disposal option offering the greatest relative environmental and public health benefits. Council should pursue this disposal option and ways to fund a possible capital funding shortfall exceeding $10.0M over and above that allowed in Council’s current long-term financial plan for Merimbula/Pambula STP upgrades and effluent disposal (i.e. $11.5M over 4 years). Council should defer the expansion of effluent reuse beyond the existing schemes until an outfall is built using all available funds.	$23.3M¹	$23.0M¹
2ii.	The Focus Group also considers there is an opportunity to reduce the length of an ocean outfall, providing that the point of discharge occurs outside the limits of Merimbula Bay and still be subject to the influence of predominant ocean currents. A shorter length outfall may also require the provision of an increased level of treatment (eg. nitrogen reduction) which would be an additional cost to that shown right.	$19.1M¹	$18.8M¹
3i	If funding for a Deep Water Ocean Outfall is insufficient, Council should consider an effluent management strategy involving a Shallow Dunal Exfiltration system for disposal, additional treatment plant upgrades including nitrogen reduction and the expansion of effluent irrigation on the Pambula Merimbula Golf Club.	$14.3M¹ (Dune: $4.53 N red.: $5.91 PMGC:$3.88)	$11.0M¹ (Dune: $3.61 N red.: $3.76 PMGC:$3.66)
3ii.	Pambula urban open space areas should also be considered as a part of the strategy, if and when funding is available for effluent reuse expansion.	$0.62M¹	$0.56M¹
3iii.	Millingandi agricultural reuse areas should also be considered as a part of the strategy if and when funding is available for effluent reuse expansion to increase the volume of reuse and thereby decrease the volume to effluent disposal to a Shallow Dunal Exfiltration system. (Note: even though Wolumla was considered to offer higher relative benefits the NPV cost was considered to be excessive).	$4.3M¹	$3.7.M¹
4	No further consideration of strategies which incorporate Scheme 4 YPD Indirect Potable Reuse due to the excessive NPV cost and greenhouse gas emissions / costs.	-	-
5	No further consideration of strategies which incorporate Schemes 2b and 2c for the lesser relative benefits and higher NPV costs	-	-

1. Cost assumes minimum upgrades at the sewage treatment plant to reduce phosphorus concentrations and improve disinfection have been implemented prior.

ISSUES

Legal

Pollution Reduction Program PRP6 Investigation of beneficial reuse and disposal of treated effluent from the Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant is a condition of Licence 1741 for Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant established under Section 58(5) Protection of the Environmental Operations Act, 1997. It arose because an improved effluent disposal system for Merimbula STP was excluded from the Bega Valley Sewerage Program in July 2007.

The Merimbula Effluent Options Investigation project has satisfied many aspects of PRP6. However PRP6 also includes a requirement to develop a capital works plan, obtain approvals and commence design and construction in accordance with approvals. These licence requirements have yet to be met.

All environmental planning instruments (EPI) will require consideration to determine if there are any that prohibit development of the adopted effluent management strategy. If no EPI prohibit development then the development will be assessed in terms of meeting State Significant Development (SSD) provisions under the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development), 2011.

If SSD provisions are met then the development will be assessed under Part 4 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) and Environment Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 in accordance with requirements issued by the Director General of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required and will be determined by the Minister or delegate.

If no SSD provisions are met then Council as a public authority may be able to meet “development without consent” provisions under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure), 2007 and the development assessed under Part 5 of the EP&A Act and Environment Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. An EIS will be required because the development impact of an effluent disposal system will be deemed significant.

All approvals for construction will be identified during the EIS process and will need to be obtained prior to construction.

Environmental

A deep water ocean outfall was the favoured effluent disposal option of the Focus Group, offering the greatest relative environmental benefit through improving receiving water quality and ecology and having the least construction impacts and operational greenhouse gas emissions. The deep water ocean outfall was also considered to provide the greatest preservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage, aesthetics and recreational amenity.

AECOM (2010) undertook water quality modelling to provide an indication of the effects of effluent discharge on marine water quality from an ocean outfall at three discharge distances (1350, 2975 and 5225 metres) and depths (-20, -30 and -40 metres) offshore, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Three ocean outfall depths modelled by AECOM (2010)

The AECOM study adopted the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, 2000 marine water quality trigger values for south-east Australia and a target mixing zone radius of less than 100 metres. That is, the AECOM study considered impact in terms of whether the ANZECC guideline values for marine waters were exceeded beyond a mixing zone of approximately 100 metres.

The constituents modelled were total suspended solids, total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, total phosphorous, phosphate and faecal coliforms, using conservative 90^th percentile data values for the quality of effluent discharged. A total of fifteen (15) water quality scenarios were run in the model for a month of hydrodynamics (currents and tides) with a conservative continuous discharge release of effluent.

The investigation showed that for an outfall at a depth of -40 metres the ANZECC guideline values for marine waters would not be exceeded beyond a mixing zone of 100 metres for all water quality constituents, except phosphate. Phosphate is a constituent that can be relatively easily reduced at the STP and an additional modelling run using a reduced value of 2.5 mg/L (original 13.0 mg/L) showed that the radius of exceedence would also be well below 100 metres. Importantly, at -40 metre discharge depth there would be no accumulation of effluent constituents within Merimbula Bay or adjacent estuaries because the effluent discharged would be subject to dispersal by open ocean currents, in addition to the dilution achieved within a 100 metre radius. As such the potential for algae aggregations in Merimbula Bay to utilise the nutrients in effluent discharged would be very low.

On this basis a depth of around -40 metres was considered the preferable depth for an ocean outfall discharge.

The alternative shallow dunal exfiltration diposal system option, whilst feasible, was considered by the Focus Group to have a number of risks associated with construction and ongoing operations and was not favoured on environmental or sustainability grounds.

Groundwater modelling (IGGC 2013) suggested that the majority of effluent disposed in a system in the dunes east of the airport terminal would flow in groundwater towards the ocean (approximately 81%) and the remainder would flow westward with the natural groundwater flow towards Merimbula Lake. The amount of nitrogen decay and phosphorous adsorption within the dune system would be limited by the relative absence of clay and organic material in the predominantly sand landform.

The proportion of effluent flowing to the ocean in groundwater would enter the ocean through the benthic environment close to the shoreline. This would provide an ongoing source of nutrients to the near coastal Merimbula Bay environment and a potential food source for the aggregations of algae in the bay.

The proportion of effluent flowing to Merimbula Lake could potentially contribute an additional 6.7% of total nitrogen per year to the lake (AECOM 2013). This load of nitrogen would enter the system through the benthic environment along the eastern shoreline first and may result in increased growth of benthic microalgae and macroalgae such as filamentous brown alga (Elgin 2013), impacting negatively on ecosystem functioning in the area.

The significance of the above potential impacts would depend on the ability of the lake hydrodynamics to flush concentrations of nutrients entering the water column out to the ocean. Existing literature suggests that Merimbula Lake on the whole has very good tidal flushing. However, the backwater area known as Golf Course Lake has a reduced capacity for flushing and longer water residence times and is potentially a more vulnerable area to increased nutrient concentration discharges from groundwater.

Construction of an exfiltration trench within the central dune area would impact upon Dune Scrub vegetation dominated by Coast Banksia (Banksia integrifolia). Dune Scrub forms a buffer behind which the less salt and wind tolerant eucalypt forests can develop. Construction may also impact upon eucalypt forest dominated by Bangalay (Eucalyptus botryoides), depending on the exact location of the exfiltration trench and in particular, how far north it extends. This community is listed as the Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) Bangalay Sand Forest of the NSW Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions, under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

Sustainability

A deep water ocean outfall would consume significantly less energy and have less operation and maintenance issues than a shallow dunal exfiltration system. A shallow dunal exfiltration system would also have greater capacity limitations for peak wet weather flows and long term population growth. The deep water ocean outfall was considered by the Focus Group to be a more sustainable option.

Asset

Infrastructure requirements for the effluent management strategy recommended by the Focus group include:

§ Alum and caustic dosing for phosphorous reduction and pH correction

§ Improved chlorine disinfection system

§ Ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection system

§ Pumps and pipeline for a deep water ocean outfall

§ Multiport diffuser to provide mixing and dilution at the discharge point for a deep water ocean outfall

The construction of a deep water ocean outfall would involve a combination of trenching and horizontal directional drilling (HDD), commencing from a point east of the STP immediately behind the foredunes of the Pambula-Merimbula dunal system and exiting 1 km away at a depth of -20 m beyond the zone of wave influence, before adopting a dredge and lay construction methodology for up to a further 3.5 km offshore to a favoured depth of -40 m.

Social / Cultural

The potential for Aboriginal skeletal material and burial contexts to be present in the Merimbula Bay barrier landform is high. Aboriginal skeletal material has been found previously within the landform and is consistent with burial site locational patterning elsewhere along the south coast. The exact location of burial sites cannot be predicted and Aboriginal sites may exist within the areas identified as suitable for shallow dunal exfiltration.

The construction of a deep ocean outfall would commence from a point immediately behind the foredunes of the Pambula-Merimbula dunal system. The potential for impact on Aboriginal skeletal material and burial contexts would be significantly less due to the depth of the HDD alignment.

Economic

The Focus Group considered the deep ocean outfall to have greater relative benefits for the regional economy than a shallow dunal exfiltration system. This assessment was based primarily on the potential risks to Merimbula Lake aquaculture, fishing and lake based tourism from a shallow dunal exfiltration system. The potential for effluent contaminants in groundwater from a shallow dunal exfiltration system to impact negatively on the “Australian Oyster Coast” and “Bega Oysters” branding of pristine waters growing the finest and safest oysters in Australia, was highlighted by the Focus Group. The potential for effluent nutrients in groundwater discharging to Merimbula Bay and stimulating algae growth was also a reason that shallow dunal exfiltration scored lower by the Focus Group in terms of benefit to the regional economy.

Strategic

A deep water ocean outfall for Merimbula STP is considered consistent with Council’s vision statement of achieving the best balance between quality of life, sustainable development and conservation of the environment. It would deliver an asset outcome to overcome a long-term asset failing that has resulted in poor social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Merimbula-Pambula community.

Resolving effluent disposal from Merimbula STP is a key strategic direction of Council’s Strategic Business Plan and 30-year capital works program for Sewerage Services.

Consultation

The BVSP (2004-2008) involved consultation with Council, stakeholders and the public on the preferred effluent management strategy of that program. The Merimbula Effluent Options Investigation (MEOI) project (2009-2013) involved the formation of a stakeholder Focus Groups to consult and guide the options investigations. All MEOI project reports, Fact sheets and MCA process results are available on Council’s website for community access. An Environmental Impact Assessment process for the adopted strategy will involve community consultation.

A total of thirteen (13) submissions were received from the community in regards to the preliminary preferred effluent management scheme. The submissions raised a number of issues to be addressed within the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).

Financial

A deep water ocean outfall would be the most capital expensive effluent disposal system to construct, costing approximately three (3) times more than a shallow dunal exfiltration system. Conversely a deep water ocean outfall would be approximately ten (10) times less expensive to operate than a shallow dunal exfiltration system and produce less greenhouse gas emissions and potential future CO2-e costs.

AECOM estimated the capital cost for the effluent management strategy recommended by the Focus Group at $25.1M. This amount includes $2.1 million for sewage treatment plant upgrades and $23.0 million for construction of the deep water ocean outfall infrastructure.

Council has provided an amount of $11.5 million in its LTFP for years 2016-18 for Merimbula STP upgrades and effluent disposal in Council’s Development Servicing Plan – Sewerage Services (NSW Public Works, 2013). An additional amount of $7.7 million has been allowed for additional effluent reuse in years 2019-22.

$11.5 million is insufficient to fund a deep water ocean outfall disposal system. State and/or Federal Government subsidy would be required to realise the recommended effluent disposal strategy in the near term.

Lack of State and/or Federal Government subsidy would mean a less meritorious strategy involving shallow dunal exfiltration effluent disposal would be the potential fall-back option for Council to consider as per the Focus Group recommendations. This option whilst potentially affordable using existing Council budget allocations, has a number of environmental, Aboriginal heritage impact and sustainability risks associated with it as outlined in this report. These would need to be adequately resolved to obtain development approval. Council received further advice from the EPA in May 2013 of their ongoing concerns over this option and highlighted a range of justifications, investigations and planning required if it was to be pursued again, with no suggestion or otherwise that a shallow dunal exfiltration effluent disposal system would be approved following completion of this work.

Funding source

Amount

Sewer fund 75% ILOS and 25% growth

Grant funds (yet to be obtained)

11.5 million

13.6 million

Resources (including staff)

Environmental impact assessment, concept design, obtaining approvals and detailed design are the next project stages upon Council adoption of a preferred effluent management strategy. A Council client representative from Water and Sewerage Services will be required for this, with external project management assistance an option. Competitive tendering will be the most likely means to obtain the specialist engineering and scientific skills for delivery of these project stages. Estimated total cost for these project stages is around $500k.

Operational Plan

The provision of improved effluent management will enable Operational Plan objectives to be met.

Conclusion

The appropriate disposal of effluent from Merimbula STP has been a long recognised and unresolved problem for the shire. This report outlines processes undertaken by the Bega Valley Sewerage Program (2004-2008) and the Merimbula Effluent Options Investigation project (2009-2013) to investigate and address the problem.

The knowledge base of relevant environmental issues has vastly increased as a result of the detailed investigative planning work undertaken in recent times.

Stakeholder consideration of the available information enabled a multi criteria assessment of options to be undertaken at a series of workshops in 2013 and resulted in a number of recommendations being made for Council’s consideration.

The main recommendation was that a deep water ocean outfall is the favoured effluent disposal option, offering the greatest relative environmental and public health benefits to the community. It was recommended that Council should pursue the development of a deep water ocean outfall, along with STP upgrades to further improve effluent quality, as a long term solution to the Merimbula STP effluent disposal problem.

Council does not have the means to fund the capital to construct the option recommended by the multi criteria assessment, being the ocean outfall. It is proposed the federal and state governments be lobbied to assist the project with subsidy funding.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council adopt an effluent management strategy for Merimbula STP:

· sewage treatment plant upgrades to improve effluent quality

· construction of a deep water ocean outfall for the disposal of effluent unable to be used beneficially by the existing reuse schemes at the PMGC and Oaklands.

2. That Council pursue ways over the next 12 months to fund a capital funding shortfall for a deep water ocean outfall effluent disposal system with State and Federal Governments, including lobbying of candidates’ for the 2013 federal election.

3. That Should a commitment to subsidy funding by State and Federal Governments be not forthcoming, then Council proceed to constructing a dunal exfiltration system once relevant approvals are gained.

Council 3 July 2013 Item 11.5

11.5. Tender 24/13 Central Waste Facility Weighbridge

This report details the outcome of the evaluation of Tender 24/13 for the Wanatta Lane Central Waste Facility weighbridge and recommends award to the preferred tenderer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Tender 24/13 involves the supply, installation, commissioning and through-life support of a weighbridge for the Wanatta Lane Central Waste Facility (CWF). The weighbridge specification was for concrete deck, semi-pit weighbridge, with minimum dimensions of 16.0m x 3.0m and minimum 50 tonne capacity. The tender includes provisional sums for additional items including, supporting software and hardware, traffic lights, CCTV load inspection, load inspection platform and bollards.

The tender was publically advertised from 14 May 2013 in national and local newspapers and on the Council website and closed on 12 June 2013.

Tender documents were issued to nine companies and five tender submissions were received from:

· Accuweigh Pty Ltd;

· Ace Infrastructure Pty Ltd;

· Mettler Toledo Ltd;

· National Weighing & Instruments Pty Ltd; and

· Newcastle Weighing Services Pty Ltd.

The tender submissions were assessed against the following evaluation criteria. Details have been provided to Councillors in a confidential attachment:

Non-Price Criteria	Weighting
Technical Specifications	40%
Past Projects & Referees	5%
Key Staff	5%
Sub-Contractors, Suppliers	5%
Programme	5%
Quality	Compliant / Non-Compliant
WH&S	Compliant / Non-Compliant
Financial	Compliant / Non-Compliant
Environmental	Compliant / Non-Compliant
Total:	60%

Price Criteria	Weighting
Lump Sum	35%
Price Breakdown	5%
Total:	40%

ISSUES

Legal

The Development Consent for the CWF Project was issued by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on 3 August 2011.

The Construction Certificate for the CWF was issued by Council’s Planning Section on 19 December 2012.

The tender process complied with the Local Government Act 1993.

Environmental

A comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement for the CWF Project was completed in November 2009.

The NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) issued the General Terms of Approval for the CWF on 11 February 2010.

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) issued the Environment Protection Licence (Scheduled Development Works) for the CWF on 11 September 2012.

Asset

The site for the CWF, Lot 3 DP 592206 at Wanatta Lane, is Council owned land.

Strategic

The CWF is a strategic project central to Council’s Waste Management Strategy, “2020 Vision on Waste”.

Financial

The CWF preliminary project budget (2010/11) for Stage 1, i.e. construction up to and including Landfill Cell 1, is $3.864 million. The weighbridge constituted $191,000 of this budget.

The preferred tenderer’s price, including the provisional sum options, is within this budget estimate.

Resources (including staff)

The CWF Project Engineer will manage the weighbridge contract works.

Conclusion

The CWF is a strategic project central to Council’s Waste Management Strategy, “2020 Vision on Waste”.

The weighbridge is a fundamental requirement for the operation of the CWF and the tender should be awarded.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Confidential memorandum to Councillors regarding Tender 24/13 Central Waste Facility Weighbridge (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

1. That Council accept the tender from (insert) in relation to the contract for the works described in Tender 24/13, in the amount of $(insert) (excluding GST), subject to variations and provisional sums.

2. That authority is delegated to the General Manager to execute all necessary documentation.

3. That other tenderers be advised of Council’s decision.

Council 3 July 2013 Item 11.8

11.8. Purchase of Tura Beach Tavern - proposed uses

Reporting on the acquisition of Tura Beach Tavern site and proposing uses in line with Council’s intention to convert the building to community purposes.

General Manager

Background

At its meeting on 12 June 2013, Council resolved to authorise the General Manager to take actions in accord with the resolution of Closed Session. That resolution and report is attached for councillors, to enable its declassification.

As reported in media releases, Council purchased the Tura Beach Tavern site at auction for $1.2 million, for community purposes. The acquisition was well below valuation and understood to be less than mortgagee requirements. Settlement is expected around the end of July.

The site is well located for community purposes being in proximity to retail shopping, neighbourhood shopping, recreational areas, and aged care accommodation, and accessible by car, bus and local pedestrian. The site has suitable parking and disabled access, as well as a lift.

It is appropriate for Council to consider the actions required under contract subsequent to settlement, and the potential uses of the buildings. Councillors inspected the site on 26 June.

ISSUES

Legal

The contract listed a number of inclusions (fixtures, fittings and chattels) sold with the property, and other chattels the subject of potential claim by third parties. In addition, the liquor and gaming licences require transfer and/or sale, with freight of associated equipment also likely. Those items will be pursued after settlement in accord with the terms of contract.

Concurrently, Council may progress the reuse of items not required for the proposed use of the buildings, in its other community buildings, or sale by auction or tender to other parties.

Development consent may be required for the change of use for the buildings and conversion to a function liquor licence.

Asset

Council had listed in its LTFP the development of a new branch library in Merimbula next year, following the expiry of the current lease in Market Street. In the six months till that expiry, some cleaning and modification of the Tura site is expected to convert the building/s to their preferred use.

With reference to the attached (attachment 1) floor plans of the lower and upper levels, councillors considered the following uses in the Closed Session on 12 June:

· Branch library, office and work rooms

· Exhibition/reception space

· Community meeting space

· Gallery storage, including Hannan collection

· After school/childrens play/care areas

The dwelling may also be considered for:

· Offices

· Emergency accommodation

· Business/ICT incubator

· Medical centre

Similarly, the following fixtures and fittings may be removed and reused in Council facilities, or together with surplus items, sold to third parties such as Clubs who have expressed interest, or sold at auction:

· Commercial kitchen and bar equipment and cabinetry, and baby grand piano for Bega Civic Centre

· Tables, chairs and computer/electronic equipment for halls, VICs and libraries

· Snooker table and coaster bus for youth services

To date, the following parties have expressed an interest in the purchase or retrieval of chattels from the premises:

· Mr David Armstrong has expressed an interest in the purchase of surplus hotel related items;

· A board member of the Tura Beach Country Club has expressed an interest in the interior fittings;

· The Curator, Bega Valley Regional Gallery, has expressed an interest in using the premises for Gallery purposes;

· Ms Debbie Barratt has requested she be permitted to retrieve her belongings, toys and supplies from the child-minding facility located at the premises.

As legal title to the property does not pass until completion of the contract, following settlement of the contract, Council must discern the third party interests listed in the contract which have a valid claim on the property and then listed in its public property register, otherwise the property remains the property of Council for its future use to be determined.

Depending on the usage options councillors wish to explore, will influence the scale of any building or site modifications.

Social / Cultural

The site meets NSW Library location criteria. It is expected grant funds will become available to assist fitout, though the fixtures acquired for the leased library space in Merimbula, will be reused.

It is proposed to convert the liquor licence to a function licence for civic receptions or charity events for example.

Economic

The conversion of the dwelling to an ‘incubator’ or other business use is supported as a low cost means of ‘sponsoring’ by low rentals, an ICT and digitally creative business/s with access to high speed broadband, or to sponsoring a medical centre providing bulk billed services for example. Those initiatives are consistent with the Business Growth Strategy, Digital Economy Strategy, and Social Plan.

Financial

Council had placed $1.5m in 2014 budget, funded by loans, for the development of a branch library in Merimbula, with the potential to co-develop its Main Street or other CBD sites to incorporate the library and community meeting rooms.

The property came with gaming licences valued around $300k. Offers are being sourced by Council’s agent for the sale of those licences. Current offers indicate that value should be obtained. Allowing for legal and building modification expenditure, the nett acquisition cost is likely to be around $1m, the debt for which is estimated to cost $120k pa in loan serving costs over 10 years.

The current library lease of $65k and potential lease income of the dwelling for incubator/business purposes, will offset the debt servicing. This leaves a funded debt servicing in the Long Term Financial Plan of $120k pa, which could be used to draw further debt for future projects.

Should Council determine to sell or develop the Main Street site, subsequent to consideration of the commercial precinct masterplans currently under preparation, may release funds for other community infrastructure, such as carparking or aggregating the CBD bypass project into a single year.

The reuse of commercial kitchen and bar equipment and cabinetry at the Bega Civic Centre, will yield some savings to that development – the early availability of which allows the designers to incorporate their reuse into the Centre layout.

Resources (including staff)

Staff will be engaged in clean up and the project management of modifications to the building/s. Library staff will be involved in layout and relocation from the leased space.

Conclusion

The acquisition of the Tura Tavern meets a number of strategic and financial objectives. The location also meets a number of community access objectives. While community consultation could not take place due to the timing and confidential nature of the auction process, Council may choose to seek community views on the proposed uses.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Tura Beach Tavern - Floor Plans Upper and Lower Level

Recommendation

1. That the report on the acquisition of the Tura Tavern (Lot 158 / DP 1140729), and preferred uses (to be inserted at the meeting) of the property be noted.

2. That the General Manager be authorised to sell the gaming licence to the highest offer, and execute necessary documents.

3. That the General Manager be authorised to convert the liquor licence to a function licence and execute necessary documents.

4. That the General Manager be authorised to negotiate appropriate lease/s for the dwelling and execute necessary documents.

5. That where necessary, appropriate development approvals be obtained for the uses of the property adopted by Council.

6. That the relevant Closed Session report of 12 June 2013 be declassified.

Council 3 July 2013 Item 11.9

11.9. Regional Local and Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) Round 4

Seeking Council’s determination of projects to be funded under Community Infrastructure Grants Program. Applications for funding close on 22 July 2013.

General Manager

Background

At the National Assembly of the Australian Council of Local Governments (ALGA), the Hon Anthony Albanese, Minister for Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Regional Development and Local Government announced the fourth round of the Community Infrastructure Grants (CIG) Program of $150 million under the Regional Development Australia Fund.

The CIG can fund projects that were identified by local communities in the former RLCIP process in 2009/11. The proposed projects are expected to provide important community and social infrastructure identified by local communities as priority investments for their regions. The projects to be funded can include the construction and upgrade of local sport, recreation and community infrastructure.

Applications for RDAF Round Five open on 21 June 2013 and close at 5.00 pm local time on 22 July 2013. Applications must be submitted via the department's Grants Management System portal which will be accessible on 1 July 2013.

The provision of funding is conditional on Council entering into contractual arrangements with the Commonwealth (represented by the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport). The Community Infrastructure Grants program will fund projects consistent with all relevant requirements of the Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Regulations 1997, the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines 2009, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)Better Practice guide, and the recommendations from the ANAO Audit of the Better Regions program.

Further information is available on the website

http://regional.gov.au/local/cip/index.aspx

Asset

The CIG program does not support projects that are already listed for construction or development in Council’s budget and works programs. Attached (attachment 1) is the list of projects unfunded under RLCIP Rounds 1-3, that were prepared following significant community, club and organisation engagement at the time. Since then, Council or the community has identified projects that have been unfunded or underfunded, such as those though the sports and recreation funding committee, the Tathra Ring Road or the Pambula Squash Courts. It is understood projects need to be developed on council or crown land under council care and control. Projects such as the SCMDC seawater filtration and building refurbishment project submitted under RDAF3 may be eligible as a consortium member with Council.

Projects must be 'investment ready', i.e. the project must be completed no later than 31 December 2016. The project must also be ready to commence construction within 12 months of the execution of the Funding Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth.

Projects must be maintained for a period of not less than five years following completion of the project.

Single projects or a package of smaller projects will be supported. There is no limit on the number of projects that may be submitted, however all projects must be included in a single application and, subject to approval, will form a single Funding Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth

The Guidelines indicate Projects must benefit the Local Government Area and the communities that reside within it. Benefits may be to:

· develop the community, i.e. projects that support or enhance social capital and regional liveability through the construction, expansion or refurbishment of community facilities, infrastructure to support housing, streetscapes and civic upgrades, or facilities to support the disadvantaged

· support economic growth, i.e. by sustaining existing growth, enhancing productivity and innovation, supporting industry diversification and value-added activities, contributing to new investment, creating sustainable jobs, exploiting export opportunities, or facilitating workforce re-training and skills development, and/or

· support the environment, i.e. projects that support a transition to clean energy, sewerage upgrades, efficient storage, transformation and use of water, or the effective disposal of waste

The application must demonstrate that the project is viable by providing:

· Evidence of approvals—that approvals are in place, applied for, or otherwise expected to be received to allow the commencement of construction within 12 months of entering into a Funding Agreement with the Commonwealth.

· Evidence of co-contributions—that the project will be fully funded through commitment of partnership contributions in cash or in-kind.

· Evidence of planning—that the project will be delivered on time and to budget. This will be achieved through the provision of supporting documents.

· Evidence of costing—that the project has been appropriately costed. The level and detail of the costing, and procurement processes, should be commensurate with the value of the project.

Closing date for applications is 22 July, 2013.

It is considered the following recent un/under funded projects may meet the criteria:

· Unfunded previous RLCIP projects that meet criteria (as per attachment 1)

· Tathra Ring Road (costings as per separate report to Council)

· Dickinson Park Sports Club house ($300k in addition to insurance payment)

· Montreal Goldfields Toilet ($22k)

· Pambula Squash Courts ($400k-$450k -noting Council recommended change of design to moveable walls requiring modified design in line with sporting complex).

· Sapphire Coast Marine Discovery Centre (SCMDC) laboratory and building refurbishment ($471k)

The General Sports and Recreation Committee have currently received a number of community projects, however the committee have yet to asses these projects or recommend for Council approval and therefore are not considered “shovel ready” – a condition of the RLCIP criteria.

Financial

Funding will be allocated among states and territories on a per capita basis. A base grant of $30,000 will apply for all eligible local governments with the remaining funding in each state or territory to be distributed in the same proportion as the General Purpose funding component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants (as determined by each state and territory local government grants commission).

Applying the population and other criteria used in the initial RLCIP rounds, Bega Valley Shire Council is expected to receive $471,430. Some of the projects listed above may take up all that allocation.

An upfront 50% allocation is expected upon execution of funding contracts.

Resources (including staff)

Staff will be involved in project, volunteer and contract management, noting the CIG funding is intended to generate employment and economic activity external to council operations.

Conclusion

Council should nominate the projects it prefers for inclusion in application for the RLCIP grant of $471,430 to enable execution of contracts prior to the Federal election.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. RCLIP Unfunded Proposals Round 3 2010

Recommendation

That Councillors determine which projects, for a sum of $471,430 to be nominated in an application for funding under the federal Community Infrastructure Grants Program under the Regional Development Australia Fund

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 11.9 - Attachment 1*	*RCLIP Unfunded Proposals Round 3 2010*

		UNFUNDED PROJECT PROPOSALS RLCIP ROUND 3 - 2010
PROJECT	TOWN		FUNDING	PROPOSAL SCOPE	PROPONENT	COMPLIANCE	CRITERIA
Merimbula Wharf to Spencer Park walking trail.	Merimbula		$70,000	Upgrade of existing walking trail through headland / lake foreshore from Merimbula Wharf to Spencer Park. 1400 m, 1.2m wide @ $50/lm average = $70,000	MACCAT & Staff	Yes	Recreational Facilities - walking tracks; Access Facilities
Merimbula Wharf Stairs	Merimbula		$32,000	Stage 2 of project - Replacement of current tubular galvanised steel and timber stairs at Merimbula Wharf with recycled timber post and treads,, with galvanised steel panels to match new fence, and sympathetic with wharf and heritage settings with environment and heritage setting.	Staff	Yes	Tourism Infrastructure; Access Facilities
Merimbula Foreshore Rock wall – Beach Street	Merimbula		$242,000	Replacement of existing treated pine log / key retaining walk with rock walk stabilisation to Merimbula Lake foreshore Beach Street frontage.	MACCAT & Staff	Yes	Tourism Infrastructure; Environmental Initiative
Merimbula Bridge and Entrance to Commercial District	Merimbula		$25,000	Installation of feature lighting under and alongside the bridge and adjoining footpaths	Local Resident (E&M Davis, Tura Beach)		Social and Cultural Infrastructure - enhancement of main streets; Tourism Infrastructure.
Disabled access to Merimbula Lake	Merimbula		$130,000	Stand alone floating pontoon for disabled access	Staff	Yes	Access facilities - pontoons & disabled access infrastructure. Tourism Infrastructure.
Merimbula’s Short Point Beach Reserve and Headland	Merimbula		$106,901	Barbecues and Shelter - to be located as close as practicable to the sole existing power pole, yet far enough away to provide a hygienic, aesthetic amenity. Construction to be of similar design to the one at Bar Beach but approx. 1/3 larger. Viewing Platform – located at eastern end of the headland. To be of similar design and construction to the one at Main Beach. $47,092 Hardwood Timber Tables with Seating – total of 5, two of which to be located near the barbecue shelter site, the remaining three spread at intervals as per the attached plan. Cost estimate: each set of table and seats, secured on concrete pads $6,250 Hardwood Timber Seating (bench style) – 15, two metre long bench seats to be strategically placed along the headland. 10 to be placed on the upper slopes abutting the carpark, 5 to be placed on that section of headland leading to the easternmost rocky outcrop. Cost estimate: $750 each.$11,250	MACCA T	Yes	Social and Cultural Infrastructure - parks and gardens; Tourism Infrastructure.
Slipway Removal	Merimbula		$55,000	Removal of old slipway at Fishpen, Merimbula
The Old Bega Race Course	Bega		$36,000	Refurbish and improve access to the community meeting workshop space under the existing heritage grandstand. Renovate the room under the grandstand $16,000. Install light fittings around the venue $4,000. Pathways to enable wheelchair access $4,000. Solar energy system $10,000. Water Tank $6,000	Staff	Yes	Social and Cultural Infrastructure - community centre; Children Youth and Seniors Facilities; Access Facilities.
Bega Netball Court	Bega		$25,000	Additional Seating and asphalt resurfacing of 4,400 sqm	Bega Netball	Yes	Recreation facilities
Bega Library Refit	Bega		$76,000	Refit of Bega Library to accommodate University of Wollongong element.	Draft Plan of Management	Yes	Social and Cultural Infrastructure - libraries
Bega Library Airconditioning	Bega		$40,000	Air-conditioning upgrades to Bega Library	Draft Plan of Management	Yes	Social and Cultural Infrastructure - libraries
Tathra Beach Access Pedestrian Steps	Tathra		$16,000	Replacement of existing Tathra Beach access pedestrian steps from Dilkera Road to Andy Poole Drive. Current steps poor repair and non-compliant. Steps provide safe access to beach.	Cr Campbell (RLCIP #1)	Yes	Tourism Infrastructure; Access Facilities
Horseshoe Beach Disabled Access	Bermagui		TBC	Disabled Access Ramp - Horseshoe Beach, existing wooden ramp is too steep for wheelchair access	Via Councillor Liz Seckold	Yes	Access facilities - disabled access infrastructure. Tourism Infrastructure.
Cemetery Fence	Cobargo		$9,500	Fence to protect local heritage at the Cobargo Village Cemetery the plan includes fencing and seating at heritage graves	Cobargo Business & Tourist Association	Yes	Social and Cultural Infrastructure - local heritage sites
Access Path to Cobargo Village Cemetery and Sports Ground	Cobargo		$48,000	Path (75m x 1.2m) to provide improved access to sportsground and cemetery	Cobargo Business & Tourist Association	No
Disabled access to toilet and baby changing facilities	Cobargo		$54,000	Extension to existing public toilets to provide baby change facilities and disabled toilets	Cobargo Business & Tourist Association	No
Pambula Pool Car Park	Pambula		TBC	Carpark for Pambula Pool - details TBA	Staff	No	Recreation facilities - swimming pools
Bunga Street Pathway	Bermagui		$5,500	Details to be provided	Via Councillor Liz Seckold	No
Maintenance of Cycle/Walkway _ Bridge Cutajo Street	Bermagui		TBC	Details to be provided	Via Councillor Liz Seckold	No

Council 3 July 2013 Item 12.1

12.1. Policy Review

Council has commenced a review of organisational policies, procedures and supporting documents. This report pertains to stage one of this process – policy review.

Group Manager Community & Relationships

Background

Following the election of a new Council in September 2012 and the subsequent review of Council’s Community Strategic Plan (CSP),it is appropriate to review all organisational policy, procedures and supporting documents.

Councillors have conducted several workshops on the review of policies, deciding initially to defer revision of position statements until adoption of the CSP. Organised into the CSP themes, the position statements will ‘headline’ the policies and associated procedures. Due to the complexity of this task the process will consist of three stages:

1. Policy review

2. Procedure review

3. Supporting documents review

This report pertains to the policy review stage. Subsequent stages will commence once the proposed new policy framework and content are adopted by Council, following consideration of community comments after public exhibition.

ISSUES

Council’s policy framework has been completely reviewed to reflect the theme areas of the CSP; a Liveable Place, an Enterprising Place, a Sustainable Place, an Accessible Place, and a Leading Organisation. A copy of the revised policy framework is provided in attachment 1 – BVSC Policy Map.

The content of each policy has been reviewed to reflect its scope and purpose as well as current legislative requirements that council must comply with.

The full suite of policies being proposed for adoption is provided in final draft form in attachments 2-6:

· Attachment 2 – Liveable Place policies for public exhibition DRAFT 3

· Attachment 3 – Enterprising Place policies for public exhibition DRAFT 3

· Attachment 4 – Sustainable Place policies for public exhibition DRAFT 3

· Attachment 5 – Accessible Place policies for public exhibition DRAFT 3

· Attachment 6 – Leading Organisation policies for public exhibition DRAFT 3

As part of the review process a centralised document control register will be established. This will facilitate document control, scheduling of future reviews, and quality record keeping.

Policy

The review will provide a streamlined policy structure which clearly articulates Council’s positions on key issues relevant to Bega Valley Shire residents, visitors and businesses. The review process will also ensure that Council is adhering with all relevant legislative requirements.

The review process undertaken includes three proposed actions:

1. Revocation of a policy

2. Review of a policy

3. Creation of a new policy

As part of the review a total of 17 policies were identified as redundant and will be recommended for revocation.

The new structure proposes a total of 56 reviewed or new policies for adoption. This figure is based on policies that were reviewed and maintained (34) and new policies (22). A complete overview of the mapping of policies is provided in attachment 7 – ‘Summary of recommendations to Council’.

It is important to note several key points:

· Content of the “revoked” policies will be incorporated as procedures sitting beneath the newly proposed policy structure.

· The “review” of a policy only consisted of minor changes to content – thus not changing the direction and purpose of the policy.

· A “new policy” includes any policy that was subject to a major review of content - thus changing the direction and purpose of the policy. During the mapping process gaps in policy were identified, new policies have been written to cover these gaps.

Strategic

The review and adoption of a streamlined policy structure will facilitate the consistent implementation of strategic plans across Council.

Consultation

Internal consultation was undertaken between managers, supervisors and staff to coordinate the initial review of policy. The review also involved consultation with Councillors by way of Council Workshop.

Conclusion

The newly developed policy framework and draft policies will be placed on public exhibition resulting in a subsequent report being prepared for Council consideration at the expiry of this exhibition period.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2013 policy review policy map (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2. 2013 policy review liveable place policies for public exhibition (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

3 . 2013 policy review enterprising place policies for public exhibition DRAFT 3 version 2 (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

4 . 2013 policy review sustainable place policies for public exhibition (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

5 . 2013 policy review accessible place policies for public exhibition (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

6 . 2013 policy review leading organisation policies for public exhibition (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

7 . 2013 policy reivew summary of recommendations (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

1. That the ‘BVSC policy framework’ included in attachment 1 be placed on public exhibition and if no comment, subsequently adopted by Council.

2. That the suite of policies included in attachments 2-6 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 12.2 - Attachment 1*	*SEATS membership information*

SOUTH EAST AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT STRATEGY INC.

SEATS Logo Executive Officer
Chris Vardon OAM

PO Box 2106

MALUA BAY NSW 2536

Phone: 02 4471 1398

Fax: 02 4471 3741

Mobile: 0413 088 797

Email: seats@acr.net.au

Information for Member Councils regarding SEATS

What is SEATS?

The South East Australian Transport Strategy Inc (SEATS) aims to stimulate and facilitate investment in transport infrastructure in south eastern New South Wales, eastern Victoria and the ACT Region. Members of SEATS include local government, regional development organizations, government agencies, regional industry and academics. The SEATS region is in a triangle to the east of a line linking the NSW City of Wollongong to the north, the Victorian City of Greater Dandenong to the south and the Cooma, Bombala, Tumut and Tumbarumba areas, the ACT and Yass, Goulburn and Crookwell to the west. SEATS membership currently covers some 24 local government areas in Victoria and NSW and also includes 3 Government Agencies and 20 other transport industry organizations such as the NRMA, AECOM, GHD, Bega Cheese, NatRoads, NSW ATA, and 2 individual members who are consultants on transport infrastructure issues.

South Eastern Australia is rich in primary resources, has a skilled labour force and a wealth of natural assets. Inadequate transport infrastructure is impeding orderly development with hundreds of millions of dollars of identified investment being withheld from the region. Limited access is reducing the returns for existing businesses. Independent consultants report that key transport improvements could generate many millions of dollars worth of new investment. SEATS members have developed the South East Australian Transport Strategy. The Strategy is a comprehensive review of the measures necessary to improve transport and access to Gippsland, Western Port, the Snowy Mountains, Yass Valley, Goulburn and Crookwell areas, the Illawarra region, the south coast of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory region.

In all there are some one and a half million people living and working in the region covered by SEATS. The operations of SEATS are guided by a Business and Marketing Plan to generate broad awareness of the issues relating to the development of transport infrastructure, to promote the benefits of such development and communicate the work of SEATS members by improving access to decision makers and by providing information. Further details are available on our website: www.seats.org.au

List of SEATS Members

AECOM: ATA NSW; Bass Coast Shire; Baw Baw Shire; Bega Cheese; Bombala Shire; Canberra Airport; City of Casey; Cooma-Monaro Shire; Dyers Gippsland Transport; East Gippsland Shire; Eurobodalla Shire; Far South Coast RDA Committee; Goulburn-Mulwaree Council; Grendas Transit Management; Latrobe City; GHD-Morwell; Gippsland Campus, Monash University; Kiama Council; Murray Goulburn Co-operative Ltd; NatRoads Ltd; NRMA; Port Kembla Port Corporation; Port of Hastings Development Authority;RDA – ACT Committee; RDA Far South Coast; RDA Southern Inland; RDA Illawarra: Roads - ACT; Softwoods Working Group; Southern Councils Group (NSW) ; NSW Roads and Maritime Services Authority; Palerang Council; Queanbeyan City; Shellharbour City Council; Shoalhaven City; Snowy River Shire; Softwoods Working Group; South East Truck Safety Committee; South Gippsland Shire; Tumbarumba Shire Council; Tumut Shire; Upper Lachlan Shire; VicRoads; VicTrack; Yass Valley Council; Wellington Shire; Wollongong City Council.

Associate Members: Ralf Kastan Consulting; Sanmar Consulting;

What are the aims and Objectives of SEATS?

The SEATS Regional Strategic Network (SRSN) has been developed to achieve the following for the Region:

ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS by managing congestion and known road blocks in order to improve access to jobs, ports (both sea and air) and key locations of economic activity. A key goal is to reduce the cost of doing business in the region.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION by providing sustainable transport systems and networks aimed at meeting existing and future needs whilst minimising the impact on the environment from land take, greenhouse gas and noise emissions.

ENHANCED LIVABILITY by improving people’s access to places of work, education, recreation and public health services with a safe and user friendly network.

GOVERNANCE by ensuring that decisions on regional infrastructure investments on transport are well informed, with improved integration of transport planning, evaluation and assessment. Decisions to comply with federal and state audit frameworks as required.

Transport Infrastructure Priority Projects

SEATS will advocate to all levels of government, the following projects which cover National, State and Local transport infrastructure needs. They are not listed in any particular priority order.

Links (Rail)

· Main Sydney to Melbourne rail corridor

· Bomaderry to Sydney rail corridor

· Bairnsdale to Melbourne rail corridor

· Moss Vale to Sydney rail corridor

· Canberra to Goulburn

· Maldon – Dombarton Rail line

Links (Road)

(a) Significant Freight Corridors

· Hume Highway (Sydney-Melbourne)

· Barton Highway

· Federal Highway

· Princes Highway including F6

· Picton Road (Wollongong to Hume Highway)

· Southern Freeway/Masters Road/Springhill Road from Gwynneville to Port Kembla Port

· Illawarra Highway (Albion Park Rail to Hume Highway)

· Kangaroo Valley Road

· MR92 (Princes Highway at Nowra to Nerriga)

· Kings Highway

· Tumut to Hume Highway at South Gundagai (Gocup Road)

· Monaro Highway

· Snowy Mountains Highway (Bega to Hume Highway)

· Imlay Road (Forestry Road) (linking Eden Port to Bombala)

· Strzelecki Highway (Leongatha to Princes Highway)

· South Gippsland Highway (Dandenong to Sale)

· Bass Highway (Lang Lang to Leongatha)

· Healesville to Koo Wee Rup Road (Koo Wee Rup to Pakenham)

· Western Port Highway (Dandenong Hastings Road)

· Clyde – Five Ways Cranbourne Road

(b) Tourist Routes

· Moss Vale Road (Nowra North to Moss Vale)

· Brindabella Road (Tumut to Canberra)

· Kosciusko Road and The Alpine Way (Cooma to Thredbo)

· Great Alpine Road (Bairnsdale to Wangaratta via Victorian Alps)

· Phillip Island Road (Anderson to Cowes)

· Wilsons Promontory Road (Meeniyan/Foster to Wilsons Prom)

· Grand Ridge Road

Proposed Seaports

· Port Anthony development at Barry Point

· Philip Island to Stony Point Ferry Link (car, passenger)

· Eden

Link with SEATS priority projects

Developing this strategy has been predicated on the premise that all projects prioritised by SEATS must meet, to varying degrees, the criteria established by Federal and State funding agencies particularly Infrastructure Australia.

What next?

The region, which is growing rapidly, deserves the most efficient level of infrastructure that can be provided. Growth pressures are occurring naturally and SEATS aims to stimulate investment in transport infrastructure to meet the needs of this growth. SEATS seeks to ensure that all levels of government cooperate to provide for employment growth, and the economic and social viability of the region.

SEATS Meetings

SEATS members meet four times each year with two meetings in NSW (May and November) and two in Victoria (February and August).

Meetings are held on the third Thursday and Friday of those months unless otherwise determined by the Executive.

The Annual General Meeting is held each August in Victoria as SEATS is incorporated in Victoria.

The meetings commence at 1pm on the Thursday, there is a Dinner on the Thursday evening and the meeting continues on the Friday usually finishing at about 12 noon.

Delegates are expected to make their own accommodation and travel arrangements with the meeting host organisation providing the meeting venue, lunches and morning and afternoon teas and the meeting Dinner.

The meetings consist of a Business meeting and there are usually three presentations on the Friday morning from specially invited professional experts.

A Business Paper is prepared and is circulated about 7 working days prior to the meeting. The Business paper contains the Agenda, the Executive Officer’s Report, the Treasurer’s Report, a Correspondence Report and Reports from the RMS (previously called the RTA) and from VicRoads.

The Business Paper is usually about 40 -45 pages in length and is quite detailed

Delegates are given ample opportunity to discuss issues and are able to give a verbal report on matters they wish to inform other delegates about.

In the last eighteen months or so, guest speakers and presenters at our meetings have included the Deputy Premier of Victoria, Peter Ryan, the NSW Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian, the Chief Executive of RMS and VicRoads, former Victorian Roads Minister Tim Pallas and Darren Chester MP, the Federal Shadow Roads Secretary and a number of other senior officials of NSW Transport and the Department of Transport Victoria.

It is not imperative that members attend every meeting. There are many reasons why this may be so such as clashes with other engagements and budgetary constraints.

Meeting Venues for 2013

FEBRUARY: 21 and 22 February 2013 hosted by Wellington Shire at Sale, Victoria

MAY: 16 and 17 May 2013 hosted by Eurobodalla Shire Council at Batehaven, New South Wales.

AUGUST: 15 and 16 August 2013 hosted by Latrobe City Council at Traralgon, Victoria

NOVEMBER: 7 and 8 November 2013 Hosted by Queanbeyan City Council at Queanbeyan, New South Wales

Communication with SEATS Member Organisations

The Executive Officer regularly updates member organisation delegates on a weekly basis on matters pertaining to SEATS work.

The SEATS website www.seats.org.au is also regularly updated and has the power point presentations given at quarterly meetings on the site. It also has documents such as the SEATS Strategic Network document which was completely revised in late 2012 and policies such as the SEATS Election Policy documents for use when talking with local, state and federal politicians. This document is currently being edited and will be on the SEATS website in the next month.

A Quarterly Newsletter is also prepared and sent to all member organisations and to all politicians at federal and state level as well as all the relevant state and federal government agencies. The Newsletter is a four page, colour publication.

Fees Payable

Council members pay fees based upon population. As from 1 July 2013, for a Council with a population over 40,000 that fee is $5,923 including GST. A Council of less than 20,000 is $1,407; 20,000 – 30,000 is $2,2,814 and 30,000 – 40,000 is $4,4,222 and Government Agencies are $1,383with private organisations and the private sector paying $660. The fee is due in July each year with the SEATS Financial year being 1 July to 30 June. As from 1 July 2013, the Treasurership of SEATS will be East Gippsland shire Council and Invoices for membership fees will be raised by them and payable to them.

SEATS Testimonial

A well respected transport journalist wrote the following

“SEATS intends using the strategic network to provide a collective focus for its future planning. It is also intended as a planning and funding tool because it promotes projects that go beyond the confines of individual councils and benefit the region as a whole as well as the individual states.

This seems to me to be a very enlightened approach and is in stark contrast to the usual competitive and selfish attitudes on display elsewhere.”

Dale Crisp.

What are the benefits of belonging to SEATS

First and foremost is that SEATS membership gives a collective voice to all levels of Government that the South East region of Australia is working as one to achieve real advances in transport infrastructure needs.

SEATS membership means that issues about transport infrastructure in the south east of Australia are not looked at in isolation but are viewed from a wider and perspective encompassing New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory.

It gives our members confidence in advocating issues of local and regional interest to Government. It provides a united and co-operative front with the benefits of a wider diversity of input to the many issues of transport infrastructure which affect our region.

Our organisation (SEATS) was recognized by the Federal Government at the 2004 Regional Roads Conference as being a significant group with a wide interstate role to play in advancing regional roads and other transport infrastructure issues.

Industry benefits by being able to advise SEATS on issues of importance to industry such as “weight of loads “ issues, Use of highways and byways by B Doubles and a myriad of other matters of interest .

There are still a number of issues to be raised and these are evolving every month.

A united voice expressing views on transport issues in the south east of Australia is a much needed facility which will continue to improve and prosper as the issues become more intense and diversified.

SEATS is the paramount organisation in making these cross border issues uppermost in the minds of all Governments.

Project Value Criteria	Weighting
Overall Project Cost	50%
Makeup of the cost structure	10%
Integrity and stability of cost	5%
Commercial terms and conditions	5%
Project Experience Criteria	Weighting
Demonstrated ability to complete the work	15%
Experience in completing similar projects	10%
Quality system and QA experience	5%
	100%

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 1*	*Map - Bundian Way Proposed Route*

Funding source		Amount
Community Services General	$	5750.00

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 11.1 - Attachment 1*	*Tathra Ring Road Design Plan*

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 11.6 - Attachment 1*	*Site Plan*

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 11.7 - Attachment 1*	*Plan*

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 11.8 - Attachment 1*	*Tura Beach Tavern - Floor Plans Upper and Lower Level*

Council	3 July 2013
*Item 12.3 - Attachment 1*	*Local Government NSW Annual Conference 1-3 October 2013 Draft Program(2)*