Agenda of Council - 25 September 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 25 September 2013

AGENDA

1 Confirmation Of Minutes

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 4 September 2013 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 4 September 2013 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.

2 Apologies and requests for leave of absence

Recommendation

That the leave of absence from 13 September 2013 to 18 October 2013 requested by Cr Britten be accepted.

That an apology from Cr Britten be accepted for his inability to attend the meeting.

3 Declarations

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

4 Deputations (by prior arrangement)

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 Staff Reports – Sustainability (Planning and Environment)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Britten

8.1 Food Safety Program "Scores on Doors"........................................... 9

8.2 Bundian Way co-naming request for culturally significant places...... 13

8.3 Hotel Australasia - Response from Proponent.................................. 18

8.4 Weed Management Cancellation of Tender RFT 26/13...................... 23

9 Staff Reports – Liveability (Community and Relationships)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice , this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Seckold.

9.1 Proposed attendance at the Public Libraries NSW annual Conference ...................................................................................................... 28

9.2 Tura facility - proposed uses submission process............................ 31

10 Staff Reports – Economic (Enterprising)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor McBain.

10.1 SCT request to vary funding approval.............................................. 42

11 Staff Reports – Infrastructure Waste and Water (Accessibility)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Fitzpatrick.

11.1 Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee Meeting 4 September 2013...... 48

11.2 Tender 40/13 Central Waste Facility Office/Amenities Building......... 50

11.3 Pretty Point Bridge Replacement..................................................... 53

11.4 Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study - Draft Report for Public Exhibition.................................................................................................... 231

11.5 Focus Group Composition and Selection for Bega Valley Shire Floodplain Risk Management ........................................................ 507

12 Staff Reports –Leading Organisation (Governance and Strategy)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Mawhinney

12.1 Bonds Release - Eden Cove.......................................................... 513

12.2 Referral of 2013 Financial Statements to Audit................................ 519

12.3 Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.................................................................. 522 .

13 Adoption of Reports from Standing Committees

RECOMMENDATION

That all motions recorded in the Standing Committees, including votes for and against, be adopted in by the Ordinary Council meeting.

14 Delegates Reports

15 Rescission/alteration Motions

16 Notices of Motion

Cr Hughes – Same Sex Marriage (see Supplementary Agenda)

17 Urgent Business

18 Questions On Notice

19 Questions for the Next Meeting

20.. Confidential Business

21 Adoption of reports from Closed Session

22 Resolutions to declassify reports considered in closed session

Council 25 September 2013 Item 8.1

8.1. Food Safety Program "Scores on Doors"

“Scores on Doors” is a voluntary program that provides a rating for a food business based on an inspection by Council officers that allows the public to know how well a food business is complying with food safety and hygiene requirements.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

“Scores on Doors” is a food safety scheme that discloses the inspection result achieved by NSW retail food premises following routine food surveillance inspections undertaken by Council staff. The scheme assesses participating food businesses against NSW food safety legislation with an emphasis on food handling practices linked to foodborne illness.

The assessment, using a standardised checklist and scoring scheme results in a star rating. The rating system assigns three stars, indicating a ‘good’ level of food safety compliance to through to five stars, indicating an 'excellent' level of food safety compliance.

The rating is assigned after an unannounced routine inspection by a council Environmental Health Officer. A certificate is then issued by council and positioned in a place highly visible to customers, usually in the business' front window or door. Consumers can use this rating to help them decide where to eat or buy food.

The “Scores on Doors” scheme is designed to reward well-performing businesses. It is an incentive for businesses to improve and maintain a high level of food hygiene without stigmatising poor performing businesses. Additionally, it is designed to create incentives for businesses to improve their compliance with regulatory requirements.

“Scores on Doors” is a voluntary program, which has been trialled by the NSW Food Authority in 2011 and 2012 in conjunction with a range of city, regional and rural based local councils. Participation in the scheme by councils and food businesses is entirely voluntary.

Ratings system

During the inspection, a business is assessed against a standardised food safety checklist and assigned a star rating reflecting their performance.

Rating	Definition
Excellent	The business has achieved the highest level of compliance with food safety standards.
Very Good	The business has very good food safety practices in place. Some minor areas where standards were not met will need to be addressed.
Good	The business has a good standard of food safety compliance. A number of areas, although not serious, need to be corrected.

An Environmental Health Officer would take immediate action if they inspect a food business that does not meet required food safety standards (as per current practice).

In certain circumstances, businesses will be ineligible to display a certificate. These circumstances include:

· when a council officer undertakes an enforcement action on a business

· where a business is inspected due to a complaint and that complaint is proven or substantiated, or

· when the council becomes aware of a significant decline in food safety standards in a business after the rating has been assigned.

In these circumstances, the business must wait until it’s next routine scheduled inspection from the council before it is eligible to receive and display a rating.

Eligible food service businesses

“Scores on Doors” is aimed at food service businesses that process and sell food in NSW that is ready-to-eat, intended for immediate consumption, and potentially hazardous which means it may require special handling to be safe, such as temperature control. These businesses include:

· restaurants

· takeaways

· pubs

· hotels

· cafes

· bakeries

· clubs

“Scores on Doors” is not intended for:

· supermarkets

· delicatessens

· low risk food premises

· businesses that serve pre-packaged food (e.g. service stations, butchers, greengrocers, temporary markets, mobile food vending vehicles), or

· businesses which hold a Food Authority licence.

ISSUES

Policy

There are no policy implications of Council’s introduction of the NSW Food Authority’s “Scores on Doors” scheme

Consultation

The “Scores on Doors” program has operated within 28 other local government areas over the past two years to great success. Discussion with many local food businesses has been undertaken to gauge the potential for support for the program. There has been overwhelming endorsement from many local food business proprietors.

Financial

The implementation of the program, as proposed, will not impact on Council’s budget.

Resources (including staff)

The program is fully supported by the NSW Food Authority. Advertising material is provided by the NSW Food Authority. Existing staff will be utilised to support the proposed program as part of the existing food surveillance activities Council already has in place.

Conclusion

As previously identified, the “Scores on Doors” scheme can act as an incentive for food businesses to improve and maintain a high level of food hygiene without stigmatising poor performing businesses. Additionally, it is designed to create incentives for businesses to improve their compliance with regulatory requirements. The scheme, if implemented, is entirely voluntary for food businesses. There are no additional costs for businesses to participate in the scheme.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council agree to the introduction of the voluntary NSW Food Authority’s “Scores on Doors” Food Safety scheme within the Bega Valley Shire.

2. That Council staff prepare an evaluation report to Council following the 12 month period of the scheme’s introduction.

Council 25 September 2013 Item 8.2

8.2. Bundian Way co-naming request for culturally significant places.

Support is being sought from Council for the co-naming of a number of culturally important places and features along the Bundian Way.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

Councillors will recall a number of previous reports regarding the Bundian Way. In December 2012 Council resolved to support the nomination of three locations along this route as Aboriginal Places. In June 2013 Council resolved to support the general route of the Bundian Way. The Bundian Way received State Heritage Council listing on 18 January 2013.

The Bundian Way is an ancient Aboriginal route between the Kosciuszko (Targangal) region and the Fisheries Beach (Bilgalera) area on the south western shores of Twofold Bay. The Bundian Way connects the high country and the coast and historically brought together Aboriginal people from across the region, most notably for ceremonies associated with whaling in springtime at Twofold Bay and moth hunting in the high country during summer.

There are numerous historical accounts of early European settlers being shown the Bundian Way by the local Aboriginal people, as the most efficient way to get from the Monaro to the Twofold Bay area. In recognition of this rich Aboriginal and European cultural history, the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council proposes the route be a “shared history pathway”, recognised with heritage protection and used for educational and tourism purposes.

Council has recently received an official request from the Bundian Way Management Advisory Committee seeking Council support of its application to the Geographical Names Board for the co-naming of a number of culturally significant places and features along the Bundian Way route.

The current place or feature and the requested co-names are listed below:

· Fisheries Bay / East Boyd - Bilgalera

· Fisheries Beach - Bilgalera Beach

· Fisheries Lagoon - Bilgalera Lagoon

· Fisheries Flat - Bilgalera Flat

· Fisheries Creek - Bilgalera Creek

· Mount Imlay – Balawan

· (Upper) Imlay Creek – Balawan Creek

· Southern reach of Twofold Bay - Turamullerer

· Boydtown Lagoon - Beermuna

· Boydtown Creek – Beermuna Creek

· Boydtown Lagoon foreshores to Whale Spit – Beermuna

Details submitted supporting the request for the co-naming of the places and features along the route are included below for Councillors’ information.

Bilgalera

Bilgalera was the old name for the little bay and district between Davidson Whaling Station and Edrom Lodge, more recently known as Fisheries (beach, flats, lagoon, creek, etc). It is now Aboriginal land and the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council is keen for the area to revert to its original names. It has been proposed as Bilgalera Aboriginal Place.

Beermuna

The area around the lagoon at Boydtown was originally known as Beermuna. This is acknowledged in various places, including the journals of Oswald Brierly. They also contain drawings of the men making camp at ‘Beermuna’. Brierly had the opportunity to speak with Surveyor Townsend during his first weeks on Twofold Bay and compare the Aboriginal names for places both had collected. It would appear Townsend went outside of the instructions to surveyors in allowing the name ‘Boyd’ to appear so prominently on the maps.

Turembulerrer

On Tuesday 17 July 1844, GA Robinson recorded in his journal:

“Imlay's station is south of small bay; travelled along cliff and over pretty grassy spots and across wooded ranges. Otehite Bill is on bank of Turembulerrer, the small bay south side. The Koir River runs into it. The warden's tower a wooden structure is on the point north side superb Twofold Bay from Turembulerrer the latter south of Boyd's station. Passed Leather Jacket Bay, or as is called by natives Trerbulender…”.

It has also been recorded as Tullamullerer and Turamullerer. The pronunciations are virtually identical, the ‘u’s are soft as in ‘until’.

Balawan

Baron Charles von Hügel was a distinguished wandering naturalist with a clear eye. On a visit to the bay on 10th February 1834 he was able to describe its heath-free shorelines:

“The land rises from the rocky coast in gentle hills, with meadows in many places dotted with scattered trees, like an English park… Behind the row of hills there rose several ranges of ever higher mountains, one of which, Mount Ballun (the native name) has a quite unusual pyramidal form.”

In the earliest years of exploration its name was also phonetically written by Europeans as Bullone, Boolone, Bolloon, Baloon and Ballun which variously hint at the true pronunciation, which, it should be noted, is closest to Balawan. Ultimately, the settlers called it Imlay, after that tragic pioneer family, and its original name was erased from the official records.”

ISSUES

Legal

Council support of the co-naming of a number of places and features along the Bundian Way has been requested. The route largely covers lands in National Parks and State Forests, the remainder being along trails and minor country roads including roads in the Towamba, Boydtown and Eden areas. Support of the request will help acknowledge Aboriginal elements in the landscape.

The Geographical Names Act 1966 requires the support of the relevant Local Government Authority for place naming and co-naming applications. The NSW Government has committed to recognizing our Aboriginal cultural heritage by registering original place names given by Aboriginal people, so they sit side by side with existing names. Since June 2001, the State has supported a dual naming policy for geographical features and cultural sites. Fact Sheets to assist dual or co-naming requests have been released recently by the Geographical Names Board of NSW (http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/publications/fact_sheets).

Policy

The co-naming request is in line with the NSW Government Policy for geographical features and cultural sites.

Environmental

All areas proposed for co-naming along the route have important environmental values. The co-naming is consistent with the environmental protection and management of these places and features.

Asset

The proposal to co-name places along the Bundian Way will, if approved by the Geographical Names Board, result in the official display on maps of both the existing European name and the original place names given by Aboriginal people. Council assets will not be impacted by the support of the proposal; however there is an opportunity to include both names on any local signage when existing Council signs are replaced or if grants are provided for new signs.

Social / Cultural

The Bundian Way received NSW State Heritage Council listing on 18 January 2013 in recognition of the important historic and cultural links between the local Aboriginal people and their ancestors. The co-naming of places and features along the route will acknowledge their cultural values and support the State Heritage Council listing.

The request to Council is made by the Bundian Way Management Advisory Committee (a project of the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council) and is in accord with the Aboriginal community consultation requirements of the Geographical Names Board of NSW.

Economic

The Bundian Way is being developed not only as a significant cultural route, but as a major tourism drawcard for the region. The co-naming of places and features along the route and the subsequent display of original names will likely add to the tourism potential of the Bundian Way.

Financial

There will be no financial impact from this co-naming request.

Resources (including staff)

The co-naming request will not have a significant impact on Council resources. Staff already has a consultative role with the Bundian Way Project and this will continue. Demand on staff time is not significant.

Conclusion

The Bundian Way is a significant cultural heritage feature of national importance. It is listed by the NSW State Heritage Council. Support of the co-naming of places and features along the route by Council (and other councils and relevant state agencies) will be an important step in the further development of the project and provide additional impetus and recognition to the Bundian Way. The request from the Bundian Way Management Advisory Committee requires the support of Council before it will be considered by the Geographical Names Board of NSW.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council supports the co-naming of the following places and features along the Bundian Way:

· Fisheries Bay / East Boyd - Bilgalera

· Fisheries Beach - Bilgalera Beach

· Fisheries Lagoon - Bilgalera Lagoon

· Fisheries Flat - Bilgalera Flat

· Fisheries Creek - Bilgalera Creek

· Mount Imlay - Balawan

· (Upper) Imlay Creek - Balawan Creek

· Southern reach of Twofold Bay - Turamullerer

· Boydtown Lagoon - Beermuna

· Boydtown Creek – Beermuna Creek

· Boydtown Lagoon foreshores to Whale Spit - Beermuna

2. That Council advises the Bundian Way Management Advisory Committee of its decision.

Council 25 September 2013 Item 8.3

8.3. Hotel Australasia - Response from Proponent

Reporting on outcomes of discussions with the proponent to incorporate recommendations of Council’s Heritage Advisor into redevelopment of the Hotel Australasia, Eden.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

Council at its meeting held on 24 July 2013 gave consideration to a staff report on the request for nomination of the Hotel Australasia, 142-144 Imlay Street, Eden as a Heritage Item under Schedule 5 of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 and resolved the following:

“1. That the Hotel Australasia located at 142-144 Imlay Street, Eden not be included in Schedule 5 of the Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan 2013 as a heritage item.

2. That those persons who requested nomination of the Hotel Australasia as a heritage item be advised of Council’s decision.

3. That Council negotiate with the developer to incorporate the recommendations of the heritage advisor in the design of the proposed redevelopment.”

status of development application for redevelopment of the site

DA No. 2013.199 was lodged with Council on 3 July 2013 for the demolition of the existing hotel and construction of a retail development comprising supermarket, speciality retail shop and liquor store. The application was placed on public exhibition for a period of 14 days from 17 July to 31 July 2013 with 10 submissions being received of which 9 objected to the proposal. The application is currently under assessment and the issues raised in the submissions referred to the applicant for comment.

It should be noted that the proposal requires a total of 87 car parking spaces with only 7 proposed to be provided on-site and a credit of 33 spaces for the existing development. This represents a deficit of 47 spaces for the proposed development.

Details of Meeting held with the DEVELOPER

Council’s Manager Planning Services and Council’s Heritage Advisor met with Mr Rodney Thompson, Director of Great Southern Developments Pty Ltd (Developer) on 16 August 2013 to discuss the incorporation of the recommendations of the Heritage Advisor into the redevelopment of the site as per the Council resolution.

The meeting was generally positive with Mr Thompson indicating his willingness to consider the incorporation of the façade into the redevelopment of the Hotel on the proviso that there was no additional financial burden on the developer.

Opportunities for inclusion of the façade and 1904-1905 section of the Hotel into the redevelopment were discussed in detail including:

· preferred option would be to re-instate the 1904-1905 façade

· pedestrian access into proposed development due to existing floor levels

· street frontage activation

· retention of the existing rooms within the 1904-1905 section of the Hotel and possible uses

· design principles to integrate proposed new building with potential retained section of Hotel.

It was evident during the meeting that one of the main considerations for the developer was any increase in development costs associated with the retention and re-instatement of the façade and front section of the Hotel into the redevelopment.

Mr Thompson was advised that Council might be willing to consider offsetting any car parking contributions that would be required against any demonstrated increase in costs, as a result of the incorporation of the Heritage Advisor’s recommendations into the redevelopment of the site.

The issue in moving forward on the discussion was the unknown cost associated with incorporation of the 1904-1905 section of the Hotel into the redevelopment. To determine the costs Mr Thompson indicated that the proposed redevelopment would need to be redesigned including structural plans, at costs in the order of up to $60,000. This would incur significant delay and there was no guarantee that, at the end of the day, Council would issue consent to the proposed supermarket development.

The Manager Planning Services indicated an option for a way forward would be for the developer to submit a redesigned elevation plan incorporating the existing façade and an indicative perspective plan showing the re-instated 1904-1905 façade, for inclusion as part of the existing development application with Council, and request determination.

An alternative option put forward by Mr Thompson was for Council to determine the existing development application as submitted, and the developer to enter into a legal agreement to review the incorporation of the 1904-1905 section of the Hotel into the development should consent be issued.

At the conclusion of the meeting Mr Thompson indicated that the developer would consider all the options available and respond to the Council resolution in writing.

Developer response to council resolution

In response to the Council resolution, and subsequent meeting held with Council’s Manager Planning Services and Council’s Heritage Advisor, the developer has submitted the following for Council’s consideration:

“Further to your letter dated 5 August 2013 and our subsequent meeting with yourself and Pip (Council Heritage Consultant), I can confirm that the developer would be willing to maintain the heritage façade as agreed with the council’s heritage consultant on the proviso that the developer will be no worse off financially. Option 1 looks at the maintaining of the façade by the developer.

Please note we have submitted 3 options for council’s consideration as part of the negotiation process.

Option 1 – Current Development Application
The current Development Application DA 2013.199 to be determined as soon as reasonably practicable, no later than the 20 September 2013. (note only: date for deemed refusal has now passed, being 12 August 2013). We will reply to the relevant (now received) developments questions/queries, by the 6 September 2013.

Deed of Agreement
On or before the 13 September 2013, the two parties (Great Southern Developments and Bega Valley Council) will enter into a “Deed of Agreement” based on the following terms, with the deed to be reviewed and determined by council at the same meeting as the current Development Application DA 2013.199.

1. Council to attribute the full section 94 contributions payable under DA 2013.199 to the reinstatement of the heritage façade and building as per the heritage report, these are estimated at $439,255.

2. The Developer is to review the reinstatement of the heritage façade as agreed with the Council Heritage Consultant. Council to approve all costs associated with the re-design to be deducted from the S94 contributions under DA 2013.199, regardless of outcome.

3. The Developer to provide redesigned development plans and to allow detailed costing. Developer to determine final additional cost. Should this costing (re design and construction) be over the amount of section S94 contributions amount for DA 2013.199 ($439,255) and third party funding not be available (grants etc.) the developer will be allowed to demolish the building as per approved DA 2013.199 and develop the site in line with this approval. The lost re design costs will be deducted from the S94 costs payable under the approved DA 2013.199.

Option 2
Council purchases the front area of the property, as per the heritage consultant’s report for a cost of $ AMOUNT REDACTED plus GST if applicable. The developer will be allowed to integrate a new development on the rear of the block, to allow for a supermarket and will continue to own this land. Access to the rear of the block needs to be agreed between the parties and be conducive to a retail operation.

Option 3
The whole property (Imlay Street) is donated to the Bega Valley Council and the community, in lieu the developer will be sold the two council blocks of land known as Lot 7 DP 252400 and Lot 5 DP 252400 (both in Park Street, Merimbula) at a market value as agreed between the parties, less $ AMOUNT REDACTED. The developer acknowledges that part of the site is to be used for a bypass, and the developer will ensure the design is reasonably in line with council’s requirements for the site. It should also be noted the developer owns 5 Palmer Street, which will also be impacted by the bypass and negotiation on this block may also be incorporated into the deal.

We trust the above are acceptable and of interest and look forward to resolving the motion point 3, passed on the 24/7/2013 as soon as possible.”

Conclusion

In accordance with the Council resolution of 24 July 2013, the Manager Planning Services and Council’s Heritage Advisor met with a representative of the developer.

In response, the developer has responded with three (3) options for Council’s consideration.

The development application submitted for the demolition of the Hotel and construction of a retail development has been exhibited and is currently under assessment by Council staff.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council consider the options submitted by Great Southern Developments Pty Ltd as a result of the Council resolution of 24 July 2013 in respect of the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Australasia, 142-144 Imlay Street, Eden.

2. That Council advise Great Southern Developments Pty Ltd of the outcome of consideration of the submitted options.

Council 25 September 2013 Item 8.4

8.4. Weed Management Cancellation of Tender RFT 26/13

Council resolution under the Local Government General Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 is required to cancel Tender RFT26/13 proposed to establish a panel of contractors for weed / vegetation management in the Shire.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

Council’s weed management responsibilities cover not only the statutory requirements under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 but also operational needs across Council functions including areas such as dams, sewerage plants and easements, landfills, quarries, and urban parks and reserves. Across these areas of work, especially in the Weed and Vegetation Team roadside control programs, expenditure on weed controls is significant.

A large proportion of these statutory and operational weed control works are undertaken by a number of local contractors engaged by Weed and Vegetation Management Officers but also by local Town Teams, and Water and Sewer staff. To date, these contractors have been engaged via an Expressions of Interest (EoI) and quotation process. Although no single contractor triggers the tendering amount specified in the Local Government Act 1993 ($150,000 p.a.) collectively across the number of weed control contractors employed by Council this trigger is exceeded.

Council’s Procurement Team proposed a Tender for Weeds and Vegetation Management be advertised for weed and vegetation management services across the organisation for the current financial year The tender (RFT 26/13) was scoped to engage a panel of contractors to deliver weeds and vegetation management for a period of three years with options of extension for two further periods of one year (exercisable at Council’s discretion).

The Tender closed on 21 August 2013 and three tenders were received. The tender evaluation was conducted in accordance with Council Policy and the “Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government” (NSW Department of Local Government 2009).

Although the tenders received met the basic requirements of Council’s Policy and the Local Government Act 1993, not all covered the full scope of the Tender. The Evaluation Panel recommendation was that the number and capacity of tenders submitted was insufficient for Council to be able to meet its statutory and annual operational weed management activities. This has also been confirmed by the managers of Water & Sewer, Weed & Vegetation Management and Works Teams.

ISSUES

Legal & Policy

The Panel Tender process was undertaken in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy and the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. Insufficient Tenders were received for the required statutory and operational weed management works to be undertaken. Under Clause 178 (3)(a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council resolution is required to postpone or cancel the Tender.

Environmental

Council management of weeds is based on statutory requirements and operational needs. Weed management on Council owned and managed land will still be able to be effectively conducted without a Tender-derived Panel of contractors.

Asset

Roadside weed control works, in particular, need to be commenced as soon as possible due to seasonal aspects and as such it is not possible to re-issue the tender and complete the required works within the timeframes available.

Financial

Weed management is a core function of Council and approved budgets are in place across Works, Water & Sewer and Weed & Vegetation Management teams and available for this work.

Resources (including staff)

Contractors will need to be engaged to undertake works as required, through a regular expression of interest and quotation basis.

Operational Plan

The Operational Plan provides for management of Council owned and managed assets including weed control and this will still be able to be effectively conducted without a Tender-derived Panel of contractors.

Operational Plan requirements are proposed to be met using expressions of interest and quotations for works.

Conclusion

The evaluation panel has recommended that the tender be cancelled owing to the number and capacity of tenders submitted being insufficient to meet Council’s needs for the 2013-2014 year.

If Council agrees to cancel the tender, weed management responsibilities are proposed to be met via expressions of interest and quotations from contractors, as per previous years’ practices.

It is proposed that the tender process to establish a panel of contractors for weed management in the Shire be further explored at a later stage.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That tender RFT 26/13 be cancelled in accordance with Clause 178 (3)(a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

2. That the tenders received be advised of Council’s decision.

Council 25 September 2013 Item 9.1

9.1. Proposed attendance at the Public Libraries NSW annual Conference

Councillor and staff participation at the 2013 Public Libraries NSW annual conference and AGM is an important opportunity for Council to be involved in and keep up to date with current issues facing NSW public libraries.

Acting Group Manager Community and Relationships

Background

Each year, the Public Libraries NSW network holds an annual conference at which the association’s AGM is also held. The conference provides an opportunity to meet with State Library of NSW representatives and other services. Council has supported the attendance of a Councillor or representative in the past and hosted the event in 2007.

Public Libraries NSW will be hosting this year’s library conference called ‘Creating libraries for our communities’ and will focus on communities and creating libraries that both meet and anticipate their evolving needs.

The conference will be held in Sydney at the Theatre, Australian Technology Park from Sunday 24 November to Tuesday 26 November 2013.

More information is available at the Public Libraries website http://www.nswmpla.org.au/switch-2013-conference--exhibition.aspx

Program Themes for Conference 2013

The themes of the conference for 2013 include:

· Australia is changing as a society and what does that means for us as a community, and in particular, public libraries.

· How do the different forms of media (TV, online and print media) impact on Australian society and what does this means for library staff as information professionals.

· How do libraries compete in the digital age?

· Through the advent of social media how might the public library go beyond its walls and engage more proactively with its users? Such initiatives present exciting challenges for the library of the future, but what are the implications of a proactive and innovative approach for library workers?

Staff participation is covered in the library services training budget as attendance is a key priority for staff. Councillor representation has been important in the past and Council has been represented at most recent conferences at this level by a Council delegate.

ISSUES

Financial

The 2013/14 Budget provides for $32,570 for delegates expenses and the professional development of Councillors. This budget area includes any costs for Councillors attendance at meetings as delegates to committees.

Funding source

Amount

Councillors continuing professional development

Delegates expenses

$

12,410

20,160

$

Approximately $12,000 has been put aside for Councillor attendance at the Local Government NSW Conference in October and a further $8,000 (dependant on the number of Councillors attending) will be required to attend the ALGA National General Assembly.

Councillors resolved to hold two day workshop in February 2014 at an approximate cost of $11,000 including room hire and accommodation costs.

The two day Conference and Exhibition Ticket which includes morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea on both days of the Conference and the Welcome Reception being held on Sunday 24th November at Bay 4, Australian Technology Park is $330.00 + GST. Accommodation and travel and meals will cost approximately $700.

Conclusion

This is a valuable opportunity for Council to be involved in current issues relating to library practice in NSW. The issues around creating libraries that best meet the needs of the community are paramount. The papers at this conference highlight the issues and present directions in these areas.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That the Councillor delegate for Public Libraries attend the 2013 Public Libraries NSW Conference and AGM from Sunday 24th to Tuesday 26th July in Sydney, and that the necessary expenses be defrayed by the Council in keeping with its policy.

Council 25 September 2013 Item 9.2

9.2. Tura facility - proposed uses submission process.

The public submission process has been completed and the future uses of the site are now proposed in line with Council’s intention to utilise the building for community purposes.

Acting Group Manager Community and Relationships

Background

At its meeting of 12 June 2013 Council resolved to authorise the General Manager to purchase at auction the Tura Tavern site for community purposes. This was carried out and Council purchased the site on 13 June 2013.

At its meeting of 3 July 2012 Council resolved that the preferred use of the Tavern and the dwelling be noted as:

Use of the main building space:

· Branch Library, office space and work room

· Regional Gallery including storage for the Shirley Hannan Collection

· Community meeting room/youth space

· Community Services office space

Use of the dwelling:

· Offices including business, tourism and ICT incubator

Council further resolved to seek public submissions on the future use of the site and this report summarises the responses received and makes recommendations for the future use of the site.

On 29 June Council placed floor plans representing two options for the Tura Tavern on public exhibition and called for comment from the community. Copies of the floor plans were available on Council’s website and hard copies were also available at Council’s Zingel Place office in Bega and at library branches in Bermagui, Bega, Merimbula and Eden. Members of the community were invited to provide submissions in writing or via the Bega Valley Views on line submission tool.

Submission closed on Friday August 23. Fifteen (15) submissions were received in total.

Submissions

The majority of the submissions were in relation to the relocation of the regional gallery to the Tura facility (8/15). Most of these were opposed to the idea and preferred to see the regional gallery remain in Bega, there was some support for the Gallery to move to the Tura Facility. One submission was opposed to the relocation of the library.

Two submissions were received suggesting a café in the facility. The remaining submissions suggested spaces for children, young people, older people and shared community spaces. A late submission suggested the use of some space for a community radio station.

There was one submission in favour of the ICT incubator proposal for the residence and one against.

A summary of the submissions is attached.

ISSUES

Legal

Leases/licences will be developed for any external agencies utilising space at the facility in line with Council policy and procedure. Casual hire arrangements will also be developed for bookable spaces.

Asset

Council staff have disposed of all 3^rd party assets and have compiled a list of remaining fixtures and fittings. It is recommended that the remaining assets be disposed of as outlined in the Council Report of July 7, namely through identifying which assets can be used in Council facilities and selling remaining items to community organisations via an expression of interest process. Any remaining items will be sold to third parties at auction, or disposed of.

Council staff are also seeking quotes for the removal and storage of the kitchen for use in the Bega Civic Centre, final details of this will be included in a future report to Council.

Social / Cultural

The site meets the requirements of the NSW State Library, it is expected that grant funds will be available to assist with the fit out of the library section and fittings from the current Merimbula site will be utilised. The relocation of the community services section meets requirements around disability access, provides a space that suits the delivery of these specific service types and provides a community services presence in another part of the shire.

The provision of space in the residence to co-locate both Sapphire Coast Tourism and South East Arts meets some of the identified outcomes of the CSP and provides an opportunity for tourism and arts collaboration.

The lack of appropriate space in the Tura facility, given the number of uses proposed and the preference of retaining the Regional Gallery in Bega, the regional centre, would suggest that relocating the Gallery to Tura would not be appropriate. The need to find an alternative site to house the Shirley Hannan collection should be seen as a priority. Currently it is planned to provide this in appropriately controlled and designed storage space in the Bega depot redevelopment.

Economic

The conversion of part 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. Those initiatives are consistent with the Business Growth Strategy and Digital Economy Strategy. The relocation of the Business Growth section of Council to Tura will add value to this.

Strategic

The Tura facility offers a great opportunity to provide for a community, education and creative industries hub in the south of the shire. Eden and Bermagui both have sites with a mixture of uses supporting their communities. Merimbula/Tura/Pambula has not had the same access to a facility and into the future the opportunity offered at the Tura site has the potential to grow this hub.

Financial

The internal fit out of both the Tavern and the Residence will be funded from a number of existing sources including savings in the library development budget, sale of poker machine licences and a contribution from Community Services reserves held from the sale of the HACC building. Once a detailed design has been completed a full costing will be reported to Council for adoption.

Resources (including staff)

Council staff will be engaged to project manage the design stage of both buildings and to complete the reallocation of the remaining fixtures and fittings.

Conclusion

The Tura facility and residence provide an opportunity for Council to develop a space that will have real outcomes for a broad cross section of the community. Given the variety of uses proposed, retaining flexibility at the facility will be key its success, this will allow the spaces to be shared by a range of community groups and activities.

The recommended uses for the space are as follows (outlined in the attached floor plans);

Tavern Upper Level

· Branch Library, office space, work room, community meeting room

· Covered outdoor community space

· Café/Reception space

· BVSC Community Service Programs

· Community meeting room

Tavern Lower Level

· Large multi-use community meeting spaces/community exhibition space

· Community offices for use or allocation to community groups

· Community work room

Residence

· Sapphire Coast Tourism and South East Arts (downstairs)

· Meeting Room (downstairs)

· ICT Business incubator and office spaces (upstairs)

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Tura community Centre House

2 View. Tura Beach community center Top Floor

3 View. Tura Beach Community Centre Ground Floor

4 View. Tura Tavern Summary of submissions

Recommendation

1. That Council adopt the proposed uses as outlined in the report

2. That a final design and costing be reported to Council for adoption

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

4. That the remaining fixtures and fittings be dealt with as outlined in the report

5. That Council give consideration to a new name for the facility.

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 9.2 - Attachment 4*	*Tura Tavern Summary of submissions*

Summary of submissions – Options for future use for Tura Facility.

Following the public exhibition period calling for community input on the future use of the Tura Tavern and residence, 15 submissions were received including 1 late submission. A summary by topic is presented below.

Topic	No. received	Summary of submission
Regional Gallery	8	Objection to Regional Gallery proposed move to Tura. Council to consider existing empty spaces such as Target or Go Lo to create more vibrancy in main street.
		Objection to Regional Gallery proposed move to Tura, need a purpose built gallery.
		Objection to Regional Gallery proposed move to Tura, disadvantage those people in the north of the shire.
		Preference for option 2 and Regional Gallery to remain in Bega.
		Preference to have Regional Gallery to remain in Bega and to utilise the Tura space for community space for intergenerational community uses.
		Support of moving Regional Gallery to Tura, also support South East Arts and Sapphire Coast Tourism move.
		Support Tura as a Regional Gallery site as it provides a fresh space for the Regional Art Gallery. Also raised is need for a good quality facility for the general public, this would make the Tura building a very attractive ‘destination’ for locals and tourists alike 7 days a week. In turn, the café would provide local employment and generate income for the Council.
		Support to relocate Regional Gallery to Tura and to include storage facility for the very prestigious Shirley Hannan Exhibition
Library	1	Objection to Library move to Tura based on issues of accessibility
Community uses	4	Would like to become involved in setting up a ‘Youth Space’ in the Tura facility.
		A need for a ‘passive recreation area for men’.
		A small space for Community radio studio
		Suggestion of an indoor play centre for kids. Offering a baby/toddler sections and a larger section catering for ages 3 – 12. Offering a café for parent to sit and relax with a coffee, while watching the children having a ball in a safe play environment.
IT / Incubator	1	Interested and supportive of business incubation or co-work space
General comment	1	Any use must be only for rate payers benefit, not ‘potential’ undefined future opportunities like an incubator or ICT – by its very definition this must be self-sufficient and is not the role of Council
Total	15

Council 25 September 2013 Item 10.1

10.1. SCT request to vary funding approval

SCT Ltd have reviewed the 2012/13 SCRTO/Destination NSW campaign and request that Council formally support a proposed amendment to the expenditure of the current approved one off funding for 2013/14.

Acting General Manager

Background

Sapphire Coast Tourism Ltd (SCT) is an independent body funded by membership and financial support from Council through a special variation to rate income. SCT supports the operation of the local industry and liaises with State and National agencies, local Chambers and other operator groups. SCT has been very active in attracting grants through the Federal Governments TQUAL program and has worked on a number of programs with Council including the Shire signage program and development of Australia’s Coastal Wilderness programs.

In 2012/13 SCT raised $15,000 from town tourism bodies and $5,000 from Council for inclusion in the 2012/13 South Coast Regional Tourism Organisation (SCRTO) Demand Funded Marketing Campaign. This allowed the Bega Valley area to be profiled as a part of the campaign, with larger Shires gaining the majority of the exposure.

Following a request from SCT Ltd Council considered allocation of funds to the program. At its meeting on 22 May 2013 Council resolved:

That council include for consideration in the draft 2013/ 2014 budget the sum of $100,000 for the Destination NSW 2013/14 Demand Funded Marketing Campaign.

The amount of $100,000 was subsequently included in the adopted 2013/14 budget.

The Board has now reviewed the outcomes of the 2012/13 South Coast campaign which SCT Ltd partnered with the SCRTO and Destination NSW. SCT Ltd believe that it was clear that the campaign lacked impact in supporting the SCT Ltd brand and supporting the areas own brand and Destination Marketing Plan. The campaign continues to take a one size fits all approach to branding. The South Coast tourism product is presented as offering a homogenous visitor experience from Wollongong to the border sold to what is primarily a Sydney sourced short stay market. This is very different to what the SCT area offer, both in product and potential market. The Board’s opinion is that a complete commitment to this style of campaign with the organisations limited resources is poor value. SCT Ltd contend that the answer is a balance between a regional campaign and efforts that are targeted to the Sapphire Coast.

SCT Ltd comment that they are at a critical point in the development of a new range of Sapphire Coast digital tools. They believe that this is very important in view of where innovative tourism management is going. These digital assets are not supported under the current collaborative regional approach.

SCT Ltd note that the area is lacking a focus on social media and digital content development. These are low cost – direct marketing opportunities that are fundamental in contemporary destination marketing. The regional approach again does not support this approach, falling back on traditional marketing practices.

SCT Ltd have considered the best utilisation of the commitment and request that Council consider and approve the following amendment to the approval. SCT Ltd would continue to participate in the regional/Destination NSW promotions to access marketing funding assistance, albeit at a reduced level. 60% of the marketing budget will be allocated to this. They request that they be able to commit the balance of the allocation (40%) to provide a vital resource to drive the social and digital program. SCT Ltd core existing budget will also support this program.

The SCT Ltd amended proposal is outlined below:

1 South Coast/Destination NSW Marketing campaign (as per current approval)

$20k - Continued participation in South Coast/Destination NSW Marketing campaign which will equate to about $34k value with the Destination NSW funding assistance. This contribution is value for money and a position at the table to influence the campaign direction.

2 Access to Destination NSW contestable funding pool (amended direction to current proposal)

$40k – Backing a Sapphire Coast funding application to run a 2014 Sapphire Coast specific campaign. This will target shoulder and off peak markets from autumn through to spring. The campaign will be wholly in SCT Ltd control, allowing them to drive the digital opportunity and leverage SCT web assets to their fullest. In the event this funding application was unsuccessful these funds would still be committed to a Sapphire Coast specific marketing campaign. Local industry participation will be sought to lift the base investment by $15k.

3 Continued digital development (new activity amendment)

$40k – Allocation of professional resources to develop social media and digital content. Over 60% of tourism enquiries and trip commitments are made through the internet. A destination that is not wholly engaged and digitally savvy will miss the boat. The program proposed relating to the BVSC has evolved as SCT Ltd have gained a better understanding of Destination NSW regional tourism policies and a review of the 2013 regional campaign.

The proposals presented by SCT Ltd seeks to leverage the marketing resources to the best advantage for SCT Ltd, retaining the value of regional participation but creating the flexibility to better place SCT distinctive attractions in the marketplace.

ISSUES

Policy

Council adopted its policy on Tourism at its meeting on 4 September 2013. The Council’s policy 2.04 covers the role and focus for Council.

Council’s adopted Position Statement on Tourism which will be reviewed in the coming months states:

Council recognises tourism as a key driver of the local economy, providing jobs and investment. In recent years, Council has significantly reduced its direct financial support for tourism marketing and promotions, considering these activities are the role for the tourism industry itself. Council consider its long term role as providing “hard” tourism infrastructure, visitor information centre premises, parks, boardwalks, toilets bbq’s etc.

Council considers the role of local government should be amongst other things:

· Strategic development and placement of tourist/recreational council infrastructure and signage to reflect “brand’

· Facilitate development of key federal/state infrastructure such as highways or ports

· Develop economic/tourism strategy to generate investment and employment, including expanded tourism product and facility.

To that end, Council has recently planned, invested, or facilitated investment in airport, seaport, signage, jetties and wharves for example.

Economic

Tourism is a major local economic driver and the approach to tourism involvement by local government fostered in the Bega Valley provides for strong, growing industry involvement. There is however still a significant gap in the capacity of small local operators to drive large campaigns and destination marketing. The proposed amendment to the allocation of the funding provided would allow SCT Ltd to ensure the most appropriate allocation of these funds.

Financial

Council allocated the $100,000 in this year funding. This request is for an amendment to the manner in which the allocation is spent.

Funding source		Amount
$100,000 allocated as per Council resolution 22 May and budget adoption	$	100,000

Conclusion

SCT Ltd were allocated a one off amount of $100,000 to support major marketing in the 2013/14 year. SCT Ltd have reviewed the 2012/13 South Coast campaign and believe that allocating the full amount to the SCRTO/Destination NSW campaign lacked opportunity to drive change locally. They have requested that the involvement in the SCRTO/Destination NSW campaign be reduced and the remaining funds be allocated to support an application to Destination NSW contestable funding pool to develop and run a Sapphire Coast specific campaign and development of SCT local social media and digital content.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That Council support the proposed funding amendment presented by SCT Ltd for the one off funding of $100,000 for destination marketing.

Council 25 September 2013 Item 11.2

11.2. Tender 40/13 Central Waste Facility Office/Amenities Building

This report details the outcomes of evaluation of Tender 40/13 for the Wanatta Lane Central Waste Facility Office/Amenities Building and recommends award to the preferred tenderer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

The Central Waste Facility (CWF) Office / Amenities Building provides the office and amenities facilities for the CWF staff, and also provides the “gate house” and weighbridge control function for the CWF.

The tender was publically advertised on 6 August 2013 in the Sydney Morning Herald, local newspapers and on the Council website. A site inspection was conducted for tenderers on 13 August 2013. The tender closed on 28 August 2013.

Tender documents were issued to 12 companies, and 7 tender submissions were received from:

· Castlereagh Construction Group

· David Leser Building

· GJ & C Clarke Building

· Grant Dowdle Building

· Murphy Construction

· RD Miller, and

· RW Brain

The tender submissions were assessed against the following evaluation criteria:

Non-Price Criteria	Weighting
Past Projects & Referees	30%
Personnel & Sub-Contractors	10%
Programme	5%
WH&S	Compliant / Non-Compliant
Current Workload	5%
Total:	50%
Price Criteria	Weighting
Lump Sum	40%
Price Breakdown	10%
Total:	50%

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 Building Works was issued by Council’s Planning Section on 29 May 2013.

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.

A Landfill Environmental Management Plan for the CWF was completed in September 2012.

Asset

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

Strategic

The CWF is a strategic project central to the Council Waste Management Strategy – “2020 Vision on Waste”.

Consultation

Extensive community consultation has taken place in relation to the CWF Project.

Financial

The tendered amount will be entirely met by the CWF project budget.

Resources (including staff)

The CWF Project Engineer will manage the CWF Office/Amenities Building contract works.

Conclusion

The CWF is a strategic project central to the Council Waste Management Strategy – “2020 Vision on Waste”. The Office/Amenities Building is a fundamental requirement for the operation of the CWF and it is recommended that the tender be awarded to the preferred tenderer.

ATTACHMENTS

1 . Confidential memorandum to Councillors regarding evaluation of Tender 40/13 Central Waste Facility Office/Amenities Building (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

1. That Council accept the tender from (insert) in relation to contract for the works described in Tender 40/13, in the amount of $(insert) (excluding GST), subject to variations, provisional sums and prime cost items.

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 25 September 2013 Item 11.3

11.3. Pretty Point Bridge Replacement

The Pretty Point Bridge over Mataganah Creek on New Buildings Road, Wyndham has deteriorated and now requires replacement.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

The Pretty Point Bridge is a 3 span timber structure, with a total length of 47.5 metres. The central span is supported by a 27.5 metre Allan truss and it is Council’s only truss bridge.

The bridge currently has a 5 tonne load limit and a 10kph speed limit, which essentially limits the use of the bridge to light traffic only. This is of particular concern with the approaching bushfire season. The New Buildings Bridge, which is 7.80km further west of the Pretty Point Bridge on New Buildings Road has a 20 tonne load limit and is owned and maintained by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and is a Dare truss structure.

Council officers have been in discussions with the Rural Fire Service and an alternative route along an existing track through private property will be upgraded slightly to enable bushfire tankers to use the track in an emergency, until the bridge can be replaced.

The Pretty Point Bridge is listed in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) for significant renewal works in 2013/14 ($200,000) to replace the bottom cords of the truss and 2014/2015 ($200,000) to re-deck the truss. This work assumed the remainder of the truss is in reasonable condition. The truss has been monitored for a number of years and has been subject to load limits periodically, with significant maintenance expenditure. A local consulting engineer has analysed the truss in an effort to develop a program of renewal works to preserve it. Recent visual inspections and test boring of major components of the truss have confirmed that the truss requires replacement.

Unfortunately, maintenance work that had been planned was delayed while Council carried out three years of flood damage repairs. A number of bridges were also upgraded to “flood proof” these structures in conjunction with the repair works, in particular the Towamba Bridge timber deck was upgraded to reinforced concrete. During the intervening period, critical components of the Pretty Point Bridge have deteriorated significantly and are now considered beyond repair. These components are the support butting blocks at the base of the trusses and the bottom chords. There are methods of replacing truss components while the bridge is still in service, but this requires both trusses to be in good condition. Where the truss is in good condition, it can support the bridge as various components are replaced as the load can be distributed and shared by the sound truss. Pretty Point Bridge is in overall poor condition and it is considered unsafe to carryout repairs without some method of supporting the bridge.

Various types of truss bridges were constructed throughout South Eastern Australia between 1890 and 1920 with spans up to 27.5 metres, when suitable timber was readily available and before modern material and techniques were developed.

The RMS is the recognised authority on the maintenance of timber truss bridges and they estimate that the cost to restore an Allan truss with a span of 27.5 metres would be in the order of $2.95 million. Any work on the supporting piers would be at additional cost.

In 1990, Council had a design prepared to replace the existing truss bridge with a concrete bridge, but the work did not proceed at the time. Based on current construction rates, a new concrete bridge would be in the order of $1.45 million plus associated road realignment works.

Another consideration is whether or not this particular bridge should be retained for its heritage value. The RMS approach is to retain a number of each type of truss bridge throughout the State and progressively replace the others. Because of the difficulty and expense of maintaining truss bridges, the majority are now maintained by the RMS.

In 2010, Roads and Maritime Services prepared the document “Timber Truss Road Bridges – A Strategic Approach to Conservation” which detailed a methodology for assessing the conservation suitability and approach to managing the 48 remaining timber truss bridges maintained by the RMS. These bridges have a range of limitations within a modern road network and the Strategy outlines both operational and heritage considerations and applies a methodology to determine which of the 48 bridges represents better value for long term conservation within the road network. The Strategy was advertised for public comment and these comments were considered in developing the Strategy. The Strategy proposed the retention of 26 timber truss bridges and progressively replacing the remaining 22 as road demands and funding became available.

The particular types of truss bridges to be retained under the RMS Strategy consist of:

· 2 Old PWD design;

· 3 McDonald;

· 8 Allan;

· 4 deBurgh; and

· 6 Dare trusses.

It is important to note that truss bridges that can be maintained without introducing modern materials are not designed to carry loads in excess of 16 tonnes. This assumes the bridge is in good condition.

Council also commissioned a report in April 2009, to assess the heritage value of Bega Valley Shire’s timber bridges. The report identified the Pretty Point Bridge as Council’s only truss bridge, with exceptional historic aesthetic, historic technical and social value. It is considered the most significant timber bridge in the Shire and should be maintained in its original condition. The report recommended that where opportunities arise “introduced” modern material should be removed and the bridge returned to its original structure. Copies of both reports are attached for information.

The Pretty Point Bridge is an Allan Truss and the RMS Strategy identifies the retention of 8 Allan truss bridges and the replacement of a further 8. The New Buildings Bridge, which is also on New Buildings Road, is a Dare truss and is to be retained and will continue to be maintained by the RMS. To the general observer, the Dare truss looks like an Allan truss, the only difference being that the bottom cord on a Dare truss is steel, while the Allan truss is timber. The upstream bottom cord on the Pretty Point Bridge has been reinforced with steel channels, in an effort to strengthen the bridge and replace the existing rotten timber component. It was proposed to carry out the same work on the downstream bottom cord.

While it would be good to preserve the Pretty Point Bridge as a timber structure, the cost to do so is beyond Council’s resources and will commit Council to significant ongoing maintenance costs. If the bridge was to be retained in its original configuration, there would be an increasing need to bring in personnel skilled in truss maintenance, if they are available. Another difficulty is sourcing the timber in the required size and quality. The bottom cord of the Pretty Point Bridge has been reinforced with steel channels, as the required timber was not available at the time of the repairs. If the bridge was returned to a totally timber structure, it would always require a load limit of approximately 16 tonnes.

To replace the bridge with a concrete structure is also beyond Council’s resources at this time, without significant adjustments to the LTFP. Adjusting the LTFP to accommodate the cost of building a concrete bridge by contract will also unacceptably impact on other necessary bridge works and funding for Council’s own bridge team.

An alternative is to construct a low level concrete causeway, adjacent to the existing bridge. The structure would be similar to Stockyard Bridge at Rocky Hall that was replaced under the recent flood damage repairs. The cost of this structure was approximately $1.04 million and would leave the New Buildings area isolated in a major flood event.

Council officers had approached the RMS regarding the availability of a “bailey” bridge as an emergency support for the existing bridge while Council investigates ways to rehabilitate or replace the structure. Advice from the RMS was that their bailey bridges were all currently being used for works on their truss bridges and they do not hire out the units long term.

Council officers then approached Unibridge as an alternative to the “bailey” bridge system. Unibridge, manufactured by Matiere in France is a modular steel permanent and rapid assembly bridge system, which provides the ability to build clear spans of 11.4 to 45.6 metres without the need for intermediate piers. A copy of the Unibridge brochure is attached for information.

The initial approach to Unibridge was to hire their steel bridge girders as emergency support for the existing bridge truss. While Unibridge had not used their system for this application previously, their Australian representative was interested in the concept. A site inspection was arranged with Council officers, Council’s consulting engineer and Unibridge in July this year, to explore the idea of using their girders as temporary support, then use their bridge modules to replace the bridge in stages.

Council officers, Council’s consulting engineer and Unibridge’s Australian representative developed a concept plan and sequence of construction to be forwarded to Unibridge engineers in France for consideration and approval. This approval has been granted.

The proposal is to purchase six, 11.4 metre long by 1.25 metre high bridge girders currently available in Brisbane. The girders can be used as emergency support for the existing bridge, until Council is in a position to remove the trusses and replace the 27 metre span with the Unibridge modular bridge. Council’s bridge crew can carry out the work of constructing a new pier to support the new bridge and installing the girders as a temporary measure. Once the girders are installed as temporary support, the load limit can be upgraded and the permanent bridge replacement can be staged to fit with Councils LTFP. This work can be carried out by Council’s bridge crew.

The proposal to use the Unibridge components as a temporary support as well as a permanent bridge replacement has significant world wide applications. Unibridge and the RMS are keen to monitor the works if they proceed.

The initial six 11.4 metre bridge girders are available in Brisbane at a cost of $42,000 each, with the total cost of the units delivered to site being $252,000.

The works to construct the new pier and install the Unibridge girders as temporary support can be carried out by Council’s bridge crew and be funded by adjustments to the current LTFP bridge program.

While the cost of purchasing the six bridge modules exceeds $150,000, requiring a tender be called, the Unibridge system is unique with limited alternatives on the market. The Unibridge system offers a cost effective method of replacing the Pretty Point Bridge with the work being able to be carried out by Council’s bridge team.

The works can be and will need to be staged over a number of years, this is to ensure that the replacement of the bridge can be carried out with minimal disruption to the existing LTFP and allow Council’s bridge crew to continue to carry out necessary work on Council’s other bridges. The replacement of Pretty Point Bridge will give Council’s bridge and civil construction teams an excellent opportunity to gain skills for the future and the required steel fabrication is well within the capability of Council’s workshop team.

Council’s bridge team is carrying out a comprehensive timber bridge testing program, that will enable the bridge renewal and upgrade (replacement) programs to be amended to accommodate the proposed works on Pretty Point Bridge.

Staged Construction Sequence

2013/2014

Stage 1

· Inspect and repair existing pier, cross girders and approach spans

· Remove upstream kerb and rail to install temporary girder 1

· Install packing over existing piers to support temporary girder 1 clear of deck

· Install temporary girder 1 and support upstream edge of deck

· Remove upstream truss to allow temporary girder 2 to be installed

Stage 2

· Install packing over existing piers to support temporary girder 2 clear of deck

· Install temporary girder 2 and support upstream edge of deck

Stage 3

· Remove downstream kerb and rail to install temporary girder 1A

· Install packing over existing piers to support temporary girder 1A clear of deck

· Install temporary girder 1A and support downstream edge of deck

· Remove downstream truss

Costs for Stages 1-3

Purchase 6 x 11.4m Unibridge girders, delivered to site	$252,000
Bridge team inspection and repairs to pier, cross girder and approach spans	Carried out as a maintenance item
Bridge team installation of temporary girders	$20,000
Removal of trusses	$20,000
Crane hire	$5,000
Total	$297,000

2014/2015

Stage 4

· Construct new pier 2 (western) adjacent to original pier

· Concrete encase existing pier 1 (eastern)

Stage 5

· Close bridge, remove original timber deck and temporary girders

· Support existing timber approach spans on pier 1 and new pier 2

· Remove original pier 2

· Install Unibridge girders and deck in permanent position on pier 1 and 2

Costs for Stage 4-5

Bridge team resources and concrete	$80,000
Purchase 3 x 11.4m Unibridge deck units	$107,100
Purchase 1 x 6m Unibridge complete bridge unit	$73,500
Bridge team resources	$30,000
Crane hire	$10,000
Total	$300,600

2015/2016

Stage 6

· Reconstruct abutment 1 and 2 protection

Stage 7

· Construct abutment 1 and 2 in preparation of replacing approach spans

Stage 8

· Close bridge and remove existing approach spans

· Install Unibridge girders and deck units

Costs for Stages 6-8

Bridge team resources	$250,000
Crane hire	$10,000
Purchase 1 x 11.4m Unibridge complete bridge unit	$117,000
Total	$377,000

Stages 6, 7 and 8 could be developed to replace both approach spans at the same time or to do one approach at a time, possibly over two years.

Total cost of the bridge replacement would be $974,000. The scheduled works detailed above could be funded using the annual $300,000 bridge upgrade funds, as allocated in the LTFP

ISSUES

Policy

The purchase of the Unibridge bridging modules exceeds the limit under Council’s Purchasing Policy requiring a formal tender process, however the system is unique with limited alternatives on the market.

Environmental

A Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and Fisheries Permits will need to be obtained for the work. Using the Unibridge modules allows the replacement structure to be constructed on the existing alignment. Only one new pier has to be constructed, which will cause minimal disturbance to the river bed. The waterway area remains unchanged.

Asset

The current structure requires a very high level of maintenance. The new bridge will result in significantly lower maintenance costs to Council.

Social / Cultural

The upgraded bridge with no load limit will provide continual, safe access to the residents along New Buildings Road. The 20 tonne load limit on the RMS managed New Buildings Bridge will remain a logistical issue for Council, RFS and some other road users.

Economic

The works can be carried out with minor adjustments to the LTFP bridge program and can be staged to minimise the cost impact of the work.

Strategic

The bridge is located on a Council collector road and provides a vital link for the New Buildings and Rocky Hall communities.

Financial

Works can be carried out with minimum adjustment to LTFP bridge program.

Resources (including staff)

Works can be undertaken by Council’s bridge team and asset officers, with design services provided by Council’s consulting engineer and Unibridge representative.

Operational Plan

Works will have a minor acceptable disruption to the operational plan.

Conclusion

Pretty Point Bridge has deteriorated to the point where it requires urgent replacement. The Unibridge modular bridge system provides a cost effective method of supporting the bridge as an emergency repair, then bridge replacement that can be accomplished by Council’s bridge team with minimal disruption to the LTFP bridge program.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Roads and Maritime Services Timber Truss Bridge Conservation Strategy August 2012

2 View. Heritage Timber Bridges Bega Valley Shire May 2009

3 View. Unibridge Brochure

Recommendation

1. That Council replace the Pretty Point Bridge using the Unibridge modular bridging system.

2. The works to be staged and carried out by Council’s bridge team to minimise the impact on Council’s LTFP bridge program.

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 1*	*Roads and Maritime Services Timber Truss Bridge Conservation Strategy August 2012*

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 2*	*Heritage Timber Bridges Bega Valley Shire May 2009*

Council 25 September 2013 Item 11.4

11.4. Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study - Draft Report for Public Exhibition

The draft report for Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study has now been completed and is ready for formal public exhibition.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Bega Valley Shire Council engaged consultants SMEC Australia to undertake a flood study for the Bega and Brogo River catchments. The study was undertaken to update current flood mapping, in light of recent flood events during 2010, 2011 and 2012, with the assistance of a grant from the Office of Environment and Heritage.

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

Council has taken the initiative to carry out the flood study to assist with planning for and managing the risk the community faces from flooding.

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 draft flood study report has now been completed and received. All computer modelling and mapping has been completed and the draft report and findings are now ready for public comment and submissions. The final flood study report will provide the technical basis required for the development of a subsequent Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

ISSUES

Legal

In accordance with Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993, floodplain risk management in urban and rural areas in NSW is governed by the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and its Floodplain Development Manual, the management of flood liable land, April 2005.

Locally, the NSW Government policy is implemented through Council’s adopted procedure 4.1.1(l) and Development Control Policy 4.1.1.

Environmental

Environmental concerns such as climate change, including sea level rise have been addressed in the draft flood study report, in accordance with current NSW Government Guidelines and requirements for flood study projects. Other environmental concerns are usually addressed in a subsequent flood risk management study and plan following community consultation at a subsequent time.

Asset

When finalised, the draft report findings will form the basis of future asset/community planning and protection.

Social / Cultural

Floodplains are the commercial, social and environmental arteries of the State. Transport and communication infrastructure are often located in floodplains which, generally as the more fertile areas, are a base for a significant proportion of the State’s agricultural business. Regular flooding enhances agricultural productivity by increasing soil moisture, recharging groundwater and depositing fertile silt across the floodplain. However, flooding can also interfere with production, communication, transport, emergency management and agricultural practices. Therefore development and management of floodplains needs to consider a broad range of issues, including balancing the benefits of occupying the floodplain against the costs.

When finalised, the findings of the draft flood study will form the basis of a future floodplain risk management study and plan that incorporates the management of social, cultural and economic impacts.

Consultation

Consultation via formal public exhibition and the invitation of public comment is the subject of this report. Community consultation regarding flood study outcomes and findings are a requirement of the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and its Floodplain Development Manual, the management of flood liable land, April 2005.

To complete the NSW Government consultation requirements, according to the Floodplain Development Manual mentioned above, Council is also required to form and convene a Floodplain Risk Management Committee hereafter referred to as a Focus Group. For details of this process, refer to the subsequent report titled ‘Focus Group Composition and selection for Bega Valley Shire Floodplain Risk Management’.

Financial

The exhibition of the draft report is expected to cost in the order of $2,500 partly subsidised through a $82,000 grant from the Office of Environment and Heritage.

The remaining $22,924 to be claimed by Council under the grant is conditional upon Council formally exhibiting, adopting and handing over copies of relevant materials to the Office of Environment by 31 October 2013.

Resources (including staff)

Staff and financial resources have already been expended on delivering the Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study project. Other resources required will be meeting room facilities whenever any Focus Groups and/or technical sub-committees are convened in the process of completing the flood study project.

Operational Plan

The completion of this project meets the Operational Plan Key Outcome: A9.1.1 Emergency Planning: Complete Flood Study and develop floodplain risk management plan. The associated Performance Measure is ‘Flood modelling and floodplain risk management plan delivered June 2013’.

Conclusion

The formal public exhibition of the draft Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study report and findings will allow community input and submissions to be incorporated into the final report to be adopted. The exhibition will also allow Council to meet current NSW State Government consultation requirements in finalising and adopting the flood study findings at the end of the formal exhibition period.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Draft Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study Report

Recommendation

1. That Council note the draft flood study report and findings.

2. That the draft flood study report be placed on public exhibition.

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 11.4 - Attachment 1*	*Draft Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study Report*

Council 25 September 2013 Item 11.5

11.5. Focus Group Composition and Selection for Bega Valley Shire Floodplain Risk Management

A Focus Group comprising Council, State Agency/Authority and community representatives is suggested to provide a consultative and advisory mechanism for Floodplain Risk Management (FRM) issues and options within the Bega Valley Local Government Area. This report suggests the composition of the Focus Group, its technical sub-committee and the process and criteria to select representatives to comply with State Government requirements. This report seeks Council approval for the Focus Group and technical sub-committee composition and selection process.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Bega Valley Shire Council engaged consultants SMEC Australia to undertake the Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study.

Council took the initiative to carry out the flood study to assist with planning for and managing the risk the community faces from flooding.

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

The draft flood study report has now been completed and received. The historic and design models contained within the flood study will provide the technical basis required for the flood study and development of a subsequent Floodplain Risk Management Plan (FRMP) that typically includes a floodplain risk management study (FRMS).

The Focus Group (commonly referred to as a Floodplain Risk Management Committee) is a requirement of the NSW State Government’s floodplain risk management process and is both the focus of and a forum for, the discussion of technical, social, economic and ecological issues and for the distillation of possible differing viewpoints on these issues into subsequent management plans.

The suggested composition of the Focus Group is:

· Bega Valley Shire Council: 2 Councillors and 3 staff

· Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW): 2

· Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority: 1

· State Emergency Services: 1

· Department of Planning: 1

· Department of Community Services: 1

· Community representatives: 3

The suggested process for obtaining names is outlined in Table 1 below. All names received will be presented to Council for consideration and final selection at a Council meeting, to provide legitimacy to the Focus Group moving forward into further floodplain risk management work.

Organisation / Community	Process to obtain names
Bega Valley Shire Council	Council to nominate two Councillors.
Department of Environment Climate Change and Water	Letter and phone call to Floodplain Management Regional Operations Group and NSW Office of Water requesting representatives.
Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority	Letter and phone call to SRCMA Bega Office requesting a representative.
Department of Planning	Letter and phone call to the district DOP Office requesting a representative.
State Emergency Services	Letter and phone call to the local SES Coordinator requesting a representative.
The Bureau of Meteorology	Letter and phone call to local BOM Coordinator requesting a representative.
Department of Community Services	Letter and phone call to DOCS Coordinator requesting a representative.
Community	Advertisement in local media seeking three community members by river catchment as needed, from within the Bega Valley LGA with a demonstrated interest in floodplain risk management issues and willing to work as part of a Focus Group to provide input and feedback on floodplain risk management issues presented. Applicants to provide a brief written reply outlining their credentials and overall suitability for the role.

TABLE 1

It is also proposed to convene a technical sub-committee comprising the following members to deal with technical issues ahead of Focus Group workshops:

· Bega Valley Shire Council: 5 staff

· Council’s nominated consultant

· Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW): 2

· Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority: 1

· State Emergency Services: 1

· The Bureau of Meteorology: 1

All names received will be presented to Council for consideration and final selection by Council at a Council meeting, to provide legitimacy to the technical sub-committee.

It is intended to re-call nominations for councillor and community representatives after each local government election, to reflect changes over time and simultaneously maintain continuity.

Also, as individual Floodplain Risk Management Plans are adopted by Council, individual Focus Groups are no longer needed.

ISSUES

Legal

Locally, the NSW Government policy is implemented through Council’s adopted procedure 4.1.1(l) and Development Control Policy 4.1.1.

Focus Group recommendations are purely advisory in nature, as responsibility for planning matters lies with Council as a whole. The Focus Group’s principal objective is to assist Council in development of one or more floodplain risk management plans for the LGA. The resultant recommendations may necessitate review of Council’s existing policies when floodplain risk management plans are eventually adopted.

Environmental

Environmental concerns such as climate change and catchment management practices will be addressed through the diverse composition of the Focus group that typically includes Council Planning and Environment staff, State Agency specialists such as the SRCMA and community representation among others.

Asset

The Focus Group and its technical sub-committee will provide input for floodplain risk management and minimisation strategies for Council and community assets as part of the overall floodplain risk management process.

Social / Cultural

Floodplains are the commercial, social and environmental arteries of the State. Transport and communication infrastructure are often located in floodplains which, generally as the more fertile areas, are a base for a significant proportion of the State’s agricultural business. Regular flooding enhances agricultural productivity by increasing soil moisture, recharging groundwater and depositing fertile silt across the floodplain. However, flooding can also interfere with production, communication, transport, emergency management and agricultural practices. Therefore development and management of floodplains needs to consider a broad range of issues including balancing the benefits of occupying the floodplain against the costs.

Social/cultural concerns will be addressed through the diverse composition of the Focus Group that include Council staff, State Agency specialists like the SES, Department of Community Services and community representation.

Consultation

Providing consultation via a Focus Group is the subject of this report, in order to meet current NSW Government requirements contained within the Floodplain Development Manual, the management of flood liable land, April 2005.

Financial

The formation and operation of a focus group is expected to cost in the order of $5,000. Financial resources are typically subsidised through grants from the Office of Environment and Heritage.

The remaining $22,924 to be claimed by Council under the existing grant for completion of the current Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study is conditional upon Council formally acquitting all requirements by 31 October 2013, such as the formation of a Focus Group as stipulated in the agreed flood study work plan submitted to the Office of Environment. Refer to the previous report titled ‘Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study at Bega draft Report Exhibition’.

Resources (including staff)

Staff and financial resources have been already been expended on the Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study project. Future flood studies, floodplain risk management studies or implementation of floodplain risk management plans will also require staff and financial resources as they arise or as grants are secured. Other resources required will be meeting room facilities whenever any Focus Group or technical sub-committees are convened.

Operational Plan

This project meets the Operational Plan Key Outcome: A9.1.1 Emergency Planning: Complete Flood Study and develop floodplain risk management plan. The associated Performance Measure is ‘Flood modelling and floodplain risk management plan delivered June 2013’.

Conclusion

A Focus Group with a technical sub-committee is suggested for provision of advice and consultation of any future floodplain risk management issues and also to comply with current NSW State Government requirements. Council staff will contact the nominated organisations to obtain representatives for the Focus Group and technical sub-committee and also seek community representation via advertisements in the Merimbula News Weekly, Bega District News and Eden Magnet as appropriate to individual catchments. All names will be presented to Council for selection to the Focus Group.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council approve the formation of a Focus Group and a technical sub-committee to provide input and consultation on floodplain risk management issues within the Bega Valley Shire LGA.

2. That two Councillors nominate to be on the Focus Group.

3. That Council approve the suggested composition of the Focus Group and its technical sub-committee and process to obtain representatives and agree to making the final selection of representatives on the Focus Group and its technical sub-committee.

Council 25 September 2013 Item 12.2

12.2. Referral of 2013 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 2013.

Business and Technology 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 2013 will commence on 14 October, 2013.

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 2012/2013.

The recommendations in this report do not represent the Councils’ approval of the 2013 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 25 September 2013 Item 12.3

12.3. 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 2013.

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, and was reconsidered on 9 October 2012.

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. At this time, Council holds no long term deposits nor any deposits introduced through an agent.

Financial

The attached report indicates a current investment portfolio of $53,500,100. These funds can be broken into the following Funds:

Funding source	June 2013	July 2013	August 2013
General Fund	$44,406,634	$36,406,634	$36,906.634
Water Fund	$8,749,118	$8,749,118	$8,749,118
Sewer Fund	$5,844,348	$5,844,348	$5,844,348

In addition there is $4,559,490.75 in uninvested funds in Councils operating account.

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.

8 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.

8 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. Certificates of investment

Recommendation

1. That Council receive and note the attached report indicating Council’s Investment position.

2. That Council note the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 9.2 - Attachment 1*	*Tura community Centre House*

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 9.2 - Attachment 2*	*Tura Beach community center Top Floor*

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 9.2 - Attachment 3*	*Tura Beach Community Centre Ground Floor*

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 3*	*Unibridge Brochure*

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 1*	*Release of Eden Cove Bonds - independent report*

Council	25 September 2013
*Item 12.3 - Attachment 1*	*Certificates of investment*