Ordinary

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

An Ordinary Meeting of the Bega Valley Shire Council will be held at Council Chambers, Bega on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 commencing at 2.00 pm to consider and resolve on the matters set out in the attached Agenda.

Leanne Barnes

Acting General Manager

 

 

31 October 2013

 

TO:

Cr Bill Taylor, Mayor

Cr Russell Fitzpatrick, Deputy Mayor

Cr Tony Allen

Cr Michael Britten

Cr Keith Hughes

Cr Ann Mawhinney

Cr Kristy McBain

Cr Liz Seckold

Cr Sharon Tapscott

COPY:

Acting General Manager, Ms Leanne Barnes

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste and Water, Mr Wayne Sartori

Group Manager Planning and Environment, Mr Andrew Woodley

Acting Group Manager Community and Relationships, Mr Simon Schweitzer

Business and Technology Manager, Mr Lucas Scarpin

Workforce and Administration, Manager
Ms Nina Churchward

Minute Secretary

 

 

 


PUBLISHING OF AGENDAS AND MINUTES

The Agendas for Council Meetings and Council Reports for each meeting are available from 5.00 pm one week prior to each Ordinary Meeting, on Council’s website.  A hard copy is also made available to each Library Branch and at the Bega Administration Building reception desk.

The Minutes of Committee and Council Meetings are available from 5.00pm on Council's Web Site on the Friday after the Meeting on Councils website and hard copies distributed with the Agenda for the following meeting.

1.      Please be aware that the recommendations in the Council Meeting Agenda are recommendations to the Council for consideration.  They are not the resolutions (decisions) of Council.

2.      Background for reports is provided by staff to the General Manager for his presentation to Council.

3.      The Council may adopt these recommendations, amend the recommendations, determine a completely different course of action, or it may decline to pursue any course of action.

4.      The decision of the Council becomes the resolution of the Council, and is recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.

5.      The Minutes of each Council meeting are published in draft format, and are confirmed, with amendments by Councillors if necessary, at the next available Council Meeting.

If you require any further information or clarification regarding a report to Counci, please contact Council’s Executive Assistant who can provide you with the appropriate contact details

         Phone (6499 2104) or email execassist@begavalley.nsw.gov.au.


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                                                                                                       6 November 2013

 

AGENDA

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners of Bega Valley Shire

 

1     Confirmation Of Minutes

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 16 October 2013 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.

2     Apologies and requests for leave of absence

 

3     Declarations

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

4     Deputations (by prior arrangement)

 

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              Old Bega Hospital Site Princes Highway, Bega - Proposed Amendment to the Land Zone Map under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 to zone the land RE 2 Private Recreation................................. 10

8.2              Request for review of determination of Section 96 Application to Modify - Alterations and additions to entertainment establishment - Four Winds Barraga Bay................................................................................... 16

8.3              4 Lot subdivision - Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula. 24

8.4              Proposed Amendments to BVLEP 2013............................................ 49

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 Policy (1.09) - Cost of living - Seniors ............................. 78

10   Staff Reports – Enterprising (Economic)

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

10.1             Acquisition of Town Hall Reserve.................................................... 84

11   Staff Reports – Accessibility (Infrastructure Waste and Water)

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

11.1             Central Waste Facility Staffing........................................................ 88

11.2             Pretty Point Bridge Replacement..................................................... 95

11.3             RFT43/13 Service Tender for Provision of Professional Life Saving Services....................................................................................... 104

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             Presentation of Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013.................................................................................................... 108

12.2             Quarterly Budget Review Statement for 30 June 2013..................... 118

12.3             Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) - September 2013...... 132

12.4             Eden Cove - Further Report on Outstanding Works........................ 135

12.5             Bega Central Waste Facility (CWF)............................................... 138

12.6             2014 Coastal Conference............................................................... 140

12.7             Southern Councils Group Board Meeting 18 September 2013.......... 143

12.8             Southern Phone Dividend 2013...................................................... 144

12.9             New Years Eve celebrations - Eden............................................. 147 .

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

16.1             Rural Fire Service (RFS) State Government Funding...................... 151

16.2             Councillor Delegates Southern Councils Group (SCG) and Local Government NSW......................................................................... 152

16.3             Publishing of financial information relating to Councillor expenses... 153

 

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                                                                                                       6 November 2013

 

 

staff reports – Sustainability (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT)

 

6 November 2013

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Britten.  

8.1           Old Bega Hospital Site Princes Highway, Bega - Proposed Amendment to the Land Zone Map under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 to zone the land RE 2 Private Recreation................................................................................................ 10

8.2           Request for review of determination of Section 96 Application to Modify - Alterations and additions to entertainment establishment - Four Winds Barraga Bay............................................................ 16

8.3           4 Lot subdivision - Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula................................................................................................ 24

8.4           Proposed Amendments to BVLEP 2013...................................... 49


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                  Item 8.1

 

8.1.          Old Bega Hospital Site Princes Highway, Bega - Proposed Amendment to the Land Zone Map under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 to zone the land RE 2 Private Recreation     

 

The aim of the report is for Council to resolve to prepare a planning proposal to amend the zoning of the Old Bega Hospital site under BVLEP 2013 from SP1 Special Activities to RE2 Private Recreation.

 

Group Manager Planning & Environment   

 

Background

The Old Bega Hospital site, Princes Highway, Bega is identified as Lot 296 DP 728021 and is zoned SP1 “Special Activities” under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013).

The SP1 zoning table identifies the following as permitted with consent:

“Roads; the purpose shown on the Land Zoning Map, including any development that is ordinarily incidental or ancillary to development for that purpose.”

In other locations in the Bega Valley (and across NSW), an SP1 zone identifies the purposes of the land on the land zone map, such as waste disposal facility or cemetery; however there is no identified purpose for Lot 296 on the map.

Therefore, currently, the only permitted use with consent on this land is “roads”.

As part of the assessment process for determining the most appropriate purpose for the site, it has become evident to planning staff that there are a number of opportunities for the site and that the current SP1 zone, which limits the use to a specific purpose, did not provide the flexibility for the development of the site.

This report identifies possible potential development opportunities for the site and recommends an appropriate zone amendment.

CURRENT USES OF THE SITE

The Old Bega Hospital site is owned by the Crown and managed by the Old Bega Hospital Trust.

The site is currently occupied by community related tenants including Bega Valley Weavers, Valley Potters, Edge FM and also as a meeting place for other small community groups.

There has also been discussions regarding the establishment of a Tourist Information/Gateway Centre on the site and a development application has recently been lodged for the establishment of a “men’s shed” on the site.

Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 Status

As previously outlined in the report, the site being Lot 296 DP 72802, is zoned SP1 “Special Activities” under BVLEP 2013 , with only roads permitted with consent on the land, as the “special” purpose of the land is not identified on the land zone map.

The Old Bega Hospital and outbuildings are listed in Schedule 5 of BVLEP 2013 as a Heritage Item. Clause 5.10(10) of BVLEP 2013 outlines Conservation Incentives for Heritage Items as follows:

“(10)  Conservation incentives
The consent authority may grant consent to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, or for any purpose on an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a)       the conservation of the heritage item or Aboriginal place of heritage significance is facilitated by the granting of consent, and

(b)       the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management document that has been approved by the consent authority, and

(c)        the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried out, and

(d)       the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the Aboriginal place of heritage significance, and

(e)       the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.”

Whilst the Heritage Conservation Incentives Clause could be used to approve development on the site, that would otherwise be prohibited, this would require a ‘Heritage Management Document’ to be prepared and approved for the site. Any subsequent proposed development would need to be consistent with the document and demonstrate the benefit to the Heritage Item.

With the current use of the site being community related, activation of the conservation incentive clause is not considered, on its own, to be an appropriate planning process for the future development and use of the site.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATE USES FOR THE SITE

An important consideration in determining the most appropriate uses for the site is the opportunity for restoration of the Old Bega Hospital and potential use of the restored building – that is, flexibility in zoning to permit appropriate and complementary development opportunities.

Current uses of the site include community based groups and, as previously outlined in the report, a development application has been lodged for the establishment of a ‘men’s shed’ on the site.

It is considered that suitable potential uses for the site would include gateway/information centre, function centre, child care, restaurant, markets and the like.

Based on the current and possible potential future uses of the site it is considered that the most appropriate zoning for the site is RE2 “Private Recreation”.

The RE2 zoning table is included below:

Zone RE2 Private Recreation

1 Objectives of zone

• To enable land to be used for private open space or recreational purposes.

• To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

• To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

• To ensure that the scale and character of private recreational development is compatible with the surrounding land uses.

2 Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works

3 Permitted with consent

Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Car parks; Caravan parks; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Child care centres; Community facilities; Environmental facilities; Flood mitigation works; Information and education facilities; Jetties; Kiosks; Marinas; Markets; Mooring pens; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Take away food and drink premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water recreation structures

4 Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

The RE2 zoning would provide the flexibility for multiple uses of the site, whereas the existing SP1 zone limits the use of the site to a specific purpose.

Conclusion

Lot 296 DP 728021 Princes Highway Bega, being the Old Bega Hospital site, is zoned SP1 “Special Activities” under BVLEP 2013. Permitted uses in the zone include roads and any purpose identified in the Land Zone map. The land zone map for Lot 296 does not identify any purpose. Therefore only roads are permitted with consent.

The SP1 zone is an appropriate zone where a lot is to be used for one specific purpose, for example a cemetery or a waste disposal facility.

The Old Bega Hospital site is currently used for a number of community related activities and there is potential for future development of the site for a number of complementary uses.

The existing SP1 zone does not provide the flexibility for the development of the site and based on current and future potential uses it is considered that a RE2 “Private Recreation” zone would be more appropriate.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1View. Location map

2View. Existing Land Zone map

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the zoning Lot 296 DP 728021, Princes Highway, Bega under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 from SP1 “Special Activities” to RE2 “Private Recreation”.

2.         That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway Panel determination.

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.1 - Attachment 1

Location map

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.1 - Attachment 2

Existing Land Zone map

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                  Item 8.2

 

8.2DA No. 2012.393:  Request for review of determination of Section 96 Application to Modify - Alterations and additions to entertainment establishment - Four Winds Barraga Bay       

 

Group Manager Planning & Environment   

 

 

Applicant

Four Winds Inc.

Owner

As above

Site

Lot 130 & 131 DP 1178806, 3511 Tathra- Bermagui Road, Barraga Bay

Zone

1(a) Rural General Zone under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002.

Approved development

Alterations and additions to an Entertainment Establishment including the erection of a performance pavilion, access road, parking and ancillary infrastructure and intensification of the use

Precis

Council at its meeting held on 16 October 2013 gave consideration to a request from Four Winds Concerts Inc. seeking a review of the decision of the Group Manager Planning and Environment to refuse the deletion of condition 5 of the development consent as sought by the Section 96 Application to Modify Development Consent No. 2012.393.

The decision not to delete condition 5 of the consent, which requires the internal access road to be bitumen sealed, was made under the delegated authority of the Group Manager Planning and Environment.

Council resolved the following:

“That Council note that following an address to Council, this item was deferred in keeping with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and a further report be provided.”

DETAILS OF ADDRESS TO COUNCIL

Mr Bill Southwood and Mr Jeff Lean addressed Council on behalf of Four Winds Concerts Inc regarding the requirements of Condition 15 of the Development Consent.

A copy of the written address provided at the meeting is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

Group Manager InfrastructUre, Waste and Water response to address to council

The address to Council, as outlined in the written submission included as Attachment 1 to this report, brings forward no new issues.

The works outlined by Four Winds Concerts Inc, to be undertaken to address pavement stabilisation and sediment control, are works already required to be carried out as part of the conditions of consent for the roadwork that apply to the development.

Whilst the condition of consent requires the sealing of the total length of the access handle, the requirement for sealing of the road where the grade is 15% or more is in accordance with Council’s adopted Technical Specifications.

Attachment 2 to this report includes detailed comments on the development consent conditions that relate to the roadwork.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the Council resolution of 16 October 2013 this further report is submitted for Council consideration.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1View. Written address

2View. Detailed comments on DA conditions

 

Recommendation

That Council determine the request for review of the determination of the Group Manager Planning and Environment in respect of the Section 96 Application to Modify Condition 5 of DA No 2012.393 which was determined under delegated authority, dated 22 July 2013.

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.2 - Attachment 1

Written address

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.2 - Attachment 2

Detailed comments on DA conditions

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                  Item 8.3

 

8.3DA No. 2012.478: 4 Lot subdivision - Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula       

 

Group Manager Planning & Environment   

 

 

Applicant

M Britten and R Savage

Owner

As above

Site

Proposed Lot 516 in the subdivision of Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive Merimbula

Zone

2(c) Residential Tourist Zone

Site area

3.9 hectares

Proposed development

4 lot subdivision

Precis

Council is in receipt of an application for the subdivision of part of the subject land into 3 lots large residential lots and a residue lot.

The application was deferred from Council’s meeting dated 24 July 2013 at the request of the applicant to enable further discussion with Council staff prior to determination.

The application is referred to Council on the basis that Development Control Procedure 4.1.1(p) requires the application to be determined by Council as one of the owners of the land (Michael Britten) is a Councillor.

Approval of the application is recommended.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting held on 31 August 2010 approved the subdivision of Lot 881 into 15 lots subject to conditions outlined in Development Consent 2002.955. The approval included a residue lot of approximately 2.12ha which was identified as suitable for future development. It is this approved residue lot that is subject to this application.

Description of the proposal

The application is for the subdivision of the residue lot (Proposed lot 516 in DA 2002.955) into 3 large residential lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3) ranging in area from 4,995m2 to 6,835m2 and a residue lot (Lot 4) having an area of 1.69 hectares. Suitable building sites are available on each of the lots in context with the proximity of Merimbula Lake and foreshore, bush fire hazard and known aboriginal archaeology.

The proposed subdivision would create an easement for conservation purposes designed to preclude development on specific sections of proposed Lots 1 and 2 given the presence of aboriginal archaeology. The proposed easement supports an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage pursuant to the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

In this instance, the AHIP is supplemented by a management plan designed to cover the area of the conservation easement. The plan effectively precludes development from taking place within the easement unless approved by the Office of Environment and Heritage. As part of the subdivision process, the management plan would be registered on the title of proposed Lots 1 and 2.

Access to the subdivision would to be achieved by extending Lakewood Drive. All utility services are available and would be provided to the land as part of the subdivision works.

A copy of the proposed plan of subdivision is attached to this report as Appendix 2.

Description of the site

The land subject to this application is located on the southern side of Lakewood Drive and to the south west of the subdivision approved under Development Consent 2002.955.

The land generally falls from its northern boundary/Lakewood Drive frontage to its southern boundary/Merimbula Lake foreshore. Large areas of the site have been previously cleared as part of the subdivision works associated with the existing residential estate (Mulloway Circuit), site survey works associated with Development Consent 2002.955 and the adjoining Robyn’s Nest tourist development.

Sections of uncleared land still exist along and adjacent to the Lake foreshore. A minor gully traverses the land adjacent its western boundary. These features provide excellent habitat opportunities and contribute to the character and integrity of the Lake and foreshore areas.

Planning assessment

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Staff highlight the key issues of the proposal in this report for Council’s consideration. A copy of the assessing officer’s Section 79C assessment will be available at the meeting.

Zoning and Development Standards

The application was lodged prior to the gazettal of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the adoption by Council of the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013. The application must be assessed and determined in accordance with the legislation at the time of lodgement being the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 and Development Control Plan 2 – Residential Development 2007.

Comment will also be provided on compliance with BVLEP 2013 and BVDCP 2013.

Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002

The subject land is located within a 2(c) Residential Tourist Zone in which the subdivision of land is permissible with Council consent. The Local Environmental Plan nominates a minimum lot size of 550m2 for the purpose of erecting a dwelling. The residential lots within the proposed subdivision would range in size from 4,995m2 to 6,835m2.

Development Control Plan No 2 – Subdivision Standards 2007

Clause 12.4 of the Plan requires a minimum lot size of 1,000m2 in a residential 2(c) and the proposed lot layout is consistent with this clause.

Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 - Considered as a draft

The subject land, in the main, is to be located within a R3 Medium Density Residential Zone. A small section of the land, adjacent the southern boundary of the proposed lots is to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The Plan nominates a minimum lot size of 1,000m2 for subdivision. Accordingly, the subdivision is consistent with those provisions.

Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 – Considered as a draft

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the Plan.

Issues

The assessment of the application has identified several key issues which are discussed in detail below.

Lakewood Drive road reserve width

The subdivision layout approved under Development Consent No 2002.0955, which includes the creation of the residue lot subject to this application, was designed to take into account the requirements of the NSW Rural Fire Service. This required the adoption of a minimum road reserve width of 20 metres across the frontages to those lots fronting the Lakewood Drive extension to provide a suitable standard of access to the subdivision and to secure an appropriate asset protection zone (APZ). The standard also satisfied Council’s adopted Subdivision Guidelines and Technical Specifications.

The current application proposes a narrowing of the road reserve width to 16 metres for part of the extension to Lakewood Drive.

The 20 metre minimum road reserve width should be maintained to meet the required APZ’s for DA 2002.955. A suitable condition has been imposed in the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Environmental

As highlighted in this report there are sections of subject land which contain quality vegetation and habitat opportunities. These areas are adjacent to the Merimbula Lake foreshore and extend into the proposed development site. Some minor clearing will be required within these areas to establish and maintain appropriate asset protection zones to future dwellings.

The remaining areas of vegetation should be preserved to ensure their integrity and contribution to the local environment.

Suitable conditions have been imposed in the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Aboriginal archaeology and cultural heritage

The proponent, acting on the terms and conditions detailed in Development Consent 2002.955, made application to the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for the issue of an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) to enable investigation and works associated with the subdivision of the subject land.

The issue of such a permit enables, under strict conditions, the displacement/harm of identified aboriginal archaeology at a specific location for a specific reason. It can also preclude specific areas of a site from development.

The AHIP was issued by OEH on the 30 November 2012, and is supplemented by an OEH endorsed management plan, specifically covering nominated “no harm” areas within the subject lands. The management plan activated the need for the creation of the proposed easement for conservation purposes as shown on the proposed plan of subdivision.

The current development application was referred to OEH on the 29 January 2013 in response to issues raised by the NSW Rural Fire Service regarding the clearing of land within the proposed easement for conservation purposes. Clearing within the easement would be required to establish and maintain appropriate asset protection zones to future dwellings within the subdivision.

In response, OEH advised Council on 21 June 2013 that the management plan allows for the manual clearing of the vegetation within the easement for conservation provided it did not involve soil disturbance. Accordingly, OEH would not object to any manual clearing required to establish and maintain asset protection zones.

A suitable condition has been incorporated into the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Bush fire protection

The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) on 3 January 2013.

Following discussions between the proponent, the RFS and OEH, Council received modified plans from the proponent on 12 March 2013 addressing the concerns raised by the RFS. The modified plans were referred to the RFS for comment and/or requirements.

In response, the RFS issued a bush fire safety authority on 14 June 2013 in accordance with Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. More recently, the proponent further revised the proposed plan of subdivision in direct consultation with the RFS. In response, the RFS issued an amended bush fire safety authority on 11 September 2013 which has been incorporated into the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Fisheries Conservation – aquatic habit protection

The application was referred to the NSW Department of Primary Industries on 3 January 2013 given the close proximity of Merimbula Lake. In response, the Department has raised no objection to the proposed subdivision subject to the provision of appropriate stormwater and water quality controls being engineered into the design of the subdivision (refer Draft Consent).

Submissions

In accordance with Council’s adopted Notification Policy adjoining and adjacent land owners were notified of the application with no submissions received.

The application was also referred to the Merimbula Oyster Growers for consideration. In response, concern has been expressed over the potential impact of the subdivision on water quality within the Lake to the detriment of the local oyster industry.

In their submission, the oyster growers requested that appropriate soil and water management controls are installed and maintained as part of the subdivision process and at the time of erecting dwellings.

Comment

Merimbula Lake has been identified as a “priority oyster aquaculture area” by the NSW Department of Industry and Investment’s report “NSW Oyster Industry Sustainability Aquaculture Strategy 2006”.

It is essential that high standards in stormwater management and water quality are achieved.

Suitable conditions have been incorporated into the draft consent attached to this report requiring the preparation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan which, subject to Council endorsement, would ensure the quality of stormwater discharge from the site both during and after the construction of the subdivision.

In addition, Council would require the installation and maintenance of soil and water management controls in the subsequent development of the individual lots for dwelling purposes.

conclusion

The application provides for the subdivision of part of the subject land, the design of which satisfies the requirements of both the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 and Development Control Plan 2 – Subdivision Standards 2007.

The proposed subdivision effectively extends the existing residential estate and, subject to maintaining the required 20m wide road width, would be in keeping with the proposed subdivision as approved under Development Consent 2002.955.

Conditions have been imposed in the Draft Consent to satisfy the requirements of State Government agencies and the concerns expressed by the Merimbula Oyster Growers.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1View. Location plan

2View. Plan of proposed subdivision

3View. Draft Consent DA 2012.478

4View. Rural Fire Service bushfire safety authority

 

Recommendation

That Development Application 2012.478 for the subdivision of Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive Merimbula into 3 residential lots and residue lot be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the Draft Consent attached to this report.

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.3 - Attachment 1

Location plan

 

 

 



Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.3 - Attachment 2

Plan of proposed subdivision

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.3 - Attachment 3

Draft Consent DA 2012.478

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.3 - Attachment 4

Rural Fire Service bushfire safety authority

 


 


 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                  Item 8.4

 

8.4.          Proposed Amendments to BVLEP 2013     

 

Since the adoption of BVLEP 2013 a number of minor zoning matters have arisen that require amendment. This report outlines those matters and recommends the process for resolution.

 

Group Manager Planning & Environment  

 

Background

At the meeting on 12 June 2012 Council resolved to support (or partially support) a number of the submissions made to the Draft BVLEP 2010, known as Appendix 2 matters, which require the preparation of Planning Proposals.

During the preparation of these Planning Proposals and as a result of the implementation of BVLEP 2013, a number of zoning and related matters have been identified.

The following sites require Council consideration and resolution.

DETAILS OF SITES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Arthur Kaine Drive – land opposite Merimbula Airport

Lot 1 DP 1004805, Lot 120 DP 847899 and Lot 2 DP 549112 are located on the eastern side of Arthur Kaine Drive, directly opposite Merimbula Airport.

Under BVLEP 2013 Lot 1 DP 1004805 is zoned SP2 Infrastructure. Lot 120 DP 847899 and Lot 2 DP 549112 were included in Appendix 2, as deferred matters, and proposed to be zoned SP1 Special Activities. See Figure 1 of Attachment 1 for a map of current zones.

To ensure consistency with the approved Merimbula Airport Master Plan 2033 and in consideration of the recommendations of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) made during the exhibition of the draft LEP, it is proposed to zone Lot 120 DP 847899 as SP1 Special Activities ‘Community Facilities and Carparking’. It is also recommended that Lot 1 DP 1004805 and Lot 2 DP 549112 be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation with the exception of a small piece of Lot 2 opposite the current airport terminal which is proposed to be zoned SP1 Special Activities Carparking’. See Figure 2 of Attachment 1 for a map of proposed zones.

OEH strongly requested the application of the E2 zone on all three of these properties due to the presence of a number of threatened species and the presence of an endangered ecological community. However, a large portion of the vegetation on Lot 120 has been modified due to airport obstacle maintenance activities and the section of Lot 2 proposed for SP1 is already cleared. Therefore planning staff are of the opinion that appropriate justification can be provided for the recommended zonings.

With the Merimbula Airport Master Plan now finalised it is recommended that Council apply zones to these three lots that conserve the existing environmental characteristics while making allowance for future public requirements on the less environmentally sensitive land.

Figure 2 of Attachment 1 contains a map of the proposed zones.

Arthur Kaine Drive – land opposite Merimbula Pambula Golf Course

The majority of land on the eastern side of Arthur Kaine Drive, opposite the Merimbula Pambula Golf Course, is currently zoned SP3 Tourist under BVLEP 2013. Four of the properties (Lots 327, 329 and 331 DP 750227 and Lot 350 DP 1144511) were also proposed for SP3 zoning but were deferred and included in Appendix 2 due to submissions received during the exhibition period. Council has resolved to zone the 4 lots B4 Mixed Use. See Figure 3 of Attachment 1 for a map of the current zones.

The reason for selection of the B4 zone was to allow a more appropriate mix of commercial opportunities given the existing uses of the properties. Existing uses in the vicinity include: residential, oyster processing, aquaculture, restaurant, education facility, hotel accommodation, storage facility, car wash and plant hire. This variety of uses stems from the previous zones (under BVLEP 2002 the land was zoned 3(b) Special Business and 1(a) Rural General) and has led to some land use conflict with residential uses in the area.

To set the future direction of this area and minimise future land use conflict, it is proposed to zone all of the land currently zoned SP3 zoning under BVLEP 2013 and the 4 deferred lots, as B5 Business Development. See Figure 4 of Attachment 1 for a map of the proposed B5 zone.

BVLEP 2013 does not currently utilise the B5 zone and the introduction of the zone specifically to apply to this section of Arthur Kaine Drive will enable the future development of the area for commercial purposes that are not appropriate in core commercial or mixed use areas. The mix of oyster produce industries / aquaculture and tourism opportunities in this area is an important component of regional tourism and the B5 zone will allow this synergy to further evolve. The B5 zone will satisfy the need for land near Merimbula and Pambula to accommodate uses that are not appropriate in core commercial or residential areas due to land and access requirements.

PROPOSED B5 Business Development Zone

The land use table for the proposed new B5 Business Development zone has been designed specifically to limit uses to those that will not compete with the viability of nearby town centres and that will permit a suitable range of compatible uses to facilitate expansion of existing uses and provide future employment opportunities.

The following is recommended for the B5 Land Use Table, including appropriate zone objectives and nominated permissible land uses.

Zone B5 Business Development

1   Objectives of zone

•  To enable a mix of business and warehouse uses, and bulky goods premises that require a large floor area, in locations that are close to, and that support the viability of, centres.

•  To cater specifically for uses that require a high degree of visibility and accessibility to passing traffic and that generate a high proportion of single purpose vehicle trips.

•  To enable the establishment of an aquaculture, agricultural produce and tourist precinct at Arthur Kaine Drive, Merimbula.

2   Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works

3   Permitted with consent

Agricultural produce industry; Building identification sign; Bulky goods premises; Business identification sign; Child care centres; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Function centres; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Highway service centres; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Passenger transport facilities; Public administration buildings; Recreation facilities (indoor); Research stations; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Service stations; Sewerage systems; Storage premises; Transport depots; vehicle body repair workshop; Vehicle repair station; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Water supply systems.

4   Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

Lot 344 DP 750227 Arthur Kaine Drive

Lot 344 DP 750227 is located behind the Fairway Motel on Arthur Kaine Drive. It was zoned 1(a) General Rural under BVLEP 2002 and was incorrectly zoned E2 Environmental Conservation in BVLEP 2013. See Figure 5 of Attachment 1 for a map of the current zone.

The lot is just over 2,000sqm and contains a dwelling. It is proposed to rezone the land E4 Environmental Living with a 2,000sqm lot size in keeping with the general zoning strategy for such land. This will permit the further development of the land for residential purposes without having to rely on existing use rights provisions. See Figure 6 of Attachment 1 for a map of the proposed zone.

Rural Residential – Bournda Park Way, Kalaru

Lot 21 DP 816824 is approximately 1ha in size and is zoned E3 Environmental Management under BVLEP 2013. Lot 21 adjoins the “Kalaru Lodge” property on the corner of Bournda Park Way and Sapphire Coast Drive.

The “Kalaru Lodge” site is a deferred matter under BVLEP 2013 and is included in Appendix 2. Council has resolved to zone the “Kalaru Lodge” land E4 with a 1ha lot size. See Figure 7 of Attachment 1 for a map of the existing zones in the area.

As part of the preparation of the Planning Proposal to progress the zoning of “Kalaru Lodge” land it became evident to planning staff that the most appropriate zone for Lot 21 would also be E4.

An E4 zone for Lot 21 would ensure all of the land on Bounda Park Way, suitable for smaller lot rural residential development, will be zoned E4 Environmental Living. A 1ha lot size is also proposed to reflect the size of the land and the Council resolution for the adjoining “Kalaru Lodge” land. See Figure 8 of Attachment 1 for a map of the proposed E4 zone.

Rural Residential – Oaklands Road, Pambula

In response to a joint submission to Draft BVLEP 2010, Lots 441 & 442 DP 1077278, Lot 434 DP 1152077 and Part Lot 381 DP 1027113, Oaklands Road Pambula, were identified as deferred matters under BVLEP 2013 and included in Appendix 2. Council resolved to zone the 4 lots E4 Environmental Living with a 1ha lot size.

The adjacent Lots 431-433 DP 1152077 and Lot 45 DP 807327 are currently zoned RU2 Rural Landscape Zone with a minimum lot size of 120 ha under BVLEP 2013. The land located immediately to the north of the lots is zoned E4 Environmental Living with a 2ha minimum lot size. See Figure 9 of Attachment 1 for a map of the current zones in the area.

Lots 431-433 DP 1152077 are approximately 5,000m² and are in the process of being developed for rural residential purposes. Lot 45 DP 807327 is approximately 3.6 ha and is currently used for rural residential purposes. Given that these properties are well below the 120ha minimum lot size, have been created for dwelling purposes and represent a natural extension of the rural residential land to the north, it is recommended that these lots also be zoned E4 with a 2ha lot size. This would potentially permit two additional rural residential dwellings on lot 45. See Figure 10 of Attachment 1 for a map of the proposed zones.

Commercial premises – Main Street, Merimbula

Lot 1 DP 1051587 is located in the northern part of the Merimbula Town Centre and contains a number of professional premises and health service facilities known as the Merimbula Professional Centre.

The property is currently zoned B2 Local Centre under BVLEP 2013. The properties east of Lot 1 DP 1051587 are zoned B4 Mixed Use under BVLEP 2013 and Council has resolved to rezone adjoining properties Lots 1 and 2 DP 521571, west of Lot 1 DP 1051587, B4 Mixed Use. See Figure 11 of Appendix 1 for a map of the current zones in the area.

Lots 1 & 2 DP 521571 are included as Appendix 2 deferred matters under BVLEP 2013. As part of the process of preparing the Planning Proposal for Lots 1 and 2 in accordance with the Council resolution, it became evident that Lot 1 DP 1051587 would effectively become an isolated B2 zoned allotment.

Therefore it is recommended that the subject property be zoned B4 Mixed Use to acknowledge the existing land use and to ensure a logical extension of the B4 Mixed Use Zone boundary. If agreed by Council, the land would be included in the Planning Proposal currently being prepared for Lots 1 and 2 DP 521571. See Figure 12  of Attachment 1 for a map of the proposed B4 zone.

Barragoot Swamp – Tathra-Bermagui Road

Council previously resolved to amend the zoning of part of Lot 881 DP 1063701 covered by Barragoot Swamp to E2 Environmental Conservation to ensure the protection of the wetland which is considered to be a valuable ecological asset. Barragoot Swamp was originally excluded from the E2 zone due to an error in the mapping of the estuarine foreshore in this area. See Figure 13 of Attachment 1 for a map of the current zones.

On further investigation it has become evident that Barragoot Swamp also covers a portion of the adjacent Lot 411 DP 1073628 and it is recommended that Council zone part of Lot 411 as E2 to ensure the whole wetlands area is protected. This will not have any impact on the development potential of Lot 411 DP 1073628 which is a large lot containing an existing dwelling with no further subdivision potential. If agreed by Council the land would be included in the Planning Proposal currently being prepared for Lot 881.

See Figure 14 of Attachment 1 for a map of the proposed E2 zone.

Stone House Café – Sapphire Coast Drive

The property at Lot 292 DP 853663, known as the Stone House Café, is currently zoned R5 Large Lot Residential under BVLEP 2013 with no subdivision potential. It contains a general store and disused service station and although these uses are legally approved, they are prohibited under the current zone.

See Figure 15 of Attachment 1 for a map of the current zones in the area.

The general store currently operates under existing use rights. To facilitate the continued use of the property as a general store and as a long term solution to the zoning/land use issue, it is proposed to include the property in LEP 2013 Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses with Neighbourhood Shop and Service Station listed as permitted uses.

The use of Schedule 1 in this instance is preferable to the alternative of rezoning the land to B1 Neighbourhood Centre. The B1 zone would enable a greater range of uses on the land which are likely to be incompatible with the characteristics of the area considering the high visibility of the site to the major road of Sapphire Coast Drive. In addition the use of Schedule 1 will restrict the proposed commercial uses to the site itself and not allow commercial uses to be developed onto adjacent sites under LEP 2013 Clause 5.3 Development Near Zone Boundaries.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments are considered to be minor in nature and will resolve existing anomalies which have become evident as part of the planning proposal process and implementation of BVLEP 2013.

It is anticipated that as BVLEP 2013 is used over the coming months other minor matters may arise that would require Council’s consideration and resolution.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1View. Current zones and proposed amendments to BVLEP 2013 maps

 

Recommendation

That Council resolve to make the following amendments to Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013:

1.    Ÿ   Lot 120 DP 847899 Arthur Kaine Drive Merimbula be zoned SP1 Special Activities ‘Community Facilities and Carparking’

Ÿ   Lot 1 DP 1004805 Arthur Kaine Drive Merimbula be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation

Ÿ   Lot 2 DP 549112 Arthur Kaine Drive, Merimbula be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation except for the area of land identified in Figure 2 of Attachment 1 to this report which shall be zoned SP1 Special Activities ‘Carparking’

2.   A B5 Business Development zone be included as a Land Use Zone in the Plan in accordance with the following;

Zone B5 Business Development

1     Objectives of zone

•      To enable a mix of business and warehouse uses, and bulky goods premises that require a large floor area, in locations that are close to, and that support the viability of, centres.

•  To cater specifically for uses that require a high degree of visibility and accessibility to passing traffic and that generate a high proportion of single purpose vehicle trips.

•      To enable the establishment of an aquaculture, agricultural produce and tourist precinct at Arthur Kaine Drive, Merimbula.

2     Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works

3     Permitted with consent

Agricultural produce industry; Building identification sign; Bulky goods premises; Business identification sign; Child care centres; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Function centres; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Highway service centres; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Passenger transport facilities; Public administration buildings; Recreation facilities (indoor); Research stations; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Service stations; Sewerage systems; Storage premises; Transport depots; vehicle body repair workshop; Vehicle repair station; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Water supply systems.

4     Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

3.    Lots 398 & 339 DP 40361, 325, 326, 334, 335, part 340, 341, 345, 346, 371, 378,        379, 382, 383 & 386 DP 750227, 385 & 386 DP 811258, 10 DP 1057525, 281 &        282 DP 1135670 and 349 DP 1144511 Arthur Kaine Drive, Merimbula be zoned        B5 Business Development.

4.    Lot 344 DP 250227 Arthur Kaine Drive Merimbula be zoned E4 Environmental        Living with a 2,000sqm lot size.

5.    Lot 21 DP 816824 Bournda Park Way, Kalaru be zoned E4 Environmental Living        with a 1ha lot size.

6.    Lots 431, 432 and 433 DP 1152077 and 45 DP 807327 Oaklands Road, Pambula        be zoned E4 Environmental Living with a 1ha lot size.

7.    Lot 1 DP 1051587 Main Street, Merimbula be zoned B4 Mixed Use.

8.    That part of Lot 411 DP 1073628 identified in Figure 14 of Attachment 1 to this        report, which is part of Barragoot Swamp, be Zoned E2 Environmental        Conservation.

9.    Lot 292 DP 853663 Sapphire Coast Drive, Bournda be included in LEP 2013        Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses with Neighbourhood Shop and Service Station listed as permitted uses.

 

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 8.4 - Attachment 1

Current zones and proposed amendments to BVLEP 2013 maps

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 


 

staff reports – LivEability (community and relationships)

 

6 November 2013

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Seckold.  

9.1           Proposed Policy (1.09) - Cost of living - Seniors ......................... 78


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                  Item 9.1

 

9.1.          Proposed Policy (1.09) - Cost of living - Seniors       

 

The proposed Cost of Living policy (1.09) – Seniors further exhibition period.

 

 

Business and Technology Manager   

 

Background

Council was presented stage one of the Policy Review at the meeting of 3 July 2013. At the meeting Councilor Hughes drafted and tabled a policy position on assisting senior ratepayers with their rate liabilities. This policy was named the Cost of Living – Seniors Policy. The policy offered the opportunity for senior ratepayers to “defer” their rates accounts until their property was sold, at which time the liability would be paid in full as an element of settlement. Interest would accrue on the account as per the
Local Government Act (1993). 

Council resolved that the ‘BVSC policy framework’ and draft policies including the additional policy, 1.09 Cost of Living-  Seniors be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

Council also resolved that further information be provided at the conclusion of the exhibition period regarding the potential impacts on the application of the policy.

A Memorandum dated 21 August, 2013 was provided to Councilors from the Business and Technology Manager outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed policy. The memo outlined a number of positive and negative impacts to the policy, such as:

Advantages:

·    Offering financial relief to some of our more needy ratepayers.

·    Offering flexibility to our senior ratepayers without the threat of debt recovery.

Disadvantages

·    The potential cost to Council considering the Bega Valley Shire’s demographics could be substantial. Council has over 3,700 properties currently identified as Pension eligible. If only half of the eligible ratepayers took up the policy it could reduce Councils cash flow by up to $4m per annum which would accrue for a number of years.

There are also a number of procedural items, such as the age limit for eligibility would also need to be addressed if the policy is approved for use by Council.

During to the exhibition period, Council received submission from the Bega Valley Shire Resident and Ratepayer Association (BVSRRA) which requested that the policy be extended to include all ratepayers experiencing hardship. This submission raised further questions in relation to the policy in regards to affordability. Council generally has around 20% of its rate base under memo for experiencing difficulty paying their rates. This equates to upwards of $8m worth of rates and charges in any year.

Consideration was given by Council to capping the number of “deferrals” to a certain number on a “first come, first served” basis, but no consensus was reached.

As a result of the debate and submissions received Council asked that the policy be separated from the general policy review and be returned to Council on its own for debate and exhibition.

ISSUES

Legal

This policy is drafted in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993).

Policy

This will provide access to hardship provisions under policy 5.06 - Financial Management, and, in particular, procedure 5.06.1 – Financial hardship assistance.

Economic

As stated earlier in the report, Council has over 3,700 properties currently accruing pension concessions of $402.50 per annum on their rate accounts. State Government reimburses Council 55% of the concession. The impact to Council is still in the order of $700,000 per annum in reduced rate income. This income is then redistributed to the other ratepayers of the Shire. The Shires’ projected demographics indicate that Council will continue to experience a rapid increase in the number of eligible pension claim properties over the next 5-10 years.

If uncapped, the policy could have the potential to leave upwards of $4m accruing annually as uncollected revenue for Council. This would be somewhat offset by the accrual of interest on that balance. However it would not take long for the impact to begin to affect Councils’ cash position.

A cap on the volume of “deferrals” would largely reduce the impact on cash flow. However, Council does not have a mechanism to determine the neediest; it would need to be done on a “first come, first served” basis. New “deferrals” would only be entered into once an existing “deferral” moved out of the policy.

Strategic

If adopted uncapped, this policy would force a reworking of Councils’ Long Term Financial Plan to accommodate the reduced cash flow.

Social

Council has an adopted Hardship Policy which allows flexibility for Council staff to assist ratepayers if they are experiencing difficulties in paying their rate accounts. Council offers repayment plans for those ratepayers that require it.

A major factor in a number of Councils not endorsing a policy such as this is, if a property that has accrued a large amount of rates and charges is bequeathed to a family member after the passing of the ratepayer, the debt falls entirely to the inheritor. That is, the family member who is grieving after the loss of a loved one is then given an ultimatum from Council to collect the outstanding rates and charges. That individual is not under hardship and does not fall under the policy so they are expected to clear the liability within a short period of time or face debt recovery action – which could result in the house being sold or the individual being made bankrupt. This situation has occurred at a number of Councils and is a foreseeable consequence to this policy.

Consultation

If endorsed by Council, the policy would be placed on exhibition for a period of 28 days to allow for the community to provide submissions to Council.

Council canvassed some other NSW Councils with this policy in place and they indicated that largely once a ratepayer had the policy fully explained to them the take up was quite low as most did not want to risk the accrual of the debt eroding their asset.

Financial

Depending on the resolution of Council, the volume of the policy could require additional resources to assist in managing the process.

Conclusion

While there is undeniable merit in the community aspirations of the policy, the potential impacts on Council future cash flows cannot be supported by Council staff.

If the policy is endorsed, a cap is essential to maintaining Councils’ long term sustainability. However, if a cap is applied, under what conditions to the ratepayers gain acceptance – the neediest, the first to present? This will need to be decided by Councillors.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council resolve a position on the Cost of Living – Seniors Policy and if endorsed, it be placed on public exhibition.

2.         That if Council endorse the policy, that Council consider placing a cap of the quantity of successful applicants to the policy.

  

 


Council                                                                                                       6 November 2013

 

 

staff reports – enterprising (economic)

 

6 November 2013

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor McBain.  

10.1         Acquisition of Town Hall Reserve................................................ 84


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 10.1

 

10.1.       Acquisition of Town Hall Reserve     

 

As a consequence of the registration of plans creating new title particulars for the land being exchanged and acquired, the correct title references are required by the Department of Local Government to be endorsed for approval.

 

Business and Technology Manager   

 

Background

The matter of the exchange of the Town Hall Reserve for Council lands at Beauty Point and Beares Beach was reported to the meeting of Council on 3 July 2013. At that meeting it was resolved that Council provide its consent to the Crown Lands office declaring the Council land to be Crown land in accordance with section 138(1) of the Crown Lands Act, and that Council inform the Crown Lands office of its acceptance of its offer of Reserve Trust management.

ISSUES

Legal

The resolutions passed on 3 July 2013 only refer to Crown Land Reserve 83988. As a consequence of the registration of plans creating new title particulars it will be necessary to include these specific details in fresh resolutions. The reason for this is the Department of Local Government have advised that the resolutions must specifically refer to the title particulars of the land being acquired, as follows:

1.   Lot 103 DP1151462 (Crown Land);

2.   Lot 5 DP430378 (Crown Land);

3.   Lot 118 DP752130 (Council land at Beauty Point); and

4.   Lot 44 DP241802 (Council land at Beares Beach).

Financial

There are no financial implications as a result of this report.

Conclusion

As a consequence of the registration of plans creating new title particulars it is necessary to include the specific details in fresh resolutions as the Department of Local Government have advised that the resolutions must specifically refer to the Lot and DP details of land being acquired.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council note this report.

2.         That Council provide the Crown Lands office with its consent in writing to the Crown declaring the Council lands described as Lot 118 in DP752130 and Lot 44 in DP241802 to be Crown land in accordance with section 138(1) of the Crown Lands  Act.

3.         That Council proceed to acquire the Crown lands described as Lot 103 in DP1151462 and Lot 5 in DP430378.

  

 


Council                                                                                                       6 November 2013

 

 

staff reports – Accessibility (infrastructure Waste and Water)

 

6 November 2013

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Fitzpatrick.  

11.1         Central Waste Facility Staffing.................................................... 88

11.2         Pretty Point Bridge Replacement................................................ 95

11.3         RFT43/13 Service Tender for Provision of Professional Life Saving Services.................................................................................. 104


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 11.1

 

11.1.       Central Waste Facility Staffing     

 

Further report on staffing requirements for the Central Waste Facility (CWF), with additional option for consideration.

 

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water  

 

Background

Council considered a report at the meeting of 16 October 2013, which recommended changes to current opening hours at existing facilities, in order to reduce the additional labour requirement to staff the CWF. Council deferred the matter and sought a further report regarding the potential for reduction of weekend opening hours, to eliminate the need to close sites to meet unpaid meal break requirements under the Local Government (State) Award. This report provides advice to Council on its options in this regard and recommends adoption of modified opening hours.

ISSUES

Environmental

The recommended option may improve environmental outcomes overall, as it provides significantly improved access to waste facilities near population centres at Bermagui and Eden, at the cost of minor reduction in opening hours at other sites.

Asset

Council’s CWF is a new asset and it is acknowledged that the CWF requires staffing resources.

Economic

Improved level of service at Bermagui and Eden are likely to have potential benefits, particularly for building trades, where early closing times have created operational difficulties.

Strategic

The CWF and the closure of the existing landfills, along with establishment of waste transfer facilities is part of Council’s adopted strategy, the 2020 Vision on Waste.

Consultation

Following adoption of the recommendation, an extensive communication programme would be developed, advising waste facility customers of the changes.

Financial

The proposed opening hours presented at the meeting of 16 October 2013 required approximately 242.5 labour hours each week to staff across four full time and four part time positions. A proposed shortening of weekend hours across all applicable sites would require approximately 227 labour hours each week to staff across three full time and six part time positions. The labour cost difference is approximately $384/week or $20,000/year plus on costs.

This moderate saving would come at the expense of a moderate reduction in level of service over the weekends. As a compromise to reduce the impact of the service level change, it is suggested that the spread of weekend hours be maintained at Merimbula Recycling and Waste Depot, as this is Council’s busiest site by a considerable margin.

Attachment 2 outlines the recommended opening hours. The opening hours require approximately 230.5 labour hours to staff across three full time and six part time positions. Importantly from a staffing perspective, longer hours at Merimbula on weekends enable those hours to be incorporated into an existing full time position, along with ensuring an appropriate level of service at Council’s busiest site. The financial impact of adopting the hours outlined in Attachment 2 is a saving of $300/week or $15,500/year plus on costs.

Resources (including staff)

Under the Local Government (State) Award, an unpaid meal break of a minimum of 30 minutes shall be given and taken within the first five hours of continuous work. In practical terms, if a staff member is working alone, this has required the site to be closed whilst that staff member is given an unpaid break.

Assuming only one employee attends the site, Council has the option of opening the sites for approximately 4.5 continuous hours, allowing 15 minutes at each end of the day for the attendant to undertake pre and post opening duties.

The 4.5 hours available could be distributed in the morning (e.g. 8.30am to 1.00pm), the afternoon (e.g.12:00pm to 4:30pm) or through the middle of the day (e.g. 10:00am to 2:30pm).

However, any change of this kind at the weekends is likely to attract public criticism for a number of reasons.

Usage varies at the waste facilities depending on weather, time of year, etc, however usage of the waste facilities can typically be characterised by morning and afternoon peaks. Visitation surveys have been undertaken in 2007 (landfills) and 2010 (transfer stations) and these findings are confirmed anecdotally by staff and via a recent disposal audit undertaken at the landfill sites. Further information is provided in Attachment 1. A shortened day also potentially makes it difficult for members of the community to undertake more than one trip to the waste depot in a day.

In terms of staffing practicalities, a reduction in weekend hours requires the staffing of those shifts with part time labour, as a shortened working day cannot be readily accommodated in a 38 hour week under the Award and BVSC employment conditions.

An appropriate compromise which maintains longer weekend opening hours at Merimbula (Council’s busiest site) is recommended. The additional staff required to fulfil the hours as per Attachment 2 is two additional part time positions.

Conclusion

Council has sought advice on the effect of reducing weekend waste depot opening hours to eliminate the need to close the sites for staff to have an unpaid meal break. That approach is able to be accommodated and has benefits in terms of reduced labour costs. It is however a moderate reduction in service level and may have some negative impacts. A compromise which maintains longer weekend hours at Merimbula Recycling & Waste Depot (Council’s busiest site) is recommended and requires the creation of two new part time positions.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1View. Waste Facility Useage

2View. Proposed Waste Facility Opening Hours

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council adopt new Waste and Recycling Depot opening hours as per Attachment 2.

2.      That two new part time waste customer service positions are created to accommodate the additional labour requirements created by opening of the CWF in December 2013.

3.      Review the overall level of service provided by waste facilities as part of a review of the 2020 Vision on Waste in coming months.

4.      Advise waste facility customers by leaflet, media and signage at facilities of adopted changes.

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 11.1 - Attachment 1

Waste Facility Useage

 

Figure 1 - Saturday usage - paying transactions only (no recycling)

Figure 2 - Sunday usage - paying transactions only (no recycling)


Council

6 November 2013

Item 11.1 - Attachment 2

Proposed Waste Facility Opening Hours

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 11.2

 

11.2.       Pretty Point Bridge Replacement     

 

The Pretty Point Bridge over Mataganah Creek on New Buildings Road, Wyndham has deteriorated and now requires replacement.  Report prepared following deferral of previous report on 16 October 2013 to include heritage advice.

 

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 has been upgraded 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” the 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 due to the cutting of the timber bridge replacement program. Based on current construction rates, a new concrete bridge would be in the order of $1.45 million, plus associated road realignment and connection works. Funding a concrete replacement bridge will have significant impact on the LTFP, as other projects will have to be delayed to fund the bridge replacement.

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 about 16 tonnes. This assumes the bridge is in good condition.

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.

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.

The Pretty Point Bridge is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013. The heritage issues of replacing the bridge with a modern structure are addressed later in this report.

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. Funding a replacement low level concrete structure will have significant impact on the LTFP, as other projects will have to be delayed to fund the bridge replacement.

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 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.

To address the heritage issues of replacing the bridge with a modern structure, a meeting was arranged with Council’s heritage advisor Mr Pip Giovanelli, Council officers and Council’s consulting engineer. Various options to preserve and display the trusses were considered with the preferred option being to remove the trusses as required to install the Unibridge girders, then reinstall them at the completion of the bridge replacement as an independent free standing non load bearing structure either side of the new Unibridge.

This option provides an innovative solution that recognises the heritage value of the bridge, fits within the LTFP budgets and Council’s resources. This solution provides an opportunity to display and compare the old structure with its modern equivalent on the one site. The restored truss are not required to be load bearing, so can be returned to timber members offering a training opportunity for Council’s bridge carpenters and apprentices. The restoration and replacement of the timber trusses can be staged within the LTFP.

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.

Stage 9

·    Restoration of the timber trusses

·    Reinstallation of the timber trusses

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

Legal

Local Government Act Sect 55 provides for exemptions to the calling of tenders as follows.

“.... where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by resolution (which states the reasons for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders”.

 

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.

The reinstallation of the restored timber trusses as a freestanding, non-loadbearing structure either side of the Unibridge will address the heritage issues of replacing the bridge with a modern structure.

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.  Accordingly it is considered appropriate that Council directly purchase Unibridge modular bridge system and not call tenders for this work.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

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

2.      That Council not call tenders due to extenuating circumstances and the unavailability of alternative tenderers that can provide a system to allow the staged restoration of the Pretty Point bridge and maintain its historical links.

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

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 11.3

 

11.3.       RFT43/13 Service Tender for Provision of Professional Life Saving Services     

 

This report details the outcome of evaluation of Tender RFT43/13 for the provision of Professional Life Saving Services and recommends award to the preferred tenderer.

 

 

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water   

 

Background

Bega Valley Shire's coastline stretches over 223 kilometres, which amounts to one eighth of the entire New South Wales coast and approximately 76 known public beaches.

Council provides lifeguard services at eight locations during the Christmas holiday period within the Bega Valley Shire area, including:

·    Camel Rock Beach, Beauty Point

·    Horseshoe Bay, Bermagui

·    Tathra Beach, Tathra

·    Short Point, Merimbula

·    Bar Beach, Merimbula

·    Main Beach, Merimbula

·    Pambula Beach, Pambula Beach

·    Aslings Beach, Eden

Council sought requests for tender from suitably qualified and experienced organisations to submit a tender based on a three year period for the provision of lifeguard services.  In the past this service has been provided for the school holiday period only and with equipment provided by Council.  However tender scope has now been changed to include extended period of pupil free/teacher development days either side of gazetted holidays.  Also equipment is to be provided by the service.

The request for tender was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, Merimbula News Weekly, Eden Magnet and Bega District News on 25 September 2013 and closed on 10 October 2013. The documents were issued to 2 contractors, with 2 submissions received from:

1.   Australian Lifeguard Service (ALS)

2.   Lifeguarding services Australia (LSA)

Applicants were asked to provide:

·    Schedule of Lump Sum Price Breakdown

·    Schedule of Occupational Health And Safety

·    Schedule of Key Contract Staff

·    Schedule of Tenderer’s Project Experience

The tender submissions were assessed against the following evaluation criteria:

Criteria

Weighting

The overall project cost.

The makeup of the cost structure

50%

Demonstrated ability to complete the work

Experience in completing similar projects

40%

Satisfaction and recognition of the project

Service levels, delivery and value added benefits to the principal

10%

Total

100

ISSUES

Legal

The tender process complied with the Local Government Act 1993.

Financial

Funding for the extension of service to include more days in the Christmas school holidays and may be considered in the awarding of this contract. The contract has also been extended to include Bar Beach and the provision of equipment by the contractor.

Funding source

 

Amount

Councils Budge for this service is based on special rate variation for 2013-2014 is forecast to be  

$

175,750

Councils Budge for this service is based on special rate variation for 2014-2015 is forecast to be  

 

180,000

Councils Budge for this service is based on special rate variation for 2015-2016 is forecast to be  

 

185,000

Total

 

$540,750.00

Conclusion

The submissions received were assessed against the evaluation criteria by a three person evaluation panel. The results of the individual evaluations are consolidated in the table in Confidential memorandum to Councillors regarding Tender RFT43/13 for the provision of Professional Life Saving Services.

The evaluation panel recommends that the preferred tenderer be accepted as they have been assessed as providing the best overall value to Council and the community.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.         Request for tender RFT43.13 for the provision of professional life saving services  Confidential memo (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council accept the tender from (insert) for the works described in Tender RFT43/13 for the provision of Professional Life Saving Services, in the amount of $(insert) (including GST) for a period of 3 years.

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

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

  

 


Council                                                                                                       6 November 2013

 

staff reports – leading organisation (governance and strategy)

 

6 November 2013

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Mawhinney.  

12.1         Presentation of Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013....................................................................................... 108

12.2         Quarterly Budget Review Statement for 30 June 2013............... 118

12.3         Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) - September 2013. 132

12.4         Eden Cove - Further Report on Outstanding Works................... 135

12.5         Bega Central Waste Facility (CWF)........................................... 138

12.6         2014 Coastal Conference......................................................... 140

12.7         Southern Councils Group Board Meeting 18 September 2013.... 143

12.8         Southern Phone Dividend 2013................................................ 144

12.9         New Years Eve celebrations - Eden.......................................... 147


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.1

 

12.1.       Presentation of Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013     

 

This report presents the draft financial statements to Council to be confirmed by the presentation of the audited financial statements to Council on 6 November 2013.

 

Business and Technology Manager   

 

 

ISSUES

Financial

Council is expected to achieve an operating result of $511k across all Funds (General, Water, Sewer).

Fund

2013

2012

%

General

$3,586

$5,283

-32%

Water

-$1,887

$2,599

-173%

Sewer

-$1,188

$1,006

-218%

Total

$511

$8,888

-94%

 

While Councils general fund has maintained a healthy operating surplus, the Water and Sewer fund have resulted in an operating deficit. This is attributable to the revaluation of the Water and Sewer assets in 2012 and the resultant impact on depreciation.

In context, the WSS asset base was increased in value by $120m at its last revaluation. Depreciation is a major contributor to the above operating costs calculation. The asset revaluation in 2012 increased Water and Sewer depreciation by more than $4.5m in 2013. You will note that if that the depreciable value remained constant, both Water and Sewer would have returned operating surpluses. Council is in discussions with its auditors and consultants on how to address this issue in 2014. To be clear, the result is an operating deficit, not a cash deficit. Councils Water and Sewer fund have healthy reserves and are in fact ahead of its scheduled financial position as per the Water and Sewer strategic business plans.

Operating Revenues:

Council’s operating revenues have decreased by 5% on 2012. Council had forecast a reduction in operating revenues in its budget and this decrease was less than expected. The decrease can be largely attributed to the supply and provision of Government grants. Council is forecasting a general reduction in operating and capital grants over the short to midterm with the change in Government and the longer term effects of the Global Financial Crisis.

Councils revenues detailed as follows:

Item

2013

2012

$ Mvmt

%

Rates & Annual Charges

$41,281

$38,754

$2,527

7%

Operating Grants & Contributions

$23,289

$25,667

-$2,378

-9%

User Charges

$12,111

$13,609

-$1,498

-11%

Investment Returns

$2,665

$2,727

-$62

-2%

Sale of Assets & Other

$644

$1,500

-$856

-57%

Capital Grants

$3,627

$5,734

-$2,107

-37%

 

$83,617

$87,991

-$4,374

-5%

 

Operating Expenditure:

Operating Expenses increased by 5.1% in the 2013 financial year.

The major contributor to the increase was depreciation as mentioned earlier in this report. In fact, if depreciation had remained constant Council would have experienced very minimal increase in operating expenditure. In real terms operating expenditure would have decreased.

Employment costs have continued to decline as a percentage of operating expenditure in 2013. In real terms Employment costs rose by less than 1% in 2013, considering that Council operates under a state award that mandates salary increases to staff.

Balance Sheet:

Councils “fair value” valuation (the cost to replace the asset new) of its assets rose from $1.414b to $1.441b while its carrying values rose from $936m to $972m.

Overall Council saw an improvement to its balance sheet of $36.3m.

The asset class that was revalued in 2013 were Councils operational land and Buildings.

Financial Ratios:

Council is required to report the following ratios to the Division of Local Government:

·    Current Unrestricted Ratio: The measure of Councils ability to meet its short term obligations. The higher the ratio the better. Although too high could mean Council is not adequately utilising funds to meet the communities’ needs. The Division of Local Government considers a ratio of greater than 2 to be a suitable target.

·    Debt Service Ratio: The measure of how much of Councils revenues it uses to service debt. A ratio of under 20% is considered by the Division of Local Government to be the target ratio.

·    Rates Coverage Ratio: The measure of how much of Councils revenues are serviced from rates and charges. The theory being that Councils should be leveraging alternate sources of income and not relying too heavily on rates and charges. The Division of Local Government considers less than 50% to be the target ratio.

·    Outstanding Rates Percentage: The measure of how much of Councils rates and charges remain uncollected at the end of the financial year. A higher percentage could lead to cashflow problems in later years. The Division of Local Government considers a percentage less than 6% as a suitable target.

·    Renewals Ratio: The measure of how many resources a Council is putting into maintaining and reducing their infrastructure backlogs. The Division of Local Government advises that a ratio of at least 100% is the target ratio. Indicating no increase in backlog.

The charts below show trending for each of these ratio’s leading up to the 2013 financial year. The coloured dot represents Councils performance against the Division of Local Governments target ratio. The red line indicates trends.

Council’s unrestricted ratio declined in 2013. This is a direct result of Councils strategic planning and the work put into the reduction of Councils infrastructure backlog over time. We anticipate this ratio continuing to decline as reserves are drawn down to fund capital works programs.

Council’s debt service ratio reflects Councils debt position. Council holds approximately $33.2m in debt across all three funds. Councils Long Term Financial Plan outlines a scenario which will see Council draw down more debt to enable Council to reduce infrastructure backlog and construct some community priority projects while still remaining below the benchmark.

 

An integral part of Councils adopted Long Term Financial Plan is to attempt to increase own source revenues. Unfortunately as the State and Federal Government reduce the number and value of grants available to Local Government this ratio start to show Councils having to rely on Rates and Charges to fund their works programs.

Council has managed to maintain an outstanding collection percentage below the Division of Local Government benchmark for a number of years now. It is critical that Council keep this ratio as low as possible to aid with Councils cash flow. For example, allowing this ratio to increase by 1% will result in more than $500,000 that Council will not collect and by extension would not be able to utilise to resource works in the community. This could either lead to the work not being performed or alternate funding arrangement being made, such as borrowings, increased fees, etc. It is worth noting that Council has seen its recovery costs increase from approximately $40,000 in 2009 to approximately $320,000 in 2013. These costs are passed onto the ratepayers that Councils has had to instigate collection on. No costs are passed onto the general rate base.

Council’s renewal ratio has been affected by the Water and Sewer programs in 2013. Council’s general fund held a renewal ratio of 125.13% indicating the commencement of Councils Asset Management Planning programs. Councils Water and Sewer funds underwent the planning phase of their Asset management Planning program and Long Term Financial plan in 2013. We would expect to see their Renewals program begin to pick up, although the impact on the raised depreciation value will also impact this ratio into the future.

Services:

While the financial statements provide a high level view of Council as an entity, it is worth noting that while a large portion of Councils finances go to maintain the infrastructure that we use on a daily basis, there is a significant portion of Councils revenues that provide many services back to the community such as:

·    $9.2m on Environmental Management projects.

·    $4.6m on Community Support projects.

·    $1m on Economic Development projects.

 

The chart below illustrates opex $ per function, and proportion of total opex per function.

 

Council’s financial results for the 2013 financial year are indicative of the approach Council has taken over the past few years. The adoption of the Community Strategic Plan, the Asset Management Plans, and the Long Term Financial Plan has allowed Council to set out a pathway for the short to mid-term horizon. The results as reported for 2013 illustrate that Council is progressing well. All indicators are satisfactory and Councils finances remain in a healthy position.

Council has also undergone financial reviews with Ipart, TCorp, & the DLG during the 2013 financial year as well as the external audit on the financial statements. All of these reviews have indicated Council is in a stable and sound financial position.

Click here to view the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council accept the Auditors presentation and report provided to Council November 6, 2013 relating to the audited Financial Statements of Bega Valley Shire Council for the 2013 financial year.

2.      That Council note the contents of the Financial Statements for the 2013 Financial year.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.2

 

12.2.       Quarterly Budget Review Statement for 30 June 2013     

 

Budget review statements are prepared and presented to Council quarterly in

accordance with Section 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

 

Business and Technology Manager   

 

Background

Under the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) guidelines, it is not mandatory to present a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) for the June quarter. However, it is considered a QBRS offers more detailed and direct information that can assist the community in understanding Councils financial position. The QBRS will be published on Councils website for the community once adopted:

Click here to view Quarterly Review Budget Statement

ISSUES

Strategic

In order to make it clearer for Councillors and the public, the following graphic depicts the flow of financial information in any given financial year and how the various financial documents interact.

This chart illustrates that:

1. The financial statements are true audited records for the financial year. These results are used to “reset” the Long Term Financial plan (LTFP).

2. The “reset” LTFP plan is then remapped with moving works schedules and is confirmed to still be in a sustainable position. The LTFP is presented to Councillors at this time for adoption. At this time Councillors can request changes in direction of staff. The LTFP is adopted in January/February.

3. The adopted LTFP plan then is expanded into the relevant years’ operating budget. It is adopted by Council in March/April.

4.      The Quarterly Budget Review Statement process occurs throughout the financial year at the end of each quarter. Variances are noted and adopted by Councils.

5.      The cycle then draws to a close as the financial year figures are closed, audited and presented to Council

6.      Then cycle starts again…

Each stage feeds information into the next until we have a very tight strategic finance frame work. There are a range of other statutory documents that Council adopts each year, this diagram only reflects the financial documents.

Legal

Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 states:

Budget review statements and revision of estimates

1.      Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

2.      A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

a)      A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

b)      If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

c)       A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

Financial

As noted above, a June QBRS is not mandatory, most of the information is already prepared and presented within Councils annual financial statements. As such, this report does not contain information that is reported within the financial statements, but instead focuses on the non-operating items that are not covered in the Financial Statement.

Councils budget results for the 2013 financial year positive. While there are specific issues that need to be addressed which will be covered in more detail below, the overall picture for Council is positive.

·    Council collected more than $2.75m in operating revenues than it predicted at the start of the financial year.

·    Council expended $1.2m less in operating costs than it predicted at the start of the financial year (even after factoring in revotes from 2012).

·    Operating grants increased were largely static in 2013 only increasing by $180,000, while capital grants received were $1.2m more than predicted.

·    While predicted a net reduction in reserves in its budget due to a number of upgrade projects being shifted into later years, the actual net movement in reserves was an increase of $4.8m.

Councils overall budget result, including the transfer to reserves was a drawing down of working capital by $3.179m. Working capital had been increased over the past couple of financial years as Council shifted to its Long Term Financial planning framework. This drawing down of working capital is related to the movements in the long term financial plan as opposed to operational overspends. For instance, in 2013 a number of items contributed to the drawing down of working capital.

·    The Long Term Financial plan indicated that Council intended to borrow $1.2m internally from the Water and Sewer funds for the acquisition of the Merimbula Mobil Site. Once Council had determined the road reserve and sub divided the parcel of land a more long term financing solution would be sought from a bank. In actuality, Councils general fund held sufficient working capital balances to carry the purchase of the site without that internal borrowings, saving the general fund approximately $60,000 per annum. Once the Merimbula Bypass has concluded its planning phase, the loans will be drawn down and the working capital will be replenished.

·    Council concluded its flood program in 2013. Inclosing, there was an amount of work that was completed while Council was on site that was not scheduled to occur until future years. It made operational and resource planning sense to conclude the work while on site. These works cost Council approximately $880K. These works draw down the working capital, which is then replenished when the allocation of funding from operational funds becomes activated in the given year.

·    The balance was made up of a number of smaller projects that made practical sense that they would be concluded in 2013 even though they had been funded in future years. The working capital balance will be replenished when those particular works are activated in their given years. For example, Council published its Cycleway Strategy in 2013 but there were no funds allocated to its implementation. The State Government offered matching grants to Council which Council accepted. We will replenish the funds spent from the future allocation in the LTFP.

Even with this reduction in working capital as outlined above Council still holds a healthy working capital balance. The table below shows the working capital balances for each of Councils funds at the 30th June 2013.

General Fund

$2.50m

Water Fund

$3.65m

Sewer Fund

$6.57m

Total

$12.72m

 

Council’s restrictions (reserves) increased to $51.9m at the conclusion of the 2013 financial year. A large portion of the increases related to the restricting of capital works against the LTFP. The following chart illustrates the current value of Councils restrictions. The 2012 balances are in brackets. Councils LTFP outline how those restrictions will be utilised over time.

Operationally Council performed reasonably well in its individual functions. Councils operating budget is broken into functions which are managed by Council staff. Council has 47 designated functions across its 5 community strategic plan themes. Of those 47, 34 were deemed to have performed better than budgeted. The remaining 13 were deemed to have performed less than expected. Council’s senior management has met on these functions to discuss why the results have occurred and more importantly how to avoid them happening into the future.

The following charts Councils budget performance against actuals over the course of the financial year.

The following charts show the Council functions and their performance. The functions marked red have explanations included in this report for Councils consideration.

Liveable

 

Function outside of budget

Reason

Street Services

Street services includes street lighting and street cleaning. The issue in this function related to street cleaning. Council was transitioning from a contractor only model in 2012 to a council operated model in 2013. For a period, both models operated resulting in a cost overrun which has been corrected in 2014.

 

In terms of dollar variances, the budget issues in the liveable did not impact the theme budget as other functions achieved better than budget results that more than equalled the cost overrun in Street Services.

Sustainable

 

 

 

 

 

Function outside of budget

Reason

Regulatory Services

The issue affecting the regulatory services could be seen by the community as a positive. In short, the regulatory services did not achieve the revenue projections in the issuing and collection of fines in the shire. Adjustments will be made in the 2014 budget taking into consideration the 2013 actuals.

Health Services

A similar issue with the Health Services. A large portion of the funding of the Health Services function is from fines and regulatory fees. Similar to the Regulatory Function, the community may see these results as a positive but consideration of the 2013 actuals will need to be taken into account on future years.

 

In terms of dollar variances, the impact of these budget issues accounted for only 4% of the themes overall budget performance.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enterprising

 

 

Function outside of budget

Reason

Land Development

As outlined earlier in this report. Council intended to borrow internally to fund the Merimbula Mobil site. Council staff decided to hold the purchase within its own working capital balances for the short term. This resulted in the land development function being overdrawn by a substantial value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In dollar terms, the overrun relating to acquisition of the Mobil Site accounted for 17% of the land development budget.

 

Accessible

 

 

 

Function outside of budget

Reason

Council Buildings

The budget overrun is largely related to two items. The first being the advanced design and site works for the Bega depot refurbishment. This project was funded in the 2014 budget. The working capital impact will be replenished from the 2014 funded program. Secondly, a substantial amount of money was spent on the Bega depot relating to its positioning to the Bega bypass. A substantial amount of remedial work had to be completed on the bypass side of the site which was unplanned for.

Flood Works

As outlined earlier in this report, the flood works were overrun by works being completed while on site. The working capital impact will be replenished when each of those projects are activated in the LTFP.

Public Halls

A number of renewal projects had to be undertaken in 2013 on Council halls where they had been scheduled in future years. The working capital will be replenished in those years.

Recreation Assets

A number of renewal projects had to be undertaken in 2013 on Council Recreation assets where they had been scheduled in future years. The working capital will be replenished in those years.

Swimming Pools

A number of renewal projects had to be undertaken in 2013 on Council swimming pools where they had been scheduled in future years. The working capital will be replenished in those years.

 

In terms of dollar variances, the overruns in the Accessible theme account for only 3% of its overall budget.

 

 

Leading Organisation

 

Function outside of budget

Reason

Elected officials

This function overrun is entirely due to the cost of the local government election going over budget. Future planning will take into account the latest cost trends in determining an appropriate estimate.

 

In terms of dollar variances, the overrun of the election costs was made up for by the positive budget results of other functions within the theme.

Council has limited revotes for the 2013 financial year. Rather than revoting the works from one year to the next, under the Long Term Financial planning framework Councils has begun operating under we place the funds back into reserve and we reset the AMP and LTFP to account for the unfinished work. That will then result in the reserves being called upon to fund that work in the relevant year that the job is scheduled for.

The small number of operational revotes are:

Function

Description

Value $

Community & Relationships

Upgrade and reworking of Councils web, communications, & consultation platforms

$117,000

Rural Roads

Upgrade to Doctor George Mountain Rd

$300,000

Stormwater Drainage

Repair program to Kerb & Guttering

$100,000

Urban Roads

Renewals Barraga Bay

$100,000

Urban Roads

Action on Imlay

$250,000

 

Productivity Savings:

Under Council Long Term Financial plan, Council committed to achieving a 1% productivity savings each year. This initiative was to identify and realise ongoing savings in Councils operating expenditure which allowed Council to “shift” those funds to the Capital budget to be spent on infrastructure renewals. The LTFP showed this program commencing in the 2014 financial year. However, to illustrate that Council is serious about the identification and realisation of its operational expenditure we have included a number of saving initiatives that were undertaken and completed in 2013.

Council wide delivery system

The introduction of the council delivery system has enabled procurement to streamline several processes. The subsequent impact of this has not only helped provide monetary savings but also contributed to productivity in the workforce and enabled other procedures to be introduced. This initiative which allows works teams to spend more time in the field than commuting to collect materials has saved approximately $100,000 per annum.

Office Consumables

The streamlining of the process used for the procuring of office consumables has resulted in both savings and probity outcomes addressed.

Comparative pricing identified approx. 7 -15% in savings between suppliers. Probity issues were addressed as the most competitive supplier was also on the LGP panel.

Additional savings should also be realised from selecting a standardised supply list reducing the waste spent locally on individual desires rather then organisational requirements.

The introduction of the procurement of council first aid requirements has recently been added to this process.

The intention to diversify into the supply of toners will also present once the supply of printers has been uniformed across council. This initiative has saved Council approximately $15,000 in 2013 and will continue to make savings into the future.

Workwear

The procurement and supply of Workwear to council was targeted as a potential category for improvement.

Initial consultation with the workforce also identified usability issues. Not only have we found potential savings, we have also managed to address majority of the end user concerns. Probity requirements have also been addressed as all Workwear is now being procured through the state contract. 

This initiative has realised savings of approx. $25,000 in 2013 and will continue to realise savings into the future. Also, the quality of the garments far exceeds the previous garments supplied which addressed the workforce concerns.

Chemicals

Through the supply of chemicals for both our water and pool applications we have now engaged a supplier under LGP contract. This has resulted in approx. 11% in savings. This initiative has realised savings of over $15,000 in 2013 and will continue to realise gains into the future.

Fleet

By co-ordinating the fleet procurement for council through a competitive procurement process, Council has realised significant savings in fleet procurement with savings of up to 20% on some models. This initiative has realised savings of over $250,000 in 2013. It is anticipated that these savings will continue to be realised into the future.

Each of these savings initiatives have been fully realised in the 2013 financial year. Council has identified a number of other initiatives for investigatio0n in the 2014 financial year, such as fleet parts and materials, general hardware supplies, time-sheeting process for staff, further expansion of the delivery service, mobile applications to reduce paperwork, and a range of other initiatives.

Council is committed to meeting the objectives set out in the long term financial plan. In fact, it is already over $500,000 ahead of schedule.

Conclusion

Councils 2013 budgetary position has concluded favourably compared to budget. All surplus funds have been moved to Councils reserves. All revoted projects have been noted and will be tracked through the 2014 financial year QBRS reports.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

1.         That the Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) for June 2013 be adopted and the votes adjusted by those values as reported in the variance column

2.         That Council adopt the Reserve schedule for 2013. Council note that the updated reserve balances will be incorporated into the September QBRS due to Council in November.

3.         That Council adopt the Revote schedule for 2013. Council note that the updated revotes will be incorporated into the September QBRS due to Council in November.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.3

 

12.3.       Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) - September 2013     

 

Budget review statements are prepared and presented to Council quarterly in

accordance with Section 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

 

Business and Technology Manager   

 

Background

Under the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) guidelines, a quarterly budget review statement (QBRS) must be presented to Council for each financial quarter.

The QBRS, due to its size has been distributed to Councillors electronically and if requested, in hardcopy. The electronic version has been placed on Councils website for public access at:

Click here to view the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for September 2013

The QBRS is presented in a summary format which reflects the Long Term Financial Plan. Each Function of Council is presented individually as is a summary page for each theme. The report also shows a host of management information for each Function, such as:

·    Income Progress graphs: These graphs illustrate how each function is progressing with their revenue estimates. The overall graph illustrates the cumulative progress of the function, while the monthly graph shows progress month by month.

·    Reserves table: This tables outlines cash reserves that are linked to that particular function and their movements throughout the financial year.

·    Expense Progress Graphs: These graphs illustrate how each function is progressing with their expenditure estimates. The overall graph illustrates the cumulative progress of the function, while the monthly graph shows progress month by month.

·    Grants Received table: This table shows the name and value of each specific purpose grant that that particular function has attracted.

·    Revotes Table: This table tracks the progress of the revotes from the 2012 financial year.

It is the intent of this report to provide information to the users of the QBRS report in order to illustrate the financial performance of each particular function of Council.

The next evolutionary step for this report is to incorporate the Community Strategic Plan operational deliverables into the theme summaries, with reference to the budget and the tracking of their respective financial information.

Council staff retain the ability to enquire, transact, and report on the detailed General Ledger, including budgets. If there are specific questions relating to detailed transactional information, staff can provide answers to those questions.

ISSUES

Legal

Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 states:

Budget review statements and revision of estimates

1.   Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

2.   A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

a.   A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

b.   If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

c.   A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

Financial

The QBRS reports the detailed variances for the September 2013 quarter. The September QBRS generally only includes the revotes from the preceding year as variances. Revotes are those works committed to in the preceding year that were not completed. The works are shifted into the current year with an increase in the relevant expenditure lines and a corresponding increase in funding from the preceding year.

The value of revotes brought forward from the 2012 financial year equal $867,000. There are a number of other commitments transferred from reserves, but the net impact is nil. These transfers relate to unspent grants and related commitments from 2013 being brought forward into 2014.

There are no major or significant variances to report to Council. A more detailed analysis is located within the QBRS attachment.

As at the end of September 2013, Council held $58,590,455 in cash & investments – the bulk of which remain restricted for use with planned infrastructure or projects preconditioned by loans, grants or development contributions.

As per Council’s policy, the QBRS reflects the budget in a balanced position and maintains working capital at adopted levels. All net movements are factored through the movement to and from reserves, including anticipated transfers to asset, ELE and property reserves at year end.

Conclusion

Council’s September 2013 QBRS has been presented to Council. Council financial performance is healthy and within the operating budget set by Council in June 2013.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council note and endorse the September 2013 Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

2.         That Council adopt the variances, in this instance being revotes from the 2012 financial year, to its operating budget as outlined in the QBRS.

3.         That Council place the QBRS for September 2013 on its website for public information.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.4

 

12.4.       Eden Cove - Further Report on Outstanding Works     

 

At the Council meeting of 25 September 2013, Council considered a report on the release of bonds held for Eden Cove. Council resolved that a further report be prepared outlining outstanding works and the progress by the developer.

 

Acting General Manager   

 

Background

At the Council meeting of 25 September 2013, Council was presented an independent report by Kothes Chartered Accountants concerning the release of bonds relating to works required to be undertaken by the developer at Eden Cove.

Council resolved to note the Kothes report and “that a further report be prepared for Council outlining outstanding works and the progress by the developer.”

Much of the following report was previously considered by Council at its meeting of 12 June 2013, in response to a petition from residents and landowners of Eden Cove. 

ISSUES

Eden Cove Masterplan

Eden Cove Estate is the subject of a masterplanned subdivision, with various stages developed by original and subsequent owners. To date, five stages have been released comprising 150 residential lots.

A development application to subdivide a further 33 lots was rejected by Council staff on 18 February 2013 due to the inadequacies of the DA, particularly with respect to the lack of suitable public infrastructure proposed by the developer. The approved masterplan specifically requires public works and infrastructure to be agreed by Council as part of any new subdivision stages.

The developer (Eden Cove Developments Pty Ltd) was formally advised that the provision of suitable infrastructure will need to be subject to further consultation with Council and an agreed position reached prior to proceeding with the preparation and submission of any new development application. This is to be achieved via an “infrastructure servicing plan” which is required to address all aspects of the construction, upgrading and maintenance of all existing and proposed public assets.

Water Infrastructure

Concerns with water storage and pressure have been the subject of discussions between the current developer and Council staff, requiring a water servicing plan to be submitted, and resulting in agreement in principle for the aggregation of the existing water tanks into a single concrete reservoir on the site, with financial assistance from Council. Ultimately, it is envisaged a single reservoir will be secured on adjacent NPWS lands to service this and adjacent developments. Council has provided letters of support to NSW government to that effect.

Intersection at Princes Highway

As part of the original development consent, a minor intersection treatment was required to be constructed, being a BAR/BAL type intersection during Stage 1. As a consequence of the slow uptake of the approved lots during the infancy of Eden Cove, the developer sought and gained approval from Council to defer this requirement. Subsequently, the bond held over the intersection was inadvertently released.

Despite the release of the bond, for any future staging within the Eden Cove area, this intersection will now be required to be upgraded to meet the current guidelines (Council and RMS). These guidelines will provide an intersection treatment to minimum standard similar to those of the Mirador Estate and Tura Beach. This has been conveyed to the current owners of the balance of the estate.

Future upgrading of the highway intersection must be addressed by the developer’s infrastructure servicing plan (as per the overall masterplan) which staff are insisting upon prior to the lodgement of development applications for any future subdivision stages.

Condition of Government Road

Government Road services a small industrial area and consequently there is a proportion of large and heavy vehicle traffic associated with permissible activities. As a result of this activity the surface condition of Government Road does deteriorate and the road aesthetics is of a lesser quality than that of a residential subdivision. The Eden Cove development’s only access is via this industrial area.

The Eden Cove development was required to construct KB Timms Drive along with the construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Komirra Drive, Government Road and KB Timms Drive. These were all constructed to the required standards.

Future upgrading of Government Road must be addressed by the developer’s infrastructure servicing plan (as per the overall masterplan) which staff are insisting upon prior to the lodgement of development applications for any future subdivision stages.  It should be noted that Council’s current forward works program includes $200k for renewal works on Government Road in 2016/2017.

Conclusion

Council staff will continue to insist that the developer prepares an acceptable infrastructure servicing plan to be agreed by Council in accordance with the adopted master plan, prior to the lodgement of development applications for any future subdivision stages. The infrastructure servicing plan is required to address all aspects of the construction, upgrading and maintenance of all existing and proposed public assets.  However, the overall timing of any development works is unclear and will depend on a variety of factors not least of which is the viability and the ‘take-up’ rate of land within the estate.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council continues to insist that the developer submits an acceptable infrastructure servicing plan to be agreed by Council prior to the lodgement of development applications for any future subdivision stages, to complete public works associated with the stages released to date, as well as to adequately cater for public works in future stages.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.5

 

12.5.       Bega Central Waste Facility (CWF)     

 

Council has been requested to readvertise for the establishment of the Community Consultative Committee (CCC) for the Central Waste Facility (CWF).

 

Workforce and Administration Manager   

 

Background

Council resolved at its 20 March 2012 meeting that Council endorse the formation of a six person Central Waste Facility (CWF) Community Consultative Committee (CCC). The establishment of the Committee was recommended by the Southern Joint Planning Panel (SRJPP). As part of its consent consideration for the Wanatta Lane Central Waste Facility the SRJPP resolved that:

“BVSC form a Consultative Committee that includes three representatives of residents of the immediate locality, for the purposes of providing a forum for information exchange and consultation regarding the operation of the central waste facility.”

The CCC was to be comprised of three local residents (residing in the immediate vicinity, nominally 5km), the Waste Manager, the Central Waste Facility Project Engineer and the Mayor. Due to the CWF being close to completion, the CCC will consist of the Waste Manager as chairperson, the Mayor or an elected delegate of the Council and three local residents.

Council advertised the call for nominations in the Community Link on 11,12 and 13 April 2012. Members of the public were asked to complete a Committee Nomination Form and provide this to Council no later than Friday, 11 May 2012. No nominations were received for the Committee formation.

On 13 August 2013, Council received a request for information from the Bega Valley Shire Resident & Ratepayers Association (BVSRRA) regarding the Bega Central Waste Facility, Wanatta Lane, Wolumla Community Consultative Committee. Council’s Public Officer responded to the request for information on 26 August 2013.

On 10 October 2013, Council’s Public Officer responded to a further request from the BVSRRA that was received by Council on 31 August 2013. The Public Officer advised BVSRRA that Council will create a report recommending that Council readvertise the establishment of a CCC for the CWF as per the guidelines provided by the SRJPP.

It is proposed that the meetings be held twice a year at the Council Chambers. An inaugural meeting will be held early in the operational phase if the Committee is formed. It is proposed that the Committee be formed for a period of 2 years. A review of the Committee should be conducted closer to the end of the 2 year period.

Expressions of interest will be called for in Council’s Community Link advertisement; published fortnightly in the Merimbula News Weekly (Wednesday), Eden Magnet (Thursday), and Bega District News (Friday).  A public notice will also be published on Council’s website.

ISSUES

Legal

The Consultative Committee is not proposed to be a 355 Committee of Council.

Financial

There are no costs associated with the formation and operation of the Consultative

Committee other than staff costs. Any extraneous costs will be met from the CWF

budget.

Resources (including staff)

Council will be represented by the Waste Services Manager who will be the Chairman of the Committee. Secretariat services will need to be provided by Council.

Conclusion

The Central Waste Facility Community Consultative Committee will be advertised openly and provide members of the public that are eligible the opportunity to submit their interest.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council endorse the formation and composition of the Central Waste Facility Consultative Committee for a 2 year period with a review of the Committee to be conducted prior to the end of the 2 years.

2.         That Council call for applications from interested residents (nominally 5km) in the immediate vicinity of the Central Waste Facility and a report be presented to Council to endorse membership.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.6

 

12.6.       2014 Coastal Conference     

 

2014 Australian Coastal Councils Conference hosted by the Sea Change Taskforce  will be held from Monday 24 to Wednesday 26 March 2014 at Ballina on the NSW North coast.

 

Acting General Manager  

 

Background

The National Sea Change Taskforce is calling for Council attendance the 2014 Australian Coastal Councils Conference to be held at Ballina, northern NSW, from 24 to 26 March.

The annual Australian Coastal Councils Conference is an important national event that brings together representatives of local government, researchers, policy makers and others with a stake in the future of the Australian coast and its communities.

Conference topics will include:

·    Coastal Australia: a Federal Government Perspective - The Hon Greg Hunt MP, Minister for the Environment (Invited);

·    Planning for Uncertainty – Presentation by Andrew Beatty, Beatty Legal, on the legal implications of planning for climate change;

·    Managing Coastal Risks: An Insurance Perspective – Karl Sullivan, Insurance Council of Australia

·    Economic outlook for coastal Australia – including economic survey findings;

·    Coastal population – Planning for the Future;

·    A National Perspective of Coastal Issues – Including regional case studies; and

·    Presentation of the inaugural Australian Coastal Awards to acknowledge the achievement of individuals and organisations that have made a significant contribution to the Australian coastal environment, settlements and sustainability

The conference program will provide an opportunity for coastal researchers and practitioners to share knowledge about current coastal research needs and activities.

A copy of the draft program can be viewed at:

http://www.seachangetaskforce.org.au/Conference.html

The Organising Committee of the 2014 Australian Coastal Councils Conference is also inviting abstracts to be submitted for papers to be presented at the Conference. The Committee is seeking papers on coastal themes including but not limited to the following topics:

·    Coastal Planning and Management

·    Economic Opportunities in Coastal Regions

·    Meeting the Needs of Coastal Communities

·    Tourism in Australia’s Coastal Regions

·    Coastal policy.

The deadline for abstracts is Monday 2 December.

Cr Britten attended the conference in 2012 in Adeliade.

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

$

 

Councillors resolved to hold two day workshop in February 2014 at an approximate cost of $11,000 including room hire and accommodation costs.  These costs will be allocated to continuing and professional development allocation.

Delegates expenses has a balance of approximately $3,000.  $9,000 has been expended and a further $8,000 (dependant on the number of Councillors attending) set aside to attend the ALGA National General Assembly in June next year. 

Early Bird Registration at the 2014 Coastal Conference (by 23 December 2013) is $1,155.  Approximate costs for three nights accommodation and airfares will be $1,100.

Conclusion

The Australian Coastal Councils Conference will provide information and knowledge on tourism, coastal planning, needs of coastal communities and other relevant coastal related topics.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.         That Councillors determine if a delegate should attend the 2014 Australian Coastal Councils Conference.

2.         That the necessary expenses be defrayed by the Council in keeping with its policy.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.7

 

12.7.       Southern Councils Group Board Meeting 18 September 2013     

 

The Southern Councils Group Board Meeting was held on 18 September 2013 at NSW Parliament House Sydney.

 

 

Acting General Manager   

 

Background

The Southern Councils Group (SCG) held its 4th Business Meeting at Wollongong on 18 September 2013. A copy of the minutes has been circulated to Councillors separately.   The Acting General Manager has approached SCG regarding the publishing of its draft minutes for availability to the public.  SCG is considering this option.

The contribution of Bega Valley Shire Councillor Tony Allen was acknowledged, following his resignation as Deputy Chair.  Cr John Wells of Shoalhaven City Council was elected Deputy Chair of the group.

The minutes contain no matters requiring Council’s action. 

The next meeting of Southern Council’s Group will be held on Wednesday 22 November 2013 hosted by Shoalhaven City Council.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.         Southern Councils  Group SCG draft Minutes 18/09/2013 (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

That Council note the resolutions of the Southern Councils Group Board Meeting held on 18 September 2013.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.8

 

12.8.       Southern Phone Dividend 2013     

 

Council is a shareholder in the Southern Phone Company Ltd.  The company has declared a dividend $2,700,000 for 2013 of which $188,456.15 has been paid to Bega Valley Shire Council.

 

Acting General Manager  

 

Background

Southern Phone Company Limited is a local government-owned telecommunications provider that is an unlisted Public Company.  The company was established in late 2002 with the aim of improving competition in telecommunications, particularly in regional Australia.

There are 41 councils that hold two shares each in Southern Phone Company.  The shares were purchased for $1 each.  Only Councils can hold shares, with the shareholding being a means of returning profits to the community.

The company is now a national full-service telco, offering fixed line, mobile and internet services to customers in all states of Australia. 

The dividend it paid using a formula with 20% split equally among all 41 shareholders and the remaining 80% paid according to the amount of business generated in a Council’s area. 

The company’s Board has declared a dividend of $2,700,000.  This is double the $1,350,000 dividend paid last year. 

A full list of the dividends paid to Councils is attached for Councillors information (Attachment 1).  The dividend paid to Bega Valley Council is $188,456.15.  Bega Valley Shire Council uses Southern Phone as a provider for some of its internet services.

Financial

Income from the dividend from Southern Phone has not been included in the 2013/14 Budget as the value varies annually. 

As the income from this source has increased from $4,288.37 in 2008 to $188,456.15 in 2013, doubling from $98,622.97 in 2012, it is appropriate that Council determine a designated use for these funds.

Southern Phones should be acknowledged as a supporter of the project identified.

Staff believe that projects providing increased connectivity locally such as the upgrading of Council’s infrastructure and access to free Wi-Fi in major towns would be appropriate as would works on a major community asset such as the Tura community facility.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1View. Southern Phone Dividend Schedule

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council note the dividend of $188,456.15 declared by Southern Phone Company Limited to Bega Valley Shire Council.

2.         That Council determine the use of dividend income from Southern Phone Company for the 2013/14 Financial Year.

 

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 12.8 - Attachment 1

Southern Phone Dividend Schedule

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 12.9

 

12.9.       New Years Eve celebrations - Eden     

 

Council has received a request from the Eden Chamber of Commerce for a donation of $2,000 towards a community fireworks display on New Years Eve in Eden.

 

Acting General Manager  

 

Background

Council has provided financial support to the Merimbula Chamber of Commerce for a New Year’s Eve event since 2007.    Council resolved on 14 August 2013 to provide $15,000 to the Merimbula Chamber of Commerce as  Merimbula has been seen as the Shire’s main New Year’s Eve event with minor events in other towns. NSW Police and other bodies have supported the Merimbula focus for New Year’s Eve activities.

Council has also provided donations of $2,000 under the General Manager’s delegation toward a community fireworks display in Eden on New Years Eve since 2008.  The donation has been given to Eden Service and Social Club Inc (ESSCI) who run the event with the support of the Eden Chamber of Commerce.

Eden Chamber of Commerce indicate they have provided $2,000 to ESSCI run the community fireworks display.  They have requested a donation from Bega Valley Shire Council of $2,000 towards this event.

The NSW Police Local Area Command have previously supported and preferred the conduct of a single site New Year’s Eve Event in Merimbula to assist crowd control and associated clean up.  The proposed community fireworks in Eden has been reported to the Police Liaison Committee meeting and NSW Police Local Area Command has indicated they do not object to this activity in its current format.

The Summer Bus program, which has previously operated and which received external funding for a number of years as a project of the Youth Council, has not been externally funded in 2013/14.  Therefore local events provide an opportunity for local celebrations.

Financial

Council has a budget of $36,430 for donations approved by Council.  Governance and Executive: Operating Costs Donations.  In 2012/13 $51,193.56 was expended from this allocation including $15,000 to the Merimbula Chamber of Commerce for the New Year’s Eve celebrations. 

The overall budget for donations including works in kind, donations approved by the General Manager (less than $2,000), refunds of fees, and civic functions was $222,630.00 of which $164,546.98 was expended.

Resources (including staff)

Council provides “in kind” support by providing extra waste services and staff to clean up after the events.

Conclusion

Council has resolved to support Merimbula as the main New Year’s Event in the Shire with a donation of $15,000 towards the 2013/14 event.  Support of $2,000 has also been provided towards a community fireworks display in Eden for several years.  The NSW Police Local Area Command has indicated they do not object to the community fireworks in Eden in its current format.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1View. Eden Chamber of Commerce request for donation towards New Years Eve fireworks

 

Recommendation

That Council determine its level of support for the community fireworks in Eden.

 


Council

6 November 2013

Item 12.9 - Attachment 1

Eden Chamber of Commerce request for donation towards New Years Eve fireworks

 

 

 


  


Council                                                                                                       6 November 2013

 

 

Notices of Motion

 

06 November 2013

 

16.1         Rural Fire Service (RFS) State Government Funding................. 151

16.2         Councillor Delegates Southern Councils Group (SCG) and Local Government NSW................................................................... 152

16.3         Publishing of financial information relating to Councillor expenses.............................................................................................. 153


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 16.1

 

16.1. Cr Sharon Tapscott - Rural Fire Service (RFS) State Government Funding       

 

Background

During the current bushfire crisis in the north of the state it became apparent that more resources are required by our Rural Fire Service (RFS) throughout the state of NSW.

Bega Valley Shire was requested to send five fully manned units to the fireground.  We were only able to provide three as we needed to plan for incidents in our area and protect ourselves from becoming vulnerable should an incident occur.

Given that the nearest fire was less than 100km away, this was a very real possibility.

At this time the Bega Valley Shire would not have enjoyed the benefit of any air support.

It appears that the Bush Fire Season is becoming longer each year and its intensity is not diminishing.

Any sources of extra funding would be appreciated and used to great benefit for all rural communities.

Cr Sharon Tapscott

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

1.        That Council write to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) in support of our local and Statewide RFS organisations including volunteers and paid staff commending the work that they do;

2.        That Council request the State Government find additional funding for the purpose of purchasing additional assets and the engagement of trained instructors to provide additional community volunteer training and community safety education.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 16.2

 

16.2. Cr Russell Fitzpatrick - Councillor Delegates Southern Councils Group (SCG) and Local Government NSW       

 

Background

On 24 July 2013 Council elected the following delegates as voting representatives for the 2013 Local Government NSW Conference held in October.

Local Government NSW - Cr Taylor, Cr Fitzpatrick and Cr Mawhinney

At the Council meeting on 4 September 2013 the following Councillors were elected as delegates:

Local Government NSW - Cr Taylor, Cr Tapscott and Cr Mawhinney

Southern Councils Group - 1st Delegate – Mayor Cr Taylor, 2nd Delegate - General Manager or Cr Britten

In order to ensure consistency and reduce confusion for future events requiring appointments to these key representative organisations the positions of Mayor and Deputy Mayor should take on these roles rather than nominated councillors.

Cr Russell Fitzpatrick

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

1.         That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be Bega Valley Shire Council’s representatives to Southern Councils Group (SCG) and that Council advise Southern Council’s Group of this change.

2.         That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be Bega Valley Shire Council’s representatives to Local Government NSW (LG NSW) and that Council advise Local Government NSW when they call for this information in 2014.

 


Council 6 November 2013                                                                                 Item 16.3

 

16.3. Cr Russell Fitzpatrick - Publishing of financial information relating to Councillor expenses       

 

Background

With the high public displeasure of use of tax payers funds for private use by people holding public office I believe it is important that we as Councillors are as open and transparent as possible with payments and also the reimbursement of costs associated with representing Council and attending to Council duties.

Several Councils now display details of payments to Councillors and also costs and details of conference costs met on their website through an annual reconciliation noting funding source and approval process.

I recommend that Bega Valley Shire do the same.

Cr Russell Fitzpatrick

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Bega Valley Shire Council display on its website the details of monies paid to Mayor and Councillors for each financial year.  The details to include Councillor allowance, travel reimbursement and details of costs associated with Councillor attendance on delegates at conferences and meetings.