BUSINESS PAPER

 

Ordinary Meeting

 

Wednesday, 30 June, 2010

at 6.30 pm

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hornsby Shire Council

Table of Contents

Page 1

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

AGENDA AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Mayoral Minutes

Notices of Motion

Item 1     NOM7/10 Employment of Aboriginal People by Council

Rescission Motions  

MATTERS OF URGENCY

ITEMS PASSED BY EXCEPTION / CALL FOR SPEAKERS ON AGENDA ITEMS

GENERAL BUSINESS

General Manager's Division

Item 2     GM11/10 Code of Conduct Complaints

Item 3     GM12/10 The Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 - 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 - 2014 including Operational Plan and Budget 2010 - 2011 and Fees and Charges 2010 - 2011

Item 4     GM13/10 LGSA Cost Shifting Research Project for 2008/09

Item 5     GM14/10 Events Calendar 2010-2011  

Corporate and Community Division

Item 6     CC40/10 Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and Other Matters Returns - Councillors and Designated Persons

Item 7     CC29/10 Document Access Applications 20 March 2010 - 14 May 2010

Item 8     CC30/10 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - 2010 Report and Determination

Item 9     CC31/10 Hornsby Shire Council Social Plan 2010-14 - Service Plan for 2010/11

Item 10   CC32/10 Outstanding Council Resolutions

Item 11   CC35/10 Investment and Borrowing Report - Periods ending April and May 2010

Item 12   CC37/10 Debtors to be written off at 30 June 2010

Environment Division

Item 13   EN25/10 Lilian Fraser Garden Management Committee Nominations 2010 - 2012

Item 14   EN27/10 'No new coal power'- Open letter to NSW Parliament

Item 15   EN22/10 Renewal of Montview Oval Club House Lease to Hornsby Heights Sports Club

Item 16   EN24/10 Delegations Under the Noxious Weeds Act

Item 17   EN26/10 Tree removal at 21A Victoria Road, Pennant Hills

Item 18   EN30/10 Groundwater Sustainable Yields Study

Item 19   EN31/10 Draft Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Mike Kenny Oval, Greenway Park

Item 20   EN32/10 Tree removal - 163 Midson Road, Epping

Planning Division

Nil

Works Division

Item 21   WK43/10 2010/2011 Improvements Program - Civil Works

Item 22   WK33/10 Works Division 2010/11 Assets Branch Programs

Item 23   WK35/10 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs

Item 24   WK41/10 Hills M2 Motorway Upgrade Environmental Assessment

Item 25   WK42/10 County Drive Cherrybrook Traffic Calming Measures

Item 26   WK44/10 Expression of EOI 13/2010:  Expression of Interest For The Design And Project Management Of Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre

Item 27   WK45/10 Operation of Council's Aquatic Centres  

 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA

 

PUBLIC FORUM – NON AGENDA ITEMS

 

Mayor's Notes

 

Questions of Which Notice Has Been Given     

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 


Hornsby Shire Council

Agenda and Summary of Recommendations

Page 1

 

 

 

AGENDA AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

 

PRESENT

NATIONAL ANTHEM

OPENING PRAYER/S

Rev. Neil Dawson of Thornleigh Community Baptist Church, Thornleigh will be opening the Meeting in prayer.

Acknowledgement of RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY

Statement by the Chairperson:

"We recognise our Shire's rich cultural and religious diversity and we acknowledge and pay respect to the beliefs of all members of our community, regardless of creed or faith."

 

ABORIGINAL RECOGNITION

Statement by the Chairperson: 

 

"We recognise the traditional inhabitants of the land we are meeting on tonight, the Darug and Guringai Aboriginal people, and respect is paid to their elders and their heritage."

 

AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETING

Statement by the Chairperson:

 

"I advise all present that tonight's meeting is being audio recorded for the purpose of assisting in the accuracy of the Minutes.  The recordings may be accessed by members of the public once the Minutes have been finalised.  Speakers are requested to ensure their comments are relevant to the issue at hand and to refrain from making personal comments or criticisms."

 

APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE

presentations

declarations of interest

Clause 52 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (Section 451 of the Local Government Act, 1993) requires that a councillor or a member of a Council committee who has a pecuniary interest in a matter which is before the Council or committee and who is present at a meeting of the Council or committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.  The disclosure is also to be submitted in writing (on the form titled “Declaration of Interest”).

 

The Councillor or member of a Council committee must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or committee:

 

(a)      at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or committee.

 

(b)      at any time during which the Council or committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

 

Clause 51A of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice provides that a Councillor, Council officer, or a member of a Council committee who has a non pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.  The disclosure is also to be submitted in writing (on the form titled “Declaration of Interest”).

 

If the non-pecuniary interest is significant, the Councillor must:

 

a)     remove the source of conflict, by relinquishing or divesting the interest that creates the conflict, or reallocating the conflicting duties to another Council official.

 

OR

 

b)     have no involvement in the matter by absenting themself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions of Section 451(2) of the Act apply.

 

If the non-pecuniary interest is less than significant, the Councillor must provide an explanation of why they consider that the interest does not require further action in the circumstances.

confirmation of minutes

THAT the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 June, 2010 be confirmed; a copy having been distributed to all Councillors.

Petitions

Mayoral Minutes

 

Notices of Motion

Page Number

Item 1        NOM7/10 Employment of Aboriginal People by Council

 

COUNCILLOR McMurdo To Move

 

THAT a report be brought to Council providing detail on the strategies in place to assist Aboriginal people who may seek employment within Hornsby Shire Council.

 

Rescission Motions  

MATTERS OF URGENCY

ITEMS PASSED BY EXCEPTION / CALL FOR SPEAKERS ON AGENDA ITEMS

Note:    

Persons wishing to address Council on matters which are on the Agenda are permitted to speak, prior to the item being discussed, and their names will be recorded in the Minutes in respect of that particular item.

 

Persons wishing to address Council on non agenda matters, are permitted to speak after all items on the agenda in respect of which there is a speaker from the public have been finalised by Council.  Their names will be recorded in the Minutes under the heading "Public Forum for Non Agenda Items".

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

·               Items for which there is a Public Forum Speaker

·               Public Forum for non agenda items

·               Balance of General Business items

 

General Manager's Division

Page Number

Item 2        GM11/10 Code of Conduct Complaints

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Report be received and noted.

 

 

Page Number

Item 3        GM12/10 The Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 - 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 - 2014 including Operational Plan and Budget 2010 - 2011 and Fees and Charges 2010 - 2011

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.   THAT following consideration of the submissions received, and taking account of the timing for the Ministerial decision regarding special rate variations, Council:

 

Adopt the Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 - 2014, including the 2010 -2011 Operational Plan and 2010 - 2011 Fees and Charges, incorporating the amendments recommended in this Report, except those parts that relate to the application for a special variation to general income.

 

2.   Make and levy the Ordinary, Catchments Remediation and Hornsby Quarry Loan Rates for 2010/11 based on the 2.6% rate peg structure outlined in the Delivery Program i.e.

 

·    Make and levy the Ordinary Rates in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of this Report.

·    Make and levy the Catchments Remediation Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of this Report.

 

·    Make and levy the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of this Report.

 

·    Continue to provide eligible pensioners with a $10 concession in respect of the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate, represented by a reduction in the Base amount.

 

3.   A further report containing financial implications and revised rating structure, if necessary, be presented to Council as soon as practicable after the Minister for Local Government announces the special rate variations to general income.

 

 

Page Number

Item 4        GM13/10 LGSA Cost Shifting Research Project for 2008/09

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council receive and note the contents of Report GM13/10.

 

2.   The extent and value of cost shifting in 2008/09 be submitted to the LGSA for inclusion in research on the topic.

 

 

Page Number

Item 5        GM14/10 Events Calendar 2010-2011

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council endorse the Event Coordinator’s organisation, coordination and execution of the following across 2010-2011:

 

  1. Monthly Citizenship ceremonies at Pennant Hills Community Centre (excluding December as in previous years) with  additional ceremonies to clear the DIAC backlog

2.   Annual Knit in at Hornsby Library assistance

3.   Annual Bushland Shire Festival at Fagan Park, Galston

4.   Four outdoor movie events - two movies in November and two in February

5.   Annual Christmas Spectacular event (to replace Christmas Cheer)

6.   Annual free entry for residents to Koala Park Sanctuary, Pennant Hills, on Australia Day 2011

7.   Annual nomination process, judging and awarding of Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year

8.   Annual Australia Day entertainment at Hornsby Park, Hornsby and Fagan Park, Galston with Australia Day committee members

9.   Annual OneWorld Multicultural Festival in Hornsby Park, Hornsby akin to the 2010 event

10. Annual photo competition utilisation of Council’s new website

 

Corporate and Community Division

Page Number

Item 6        CC40/10 Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and Other Matters Returns - Councillors and Designated Persons

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council note that the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Returns recently lodged with the General Manager have been tabled as required by the Local Government Act.

 

 

Page Number

Item 7        CC29/10 Document Access Applications 20 March 2010 - 14 May 2010

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC29/10 be received and noted.

 

2.   The documents outlined in Attachment 2 of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC29/10 remain exempt from release under Council's Document Access Policy.

 

 

Page Number

Item 8        CC30/10 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - 2010 Report and Determination

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council note the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal's 2010 Report and Determination proposes no change to the categories of councils and consequently Hornsby Shire Council will remain in the Metropolitan Centre Category.

 

2.   In accordance with Section 248 of the Local Government Act, and the 2010 determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal, an annual fee of $20,320 be paid to each Councillor for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.

3.   In accordance with Section 249 of the Local Government Act, and the 2010 determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal, an additional annual fee of $53,980 be paid to the Mayor for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.

 

 

Page Number

Item 9        CC31/10 Hornsby Shire Council Social Plan 2010-14 - Service Plan for 2010/11

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Hornsby Shire Council Social Plan 2010-2014 – draft Service Plan for 2010/11, as attached to Report No. CC31/10, be adopted. 

 

 

Page Number

Item 10      CC32/10 Outstanding Council Resolutions

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC32/10 be received and noted.

 

 

Page Number

Item 11      CC35/10 Investment and Borrowing Report - Periods ending April and May 2010

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the contents of the Executive Manager’s Report No. CC35/10 be received and noted.

 

 

Page Number

Item 12      CC37/10 Debtors to be written off at 30 June 2010

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Write off debts considered bad in 2009/10 totalling $4,526.94 (as detailed in Schedule A attached to Report No. CC37/10).

 

2.   Note debts considered bad in 2009/10 totalling $9,294.97 which will be written off under the General Manager's delegated authority (as detailed in Schedule B attached to Report No. CC37/10).


Environment Division

Page Number

Item 13      EN25/10 Lilian Fraser Garden Management Committee Nominations 2010 - 2012

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The following nominees be appointed to the Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden Committee for a two year term ceasing on 1 July 2012:

 

·            Lachlan Barr

·            Susanne Barr

·            Jagdish Chaudhry

·            Miriam Chapman

·            Sylvia Clark

·            Michelle Healey

·            Nick Healey

·            Jenny Whiting

 

2.   The existing delegated authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act be extended to the newly appointed Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden
Management Committee to manage the Lilian Fraser Garden in accordance
with the constitution of the Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden, with funds provided
by Council for that purpose and any other funds raised by the committee.

 

3.   Council express its appreciation to the outgoing committee members for their
unselfish community service and efficient operation of the garden during their
term of office.

 

 

Page Number

Item 14      EN27/10 'No new coal power'- Open letter to NSW Parliament

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council indicate its support of the Greenpeace open letter to the NSW Parliament to stop further approvals of coal fired power stations.

 

 


Page Number

Item 15      EN22/10 Renewal of Montview Oval Club House Lease to Hornsby Heights Sports Club

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT: 

 

1.   Council, as Reserve Trust Manager, support in principle the granting of a further ten year lease of sections of the amenities building at Montview Oval to the Hornsby Heights Sports Club Inc. generally in accordance with the terms and conditions contained within this report.

 

2.   The General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate with Hornsby Heights Sports Club Inc. the terms of a new ten year lease of sections of the amenities building at Montview Oval generally in accordance with the matters raised in this report.

 

 

Page Number

Item 16      EN24/10 Delegations Under the Noxious Weeds Act

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council retain previous appointments and delegations under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 but rescind previous appointments and delegations that pertain to Jamie Wright and Sean Allison.

 

2.   Delegation be given to Donna Fitton and Robyn Cox to carry out Council's duties and responsibilities under the following sections of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993:

 

a.   Section 18a -Prior Notice of Weed Control Notice

 

b.   Section 20 -Noxious Weed Control by Local Control Authority after Weed Control Notice not complied with, Subsection (2) Authority to carry out such work be given to Donna Fitton, Robyn Cox and contractors working on behalf of Council.

 

c.   Section 45 -Notice of Entry the power to give occupiers notice prior to entry to be given to Donna Fitton and Robyn Cox.


 

Page Number

Item 17      EN26/10 Tree removal at 21A Victoria Road, Pennant Hills

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council refuse consent to remove one Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney blue gum) located in the rear yard of 21A Victoria Road Pennant Hills.

 

 

Page Number

Item 18      EN30/10 Groundwater Sustainable Yields Study

 

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report EN30/10 be received and noted.

 

 

Page Number

Item 19      EN31/10 Draft Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Mike Kenny Oval, Greenway Park

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council provide in-principle support to the draft Memorandum of Understanding for Mike Kenny Oval.

 

2.   The General Manager be provided with delegated authority to negotiate detailed terms of agreement consistent with this report.

 

3.   The General Manager be authorised to execute any documents in relation to this matter deemed appropriate by Council's legal advisors.

 

 

Page Number

Item 20      EN32/10 Tree removal - 163 Midson Road, Epping

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council refuse consent to remove a Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) located at the rear of 163 Midson Road, Epping and permission be granted to remove the lowest large limb on the northern side and crown thin the tree by 10% of the foliage area.

 

Planning Division

Nil

 

Works Division

Page Number

Item 21      WK43/10 2010/2011 Improvements Program - Civil Works

 

THAT the Civil Works program for 2010/11 as shown in the included Gantt Charts be adopted.

 

 

Page Number

Item 22      WK33/10 Works Division 2010/11 Assets Branch Programs

 

THAT Council adopt the Works Division 2010/2011 Assets Branch Programmes contained in the bound document dated May 2010.

 

 

Page Number

Item 23      WK35/10 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council adopt the 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs presented at Appendix A in Executive Managers Report No. WK 35/10.

 

2.   Council note the requirement for future funding of $500,000 per year to achieve these programs.

 

3.   A further report is prepared for Council on completion of the study to review the existing CBD drainage proposals.

 

 

Page Number

Item 24      WK41/10 Hills M2 Motorway Upgrade Environmental Assessment

 

RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council endorse this report and attachments, and note that it has been forwarded to the Director, Major Infrastructure Assessments, Department of Planning, as Council’s submission.


Page Number

Item 25      WK42/10 County Drive Cherrybrook Traffic Calming Measures

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed traffic calming measures on County Drive, Cherrybrook proceed on a trial basis for a period of up to six months, as recommended by the Local Traffic Committee, subject to the amendments outlined in Local Traffic Committee report LTC 15/2010, with a progress report to Council after 3 months to allow a review of the results of trial and the trial period.

 

 

Page Number

Item 26      WK44/10 Expression of EOI 13/2010:  Expression of Interest For The Design And Project Management Of Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council invite Mode Design, Suters, Noel Bell Ridley Smith (NBRS), JDH Architects, HBO+EMTB and Baker Kavanagh Architects to tender for Design and Project Management of Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre.

 

2.   The result of the tender be reported back to Council.

 

 

Page Number

Item 27      WK45/10 Operation of Council's Aquatic Centres

 

THAT:

 

1.      Report WK45/10 be received and noted.

 

2.      A further report be prepared that identifies further opportunities for cost savings or further revenue generation from Council’s operation of the centres.

 

3.      Council determine whether any further action is warranted at this time.

  

 

 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA

 

PUBLIC FORUM – NON AGENDA ITEMS

Mayor's Notes

 

Questions of Which Notice Has Been Given     

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 


 


 

Notice of Motion No. NOM7/10

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

1        EMPLOYMENT OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE BY COUNCIL   

 

 

 

COUNCILLOR McMurdo To Move

 

THAT a report be brought to Council providing detail on the strategies in place to assist Aboriginal people who may seek employment within Hornsby Shire Council.

___________________________

 

Notes from Councillor:

 

There are a number of ways that Aboriginal employment strategies can be implemented that will not necessarily have to involve large amounts of additional expenditure but will contribute to an objective of attracting Aboriginal employees, developing Aboriginal employees, retaining Aboriginal employees and making Hornsby Shire Council the sort of place where Aboriginal people will want to work.

 

The report should detail whether the following suggested strategies have been addressed, and, if not, what actions could be taken to address them:

 

·    Identifying positions which would be appropriate to designate as requiring or
benefitting Aboriginality as an essential or desirable qualification.

·    Including a general statement in advertisements that Aboriginal people are
welcome to apply.

·    Deciding to advertise some or all positions in the Koori mail or indigenous times

·    Ensuring that existing and future Aboriginal staff are properly mentored to settling
in, orientation, personal support and training and development opportunities

·    Establishing Aboriginal traineeships, cadetships, apprenticeships and work
experience placements

·    Cultural awareness training for managers and supervisors.

 

Secondly the report should include an exploration of the potential for the employment by Council of an Aboriginal project officer, either through available grant funding or council funding or a combination of both, to:

 

·    Assist Council with Aboriginal employment strategies

·    Assist Council with links between council and Aboriginal communities, service
providers, agencies. Also assist with setting up partnerships within the Aboriginal
community and other stakeholders

·    Undertake projects with an Aboriginal focus e.g. NAIDOC

·    Apply for funding for Aboriginal specific projects

·    Handle enquiries from the public about Aboriginal services and issues

·    Organise Children’s Voices for Reconciliation

·    Foster and facilitate Hornsby Aboriginal Corporation

·    Train staff at Hornsby Council in cultural awareness.


This position could be a full time or part time position dependent on community and council needs.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2009/00174

Document Number:   D01417607

  


 

General Manager's Report No. GM11/10

General Manager Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

2        CODE OF CONDUCT COMPLAINTS   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Clause 15.33 of Council’s Code of Conduct requires the General Manager to report annually to Council on Code of Conduct complaints. 

 

This Report covers two years being the periods July 2008 to June 2009 and July 2009 to June 2010.  The Report for the period from July 2008 to June 2009 previously had been overlooked.

 

It is recommended that the Report be received and noted.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

To report on Code of Conduct complaints for the periods July 2008 to June 2009 and July 2009 to June 2010.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Clause 15.33 of Council’s Code of Conduct requires the General Manager to report annually to Council on Code of Conduct complaints.  The requirement was introduced upon the publication of the revised Model Code of Conduct effective from 20 June 2008, which was subsequently adopted by Council as its interim Code of Conduct on 9 July 2008.  Council on 12 November 2008 adopted a further revised and amended Code of Conduct.  All of these codes included a requirement that a report be submitted annually to Council on Code of Conduct complaints. 

 

Clause 15.33 of Council’s current Code of Conduct states:

 

“Reporting on complaints

 

15.33 The general manager must report annually to council on code of conduct complaints. This report should include, as a minimum, a summary of the:

 

a) number of complaints received,

 

b) nature of the issues raised by complainants, and

 

c) outcomes of complaints.”

 

This Report covers two years being the periods July 2008 to June 2009 and July 2009 to June 2010.  The Report for the period from July 2008 to June 2009 previously had been overlooked.

 

It was originally proposed that this Report be submitted to the July Ordinary Meeting of Council but as a complaint had been lodged with respect to the non submission of the required annual report the Mayor requested this Report be submitted to the 30 June meeting.


 

The following tables summarise the complaints received together with supplementary information to fulfil the reporting requirements of the Code of Conduct.

 

TABLE OF COMPLAINTS – JULY 2008/JUNE 2009

 

 

Date

 

Nature of Complaint

 

Finalised Inadequate information

 

Finalised after preliminary assessment

 

Proceeded to investigation

 

Finding of investigation

 

Further Action

2 Dec

2008

 

Councillor behaviour – DA.

 

 

P

 

 

Councillor consultation.

Information distributed.

4 Dec 2008

 

Councillor behaviour – DA.

 

 

P

 

 

Councillor consultation.

Information distributed.

4 Dec 2008

 

Councillor behaviour Planning Meeting.

 

 

P

 

 

Councillor consultation.

Information distributed.

15 Dec 2008

 

Use of resources for electoral purposes.

 

 

P

 

 

Policy adopted 17/2/10 concerning practices prior to a local government election.

5 Jan 2009

 

Declaration of Interests - DA

 

P

 

 

 

 

13 Mar 2009

 

Failure to disclose conflict of interest in investigation

 

 

P

 

 

 

1 June 2009

 

Handling of ‘new’ Code of Conduct

 

P

 

 

 

 

6 June 2009

 

Incomprehensible broad allegations of breaches of Code of Conduct

 

P

 

 

 

 

19 June 2009

Failure to heed expert advice - DA

 

P

 

 

 

 

22 June 2009

Behaviour of Councillors and staff

 

P

 

 

 

 

26 June 2009

Councillor avoided responsibilities under S232 Local Government Act

 

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF COMPLAINTS – JULY 2009/JUNE 2010

 

 

Date

 

Nature of Complaint

 

Finalised Inadequate information

 

Finalised after preliminary assessment

 

Proceeded to investigation

 

Finding of investigation

 

Further Action

1 Sept 2009

 

Failure to fulfil requirements of Local Government Act.

 

P

 

 

 

 

7 Jan 2010

 

Failure to correct alleged incorrect statement to Council.

 

 

P

 

 

 

21 Apr 2010

 

Failure to submit

Code of Conduct Report.

 

 

P

 

 

 

8 June 2010

Multiple complaints (5)

 

 

 

 

The complaints will be assessed by the Mayor and General Manager upon clarification and confirmation by the complainant.

 

In the “Guidelines for the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW”, issued October 2008 by the former Department of Local Government, it is advised that “General Managers should be mindful that there may be a need to protect identity of persons making complaints when preparing these reports” i.e. the annual reports.  Whilst the identity of persons making complaints is not disclosed in this Report it is to be noted that thirteen (13) of the nineteen (19) complaints in the table have been submitted by a single complainant.

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budget implications.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications

 

CONSULTATION

 

There has been no consultation in the preparation of this Report.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

The Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting on Council’s strategic themes.  As this report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The General Manager, Mr Robert Ball.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT the Report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Ball

General Manager

General Manager Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2005/00156

Document Number:   D01411722

 


 

General Manager's Report No. GM12/10

General Manager Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

3        THE HORNSBY SHIRE COMMUNITY PLAN 2010 - 2020, THE DELIVERY PROGRAM 2010 - 2014 INCLUDING OPERATIONAL PLAN AND BUDGET 2010 - 2011 AND FEES AND CHARGES 2010 - 2011   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Hornsby Shire Council engaged its community in discussing a preferred future for the Shire.  The engagement results were translated into the Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020 and then exhibited for public comment in order to confirm the document accurately reflects the outcomes from the community consultations. 

 

At the same time, Council prepared its Delivery Program 2010 – 2014 in response to the Community Plan.  The Delivery Program translates the Community Plan into tangible actions and initiatives and includes the 2010 - 2011 Operational Plan which focuses on the 2010 - 2011 Budget and 2010 - 2011 Fees and Charges.  The seeking of a special variation to general income (an infrastructure levy of 5.8%) in order to fund improvements to ageing infrastructure and build new facilities to meet the changing needs of the community was a vital component of the Community Plan and Delivery Program.  These documents were also exhibited for public comment.

 

The comments and submissions received in respect of the Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 – 2014 and the annual Operational Plan which focuses on the 2010 - 2011 Budget and 2010 - 2011 Fees and Charges have been taken into account and a recommended response to each submission is contained in this report. 

 

317 submissions were received commenting on the proposed special variation to general income (infrastructure levy) as per the table below.

 

Total submissions / comments = 317

·    165 primary consultation phase January to April

·    101 ward based projects phase January to April

·    51 second consultation phase May to June

 

317

 

216

68% Support

 

74

23% Do not support

 

27

9% General comment

TOTAL

317

100%

 

The information regarding infrastructure levy submissions has been forwarded to the Division of Local Government in accordance with the requirements for the seeking of a special variation to general income under Section 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

The annual Operational Plan includes the 2010 – 2011 Budget.  Preparation of the draft 2010 - 2011 Budget was undertaken using known facts and best estimates for income and expenditure items available at the time.  The draft budget has an estimated deficit of $802,199.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with information and recommendations regarding the submissions received in respect of the public exhibition of the draft Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 - 2014, including the 2010 - 2011 Operational Plan and 2010 - 2011 Fees and Charges, and the Rating Structure for 2010 – 2011 in order that Council can make an informed decision regarding adoption of the documents.

 

The Report also contains the final outcome regarding submissions in relation to the proposed special variation to general income (infrastructure levy) including submissions regarding the ward based projects.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Hornsby Shire Council’s strategic planning is aligned to the Division of Local Government’s integrated planning and reporting framework.  The framework aims to encourage more effective and integrated planning at the local level.

 

The Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 - 2020 is the highest order document in a suite of documents.  The Community Plan describes the community’s strategic goals, some of which are the responsibility of other levels of government, others are the responsibility of local government, and others require direct community action.

 

The Delivery Program 2010 - 2014 is the point where the community goals in the Community Plan are translated into actions and initiatives that can be undertaken by Council in order to move towards achieving the community goals.

 

The Operational Plan 2010 – 2011 is focussed on the resources required and allocated each year to provide the necessary services and facilities in order to ‘deliver’ on the Delivery Program.  The Operational Plan also includes the fees and charges Council proposes for the coming year.  Hornsby Shire Council has combined the Delivery Program and Operational Plan into one document in order to give a consolidated view of organisation and the proposed activities for the coming years.

 

The Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 – 2014, including the Operational Plan 2010 – 2011 were developed following many consultations over a six month period from September 2009 to March 2010, culminating in formal public exhibition from Thursday 18 March to Monday 19 April 2010.  The documents include extensive information regarding the proposed special variation to general income (infrastructure levy).

 

Council received 317 submissions regarding the infrastructure levy.  The majority of submissions (216) express support for the proposed infrastructure levy, 74 submissions do not support the proposed levy and the remainder comment generally on aspects of proposed levy.  Council also received submissions about issues such as the proposed fee increases for childcare and sustainability matters. The submissions have been summarised in this report.

 

All submissions are available for viewing by Councillors upon request.

 

 

 

Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020

 

The Hornsby Shire Community Plan identifies the main priorities and aspirations for the future of the Hornsby Shire.  It contains strategic objectives and strategies grouped around the five themes of Ecology, Economy, Society and Culture, Human Habitat and Governance.  The Community Plan 2010 – 2020 has been prepared as a partnership between Hornsby Shire Council, community groups, local businesses, educational institutions and individuals, and addresses a broad range of issues that are relevant to the whole community.  The Plan is the outcome of many consultations held in the second half of 2009 and the first six months of 2010, including the seeking of comment on the contents of the draft Plan during public exhibition from Thursday 18 March to Monday 19 April 2010.

 

Summary of comments / submissions received regarding the Hornsby Shire Community Plan

 

Name

Substance of comment

Recommended response

Sustainable Action Committee

All references to public transport be replaced by ‘sustainable transport’ (including public transport, walking and cycling)

Agree to amend all references except when specifically referring to trains, buses, taxis etc.

 

Ensure all KPI’s follow through to the Operational Plan and Delivery Plan

This will occur as a matter of course.

 

Promote and develop Hornsby CBD as a major commercial centre similar to Chatswood or Parramatta

Council’s Economic Development Strategy addresses this issue.  The Strategy will be nominated as a contributing document.

 

Undertake benchmark studies of biodiversity and develop appropriate indicators

Council’s Bushland and Biodiversity Team expect to commission a study in 2010/11. 

 

Include a new indicator regarding trips by local residents using sustainable transport

Agree to include.

 

Include a new indicator to measure sustainable transport facilities (i.e. bike parking, shared use paths etc)

Agree to include.

Individual

Positive comment regarding the format.

Requests acknowledgement of recycled content of paper

Noted

 

 

Agree to include.

 

Suggest including an indicator regarding sense of personal safety when walking in the Shire

Agree to include.

Environmental Sustainability and Health

Suggest removing the indicator relating to community energy consumption because Council is unable to collect the data from multiple energy providers

Agree to removal of indicator because data can not be verified.

Research and Policy officer, Economic Development

Change the indicator relating to overdue service requests to reflect customer satisfaction

Not recommended.  The current indicator measures responsiveness in the most cost effective manner.

 

The Hornsby Delivery Program 2010 – 2014 including the Operational Plan 2010 – 2011.

 

Congruent with a Community Plan is a Delivery Program and Operational Plan because this is the point where the community’s strategic goals are translated into actions and resources are allocated.  The Delivery Program describes the principal activities Council will undertake over the coming four years, while the Operational Plan focuses on the funds and other resources to be applied in the coming year.  Hornsby Council has included the one-year Operational Plan in the four-year Delivery Program, thereby ensuring the linkages and details in the Delivery Plan give the reader an excellent overview of Council’s proposed actions and initiatives over the medium term. 

 

The Operational Plan component of the Delivery Program includes detail about Council’s revenue policy.  In particular it includes the fees and charges proposed for 2010 – 2011, the ordinary rate and any special rates proposed to be levied, including the proposed infrastructure levy, and estimates of income and expenditure.  As a subsidiary of the Hornsby Shire Community Plan, the Delivery Program 2010 – 2014 including the Operational Plan 2010 – 2011 was exhibited for public comment from Thursday 18 March to Monday 19 April 2010.

 

Summary of comments / submissions received relating to the Delivery Program

 

Name

Substance of comment

Recommended response

Environmental Sustainability and Health Branch

Requests better integration of individual Branch activities across the spectrum of the five themes

The current layout has been developed to depict primary impacts and comply with the new legislation

 

Suggests improvements to titling, the presentation of the Hornsby Shire 2020 Framework and page positions

Agree to amend titles and ensure consistency with Hornsby Shire 2020 Framework layout as suggested by the Branch

Sustainable Action Committee

Recommends consistency of goals between Community Plan and Delivery Program

Agree to amend

 

Suggests a new indicator to measure sustainable transport facilities (i.e. bike parking, shared use paths etc)

Agree to include

 

Suggests a new indicator regarding 10 footpaths becoming shared use paths

Agree to include but changed to 5 paths and subject to RTA funding

 

Suggests a new indicator regarding unsealed roads and shared use paths

This is not achievable because unsealed roads are often too narrow

 

Suggests the inclusion of an action to maintain road shoulders for safe use by bicycles

This is part of the existing maintenance standards for road shoulders

 

Request initiatives such as provision of space for community gardens

The lack of suitable space and the cost to provide adequate space for community gardens is problematic

 

Would like Council to promote and fund additional local volunteerism

Further promotion of volunteers is not funded in 2010/11 because the care and management of additional volunteers would require additional council staff

 

Suggests reporting on the breeding and monitoring of companion animals

Not recommended. The value/benefit of additional reporting is unclear

 

Questions the rationale for a one-year program for:

Ø Building bushfire resilient communities

Ø One-tree grant

Ø Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment grant

The programs run for one year because they are grant funded programs or pilot programs with funding for 12 months only

 

Suggests Council be more involved in fire reduction and mitigation works

This already occurs in cooperative projects with NSW Fire Brigade and Rural Fire Service

 

Questions the current greenhouse gas emissions targets, wants more stringent targets and programs focussed on businesses

Collecting the data will be complex and accuracy is not assured.  Changing the targets is unlikely to impact on actual emissions.  Council runs sustainable business programs, any further programs will require funding from the NSW Government.

 

Comments on traffic flows in smaller / older streets and the impacts of development

These issues will be addressed as part of Hornsby’s new Local Environmental Plan

 

Would like to see additional marketing of waste programs

The Waste Education Team are very active in marketing and education activities

 

Suggests Council adopt a ‘zero waste’ policy

Zero waste requires a whole of government response

 

Suggests the development assessment process be amended to encourage more sustainable design

Council does this already to some extent, but realistically can not go beyond BASIX

 

Suggests the promotion of consumption of local and green products

Council has a green procurement policy but can not advocate, it must be competitively neutral

 

Requests the inclusion of actions to blend human settlement with natural and rural settings

This is addressed in the Housing Strategy, particularly the location of housing close to transport links

 

Suggests major businesses be encouraged to recycle and minimise impacts on landfill and emissions

Council is responsible for domestic waste only.   Commercial and business waste etc is a state government responsibility, and Council does not have the funds to take over this service

Staff comments

Various comments were received from staff requesting minor descriptive changes and amendments to indicators

It is recommended that all staff requests for descriptive amendments and other minor changes be accommodated as they do not materially affect the intent of the document

 

The Fees and Charges component of the Operational Plan 2010 - 2011

 

The draft Operational Plan describes the resources required, and proposed to be allocated, to deliver services in the coming year.  One component of the Operational Plan is the proposed Fees and Charges for 2010 – 2011.  The following submissions relating to the proposed fees and charges were received.

 

Summary of submissions/comments relating to proposed Fees and Charges in the Operational Plan

 

Name

Substance of comment

Recommended response

Arts/Cultural Development Officer re Wallarobba Arts and Cultural Centre

Requests an optional fee structure to encourage use in the first year.  Hirers can either pay for hire as per advertised fee OR waive the fee and pay 20% commission on artwork sales from the exhibition

 

The optional fee system is recommended for adoption

Community Services Branch re Willow Park Leisure and Learning Centre

 

An amended (and lower) fee of $6 be included for use of the smaller meeting room for regular hire and $10 for occasional hire

The newly renovated small meeting is now available for hire. The recommended fee structure maintains fee relativity with the existing larger space

One petition with 30 signatures and 22 submissions from individuals received re proposed increase to Childcare fees

The petition and submissions oppose the proposed fee increases for 2010/11 citing two main issues:

1.   excessive and unreasonable fee increases over the past 18 months, with percentage increases of between 12% to 47%

 

2.   unsubstantiated reasons given by Council for the fee increases

 

Some submissions commented favourably regarding the proposal to remove the fees charged on public holidays when the Centres are closed, and adjust the daily fees to compensate. 

 

The proposed fees have been calculated taking into account all the estimated direct and indirect costs incurred by Council in delivering the service in 2010/11. The costs include, for the first time, the payment of rent for the use of Council owned buildings.

 

The reasoning behind the proposed fee increases and the content of submissions received has been examined by Council’s Community, Cultural and Recreation Facilities Task Force. 

 

The Task Force supports the adoption of the exhibited fee structure for Council’s Childcare Centres for 2010/11.  The Task Force also supports the development of a communication strategy which informs the community about the high level of service we provide and why the fees have increased

 

Budget 2010 – 2011

 

The 2010 - 2011 Annual Budget is estimated to be a deficit of $802,199.

 

Preparation of the draft 2010 - 2011 Budget was undertaken using known facts and best estimates for income and expenditure items available at the time. At the completion of the process, the draft budget had initially provided for a small surplus. This small surplus was in jeopardy due to proposed increases to street lighting estimated at the time of around $750K when compared to last year’s actual. The Australian Energy Regulator was to make a final decision in respect of street lighting during the public exhibition period.

 

The 2010 - 2011 budget result was predicated on an increase in rates of 2.6% as allowed by the Minister for Local Government and a nil increase to operating budget material and contract expenditure despite substantial price increases. Labour increases have been estimated at 2.6% (award increase still to be finalised) and calculated on a 50 week year. The two week reduction in the labour calculation represents organisational savings which occur as a result of the average delay in replacing staff members who resign/retire etc and/or productivity improvements that are required.

 

The Australian Energy Regulator made available their final decision on the 16 April 2010, requiring Hornsby Shire Council to pay in the 2010 - 2011 financial year towards street lighting an increase of 59.9% or $775K. In addition, general electricity charges have been estimated to rise above CPI pushing Council’s budget towards the estimated deficit of $802,199.

 

To reduce this estimated deficit towards more acceptable levels of financial sustainability will necessitate further reviews of council’s services during the 2010 - 2011 year. The outcome of these reviews will be to reduce organisational costs so that a balanced budget may result.

 

Council’s future financial position has been forecast on the basis of continuance of “normal” operations and resulted in the development of a 10 Year Long Term Financial Plan. Key financial forecasts and indicators were developed depicting Council operating overall at financially sustainable levels, supported by on-going prudent financial management. The 2010/11 estimated deficit will place significant challenges towards the notion of “normal continuance” or in other words, financially can we afford to continue to provide the level of services presently provided? This issue will need to be examined in the coming financial year in order to balance that year’s budget and to ensure that Council remains financially sustainable into the future.

 

Special Variation to General Income (Infrastructure Levy)

 

The Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020 and the Delivery Program 2010 – 2014 contained detailed explanation regarding the proposed special variation to general income. Based on community feedback from extensive engagement and consultation activities, Councillors had determined the need to seek approval from the Minister for Local Government for a special variation to general income of 5.8% above the rate peg.  This increase was required to improve Hornsby’s ageing infrastructure and build new facilities to meet the changing needs of the community.  If approved the special variation would be known as an infrastructure levy.

 

The infrastructure levy proposed is 5.8% of the combined Ordinary (residential, farmland, business and CBD business) Rate and the Catchments Remediation Rate for a term of 20 years which aligns with the proposed loan period and is less than the anticipated life of the new and improved assets to be funded by the levy.

 

The purpose of the proposed infrastructure levy is to fund the priority projects of:

·    Replacement of the Hornsby Aquatic Centre

·    A new pedestrian overbridge across George Street

·    The provision of additional passive and active recreation space at Old Mans Valley

·    Provide a total of $1,500,000 per ward in the first two years to fund local projects.  The local projects to be funded have been determined by ward Councillors in collaboration with their constituents and according to project assessment criteria.

 

Consultation

Community engagement commenced in September 2009 and concluded in June 2010.  During this time Council undertook an extensive range of activities including comprehensive advertising in local papers, information delivered to all households, brochures mailed to all ratepayers, community meetings and engagement initiatives, focus groups, email notifications to 4,000 people, specialised web site, interactive web page for residents to submit local projects for funding and face-to-face meetings with residents.

 

The primary consultation phase ran from 20 January to 19 April 2010.  The purpose of the primary consultation phase was to properly inform residents and ratepayers and encourage community input into the decision making and seek public submissions.  The primary consultation phase included the formal exhibition of documents for a minimum of 28 days as per the legislation, however Council sought submissions from 20 January until 19 April 2010.

 

In May 2010 the DLG requested that Council further consult the community regarding the projects to be funded by the allocation of $1,500,000 per ward in the first two years of an infrastructure levy, with a total cost of $4.5 million.  The Councillors had determined the program of works in collaboration with their constituents. 

 

Therefore a targeted secondary consultation and exhibition phase regarding the proposed program of works in each of the three wards (total value of $4.5 million) took place from 20 May 2010 to 18 June 2010.  This phase included advertising in local papers and web site, front page media releases, conversations with sporting groups, displays at five libraries and email advice to 1,000 people.

 

Earlier consultation on ward based projects had been successful.  Residents were keen to participate and be involved in the nomination of local projects, evidenced by the fact that 101 people supported the proposed infrastructure levy by submitting local ward-based projects for funding consideration.

 

Summary of submissions/comments regarding the Special Variation to General Income (Infrastructure Levy)

 

The outcomes from the primary consultation phase were forwarded to the Division of Local Government (DLG) with a précis of all submissions received. The DLG was advised that in the period from 20 January 2010 to 19 April 2010 165 submissions/comments were received.  Of those submissions:

 

Ø 69 support the proposed infrastructure levy

Ø 69 do not support the proposed infrastructure levy

Ø 27 are neutral expressing neither support for nor opposition to the proposed infrastructure levy

 

101 people supported the levy by submitting ward based projects for consideration in the period from mid January to 19 April 2010.  Those submissions contributed to the ward based list of projects which was further exhibited for 28 days until 18 June 2010. 

 

A Ward

B Ward

C Ward

Hayes Park amenities block

Brickpit Park cycleway and playground (part C Ward)

Brickpit Park cycleway and playground (part B Ward)

Hopeville Park BMX facility

Waitara Oval amenities improvements

Pennant Hills Community Centre air con and foyer

Foxglove Oval drainage

Westleigh BMX facility

West Epping Oval carpark upgrade and entry

Parklands Oval new lights

Erlestoke Park playground upgrade

Cheltenham Oval drainage and lighting

Brooklyn Road part footpath

Shepherds Lane slipway

Britannia Street footpath part

Hakea Crescent part footpath

Ruddock Park – swing set

Hull Road footpath part

Old Northern Road footpath east side

Greenway Park carpark and sportsground John Purchase School

Grayson Road footpath part

Fagan Park carpark upgrade

 

Werona Road footpath part

Galston stormwater improvements

 

Epping/Beecroft stormwater improvements

$1,500,000

$1,500,000

$1,500,000

 

This secondary consultation phase included a 28 day exhibition of the final list of ward projects which elicited 51 responses.  Of those responses:

Ø 46 support the proposed infrastructure levy

Ø 5 do not support the proposed levy 

 

Total number of all submissions/comments received during all consultations from 20 January to 18 June 2010 

 

Total submissions / comments = 317

·    165 primary consultation phase January to April

·    101 ward based projects phase January to April

·    51 second consultation phase May to June

 

317

 

216

68% Support

 

74

23% Do not support

 

27

9% General comment

TOTAL

317

100%

 

2010 – 2011 Rating Structure

 

The Minister for Local Government announced a rate pegging increase of 2.6% on 16 February for the 2010/11 rating year.  An application seeking approval from the Minister for Local Government for a special variation to general income of 5.8% above the rate peg was submitted to the Division of Local Government on 26 March 2010. 

 

The special variation to general income (infrastructure levy) sought is 5.8% of the combined Ordinary (residential, farmland, business and CBD business) Rate and the Catchments Remediation Rate for a term of 20 years which aligns with the proposed loan period and is less than the anticipated life of the new and improved assets to be funded by the levy.

 

Two rates structure were included in the draft Delivery Plan based on this increase. The first structure was based only on the 2.6% rate peg (see below).  The second scenario included the 2.6% rate peg and the 5.8% special variation to general income (the infrastructure levy).

 

No submissions were received regarding the rate structure with 2.6% rate peg only. 

317 submissions/comments were received regarding the intent and the purpose of the special variation to general income as per table above.

 

The Minister for Local Government has not yet announced any determination regarding the special variation to general income; therefore it is recommended that Council adopt its rating structure for 2010/11 based on the 2.6% rate structure only as per the rating tables below. 

 

 

 

 


Rating structure for 2010 – 2011

 

2.6% rate peg - Ordinary Rates 

Category

Rate in the $

Minimum Amount $

Base Amount $

Base Amount %

Yield $

% of Total Rate

Residential

0.0014744

0

401

45

47,716,000

87.5

 

Farmland

0.00114517

0

401

28

440,042

0.8

 

Business

0.00439200

430

0

0

3,686,000

6.8

 

Business- Hornsby CBD

0.00955923

430

0

0

2,670,000

4.9

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

54,512,042

 

100%

 

2.6% rate peg - Catchments Remediation Rate

(N.B. There are no minimum or base amounts in respect of this rate)

Category

Ad Valorem Rate per $

Yield $

Residential

0.0001342

       2,384,902

 

Farmland

0.00007967

21,805

 

Business

 

0.0002305

185,341

Business-Hornsby CBD

0.00047977

133,554

 

 

Total

 

$2,725,602

 

2.6% rate peg - Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate

Category

Base Amount $

Base Amount %

Ad Valorem Rate per $

Yield $

Residential

19

40

0.00008489

2,532,500

 

Farmland

 

29

38

0.00005198

23,153

Business

 

47

49

0.00012409

196,805

Business Hornsby CBD

115

42

0.00029663

141,817

 

Total

 

 

 

 

$2,894,275

 

Rate reductions for eligible pensioners

 

1.   Eligible pensioners are entitled to a reduction in ordinary rates and domestic waste management services of $250 per annum (subject to the qualifications set out in Section 575 of the Local Government Act).

2.   Pensioners also receive a $10 reduction on the rate amount applicable to the Hornsby Quarry Loan rate.

 

 

 

The Minister for Local Government’s decision regarding a special variation to general income

 

The Minister for Local Government has not yet announced a decision regarding rate variation applications.  In the past ministerial decisions have generally been announced in late June or early July.  Therefore it is recommended that, as soon as practicable after the ministerial decision is announced, a further report be presented to Council.  This report would include a review of Council’s rating structure aligned to the ministerial decision and implications for the financial sustainability of the organisation.

Category

Rate in

POLICY

 

The Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020 is the highest order document.  It describes the community’s strategic goals, some of which are the responsibility of other levels of government, others are the responsibility of local government, and others require direct community action

 

The Delivery Program 2010 - 2014 is Council's principal instruction to its organisation.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 – 2014, including the Operational Plan 2010 – 2011 were developed following many consultations over a six month period from September 2009 to March 2010, culminating in public exhibition from Thursday 18 March to Monday 19 April 2010.  The documents include extensive information regarding the proposed special variation to general income (infrastructure levy).  More information regarding the extent of the consultation can be found in the body of this report.

 

The draft Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 – 2014, including the Operational Plan 2010 – 2011 was posted to 20 local community groups and eight Members of Parliament. 

 

All users of Council’s child care services were advised of the proposed fee increases for 2010 - 2011.

 

Once adopted, the final Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 - 2014, including the 2010 -2011 Operational Plan and 2010 - 2011 Fees and Charges and Rating Structure for 2010 - 2011 will be distributed electronically and in hard copy to Councillors, staff and interested persons.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Sustainability principles are a determining characteristic of the Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020 and the Delivery Program 2010 – 2014, including the Operational Plan 2010 – 2011, both in content and in preparation.

 

A Community Strategic Plan, including a special variation to general income to fund infrastructure improvements, will contribute to community development through the provision of sustainable facilities and services by enhancing the amenity and use of recreation facilities and public open space. 

 

Enabling the community, in collaboration with Councillors, to influence the selection of projects in each ward encourages community pride in their area. The proposed local projects also have a positive impact on the use of existing infrastructure by upgrading and improving the functionality and public safety of civil assets.  The proposed rate variation will enable Council to maintain its assets in a financially viable manner. 

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officers are Julie Williams, Manager Corporate Strategy and Glen Magus, Manager Financial Services. They can be contacted on 9847-6790 and 9847-6635 respectively.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.   THAT following consideration of the submissions received, and taking account of the timing for the Ministerial decision regarding special rate variations, Council:

 

Adopt the Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010 – 2020, the Delivery Program 2010 - 2014, including the 2010 -2011 Operational Plan and 2010 - 2011 Fees and Charges, incorporating the amendments recommended in this Report, except those parts that relate to the application for a special variation to general income.

 

2.   Make and levy the Ordinary, Catchments Remediation and Hornsby Quarry Loan Rates for 2010/11 based on the 2.6% rate peg structure outlined in the Delivery Program i.e.

 

·    Make and levy the Ordinary Rates in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of this Report.

 

·    Make and levy the Catchments Remediation Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of this Report.

 

·    Make and levy the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of this Report.

 

·    Continue to provide eligible pensioners with a $10 concession in respect of the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate, represented by a reduction in the Base amount.

 

3.   A further report containing financial implications and revised rating structure, if necessary, be presented to Council as soon as practicable after the Minister for Local Government announces the special rate variations to general income.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Robert Ball

General Manager

General Manager Division

 

Attachments:

1.View

Delivery Program 2010-2014

2.View

Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010-2020

3.View

Summary document - Hornsby Shire Community Plan 2010-2020

4.View

Fees and Charges 2010/11

 

 

File Reference:           F2009/00639

Document Number:   D01423545

 


 

General Manager's Report No. GM13/10

General Manager Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

4        LGSA COST SHIFTING RESEARCH PROJECT FOR 2008/09   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The LGSA cost shifting survey is an annual survey which seeks to establish the extent of cost shifting by the Australian and NSW Government on to NSW Local Government.  The survey results help quantify the extent of cost shifting onto NSW Local Government and support Local Government's argument for that practice to end. It also assists in monitoring compliance with the national Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Intergovernmental Relations on Local Government Matters, (2006).

 

Hornsby Shire Council participated in the survey relating to the 2005/06 year and estimated the cost shift to be $7,026,500 which is 7.8% of the 2005/06 total operating income, excluding capital activities, of $89.5 million.  Hornsby Shire Council’s estimate of the value of cost shifting in 2008/09 is $9,610,900, which is 9.7% of the total operating income, excluding capital activities, of $98.9 million.

 

The cost shifting impost is increasing in both dollar and percentage terms.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the estimated cost shifting details for Hornsby Shire Council in the 2008/09 year.  The cost shifting details will be forwarded to the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW for inclusion in a local government study on the topic. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Each year the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) undertake research into the amount of cost shifting by other levels of government onto local government.  Hornsby Shire Council participated in the research based on the 2005/06 financial year and estimated a cost of approximately $7 million in that year.  Council did not contribute to the research into cost shifting in 2006/07 or 2007/08, but has prepared information pertaining to the current research into the cost of cost shifting in 2008/09.

 

Cost shifting describes a situation where the responsibility for, or merely the costs of, providing a certain service, concession, asset or regulatory function are "shifted" from a higher level of government on to a lower level of government without the provision of corresponding funding or the conferral of corresponding and adequate revenue raising capacity.  The definition adopted for the research survey is based on the definition used in the survey undertaken for the Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of NSW Local Government in 2006. 

 

The following cost shifting scenarios are covered:

Ø The cost related to the imposition of responsibility for providing a certain service, asset or regulatory functions upon Local Government by other levels of government (Australian or State Government) without the provision of corresponding funding or compensation or the conferral of corresponding and adequate revenue raising capacity.

Ø The cost related to the transfer of responsibility to Local Government for funding a certain service or function (including concessions and rebates) where the responsibility for funding of which lies with other levels of government.

Ø The cost related to the situation where Local Government agrees to provide a service/function on behalf of another sphere of government but funding is subsequently reduced or stopped, and Local Government is unable to withdraw because of community demand for the service/function.

Ø The cost related to the situation where, for whatever reason, another sphere of government ceases to provide or provides insufficient levels of a service/function it is responsible for and Local Government steps in because of community of demand for the service/function

 

The research requires each participating council to complete survey questions detailing cost estimates for 23 services recognised to incur cost shifts, and to include any other cost shifting examples known.

 

The 2008/09 estimated costs ‘shifted’ to Hornsby Shire Council are listed below.

 

 

The LGSA’s service aspects subject to cost shifting

HSC 2008/09 estimated cost

1

Contribution to NSW Fire Brigade

1,707,299

2

Contribution to Rural Fire Service

498,000

3

Pensioner rates rebates

763,000

4

Voluntary conservation agreements

1,000

5

Public library operations

1,694,000

6

On site sewage facilities

131,000

7

Administration of the Companion Animals Act

271,777

8

Administration of the Contaminated Land Act

22,000

9

Functions under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act

291,000

10

Functions as the local control authority for noxious weeds

81,000

11

Functions under the Rural Fires Act

112,955

12

Immigration and citizenship services

30,000

13

Administration of food safety regulation

201,000

14

Provision of educational services

66,000

15

Community safety

50,000

16

Flood mitigation program

37,400

17

Transfer of responsibilities under RTA road reclassifications

0

18

Medical services

0

19

Road safety

42,000

20

Community and human services

1,315,000

21

Waste levy

1,022,469

22

Sewage treatment license fee

0

23

Waste management site license fee

0

 

TOTAL

$8,336,900

 

The additional examples of cost shifting indentified at Hornsby Council in 2008/09 are:

 

1

Contribution to State Emergency Services

40,000

2

Planning issues - inspection of essential services, collection of building insurance and long service levies, prescriptive development application fees that do not permit full cost recovery, excluding corporate overheads

 

1,053,000

3

Street lighting subsidy not keeping pace with expenditure - between 2007/08 and 2008/09 expenditure increased by $150,00 but subsidy increased by $7,000

 

143,000

4

Crown Land - 15% levy on all leases/licenses within crown lands.  The 15% income reduction was to replace funds withdrawn by Treasurer from the NSW Department of Lands Public Reserves Management Fund

 

38,000

 

TOTAL

$1,274,000

 

The total of the service aspects indentified by the LGSA subject to cost shifting and the additional examples indentified at Hornsby Council equate to an annual cost shifting burden for the Hornsby Shire ratepayers of $9,610,900

 

BUDGET

 

Each year Council’s budget is impacted by the value of cost shifting.  In 2008/09 the estimated value was $9,610,900.

 

Cost shifting causes substantial hardship for local government and impedes its ability to deliver services and maintain infrastructure.  While Hornsby Shire Council is managed in a fiscally responsible manner, if it wishes to maintain its capital program and address infrastructure issues, cost shifting must be recognised and addressed. 

 

POLICY

 

Council does not have a formal policy relating to cost shifting.  Participating in the LGSA cost shifting survey signals the value and extent of the cost shift and validates Council informal stance opposing cost shifting.

 

CONSULTATION

 

All Divisions of Council have provided data relating to the value of cost shifting in 2008/09.  The Finance and Strategy Taskforce, at its 9 June meeting, was informed of the research and preliminary results.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

This report details historical data and therefore a sustainability assessment is not required.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is Julie Williams, Manager Corporate Strategy, and she can be contacted on 9847-6790.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council receive and note the contents of Report GM13/10.

 

2.   The extent and value of cost shifting in 2008/09 be submitted to the LGSA for inclusion in research on the topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Ball

General Manager

General Manager Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2010/00296

Document Number:   D01424065

 


 

General Manager's Report No. GM14/10

General Manager Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

5        EVENTS CALENDAR 2010-2011     

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council currently provides a number of events across Hornsby Shire for the community. These events, organised through the General Manager’s Division, maximise Council’s exposure across the community, acknowledge diversity, build community harmony and nurture community pride. The nature and style of community events evolve over time in response to the changing dynamics and wants of our community.

 

In April 2009, Council endorsed the Events Calendar 2009-2010 as presented by the Community Relations team. This report delivers Council’s Community Relations team’s planned events for the community across the 2010-2011 financial year.  It is written as a continuation of the events delivered in 2009-2010 within the confines of known budget and resource constraints.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

This report seeks a formal resolution of Council to accept this report, and provide endorsement of ongoing improvements to Council’s event calendar in the years that follow.

 

DISCUSSION

 

2009-2010

 

From the Events Calendar endorsed by Council in April 2009, all but two events for the community were achieved. The two that were not achieved were a result of Council’s website not being ready and insufficient resources. The actual outcomes were as follows:

·    August 2009 Spring into Arts Calendar - achieved

·    September 2009 Bushland Shire Festival with Youth Zone - achieved

·    September to November 2009 Music Events (3) - achieved (one cancelled due to wet weather)

·    November 2009 Outdoor movies - achieved

·    December 2009 Christmas Cheer - achieved

·    January 2010 Australia Day celebrations shire wide - achieved

·    March 2010 OneWorld Multicultural Festival - achieved

·    May 2009 - Digital Online Photographic Competition - not achieved as Council’s website not yet launched

·    Proposed monthly markets - not realised due to budget and resource constraints

 

2010-2011

 

Council’s community events need to evolve with the changes in the greater economic environment. Increasing public liability costs have had a detrimental impact on the event industry.

 

Consequences for Council’s Event Coordinator include the responsibility to provide an acceptable standard of fun and activities for the community with a budget that has remained constant for many years and is increasingly being consumed by behind the scenes cost. Whilst funding available to host events has not changed for a number of years, the portion available to spend on those tangible aspects from which the community gains enjoyment continues to decrease.

 

Council’s Event Coordinator sought the opportunity to demonstrate the maximum possibilities with the given resources via the endorsed 2009-2010 events calendar.  Post-event analysis proved she exceeded all expectations, as a team of one.

 

The primary objective of the exercise was to contribute to the positive image of Council. The secondary objective was to provide evidence to Council of the need for an Event Assistant to maintain the exceptional level of events, build on the success of the current calendar and include additional events for the community based on feedback received.

 

The primary objective was achieved; the secondary objective has not been achieved as a result of budgetary constraints. As a result, the events proposed for 2010-2011 are more realistic and reasonable for a team of one.

 

Event Calendar 2010 - 2011

 

The proposal for Council’s Event Calendar 2010 - 2011 is as follows:

 

July 2010

Monthly Citizenship - it is proposed to continue with monthly Citizenship ceremonies in the existing format to allow sufficient planning time for Council’s largest community event of the year, the Bushland Shire Festival.

 

August 2010

Monthly Citizenship ceremony plus the Knit in - it is proposed to provide the same support to the Knit-in as previous years with a view to review in 2011.

 

September 2010

Monthly Citizenship ceremony plus the Bushland Shire Festival, 19 September, at Galston - this festival is Council’s signature event, which over 10,000 people enjoyed in 2009 with over 100 stalls and main stage entertainment including Dora the Explorer shows, magic shows, Crocodile Encounters shows, a dance performance and more. There were pony rides, a Youth Zone, kids rides, Life be In It Games, sheep shearing demonstrations, an animal farm, wood chopping, scarecrows, the Manly Oceanarium touch pool, helicopter scenic flights and more.

 

It is proposed that the 2010 Bushland Shire Festival provide fundamentally the same as the 2009 event, but on a smaller scale with given budget and resource constraints. Maximum stallholder number restricted to 100, maximum main stage performer numbers limited to four, and maximum activities limited to four.

 

October 2010

Monthly Citizenship ceremony - it is proposed to continue with the current monthly Citizenship ceremonies in the exiting format to allow sufficient planning time for Council’s November, December and January community events.

 


November 2010

Monthly Citizenship ceremony plus two night time Movies under the Stars

Events - the popular outdoor movies were held over four consecutive weekends in November 2009 and the schedule for 2010-2011 has been reviewed to allow sufficient time to plan Council’s December and January events.

 

It is proposed that two outdoor night time movie screenings be held in November 2010 a fortnight apart - in Asquith on 6 November and Epping 20 November. The November movies will form part of Council’s Festival of the Arts (FOTA) program to achieve synergy with this Council initiative.

 

December 2010

No Citizenship ceremony (as in previous years) and Christmas Spectacular, 20 December 2010, Waitara - The inaugural 2009 Christmas Spectacular was very positively received by the community and stallholders who participated. This event was run and managed by IMC Productions under the close supervision and guidance of Council’s Event Coordinator to ensure Council’s event objectives and guidelines were adhered to. Council’s Event Coordinator secured naming rights of the event for Council.

 

In previous years, Council’s Event Coordinator also facilitated a ‘Christmas Cheer’ promotion by awarding movie tickets to families whose homes and/or gardens demonstrated the Christmas spirit. This event also incorporated a list of participating homes on Council’s website for people to go and view. The number of homes participating in recent years has steadily declined. Additionally, Cumberland Courier’s Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate newspaper has run the same promotion over the last couple of years.

 

It is proposed that Council builds on the success of the 2009 Christmas Spectacular and grow it in 2010. This includes securing naming rights/sponsorship again and having IMC Productions source all contractors, entertainment and additional sponsorship. Council’s Event Coordinator will work closely with IMC Productions to ensure Council objectives and guidelines are closely adhered to and arrange for Council to supply waste management and provide Waitara Oval as the venue to hold the event. Council’s Event Coordinator will also assist with promotional activity and other relevant related logistics as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding.

 

It is also proposed that the budget previously allocated to the Christmas Cheer promotion be absorbed into the cost of the Christmas Spectacular.

 

January 2011

Monthly Citizenship Ceremony plus Citizens of the Year and Australia Day celebrations.

 

Australia Day - Australia Day 2010 was celebrated with a compilation of events for all residents, including a ticketing day where residents were given free tickets to:

·    Hornsby Odeon cinema screenings (Hornsby)

·    Council’s Aquatic Centres (Epping, Galston and Hornsby).

It also included:

·    the availability of Netherby Cottage for tours, displays and refreshments (Galston)

·    Hornsby Park for entertainment, a jumping castle, face painting, historical display; refreshments and a sausage sizzle (Hornsby)

·    Hornsby Mall for free flag giveaways, live music and a sausage sizzle (Hornsby)

To further promote tourism, Council’s event Coordinator provided:

·    Free entry to Koala Park Sanctuary (Pennant Hills),

·    Free transport to and from Dangar Island for the day where visitors experienced an art exhibition, lawn bowls, open mic, a spit roast, the café and more.

 

All events proved very popular and were at full (or more) capacity. Australia Day started early with the largest Citizenship ceremony of the Year for 60 new citizens, and the recipients of Council’s Young Citizen of the Year, Citizen of the Year and Community Group of the Year awards.

 

It is proposed that Council again organises the nomination, judging and awarding of Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year with the Citizenship Ceremony at Pennant Hills Community Centre on the morning of Australia Day 2011. It is proposed to discontinue the Community Group of the Year category as it proved to be too difficult for judges to compare the variety of services nominated and their resultant value to the community.

 

It is proposed to repeat the Koala Park Sanctuary ticketing as per previous years, with the provision of ticketing to occur within Council business hours to reduce staffing costs. A review following the 2011 event is recommended.

 

It is proposed that Council’s Event Coordinator again actively organise Australia Day entertainment and promotion for the community in Hornsby Park (Hornsby) and Fagan Park (Galston) with the existing Australia Day committee members willing to continue in this role.

 

It is proposed that Council’s Event Coordinator hand over responsibility for sourcing, booking and managing celebrations and entertainment to occur in Hornsby Mall on Australia Day to Council’s Mall Manager and Mall Administrator, and that Council’s Event Coordinator includes all activities booked for Hornsby Mall on Australia Day 2011 with all other Australia Day promotion / advertising.

 

It is proposed to not include free pool entry in the 2011 Australia Day celebrations due to the time, logistics, cost and resources required for organising and ticketing this plus the uncertainty of the dates for Hornsby Pool closure and reconstruction.

 

It is proposed to not include Dangar Island in the 2011 Australia Day celebrations for the community as resources and costs in 2010 exceeded those allocated. Furthermore, sufficient staff numbers and funds are not available to successfully repeat the achievements of 2009.

 

It is proposed to not include Hornsby Odeon ticketing in the 2011 Australia Day celebrations for the community to save costs associated with ticketing a second event.

 

February 2011

Monthly Citizenship ceremony plus two night time Movies under the Stars events.

 

It is proposed that two outdoor night time movie screenings be held in February 2011 a fortnight apart -12 February at Berowra ad 26 February at Westleigh.

 

March 2011

Monthly Citizenship ceremony plus annual multicultural Festival, OneWorld Multicultural Festival, 20 March 2011, Hornsby - In 2010 Council’s OneWorld event moved from Hornsby Mall to Hornsby Park to recognise cost savings; and from November to March to align with National Harmony Day.

Over 5,000 community members enjoyed the day’s activities with nine hours of main stage shows and a street carnival atmosphere resulting from the closure of one side of the Pacific Highway and a line of international food offerings, stalls and rides in its place. The 9pm fireworks were met with a standing ovation from a sea of people, many of whom had spent the best part of the day enjoying the celebrations. The change of venue confirmed that all visitors were in attendance specifically for the event, not mere passers by, who were otherwise in the Hornsby Mall / Hornsby Westfield area.

 

It is proposed that the 2011 OneWorld event again be held in Hornsby Park as close as possible to the 21 March Harmony Day date following confirmation from RailCorp that a track closure in the Hornsby area is not scheduled for that date. The event would be the same as 2009 with main stage entertainment, international food offerings, rides and the closure of the northbound side of the Pacific Highway; running from 1pm to 8pm.

 

April and May 2011

Monthly Citizenship ceremony and six additional Citizenship ceremonies

 

Each monthly Citizenship ceremony sees 100 new residents receive their citizenship in a dignified and meaningful ceremony. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) has identified a backlog a residents awaiting citizenship in the Hornsby Shire LGA.

 

It is proposed that Council holds an additional six Citizenship ceremonies, three in April and three in May to alleviate this backlog. The ceremonies, to minimise staff and venue hire expenses, should be held in Council chambers as full day events on dates to be confirmed. Refreshments and gifts would be made available as per monthly ceremonies and Councillor and Executive attendance would be rostered and rotated throughout the day/s.

 

June 2011

Monthly Citizenship Ceremony plus Photographic Competition judging - the annual photographic competition is open to residents who have taken photos in the shire over the previous 12 months. The entries are judged by professional photographers (at a cost) and an invited Council representative. An awards event is held in Hornsby Library. The primary objective of the competition is to build Council’s own photo library. The intention for the 2010 competition was to utilise Council’s new website to facilitate ‘people’s choice’ voting, but it was not built in time.

 

It is proposed that Council endorse the use of Council’s website to display and facilitate a people’s choice award for the 2011 Photographic Competition.

 

Summary of changes:

 

·    Bushland Shire Festival 2010 - smaller event than 2009

·    Movies under the Stars 2010 - split across two separate months, rather than four consecutive weekends as in 2009

·    Christmas Spectacular - to replace Christmas Cheer

·    Australia Day 2011 - less venues than 2010

·    Photo Competition 2011 - use of new Council website to display entries and facilitate judging

·    Citizenship ceremonies - additional ceremonies to clear the DIAC backlog

 


BUDGET

 

This report recommends variations to existing events provided by Council using the existing budget and existing resources therefore there are no budget implications.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policies that affect the provision of events for the community as managed by the General Manager’s Division.

 

CONSULTATION

 

OneWorld Multicultural Festival

·    A working party of interested staff and community group members meet as required and are consulted in the formulation of the event.

·    Council officers consult with Hornsby Police, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), TransdevTSL and RailCorp regarding transportation and the closure of part of the northbound lanes of the Pacific Highway from Hornsby TAFE to Coronation Street.

 

Australia Day

·    An Australia Day committee of key staff and interested community members meets throughout the year and all are consulted regarding the events and offers made available to residents of the shire

 

Bushland Shire Festival

·    Council officers are consulted in the planning of the event and encouraged to participate in the event by showcasing their team’s/division’s services available to the community

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council’s decisions ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council’s strategic themes.

 

Working with our community

Events provided for the community by Council maximises Council’s exposure across the community, acknowledges diversity, builds community harmony, nurtures community pride, encourages a sense of belonging, showcases community talent, celebrates what the shire has to offer and contributes to a positive image of Council. Our community is also involved in the process via committees and the like.

 

Contribution to community development through sustainable facilities and services

The provision of events for our community facilitates community development by maximising Council’s exposure across the community and contributing to a positive image of Hornsby Shire Council.

 

Supporting our diverse economy

Council’s event calendar seeks to achieve local tourism objectives (such as promoting Koala Park Sanctuary, Pennant Hills) whilst stimulating the local economy by including local stallholders to promoting the Shire’s parks and businesses.

 

Maintaining sound corporate financial management

The variations to the ongoing calendar of events proposed in this report will not incur additional expenditure. All events will be managed by Council’s Event Coordinator

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The calendar was prepared by Council’s Manager, Community Relations and Events Coordinator.  The responsible officer for the report is Michelle Edmunds, Manager, Community Relations, telephone 9847 6702 between 8.30am - 5pm, Monday to Friday.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council endorse the Event Coordinator’s organisation, coordination and execution of the following across 2010-2011:

 

1.   Monthly Citizenship ceremonies at Pennant Hills Community Centre (excluding December as in previous years) with  additional ceremonies to clear the DIAC backlog

2.   Annual Knit in at Hornsby Library assistance

3.   Annual Bushland Shire Festival at Fagan Park, Galston

4.   Four outdoor movie events - two movies in November and two in  February

5.   Annual Christmas Spectacular event (to replace Christmas Cheer)

6.   Annual free entry for residents to Koala Park Sanctuary, Pennant Hills, on Australia Day 2011

7.   Annual nomination process, judging and awarding of Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year

8.   Annual Australia Day entertainment at Hornsby Park, Hornsby and Fagan Park, Galston with Australia Day committee members

9.   Annual OneWorld Multicultural Festival in Hornsby Park, Hornsby akin to the 2010 event

10. Annual photo competition utilisation of Council’s new website

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Ball

General Manager

General Manager Division

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2004/08423

Document Number:   D01430758 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. CC40/10

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

6        DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND OTHER MATTERS RETURNS - COUNCILLORS AND DESIGNATED PERSONS   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Section 449 of the Local Government Act (the Act) details the statutory requirements in respect of the lodgement of Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Return/s by Councillors and Designated Persons. Section 450A(2) of the Act details the reporting requirements associated with the lodgement of such Returns.

 

In accordance with those Sections of the Act, this Report provides information regarding the various Returns recently lodged with the General Manager. It is recommended that Council note that the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Return/s lodged with the General Manager have been tabled in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to table the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Returns lodged by Councillors/Designated Persons who have left, commenced with, or internally transferred to a relevant position within Council.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Section 449(1) of the Act requires a Councillor or Designated Person to complete and lodge with the General Manager a Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Return within three months after becoming a Councillor or a Designated Person. Section 449(3) requires a Councillor or Designated Person holding that position at 30 June in any year to complete and lodge with the General Manager a Return within three months after that date. Section 449(5) states that nothing prevents a Councillor or Designated Person from lodging more than one Return in any year.

 

Section 450A(2) of the Act requires that Returns lodged under Section 449 are to be tabled at a meeting of Council. Returns lodged under Sections 449(1) and 449(3) are to be tabled at the first meeting held after the last day for lodgement under those Sections; and Returns lodged for any other reason are to be tabled at the first meeting after their lodgement.

 

Council's procedures in respect of the disclosing of interests have been developed to cater for the election/appointment/employment/retirement/resignation/etc of Councillors or Designated Persons. These procedures:

 

•     require all Councillors and Designated Persons who hold that position at 30 June in any year to submit Returns to the General Manager by 30 September in that year (i.e. they are lodged under S449(3)). These Returns are tabled at the October Ordinary Meeting of Council in that year;

 

•     require newly elected Councillors or newly appointed Designated Persons to lodge Returns to the General Manager within three months of their election/appointment (i.e. they are lodged under S449(1). These Returns are tabled at the next available Ordinary Meeting of Council; and

 

•     require those Councillors or Designated Persons who are leaving Council (because of retirement, resignation, etc) to lodge Returns to the General Manager by their last day with Council. These Returns are tabled at the next available Ordinary Meeting of Council.

 

Council last considered the tabling of Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Returns at the Ordinary Meeting held on 19 May 2010 (see Report No. CC28/10).  Since that time, two additional Returns have been lodged with the General Manager and are now tabled as required by the Local Government Act. 

 

Date Lodged

Councillor/Designated Person (Position)

Reason for Lodgement

12/05/2010

Cook - Children's Services Section - Greenway Park Early Childhood Education Centre

New Employee

20/05/2010

Traffic Ranger

New Employee

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budgetary implications associated with this Report.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has occurred with those required to complete a Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Return.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes.

 

As this Report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is Council's Freedom of Information Officer – Stephen Waller who can be contacted on 9847 6749.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council note that the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Returns recently lodged with the General Manager have been tabled as required by the Local Government Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robyn Abicair

Manager - Administration Services

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2009/00480

Document Number:   D01427281

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. CC29/10

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

7        DOCUMENT ACCESS APPLICATIONS 20 MARCH 2010 - 14 MAY 2010   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 12 March 1997, Council adopted a Document Access Policy to facilitate access by members of the public to documents held by Council.  The Policy was last reviewed at the Ordinary Meeting of 8 April 2009 and a copy of the current version is included as Attachment 1. The Policy is made having regard to Section 12 of the Local Government Act which requires that Council consider restrictions placed on access to information, and the reasons for such restrictions, within three months of the original request. This Report allows such consideration by Council and recommends that the relevant documents as outlined in Attachment 2 to this Report remain exempt from release under Council's Document Access Policy.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with the opportunity to review restrictions that have been placed on access to information under Council's Document Access Policy during the period 20 March – 14 May 2010 and to make the reasons for those restrictions publicly available.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Document Access Applications

 

Section 12A of the Local Government Act requires Council to review any restrictions of access to information on a quarterly basis as follows:-

 

(1)     If the general manager or any other member of staff of a council decides that access to a document or other information held by the council should not be given to the public or councillor, the person concerned must provide the council with written reasons for the restriction.

 

(2)      The reasons must be publicly available.

 

(3)     The council must review any such restriction no later than three months after it is imposed.

 

(4)     The council must, at the request of any other person made after the expiry of a period of three months after that review (or of a period of three months after the most recent of any subsequent reviews), carry out a further review of the restriction.

 

(5)      The council must remove the restriction if, at any time:

 

          (a)        it finds that there are no grounds for the restriction, or

 

          (b)       access to the relevant document or other information is obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 1989.

(6)     A review is not required under this section if the restriction concerned has been removed."

 

Applications Received 20 March – 14 May 2010

 

There were 159 applications processed under Council's Document Access Policy in the period 20 March – 14 May 2010. The time taken to process these 159 applications was 354 hours. An additional 56 applications were received but not finalised at the time this Report was written and these applications will be included in the report for the next processing period.

 

The processing time service goal for Document Access Applications is targeted as being less than the time allowed for a determination of an application under the Freedom of Information Act (currently 21 calendar days).  The average processing time for applications received in the current reporting period was 19 calendar days.

 

Restricted Access

 

Following receipt of applications under the Document Access Policy, files are reviewed by the Information Access Officer or the Freedom of Information Officer of the Administration Services Branch, to determine if any documents fall within any of the exceptions outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) - 3(k) of the Policy and if access should be restricted. Of the 159 applications processed in the period, nine applications resulted in restricted access to Council files. In total, 27 documents from those restricted access applications fell within the provisions of paragraphs 3(a) - 3(k) of the Document Access Policy.

 

Review of Access

 

A schedule of the 27 restricted access documents that fell within paragraphs 3(a) - 3(k) of the Document Access Policy is set out in Attachment 2. In making a decision about whether documents should be released or restricted, regard is given to Section 12 of the Local Government Act, Council's Document Access Policy and the NSW FOI Manual issued by the Office of the NSW Ombudsman. Consideration is also given to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 and Council's Privacy Management Plan.

 

The documents to which access was restricted fell into the following categories of Council’s Document Access Policy:

 

Contrary to the Public Interest (PI) - 0 documents

Personnel Matters (PS) – 0 documents

Personal Hardship (PH) – 0 documents

Trade Secrets (TS) – 0 documents

Prejudice the Maintenance of the Law (PL) – 0 documents

Security of Council (SC) – 0 documents

Breach of an Act (BA) - 23 documents

Plans and Specifications (RP) - 1 document

Commercial Privilege (CP) - 1 document

Commercial Advantage (CA) – 0 documents

Legal Professional Privilege (PR) - 2 documents

 

Specific allocation of each restriction as it applies to the applications received during this reporting period is provided as part of the attached schedule.  Further explanatory notes in respect of all the restricted access categories are provided below:

 

Contrary to the Public Interest (PI) - Paragraph 3(a) of the Document Access Policy states that a document is not to be released where access to the document would be contrary to the public interest. This is a difficult concept to define and each application must be judged on its merits taking into consideration Privacy and Freedom of Information guidelines and Council's Policy.

 

Personnel Matters (PS) - In accordance with Paragraph 3(b) of the Document Access Policy, documents dealing with personnel matters concerning particular individuals are restricted from access.

 

Personal Hardship (PH) - Where documents contain information about the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer, the personal details are removed in accordance with Paragraph 3(c) of the Document Access Policy, and most of the requested documents are released.

 

Trade Secrets (TS) - Any part of a document that is deemed to be dealing with trade secrets remains restricted from access under Paragraph 3(d) of Council's Document Access Policy.

 

Prejudice the maintenance of the Law (PL) - Paragraph 3(e) of the Document Access Policy states information should not be released that, if disclosed, would prejudice the maintenance of law.

 

Security of Council (SC) - Paragraph 3(f) of the Document Access Policy restricts information containing matters affecting the security of Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property.

 

Breach of an Act (BA) - Paragraph 3(g) of the Document Access Policy states that no document should be released the disclosure of which would constitute an offence against an Act.

 

Plans and Specifications (RP) - Under Paragraph 3(h) of Council's Document Access Policy any plans or specifications showing residential parts of a building, other than its height and external configuration, are not to be released to the public.

 

Commercial Privilege (CP) - Paragraph 3(i) restricts commercial information of a confidential nature which would, if disclosed, be likely to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or to reveal a trade secret.

 

Commercial Advantage (CA) - Paragraph 3(j) restricts information of a commercial nature which would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business. 

 

Legal Professional Privilege (PR) - Paragraph 3(k) of the Document Access Policy provides that a document is not to be released where any part of it contains advice concerning litigation or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the grounds of legal professional privilege.  Such documents fall within one of three categories:

 

(i)     legal advice regarding any legal action in which Council is involved or is likely to be involved;

 

(ii)    any information that was brought into existence for the sole purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice; or

 

(iii)   advice on Council's prospects of winning a court case or other form of litigation.

 

Some applications are dealt with directly by the General Manager in accordance with Section 12A of the Local Government Act - Restriction of Access to Information mentioned at the beginning of this section of the Report. In these instances, the applications are registered under Council's Document Access Policy and responded to personally by the General Manager. No documents were dealt with directly by the General Manager during this reporting period.

The reasons for restricting access to the above documents under Council's Document Access Policy still stand, and as such the documents should remain exempt.

 

Freedom of Information Applications

 

During this reporting period, four new Freedom of Information (FOI) applications were received and one FOI application was determined. In addition, work was carried out on one previous application, one Internal FOI Review and two External FOI Reviews.

 

The total time spent by Council staff on processing FOI applications during this reporting period was approximately 54.5 hours. Details of the allocation of this time are included in the table below. It should be noted that of the total 54.5 hours, 31.5 hours was spent processing applications submitted by one applicant.

 

Description

Number of hours expended

Processing of FOI application/s

23 hours

Processing of Internal Reviews

2 hours

Processing of External Reviews

29.5 hours

 

One External Review application is still under consideration by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

 

Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act

 

No applications were received under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PPIPA) during the reporting period.

 

BUDGET

 

The Local Government Act states that Council must allow inspection of documents at no charge and provide copies either free of charge or on payment of reasonable copying fees.  To obtain an accurate representation of impact on resources, this Report includes graphical representation depicting the total number of applications, the number of restricted applications, the number of restricted documents, the number of file parts and electronic documents reviewed, and the number of staff hours involved in processing the applications.  This graph is included as Attachment 3. These figures do not include any FOI or PPIPA applications.

 

In addition to the 354 hours invested in processing the 159 Document Access applications, and the 54.5 hours spent handling FOI applications and reviews, extra time was also spent carrying out various ad-hoc functions in relation to Document Access, Freedom of Information and Privacy matters e.g. photocopying documents, explaining information access issues and providing service to Council customers (both in person and over the telephone), and coordinating Pecuniary Interest Declaration returns for designated staff and Councillors. The time utilised on these activities was approximately 106 hours.

 

POLICY

 

This Report deals with the requirements of Council's Document Access Policy. A copy of the Policy is included as Attachment 1.

 

CONSULTATION

 

There has been consultation with various Council staff in the determinations made in respect of the applications made under Council's Document Access Policy, the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes. As this Report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The officers responsible for preparation of this Report are Council's Freedom of Information Officer - Stephen Waller, telephone 9847 6749, and the Administration Coordinator – Natalie Cook, telephone 9847 6011.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC29/10 be received and noted.

 

2.   The documents outlined in Attachment 2 of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC29/10 remain exempt from release under Council's Document Access Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robyn Abicair

Manager - Administration Services

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Document Access Policy

2.View

Schedule of Documents 20 March 2010 - 14 May 2010

3.View

Processing Volume for Document Access Applications

 

 

File Reference:           F2004/07298

Document Number:   D01401248

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. CC30/10

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

8        LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL - 2010 REPORT AND DETERMINATION   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Sections 248(2) and 249(3) of the Local Government Act allow Council to fix the annual fee payable to Councillors and the additional annual fee payable to the Mayor. The annual fees must be fixed in accordance with the relevant annual determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal. Should Council choose not to fix the annual fees, the Act requires that the minimum fees, as determined by the Tribunal, will be automatically applicable.


Section 239 of the Act requires the Tribunal to determine the categories of councils and mayoral offices at least once every three years. The Tribunal last undertook a fundamental review of the categories of councils in 2009.  In undertaking the review, the Tribunal found that there was no strong case to significantly alter the current categories of councillor and mayoral offices or to move individual councils between categories.  While the groupings remain unchanged, the Tribunal decided to apply descriptive titles to the categories which more accurately reflect the nature of the differences between the various groups.

 

Based on the Tribunal’s 2010 Report and Determination, it is recommended that Council note that it remains in the Metropolitan Centre Category (previously known as Category 1); and, as a consequence, approve a 3% increase in Councillor and Mayoral fees for the 2010/11 financial year.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with the 2010 Report and Determination of the Tribunal such that it can determine the amount of the annual fee payable to each Councillor and the additional fee payable to the Mayor for the 2010/11 financial year.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal – 2010 Report and Determination

 

A copy of the Tribunal’s 2010 Report and Determination is attached.

 

The Tribunal is established under Chapter 9, Part 2, Division 4 of the Local Government Act. In this regard, Section 239 of the Act states:-


(1)      The Remuneration Tribunal must, at least once every 3 years:

          (a)     determine categories for councils and mayoral offices, and

 (b)     place each council and mayoral office into one of the categories it has determined

 

         (2)      The determination of categories by the Remuneration Tribunal is for the purpose of enabling the Remuneration Tribunal to determine the maximum and minimum amounts of fees to be paid to mayors and councillors in each of the categories so determined.

Section 241 of the Act states:-


The Remuneration Tribunal must, not later than 1 May in each year, determine, in each of the categories determined under section 239, the maximum and minimum amounts of fees to be paid during the following year to councillors (other than mayors) and mayors.


The Tribunal’s Report advises that the next review of council categories is scheduled to take place in 2012. Until then, the Tribunal does not expect to make changes within categories unless there is a significant change in the role and responsibilities of individual councils. 

 

The Report also advises that its 2010 review of the minimum and maximum fees applicable to Councillors and Mayors in each Category has had regard to issues raised in submissions received from the Local Government and Shires Associations and individual councils. In this regard, 22 submissions were received from individual councils, the majority of which supported an increase in the fees payable to councillors and mayors.  The submissions also addressed the following issues:

 

·    Integrated planning and reporting reform

·    Planning reforms, including the Joint Regional Planning Panels

·    Interstate comparisons

·    Categorisation

·    Workload

·    Attracting high quality candidates to nominate for election to local government.

 

The Tribunal has provided responses to the issues raised and they are included in the attached Report and Determination.

 

In calculating a proposed increase to fees as part of its 2010 review, the Tribunal has also had regard to broader issues, such as the improving economic conditions as Australia emerges from the Global Financial Crisis and key economic indicators, including the Consumer Price Index and the Labour Price Index.

 

With respect to all of the above, and taking into account the views of their own assessors, the Tribunal has recommended that an increase of 3% in the fees for Councillors and Mayors is appropriate for the 2010/11 financial year.

 

Impact on Council

 

As a result of the Tribunal's determination, Hornsby remains placed in the Metropolitan Centre Category (previously known as Category 1) of councils together with Bankstown, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Gosford, The Hills, Hurstville, Lake Macquarie, Liverpool, North Sydney, Randwick, Ryde, Sutherland, Warringah, Willoughby and Wyong Councils.

 

The fees determined by the Tribunal as being applicable to the Metropolitan Centre Category of councils are:

 

Councillor

Mayor

Annual Fee

Minimum - Maximum

Additional Fee

Minimum - Maximum

$10,880 - $20,320

$23,130 - $53,980

In 2009, when Council last determined the fees payable to Councillors and the Mayor, it resolved to pay fees at the maximum level which applied to Metropolitan Centre councils.

 

Having regard to the Tribunal's statement in its 2002 Report that "Gosford, Hornsby, Liverpool, Sutherland and Randwick certainly warrant payment of the maximum fee for Category 1 and their activities have been taken into account in determining the maximum fee for Category 1", it is considered appropriate that the maximum fee for the Metropolitan Centre Category continue to be paid to Councillors and the Mayor for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.

 

This would result in each Councillor receiving an annual fee of $20,320 and the Mayor receiving an additional annual fee of $53,980 for the 2010/11 financial year.

 

BUDGET

 

An amount of $258,600 has been included in the 2010/11 Budget for the payment of fees to Councillors and the Mayor. On the basis that Council will continue to pay the maximum fees applicable to the Metropolitan Centres Category of councils for the 2010/11 financial year, the funds allocated in the Budget are sufficient to cover the cost of Councillor and Mayoral fees.

 

POLICY

 

This Report has been prepared having regard to the 2010 Report and Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal consulted with various organisations as part of their 2010 review.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council’s strategic themes.


This Report simply provides Council with information and seeks endorsement of standard expenditure according to legislation and within current budgetary considerations. It does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment and as such no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Administration Services Branch - Mrs Robyn Abicair who can be contacted on 9847-6608.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council note the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal's 2010 Report and Determination proposes no change to the categories of councils and consequently Hornsby Shire Council will remain in the Metropolitan Centre Category.

 

2.   In accordance with Section 248 of the Local Government Act, and the 2010 determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal, an annual fee of $20,320 be paid to each Councillor for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.

 

3.   In accordance with Section 249 of the Local Government Act, and the 2010 determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal, an additional annual fee of $53,980 be paid to the Mayor for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robyn Abicair

Manager - Administration Services

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - 2010 Report and Determination

 

 

File Reference:           F2004/06043

Document Number:   D01404463

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. CC31/10

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

9        HORNSBY SHIRE COUNCIL SOCIAL PLAN 2010-14 - SERVICE PLAN FOR 2010/11   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

At the November 2009 Ordinary Meeting, Council considered Report No. CC91/09 and adopted the Hornsby Shire Social Plan 2010-2014 and associated six month Service Plan (January 2010 to June 2010). The Social Plan is a four year (strategic) document that informs Council’s operational (service) plans that focus on improving community/social outcomes. These plans are reviewed annually in order to ensure that Council is responsive to the changing needs of the community.

 

The attached draft Service Plan for 2010/11 has now been developed to reflect community needs as detailed in the adopted Social Plan 2010-14. The Plan will be delivered within the budget currently allocated to the Community Services Branch. In this regard, it is noted that the delivery of a number of activities nominated in the Plan are dependant on grant funding.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to recommend the adoption of the draft Hornsby Shire Social Plan 2010-2014 – Service Plan for 2010/11.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Hornsby Shire Social Plan 2010-2014 was developed to integrate with the adopted Management Plan 2009/10-2011/12, and seeks to address five elements of sustainability as identified in the Planning Web™: governance; ecology; economy; society and culture; and human habitat. These key elements (themes) are each broken down into three goals. The Social Plan 2010-2014 documents how Council’s community service programmes contribute towards the achievement of these elements and goals.

 

Service Plans are developed annually to guide service provision in line with other corporate documents, reporting timeframes and legislative requirements. It is noted that many of the issues identified during the community consultation process used to inform the Social Plan 2010-2014 are beyond the control or responsibility of local government. The Division of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines suggest that these issues be documented and referred to the appropriate level of government for action. The Service Plan (or operational plan) for the 2010/11 financial year is attached to this Report. Community consultation occurred in May/June 2009 to inform the development of this Service Plan.

 

In addition to the May/June 2009 consultations, further consultations have been held with the community regarding the issue of community safety. Given the emphasis placed on these safety issues by the community, a number of actions have been included in the 2010/11 Service Plan that address community safety initiatives. One point to note in relation to community safety is that the World Health Organisation has been reviewing the accreditation process associated with a region receiving “safe community” status. As such, it is recommended that a watching brief be maintained on this issue and, once the review of the accreditation process has been completed, the matter of Hornsby Shire applying for safe community status be referred to Council for further consideration.

 

BUDGET

 

The 2010/11 Service Plan will be delivered within the budget currently allocated to the Community Services Branch. It should be noted that the delivery of a number of activities nominated in the Plan are dependant on grant funding.

 

POLICY

 

The 2010/11 Service Plan reflects the contents of the previously adopted Social Plan 2010-2014.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Internal

 

Manager, Community Development – Lisa Cahill

Manager, Children’s Services – Narelle Misko

Coordinator, Community Development – Sharon Mizzi

Coordinator, Community Development – Jayne Boardman

Coordinator, Community and Cultural Facilities - Samantha Colbert

Community Development Officer - Malcolm Wallace

Community Development Officer - Jian Zhao

Community Development Officer - Sue Downing

Community Project Officer – Denis Mageropoulos

Team Leader, Home Modification and Maintenance Service - Jenny Ryan

Community Development Officer – Kim Harris

Community Development Officer – Dolina Hall

Aboriginal Child and Family Strategy Community Facilitator - Adam Cryer

 

External

As detailed in the Appendix of the attached draft Social Plan (2010-2014)

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Triple Bottom Line Councils strategic themes.

 

As a triple bottom line assessment has been undertaken on the Social Plan when it was adopted by Council in November 2009, no further assessment is required at this time.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager, Community Services Branch, Mr David Johnston. He can be contacted on 9847-6800. For further information, please contact the Manager Community Development – Mrs Lisa Cahill, who can be contacted on 9847-6779.

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Hornsby Shire Council Social Plan 2010-2014 – draft Service Plan for 2010/11, as attached to Report No. CC31/10, be adopted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Johnston

Manager - Community Services

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Draft Hornsby Shire Social Plan – Service Plan 2010/11

 

 

 

 

File Reference:           F2009/00727

Document Number:   D01405440

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. CC32/10

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

10      OUTSTANDING COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council’s Policy dealing with Council Resolutions requires that a quarterly report be prepared for Council’s consideration detailing resolutions which have not been substantially implemented within two months of being adopted, and the reason/s why they are not finalised.  The attachment to this Report provides the necessary updates.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to provide details in respect of resolutions adopted by Council up until the end of February 2010 which have not been substantially implemented.

 

DISCUSSION

 

In accordance with the Council Resolutions Policy, each Division has carried out a review of any resolutions adopted by Council up until the end of February 2010 which have not been substantially implemented.  This has resulted in the attached spreadsheet being prepared which shows a list of outstanding resolutions per Division.  Details are provided about the:

 

·    Report Number and Name

·    Outstanding Resolution

·    Latest Status

·    Comment

 

In preparing Outstanding Council Resolutions reports, the General Manager and Executive Managers give special consideration to any long outstanding resolutions and, where such resolutions exist, provide comments about whether further action may be unlikely or impractical.  In these cases, Council may wish to determine whether or not the item should be removed from further reporting in the Outstanding Council Resolutions report. 

 

BUDGET

 

Any budgetary implications are included in the relevant report or in the “Latest Status” column of the attached spreadsheet.

 

POLICY

 

This Report meets the requirements of Council’s Policy dealing with Council Resolutions.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Each Division with outstanding resolutions has contributed to the preparation of this Report.

 


TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Any Triple Bottom Line considerations are detailed in the relevant section of individual reports.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Administration Coordinator – Natalie Cook who can be contacted on 9847 6011.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC32/10 be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robyn Abicair

Manager - Administration Services

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Outstanding Resolutions - as at 28 February, 2010

 

 

File Reference:           F2005/00112

Document Number:   D01407902

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. CC35/10

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

11      INVESTMENT AND BORROWING REPORT - PERIODS ENDING APRIL AND MAY 2010   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council is provided with a monthly report summarising current general economic conditions which may have an impact on investment returns. The report includes schedules detailing Council's investments and borrowings and highlights the monthly and year to date performance of the investments. In this regard, investments are generally held for the medium to long term.

 

This Report indicates that the total investment income for the period ending May 2010 was $1,610,000 compared to the 2009/10 budgeted income for the same period of $1,066,000. Of the year to date investment income earned, 40% relates to externally restricted funds such as Section 94, and is required to be allocated to those funds.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to advise Council of funds invested in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act; and details as required by Clause 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council's Investment Policy and Strategy (which was  reviewed by Council at its 8 April 2009 Ordinary Meeting).

 

DISCUSSION

 

Council's Investment Performance - May 2010

 

•     The At-Call and Term Deposits achieved an annualised return of 5.56% for the month compared to the benchmark of 4.5%.

 

•     NSW T-Corp Long Term Growth Facility achieved a marked to market return of -22.44% for the month compared to the benchmark of -33.37%. This fund has a 70% allocation to growth assets. Short term performance is expected to be volatile and the investment should be viewed over the longer term.

 

•     Floating Rate Notes (FRNs) are bonds that have a variable coupon equal to a money market reference rate. This FRN investment achieved an annualised return of 6.36% for the month compared to the benchmark of 4.51%. 

 

•     Direct investments in CDO’s achieved an annualised return of 5.54% for the month compared to the benchmark of 4.51%.

 

•     The Capital Guaranteed Notes achieved an annualised return of 0.36% for the month compared to the benchmark of 4.51%.  Due to poor performance over recent months the Capital Protected Notes coupons, with the exception of the Longreach PIU Fund, have not been accrued.

 

•     For total investments, the annualised return for the month is 3.69% compared to the benchmark of 3.05%; and the year to date return after fees is 4.12% compared to the benchmark of 3.95%.

The following statement, which was made on 1 June 2010 by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia in respect of the Bank’s decision on Monetary Policy is provided for Council’s information:

At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 4.5 per cent.

Since the Board last met, concerns about sovereign creditworthiness in several European countries have been a focus of financial markets. Investors have generally displayed a good deal more caution. As a result, equity prices have fallen and long-term government bond rates have declined outside of the countries most affected by the sovereign concerns. The Australian dollar fell sharply as part of this adjustment. Commodity prices have also softened, though those important for Australia remain at very high levels.

European policymakers have responded by assembling a large package to provide financing for the relevant countries for a period of time, stabilise bond markets and provide liquidity. They have also committed to action to bring budget deficits down and stabilise debt over time.

The effects of these various factors on the world economy will need to remain under review. At this stage, global growth is still expected to be at about trend pace in 2010. Conditions in Europe overall have been relatively weak, and the foreshadowed budgetary tightening will probably mean that this will continue, but growth is becoming more established in North America. In Asia, growth has continued to be quite strong and may need to moderate in the year ahead.

In Australia, with the high level of the terms of trade expected to add to incomes and demand, output growth over the year ahead is likely to be about trend, even though the effects of earlier expansionary policy measures will be diminishing. Inflation appears likely to be in the upper half of the target zone over the next year.

Consistent with that outlook, and as a result of actions at previous meetings, interest rates to borrowers are around their average levels of the past decade, which is a significant adjustment from the very expansionary settings reached a year ago. Taking all the available information into account, the Board views this setting of monetary policy as appropriate for the near term.

Borrowings

 

In respect of borrowings, the weighted average interest rate payable on loans taken out from 2000 to 2009, based on the principal balances outstanding, is 6.69%. The Borrowings Schedule as at 31 May 2010 is attached for Council’s information.

 

BUDGET

 

Total investment income for the year to date period ending May was $1,610,000. The budgeted income for the period was $1,066,000. Of the investment income, approximately 40% relates to external restrictions (Section 94) and is, therefore, restricted.

POLICY

 

All investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council's Investment Policy and Strategy. 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Initial investments and reallocation of funds are made where appropriate, after consultation with Council's financial investment adviser and fund managers.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes. As this Report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

Council's Investment Strategy does recognise, however, the desirability of "ethical" or "socially responsible" investments and has invested in such products in the last year. These are referenced in the Investment Portfolio in Attachment 1. Council will continue to review new products, subject to funds availability and asset allocation and credit quality parameters contained in the Strategy.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager, Financial Services - Glen Magus. He can be contacted on 9847 6635.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the contents of the Executive Manager’s Report No. CC35/10 be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Magus

Manager - Financial Services

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

Attachments:

1.View

HSC Investment Portfolio as at 30 April 2010

2.View

HSC Investment Portfolio as at 31 May 2010

3.View

HSC Borrowings Schedule as at May 2010

 

File Reference:           F2004/06987

Document Number:   D01409446

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. CC37/10

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

12      DEBTORS TO BE WRITTEN OFF AT 30 JUNE 2010   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

At the Ordinary Meeting held on 10 July 1996, Council resolved that the General Manager be delegated authority to write off debts up to $1,000 for any one debtor that is considered irrecoverable. Debts over $1,000 and considered irrecoverable may only be written off by resolution of Council.

 

Each year, Financial Services Branch staff assesses outstanding debtors to determine those debts which are bad, doubtful or recoverable. Debts considered bad are either recommended for write off by the General Manager under delegated authority or submitted to Council for approval to write off. Doubtful debts are provided for in the financial records in contrast to bad debts which are written off.

 

It is recommended that Council write off debts considered bad in 2009/10 totalling $4,526.94 (see Schedule A); and note debts considered bad in 2009/10 totalling $9,294.97 which will be written off under the General Manager's delegated authority (see Schedule B).

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this Report is to seek Council approval, in accordance with Clause 213 of the Local Government (General) Regulation, to write off debts considered bad in the 2009/10 financial year.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The amount of bad debts written off by Council in accordance with Clause 213 of the Local Government (General) Regulation since 2002/03 are:

 

            2002/03           $15,915

            2003/04           $ 4,674

            2004/05           $  2,043

            2005/06           $  5,528

            2006/07           $  7,295

            2007/08           $21,165

            2008/09           $  4,636

 

The fact that a debt is written off under Clause 213 does not prevent Council from taking future legal proceedings to recover the debt.

 

For 2009/10, it is recommended that Council write-off $4,526.94 in relation to unpaid rates and charges of the Hornsby Bowling Sports and Recreation Club Ltd (Rates Assessment Number 418905). Details in respect of the debt are provided below:

 

·    Recovery action has been taken by Council staff in addition to the usual rates instalment and reminder notices – a Letter of Demand was issued on 18 May 2007; followed by a Statement of Liquidated Claim (Summons) on 24 October 2007; and a letter forewarning proceedings to enter into a Default Judgement on 1 April 2008

 

·    In a letter dated 30 July 2008, Grant Thornton Recovery and Reorganisation advised that on 26 May 2008 they were appointed as Administrators of the Hornsby Bowling Sports and Recreation Club Ltd

 

·    It is noted that on 9 July 2008, the Hornsby Bowling Sports and Recreation Club Ltd entered into a License Deed with the Police Community and Youth Clubs NSW Limited (PCYC), which allowed the PCYC to occupy and trade from the premises. Unlike rates levied on privately owned land, rates levied on Crown Land held under a lease for private purpose are not a charge on the land as per Section 550(3) of the Local Government Act 1993. As the Hornsby Bowling Sports and Recreation Club is located on land owned by the Crown, Council is an unsecured creditor for outstanding rates prior to 26 May 2008

 

·    Grant Thornton Recovery and Reorganisation paid the rates in respect of the property for the period 26 May 2008 to 9 July 2008

 

·    Proof of debt form has been provided to Grant Thornton Recovery and Reorganisation. In a letter dated 28 August 2008, they advised that it is unlikely that any distribution will be made to unsecured creditors

 

It is also recommended that for 2009/10, Council note debts totalling $9,294.97 which will be written off under the General Manager's delegated authority.

 

BUDGET

 

The 2009/10 budget for bad debts written off was set at $4,000.  Net available working funds will decrease by the amount of debts written off above the budgeted amount.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

This Report has been prepared in consultation with Council's debt collection agency - Recoveries and Reconstruction (Australia) Pty Ltd; Council's Team Leader, Revenue Section; and other relevant Council staff.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes.

 

As this Report does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.


 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is Glen Magus, Manager Financial Services. He can be contacted on 9847-6635.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Write off debts considered bad in 2009/10 totalling $4,526.94 (as detailed in Schedule A attached to Report No. CC37/10).

 

2.   Note debts considered bad in 2009/10 totalling $9,294.97 which will be written off under the General Manager's delegated authority (as detailed in Schedule B attached to Report No. CC37/10).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Magus

Manager - Financial Services

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

 

 

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Abandonment of Debtors Sch A

2.View

Abandonment of Debtors Sch B

 

 

File Reference:           F2004/06978-02

Document Number:   D01410784

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN25/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

13      LILIAN FRASER GARDEN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS 2010 - 2012   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Lilian Fraser Garden is located on the corner of Lawrence and Bellamy Streets, Pennant Hills. It is managed by the Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden Committee, comprising five to ten residents and a councillor. The committee is governed by a constitution adopted by Council in 1995, revised in 2002, 2008 and again in 2010. The constitution sets the term of the committee at 2 years, which expires on 1 July 2010. A new committee needs to be appointed for a 2 year term to continue the work of the previous committee.

 

Successive committees have done an excellent job of managing Lilian Fraser Garden and the report recommends an expression of appreciation to the outgoing committee members.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

To recommend the appointment of a new committee and to provide delegated authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act to that committee.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Nominations for Committee

 

When Council called for nominations for the new committee, the outgoing committee members, who have operated very successfully over their two year term, were invited to renominate. Invitations were also extended to members of the Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden and an advertisement was placed in local papers seeking nominations for the available positions.

 

As a result of the above processes, the following people have nominated for the committee:

 

·      Lachlan Barr

·      Susanne Barr

·      Jagdish Chaudhry

·      Miriam Chapman

·      Syliva Clark

·      Michelle Healey

·      Nick Healey

·      Jenny Whiting

 

The constitution also requires that a councillor be appointed to the committee as Council's representative. Councillors Browne and Hutchence were nominated at Council's Ordinary Meeting of 9 September 2009.

 

The role of the committee is set out in the constitution (Attachment 1). The committee regularly sends Council minutes of its meetings and its annual report for Council's information.

 

The committee carries out functions related to the management of the garden on behalf of Council, using both funds provided by Council for that purpose and other funds that the committee may raise. As such, it is appropriate that authority be delegated to the Committee under Section 377 of the Local Government Act to manage the Lilian Fraser Garden in accordance with the constitution of the Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden.

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budget implications to this report.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications to this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The outgoing Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden Committee have been consulted regarding the nominations for the new committee. Letters were sent to all Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden inviting them to join the committee. Advertisements were placed in the Advocate and the Northern District Times asking for new committee members.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line (TBL) attempts to improve Council decisions by being more accountable and transparent on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes.

 

Working with our community

The nominated committee members are all local residents. Council staff regularly attend committee meetings and have a close working relationship with the committee managing the garden.

 

Conserving our natural environment

One of the central aims of the committee is the preservation of the heritage garden that Lilian Fraser created.

 

Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and services

This committee is designed to enhance the management of Lilian Fraser Garden whilst maintaining active community participation in the provision of this unique public reserve.

 

Fulfilling our community’s vision in planning for the future of the Shire

A committee of local, community members complies with the community's articulated visions in planning for the future of the Shire.

 

Supporting our diverse economy

Not applicable.

 

 

 

Maintaining sound corporate and financial management

The committee creates an equitable balance of responsibility between the Lilian Fraser Management Committee and Council.

 

Other Sustainability Considerations

Not applicable.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer for this report is Julia Morton, Parks Asset Officer, telephone 9847 6934, hours 8.30 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The following nominees be appointed to the Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden Committee for a two year term ceasing on 1 July 2012:

 

·            Lachlan Barr

·            Susanne Barr

·            Jagdish Chaudhry

·            Miriam Chapman

·            Sylvia Clark

·            Michelle Healey

·            Nick Healey

·            Jenny Whiting

 

2.   The existing delegated authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act be extended to the newly appointed Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden
Management Committee to manage the Lilian Fraser Garden in accordance
with the constitution of the Friends of Lilian Fraser Garden, with funds provided
by Council for that purpose and any other funds raised by the committee.

 

3.   Council express its appreciation to the outgoing committee members for their
unselfish community service and efficient operation of the garden during their
term of office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Friends of The Lilian Fraser Garden Committee Amended Constitution 2010

 

File Reference:           F2004/05898-02

Document Number:   D01413609

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN27/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

14      'NO NEW COAL POWER'- OPEN LETTER TO NSW PARLIAMENT
   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This report is provided in response to a request from Greenpeace Australia Pacific for Hornsby Council’s support to stop further approvals of coal fired power stations in New South Wales. Greenpeace Australia Pacific is seeking signatories on an open letter to NSW Parliament titled ‘No New Coal Power’ (Attachment 1).

 

The proposed new power stations at Bayswater and Mt Piper will create over 22 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution annually and in turn increase the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15%.

 

Currently there are 34 supporting organisations who have signed the open letter to NSW Parliament. These include five NSW councils and the North Shore Climate Action Group.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

This report seeks a Council Motion which provides Hornsby Shire Council’s support to Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s open letter to the NSW Parliament to stop further approvals of coal fired power stations.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Hornsby Council’s Sustainable Energy Strategy outlines Council’s intent to continue its greenhouse reduction actions in order to manage future increases in energy costs associated with current and future Council assets, along with providing the community with a positive example of what can be done in order to reduce our demand on fossil fuels. Council has chosen to ‘lead by example’ in order to motivate residents, businesses and other NSW councils to reduce their energy consumption.

 

Council’s has resolved (Report No. EN11/09) to cap its total greenhouse gas emissions at 7,070 tCO2 by 2020 (a 30% reduction below 1995/96 emission levels).  Any reduction in corporate greenhouse gas emissions will result in a decline in Council’s reliance on fossil fuels.

 

Attachment 1 refers to a study prepared by the Institute for Sustainable Futures. This study has been enclosed as Attachment 2 for your information. The study basically contends that that future energy demand can be more effectively met through a combination of energy efficiency improvements and distributed energy – with significantly lower greenhouse emissions and at significantly lower cost.

 

Conclusion

 

Hornsby Council has a strong commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and in turn its reliance on fossil fuels. Support of the Greenpeace request would be consistent with this position.

BUDGET

 

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

 

POLICY

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation was required to complete this report.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council’s strategic themes.

 

As this report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is Adriana Genova, Acting Environmental Sustainability Coordinator, Environmental Sustainability and Health, telephone 9847 6572, between 8.30am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council indicate its support of the Greenpeace open letter to the NSW Parliament to stop further approvals of coal fired power stations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Open Letter to NSW Parliament 'No new coal power'- Greenpeace Australia Pacific

2.View

Sustainable Futures Report

 

File Reference:           F2004/08773

Document Number:   D01416144

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN22/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

15      RENEWAL OF MONTVIEW OVAL CLUB HOUSE LEASE TO HORNSBY HEIGHTS SPORTS CLUB   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Following a mayoral meeting on 14 April 2010, an application has now been received from representatives of the Hornsby Heights Sports Club Inc. (‘The Club’), seeking the approval of Council, as Reserve Trust Manager, to accept their late request to exercise the option to renew their lease of the major portion of the clubhouse building located at Montview Parade Oval Hornsby Heights for a further ten years.

 

Taking into consideration the comments provided in the DISCUSSION section of this report, Council officers are of the opinion that Council’s interests would not be adversely affected if The Club’s late request was supported.

 

The endorsement of Council, as Reserve Trust Manager, is now sought to grant the lease extension application submitted by The Club on the basis outlined in the RECOMMENDATION of this report.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this report is to provide for Council’s consideration, as Reserve Trust Manager, information and comments concerning the application received from the Hornsby Heights Sports Club Inc. respect of its lease of the clubhouse building at Montview Parade Oval, Hornsby Heights and to seek a determination in respect of the lease extension request.

 

DISCUSSION

 

In 1999, Council as the Reserve Trust Manager entered into a lease of the two storey Clubhouse and amenities building (containing approximately 282 square metres) located within Crown Reserve R76788 Montview Parade Oval, 6 Montview Parade, Hornsby Heights with The Club for a term of 10 years with one option to renew for a further term of 10 years at a fixed rental of $50 per annum. The generous lease term had regard to the level of capital invested by The Club in the construction of the structure and its ongoing maintenance responsibilities during the lease term.

 

The Club’s lease covered the entire upper storey of the building and some space on the ground floor, with the remainder of the ground floor being used for Council storage, sportsground amenities and public toilets.

 

The initial 10 year lease expired on 30 May 2009 and, due to changes in the committee membership, The Club was not aware of its need to exercise the option to enter into a further ten year lease of the Clubhouse in line with the provisions of its lease. The Club has remained in occupation of the Clubhouse on a holding over basis. Following a mayoral meeting held on 14 April 2010 with management representatives of The Club and Council officers to discuss this oversight, The Club has now submitted an application seeking Council’s consideration to accepting a late request to the granting of the further 10 year lease. Officer comments concerning the application received from The Club are detailed below.

In accordance with the provisions of lease The Club was required to provide six months prior notice of its intention to exercise the option to obtain a further 10 year lease of the Clubhouse building.  In failing to provide such notification Council has the opportunity, should it desire, to negotiate fresh terms and conditions to apply to any future lease with The Club. It should be noted that certain issues have come to light during the initial term of the lease in respect of the use of a certain section of the Clubhouse for child care services and the holding of a liquor licence by The Club over the Clubhouse premises.

 

The Club has advised that it has relinquished its liquor licence and that the child care function no longer exists. It is considered that fresh lease terms should prohibit the holding of a liquor licence except of a short term temporary nature and only with written Council consent. The building is not suitable for sub-leasing for child care purposes and this use should be prohibited. 

 

Discussions will be held with the Club about the portion of the building’s ground floor formerly used for child care, however it is expected that it will no longer form part of the long term lease to the Club and will instead revert to its original purpose as a change room for community sport, available under temporary licence to various sports organisations, including the Club.

 

In line with the current guidelines applying to the leasing of Crown Land by Reserve Trusts, the minimum rental is assessed at $408.00 per annum with annual increases in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.

 

Having regard to the comments above and the information contained within the application received from The Club, Council officers are of the opinion that, while the granting of a further ten year lease of the Clubhouse is supported, any further lease should incorporate certain amendments to reflect Council’s current management practices in respect of sportsgrounds. In this regard, it is recommended that the General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate a fresh ten year lease of the clubhouse building, taking into consideration the issues mentioned above and the terms of the existing lease agreement.

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budgetary implications associated with this report.

 

POLICY

 

This report has been prepared with consideration given to Council’s Lease/Licence of Council Land Policy, the Code for the Lease/Licence of Council Land and Buildings to Community Groups and the District 3 and 9 Generic Community Land and Crown Reserves Plan of Management.

 

CONSULTATION

 

There has been consultation with Hornsby Heights Sports Club Inc and officers of Council’s Administrative Services Branch in the preparation of this report.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council’s strategic themes.

 

As this report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officers are Mr Rod Drummond, Manager Commercial Property, telephone 9847 6589 and Mr Peter Kemp, Manager Parks and Landscape, telephone 9847 6792, between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT: 

 

1.   Council, as Reserve Trust Manager, support in principle the granting of a further ten year lease of sections of the amenities building at Montview Oval to the Hornsby Heights Sports Club Inc. generally in accordance with the terms and conditions contained within this report.

 

2.   The General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate with Hornsby Heights Sports Club Inc. the terms of a new ten year lease of sections of the amenities building at Montview Oval generally in accordance with the matters raised in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2004/07923

Document Number:   D01402423

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN24/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

16      DELEGATIONS UNDER THE NOXIOUS WEEDS ACT   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Previous advice from the NSW Department of Industry and Investment (which oversees the Noxious Weeds Act) resulted Council adopting amended procedures for delegations under the Noxious Weeds Act (the Act).  This report outlines the standard delegation procedures for this Act and recommends delegations accordingly for two new staff members.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this report is to issue delegations to new staff in accordance with advice from the Department of Industry and Investment.

 

DISCUSSION

 

NSW Department of Industry and Investment recommends councils issue noxious weed delegations to all staff involved in enforcing the provisions of the Act.  The recommendation is based on a view that casts some doubt over the legitimacy of relying solely on the general delegation power contained in s377 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993.  While the matter is not free from doubt, the Department of Industry and Investment considers it prudent for councils to use s68 of the Act in delegating the various noxious weed enforcement functions under the Act. 

 

The proposed delegations adopt the above approach as well as preserving the option for the Council and General Manager to confer powers under the Local Government Act to avoid any potential legal challenges.  The proposed delegations include a number of alternates.  This will enable the continuation of noxious weed enforcement in the absence of any individuals.

 

The General Manager's delegation relating to Noxious Weeds was last reviewed by Council in May 2009 (Report No. GM05/09).  This report is seeking to retain all previous appointments and delegations to the specifically authorised officers, but to rescind appointments and delegations issued to Jamie Wright and Sean Allison who have resigned.  It is proposed that these appointments and delegations be issued to the new staff members, Donna Fitton and Robyn Cox.

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budgetary implications to this report.

 

POLICY

 

This report is in line with Council's current procedures for delegations pertaining to the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

 


CONSULTATION

 

These delegations have been discussed with Council's Internal Auditor.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes.

 

As this report is providing delegations to new staff and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The Responsible Officer is Diane Campbell, Manager of Bushland and Biodiversity, who can be contacted on 9847 6903, Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 5pm

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council retain previous appointments and delegations under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 but rescind previous appointments and delegations that pertain to Jamie Wright and Sean Allison.

 

2.   Delegation be given to Donna Fitton and Robyn Cox to carry out Council's duties and responsibilities under the following sections of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993:

 

a.   Section 18a -Prior Notice of Weed Control Notice.

 

b.   Section 20 -Noxious Weed Control by Local Control Authority after Weed Control Notice not complied with, Subsection (2) Authority to carry out such work be given to Donna Fitton, Robyn Cox and contractors working on behalf of Council.

 

c.   Section 45 -Notice of Entry the power to give occupiers notice prior to entry to be given to Donna Fitton and Robyn Cox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2004/08897-02

Document Number:   D01408147


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN26/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

17      TREE REMOVAL AT 21A VICTORIA ROAD, PENNANT HILLS   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This report recommends that Council refuse the application for consent to remove one (1) Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) located in the rear yard of the property at 21A Victoria Road, Pennant Hills. The applicant has appealed previous decisions to refuse consent by the Parks and Landscape Team and has requested that the matter be referred to an Ordinary Meeting of Council.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The owner of the property seeks Council approval to remove one Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum).

 

DISCUSSION

 

An initial application was lodged on 18 September 2009, requesting permission to remove one Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) from the rear of the subject property.  Reasons for the request were falling branches as well as heightened fears about damage to property and people under the tree. An inspection was undertaken by Council’s Tree Management Officer, Mr Doug Foster, who refused the application, finding the tree to be in good health and condition at the time of inspection.  Approval was granted to prune the tree by up to 15% of the foliage area.

 

On 8 December 2009 the applicant requested a second inspection be undertaken on the tree. Additional reasons put forward for the removal of the tree were safety concerns for their son from dropping branches. The applicants have advised Council that there son has a significant cognitive disability which severely affects his ability to identify and avoid risks to his safety. He is not allowed to play unsupervised at the front of the property and thus spends the majority of his play in the rear yard under the tree.

 

The second inspection was carried out by Council’s Tree Management Coordinator, Mr Dennis Hoye. It was noted that pruning authorised from the first inspection had not been undertaken. Permission to remove the tree was again refused.

 

On 21 May 2010 an e-mail was sent to Councillor Andrew Martin by the applicant requesting that the matter be put to the next available Council meeting.  No arborist report or supporting evidence has been submitted by the applicant to support the removal of the tree.

 

Council’s Tree Management Plan, Section 3.3 states in part: “approval will generally not be given for tree pruning or removal where there are unsubstantiated fears about tree health and condition, including the natural development of minor deadwood throughout the canopy of a tree or concerns relating to the natural growth habit of the tree in terms of height”.

 

Council officers have assessed this tree to be in good health, of very attractive appearance and worthy of preservation.  Council’s arborists are of the view that there is currently insufficient cause to justify removal.  However, should the tree cause damage, for example as a result of a storm, Council could be liable, especially if this occurred in the near future following refusal of consent.  This is always the situation which must be considered when assessing trees.  Council’s guidelines allow a tree to be removed in the case of safety concerns if there are signs that the tree is diseased, dying or dangerous.  None of these signs were evident.

 

All tree assessments were made by visual external inspections - internal, underground or aerial investigations were not undertaken.

 

The tree is not mapped in a ecological endangered community, however the tree is considered to be part of the surrounding remnant Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) vegetation community which is listed as Critically Endangered Ecological Community under both the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW). The tree also forms part of a corridor of Blue Gums in the area. Please refer to the attached photographs (Attachments 1-7).

 

BGHF community also consists of individual and small clumps of trees with no native understorey. These clumps and individual trees provide important connectivity for the community and fauna.  Consultants Peter and Judy Smith, in supplying expert advice to Council on the flora of the Shire, have not mapped small clumps of trees as they don't necessarily view them all to be considered as restorable bush land. However this does not mean that they are not considered BGHF remnants.  It is very clear when looking at the aerial photos that this clump/tree is part of the surrounding community and as such should be considered to be part of BGHF.

 

Today BGHF is among the most threatened ecological communities in Australia with less than 4.5% of its pre-1788 distribution remaining, and less than 1% in conservation reserves.

 

The remaining remnants of BGHF are located in the local government areas of Ku-ring-gai, Ryde, Hornsby, Parramatta and Baulkham Hills.

 

THE TREE

 

Tree details

Species:                          Eucalyptus saligna

Common Name:             Sydney Blue Gum

Height:                            24 metres

Crown spread:                13 metres

DBH:                    900mm       

Age Class:                      Mature

 

The subject tree is a Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) and was assessed as being in good health and condition at the time of inspection and worthy of preservation. The tree is located at the rear of the property and is located approximately 3.5 metres from the dwelling foundations. There is an uncovered deck at the rear of the property which is located beneath the tree.  Sydney Blue Gums are indigenous to the area, and this tree has grown in an area which can sustain a tree of this size.

 

The tree exhibits two co-dominant stems at three metres and its canopy is typical of a Sydney Blue Gum. The tree has excellent vigour, good health, the foliage colour and density are normal and there are few epicormic shoots with no evidence of dieback or major branch loss. There is no sign of insect or fungal damage to the tree. Two lower limbs have previously been pruned, possible at the time of construction of the dwelling.

BUDGET

 

There are no budgetary implications arising from this decision.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications arising from this decision.

 

CONSULTATION

 

There is no requirement for consultation in this matter.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line attempts to improve decisions by being more accountable and transparent on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council’s strategic themes.

 

As this report provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is Doug Foster, Tree Management Officer, Parks and Landscape, telephone 9847 6546, between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council refuse consent to remove one Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney blue gum) located in the rear yard of 21A Victoria Road Pennant Hills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Photo 1

2.View

Photo 2

3.View

Photo 3

4.View

Photo 4

5.View

Photo 5

6.View

Photo 6

7.View

Photo 7

8.View

Aerial Map

 

File Reference:           TA/926/2009

Document Number:   D01415998

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN30/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

18      GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABLE YIELDS STUDY   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Sustainable Total Water Cycle Management Strategy (STWCMS), endorsed by Council on the 24 August 2005 (EN37/05), required that an assessment of groundwater resources needed to be undertaken.

 

As a result, Hydro Tasmania Consulting was commissioned to undertake a groundwater study to investigate sustainable aquifer yield and assess the risk/impacts to groundwater contamination from land-use in the Hornsby Local Government Area (LGA). The study included desktop assessments, field observations and stakeholder consultation. A copy of the study can be found on Council’s website and typing the following in the search function: Hornsby Council Groundwater Sustainable Yields Study.

 

The study quantitatively assessed the potential sustainable yield of groundwater in the LGA. This assessment concluded that 442.5ML was available for extraction.

 

The study identified groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE’s) including ‘hanging swamps’ and springs, and assessed the present status of groundwater quality in the LGA. Potential contaminants associated with current land uses were identified and a risk matrix was developed. Aquifer vulnerability maps were developed with a risk assessment that ranks the potential for aquifer contamination from various land use types.

 

A literature review was conducted of national and international best practice for groundwater management to assist in the development of a groundwater management framework.

 

The findings showed that a lack of geographical data and hydrogeological studies over the LGA limit a determination of local groundwater flow direction. Also, further research and fieldwork is needed to define aquifer recharge areas before they can be determined with confidence.

 

In conclusion this study has addressed actions pertaining to groundwater management in regards to the STWCMS. It has provided a valuable base to develop a groundwater management framework within the LGA. It has further raised the potential of managing aquifers for the irrigation of Council’s open space.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

This report provides an overview of a groundwater study which addresses actions pertaining to groundwater management in regards to Council’s Sustainable Total Water Cycle Management Strategy.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The groundwater study evaluated aquifer types, quantified the condition and location of groundwater and assessed areas of environmental risk.  

 

Aquifers

Hawkesbury Sandstone is the predominant rock formation underlying the LGA and constitutes the main aquifer. The top of the aquifer occurs between 20 and 80m below ground level (blg).  Bores are generally between 40 and 200m deep, reflecting the great depth of the Hawkesbury Sandstone aquifer.

 

A relatively thin veneer of Ashfield Shale is preserved atop the Hawkesbury Sandstone on ridges in the southern and south-western parts of the LGA.  Where saturated, it is considered to be a fractured rock aquifer.  Where thick, it can confine the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

 

A significant channel sand deposit of Tertiary-age, termed the Maroota Sand, occurs in the north-west of the LGA.  The deposit has a maximum drilled thickness of 50m.  This sand hosts an unconfined ‘shallow aquifer’, approximately 3.6km² in area.  Perched water-tables occur above clay layers within this shallow aquifer.

 

Groundwater Usage

Of the 203 registered bores, most are located in semi-rural lands in the western parts of the LGA, with another cluster in the far north-west (Maroota), and are designated as private bores licensed to take water for:

 

·    Domestic

·    Stock

·    Irrigation

·    Horticulture

·    Farming

 

More than 80% of these bores extract groundwater from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.  ‘Major’ abstractors licensed to take more than 15ML per annum are irrigators, and the extractives industry at Maroota.  Minor abstractors (2ML or less) tend to be solely for stock and domestic use.

 

Groundwater Recharge

Regionally, surface water levels broadly mirror the topography. The hydraulic gradient and direction of groundwater flow within the Hawkesbury Sandstone is believed to be to the south-southwest.  Recharge zones and groundwater flow directions have been determined on a regional basis.

 

Locally, the direction of groundwater flow (and hydraulic gradient) will be influenced by such factors as proximity to steep topography, and major joint sets with local flow cells discharging locally as springs. Standing Water Levels (SWL) are predominantly 20 – 40 m below ground level (bgl) but range up to 140 m bgl. 

 

Mean annual rainfall ranges from approximately 800 to 1,180 mm across the catchment.  Evaporation exceeds rainfall for the vast majority of the year.  Nearly 30 events during the past 100 years have recorded more than 100 mm of rainfall over 24 hours.  Although no study has researched rainfall-recharge threshold values for the onset of aquifer recharge in the region, all these events would have almost certainly recharged the aquifers. The mean annual total has reduced in recent years and dry years have occurred more recently in the mid-1990s and 2006.  Aquifer depletion through natural discharge undoubtedly would have occurred during these periods.  This drought dominated regime (DDR) may have deleterious consequences to aquifer recharge.  Broadly, the recharge zone for the Hawkesbury Sandstone Aquifer may be defined by the extensive outcrop of Hawkesbury Sandstone between the Hawkesbury River to the north, the Cowan Creek system in the east and the major watershed defined by the Northern Road in the west. 

 

Groundwater Quality

The Hawkesbury Sandstone groundwaters are predominantly sodium-chloride type (indicating long residence times), acidic and soft, with some calcium bicarbonate waters.  Fresh water (significantly less than 2,500µS/cmEC) occurs in the Hawkesbury Sandstone aquifer and more saline (greater than 2,500µS/cmEC) occurs in the Wianamatta (Ashfield Shale) aquifer. The Maroota Sand aquifer has low salinity (TDS less than 750µS/cmEC).  Nitrate concentrations in both the Maroota Sand and the deeper (shallow Hawkesbury Sandstone) aquifer at Maroota are elevated, probably indicating local shallow groundwater pollution.

 

Sustainable Yield

Sustainable yield is defined as “the groundwater extraction regime, measured over a specific timeframe that protects groundwater and dependent ecosystems and allows acceptable levels of impact to groundwater environments”.

 

The estimate of sustainable yield for the LGA was determined by adopting a similar methodology and approach to that used in the development of the presently operating water sharing plan (WSP) for the ‘Kulnara-Mangrove Mountain Groundwater Sources’; the northern continuation of the Hawkesbury Sandstone aquifer in the LGA.

 

A sustainable groundwater yield was calculated for future allocation in the Hornsby LGA of 442.5ML. This is based on:

 

·       a recharge proportion of 12 % of rainfall

·       a global recharge amount of approximately 3,513ML/year over the LGA (based on a mean annual rainfall of 1,000mm)

·       30% volume of recharge is reserved for the environment (i.e. 2,459ML per annum)

·       total groundwater abstraction already licensed (based on groundwater volume allocations) is 611.5ML.

 

The gross sustainable yield of the Maroota Sand area is 224ML per annum.  The current amount being withdrawn by the extractive industries in the Maroota area is not known, so this value does not account for licensed abstractions.

 

The current level of demand for groundwater in the LGA is thought to be significantly less than the sustainable yield of the aquifer.  In addition none of the groundwater sources that are present in the LGA are presently embargoed in terms of new groundwater licence applications.  However, there is a possibility that, given the density of bores in some areas (especially Dural-Galston-Arcadia), there may be local groundwater level draw down ‘hot-spots’. It is likely that not all these registered bores are being used and that natural recharge greatly exceeds extractions, but the Drought-Dominated Regime (DDR) coupled with pumping may exacerbate Standing Water Level (SWD) declines in such areas.  Consequently detailed groundwater studies of such areas as Dural-Galston-Arcadia may be justified.

 

Aquifer Discharge and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs)

Discharge from the Hawkesbury Sandstone aquifer is thought to be via spring seepages (and minor pumping abstraction from bores). These spring discharges are head-driven and they commonly fluctuate in response to rainfall recharge.  The majority are likely to be low-volume, perennial flows.  High-level gradients from specific water-bearing zones may discharge as river baseflows where the relative topographic elevations are favourable.  Generally, however, owing to the great depth of the water-table, regionally the waterways may ‘lose’ water to the aquifer.

 

Local discharge from the Maroota Sand occurs via evapotranspiration, evaporation and springs seepage, via drainage into the underlying Hawkesbury Sandstone, and via open-pit and bore abstractions.  Discharge from this aquifer is inferred to be almost equal to the average annual recharge.

 

The role of groundwater in supporting GDEs is not well understood in the LGA, but it is thought to be important for many of the wetlands in terms of recharge and discharge.  The main management target for the GDE’s in the LGA is to preserve spring flows and associated creek baseflows by assigning water to the environment via the control of groundwater abstraction and understanding the impacts of DDRs on the baseflow.

 

Existing water sharing plans in NSW have identified wetland GDEs as a ‘high priority’ and included rules for their protection.  The Draft Water Sharing Plan (DWSP) requires that:

 

·       terrestrial ecosystems are protected by a 200m setback for new bores from any sandstone escarpment where hanging swamps or base flow to rivers are supported by groundwater

·       the upper 30m of new bores must be cased so that shallow aquifers cannot be directly tapped

·       surface water environmental flow releases in the Hawkesbury River be protected by groundwater ‘cease to pump

·       no bores are allowed within 40m of the ‘high bank of the River’.

 

Vegetation types dependent on groundwater in the LGA may be associated with springs, hanging swamps and wetlands.  Vegetation may be directly water-dependent (especially the ‘hanging’ or ‘sandstone swamps’) and indirectly through groundwater interaction providing base-flows to waterways, and discharges to terrestrial and estuarine vegetation.  It is probable that woodlands (eucalypts, mahogany and myrtle) particularly within the river valleys and floodplains tap shallow water-tables via deep root systems. Grassland and heath may also tap shallow water-tables in lowland areas.  Mangroves often rely on freshwater flushing that may emanate from groundwater discharge in the estuarine environment.  Salt marsh also benefits from contact with freshwater to flush salts.

 

Hanging Swamps’ in the LGA are found atop the sandstone plateau and along bedding ledges on sandstone valley sides; associated with perched groundwater systems.  They tend to occur in friable sequences of the Hawkesbury Sandstone (or junction of the Ashfield Shale with Hawkesbury Sandstone).  They are probably spring-fed, manifesting as relatively large soakages (rather than discrete springs).

 

The total extent of ‘hanging swamps’ previously mapped in the LGA is 10.4 ha ranging in size from 200 m2 to 1 ha.  Groundwater discharges observed during the field inspection (August, 2009) were rare, small but noticeable perennial ‘seeps’ that support ferns and sedges.  These seeps discharge from permeability contrasts in the Hawkesbury Sandstone exposed in steep-sided valleys.

 

The “Maroota Sand Swamp Forest” is a GDE reliant on seepage from the Maroota Sand aquifer.  This forest is listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 as an endangered ecological community.

 


Land Use and Aquifer Vulnerability

Land use across the LGA is diverse ranging from urban and peri-urban in the south through rural in the south-west and west to natural bush-land in the north and north-east.  Approximately 10 % of the LGA is used for urban development, 14.6 % for rural purposes, 4.8 % for open space, and the bulk of the remainder is National Park or Nature Reserve.  The major commercial centres are Hornsby, Epping, Pennant Hills, Carlingford, Thornleigh and Dural.  The industries operating in these industrial precincts are classified as ‘light’ and, as such, pose only a limited risk to groundwater contamination. The Hornsby Creek catchment has been identified as being significantly degraded in terms of ecosystem health.

 

A portion of the LGA is served by domestic on-site wastewater systems; mainly septic tanks.   This includes required buffer distances from surface waters, intermittent and permanent streams, dams, bores, etc.  Stormwater infrastructure is prevalent in the urbanised areas with Catchment Remediation Rate (CRR) devices.

 

In rural areas horticulture is a widespread land use ranging from semi-rural blocks through hobby farms to commercial enterprises including nurseries, cut-flower growing, orchards, vegetable plots, improved pasture cattle grazing, equestrian activities and poultry growing.

 

At the extractive industries operation at Maroota, mining has intersected the Maroota Sand aquifer.  There is potential risk of contamination to this shallow aquifer; most likely from fuel spills from sand dredges and, possibly from the on-site disposal of seepage. Contaminated land occurs where current and previous land uses have resulted in leaching of chemicals or hazardous materials into soils or groundwater.

 

Generally, the main causes of water pollution in the LGA include stormwater runoff from existing and developing residential areas, commercial and industrial areas, roads and railways and sewage discharges from treatment plants and ineffective onsite sewage systems, mining operations, agricultural practices, and hazardous spills.  The generation of, and accession to the water-table, of nitrate and pathogens probably pose the greatest environmental risk to groundwater in the LGA.

 

An aquifer contamination risk assessment was completed by means of aquifer vulnerability mapping.  High risks of contamination from subsurface sources would be present where inappropriate land use coincides with mapped areas which are more vulnerable (hydrogeologically) to contamination.  Due to its more intensive land-use, where the Hawkesbury Sandstone aquifer underlies Hornsby Heights, Mount Ku-ring-gai and Maroota there is a higher risk for potential contamination than the rest of the LGA.  However, apart from seepage from septic tanks, and possibly underground storage of fuels, there is a low level of contaminant hazard as there is no heavy industry within the LGA.

 

On an area basis, the aquifers underlying the LGA have an inherently low vulnerability.  Intrinsically, there is a risk of contamination along the floodplains of the Hawkesbury River where springs may discharge base-flow, and the Hawkesbury River’s headwaters and tributaries, especially Berowra Creek, where elevated springs may discharge.  In these areas the vulnerability score is ‘high’ as are other isolated areas, namely ‘ridge-top slopes’ where exposed outcrops of jointed Hawkesbury Sandstone may allow rapid infiltration of concentrated recharge.  Conversely, a ‘very low’ score predominates over areas where the Ashfield Shale and associated clay soil cover inhibits infiltration.  Along the Hawkesbury

River floodplain the presence of acid sulphate-inducing soils presents an environmental threat to groundwater.

 

Aquifers with short recharge paths (direct access to a water table via fractures) are vulnerable to accidental or deliberate contamination.  Those areas with highest infiltration of rainfall, stormwater and other aqueous fluids (e.g. septic tank effluent) are the most vulnerable to pollution.  Periodic major flooding can exacerbate the potential for direct contamination of groundwater.  In terms of point-source contamination, improperly constructed and abandoned, leaky, privately owned bores have the potential to act as conduits for the transport of contaminants to the aquifer.

 

Based on available hydrogeological data no immediate actions are required to reduce the current level of potential contaminant risk to groundwater supplies.

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budgetary implications.

 

POLICY

 

This report addresses the goals and actions in the Sustainable Total Water Cycle Management Strategy.

 

CONSULTATION

 

This project has been evaluated in consultation with the Water Catchments Team and Mr Michael Bickford, Engineer, Works Division.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council’s strategic themes.

 

As this report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is Mr Bob Stephens, Executive Manager, Environment Division, telephone 9847-6686

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report EN30/10 be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2009/00209

Document Number:   D01417903

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN31/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

19      DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING MIKE KENNY OVAL, GREENWAY PARK   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

A draft Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) has been prepared for consideration regarding a proposed move by Pennant Hills Australian Football Club (‘the Demons’) from Ern Holmes Oval (‘EHO’) to Mike Kenny Oval (‘MKO’) to play Australian Football League (‘AFL’) home matches and for training. The other parties to the MoU are AFL NSW/ACT and Westbrook Bulldogs Junior Australian Football Club (‘the Bulldogs’).

 

The primary purpose of the proposed move is to provide the Demons with a ground more suited to AFL, and to better utilise Council’s grounds. The move will involve a significant upgrade to floodlights at MKO together with alterations and additions to the amenities building. The MoU provides for a substantial funding contribution from the three AFL organisations.

 

It is submitted that the MoU is in the public interest.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The objective of the report is to obtain Council’s endorsement of the draft MoU.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Demons have been located at EHO in Pennant Hills Park for several decades, sharing the ground during the winter season with Pennant Hills Junior AFL Club. The ground is of substandard size for senior AFL. This has caused problems in the staging of home matches for the Demons and the club may stand to lose home matches if the situation is not satisfactorily resolved. Investigations to enlarge EHO have indicated only marginal opportunity and substantial cost. Council has consistently advised the Demons to instead consider relocation to MKO. The recent involvement of AFL NSW/ACT has been instrumental in progressing matters to the point where the draft MoU has been produced. The Demons have indicated preparedness to relocate to MKO under the terms of the draft MoU.

 

MKO, also known as Greenway Park number one oval, at Cherrybrook, is a substantially larger ground, designed for senior AFL. Since the ground was opened more than 20 years ago, it has been used by the Westbrook Bulldogs AFL Club for junior AFL only, shared during the winter season with Greenway Giants Baseball Club (‘the Giants’) which also uses the ground for summer competition.

 

Negotiations between Council and the abovementioned parties have produced agreement about sharing the ground for competition and training. There would be sufficient ground time available for all users on a shared allocation indicated in Schedule A of the MoU.

 

All parties mentioned improvements to the floodlights and additions and amendments to the amenities building as being important. The floodlights would be upgraded to provide 200 lux illumination, meeting Australian Standards for semi-professional night matches (important to the Giants) and providing in excess of Australian Standards for training lighting but to a standard increasingly being provided for metropolitan level AFL.

 

The proposed building works to the upper floor of the amenities building would combine four cramped change rooms into two; provide additional storage space for each of the three users, and an enlarged canteen. The existing awning will be extended to preserve an undercover spectator area. An indicative arrangement for the new works is provided in Schedule B of the MoU.

 

The cost sharing arrangements are discussed below under the heading ‘Budget’. Funding contributions are being made by the parties to the MoU, and a clause in the MoU provides an agreed schedule of asset valuation in the unlikely event that Council were to consider it necessary to discontinue the allocation of the ground to any of the parties.

 

The proposal also affects the users of the adjoining Greenway Park No. 2 oval, these being the Pennant Hills Rugby League Club and Cherrybrook Little Athletics Club. The lower floor of the amenities building, facing No. 2 Oval, contains a meeting room which in recent years has been used exclusively by these two clubs. The Demons have expressed a desire to use the meeting room one night per week and during home matches. This has been discussed with the two existing users and the MoU contains a clause where all the users are expected to come to agreement on this point. Council can make a determination in the event that agreement is not reached.

 

The Demons play in the AFL Sydney competition, and is a feeder club to the Sydney Swans. The club is one of the few playing within Hornsby Shire in any code that features in such a high-level competition. Others include the Northern District Cricket Club and the Northern Tigers Soccer Club.

 

The Demons have been a successful club in recent years, featuring in the finals held during September and winning the championship on several occasions. Normally, allocation of grounds for winter season use is until the end of August only, but the Demons will require a September training venue if successful. Due to intensive use by the Giants, MKO will not be available, and it has been agreed to allow AFL training on Greenway Park No. 2 Oval when required. The Parks and Landscape Team is confident that this can be achieved without undue disruption to the other users.

 

In recognition of the need for some building alterations to improve conditions in the lower floor of the amenities building, funds have been set aside in the 2010/11 budget to install an awning and enlarge the canteen. The existing users of No. 2 Oval have not been asked to contribute to the proposed building improvements to the lower floor.

 

Pennant Hills Junior AFL Club would remain at EHO with its current allocations for training and matches.  The training and match day allocations provided to The Demons would be vacated. This is of great potential benefit to Council in its drive to meet shortfalls in supply of sportsgrounds in the southern part of the Shire. In effect, it frees up approximately 50% of the time that a large sportsground is used during the winter season. If the value of this available time was converted to a 25% proportion of the cost of a new sportsground (including land cost), it could be as high as $6 million.

 

Although Council staff has not approached any potential new user of EHO, approaches have already been made by two clubs, Beecroft Rugby Club and Pennant Hills Soccer Club. Both clubs may have substantive cases for the allocation, and attention will turn to this aspect of the matter following adoption of the MoU.

BUDGET

 

As the benefit to be provided by the building approvals was recognised before the MoU was drafted, partial budget provision was made in the 2009/10 financial year, allowing some of the work to be completed during June 2010. Subject to tenders and quotes being received, the remainder of the work will be funded following adoption of the draft budget for 2010/11, and will be substantially augmented by State and Federal Grants and a contribution from AFL.

 

Council has received a grant of $120,000 from the Commonwealth’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program for the floodlights, which may cost up to $275,000. The Giants secured a NSW Government Community Partnership grant of $50,000 towards the floodlights. AFL NSW/ACT, the Demons and the Bulldogs are jointly contributing $55,000 to the floodlights and $10,000 to the building works.

 

POLICY

 

The proposed MoU would assist Council to better provide sports facilities by optimising the use of scarce existing facilities. This is consistent with Council’s adopted Sports Facilities Strategy (2006). The strategy aims to optimise the use of existing facilities and the adoption of the MoU would achieve that aim for the parks involved.

 

CONSULTATION

 

All users of Greenway Park have been consulted.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

The MoU is an agreement for the use of Council facilities and foreshadows certain improvements to be made to MKO. The improvement works will be required to undergo a separate Review of Environmental Factors before proceeding. A triple bottom line summary is not required for this type of report.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer for this report is Mr Peter Kemp, Manager Parks and Landscape, who can be contacted on 9847 6792.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council provide in-principle support to the draft Memorandum of Understanding for Mike Kenny Oval.

 

2.   The General Manager be provided with delegated authority to negotiate detailed terms of agreement consistent with this report.

 

3.   The General Manager be authorised to execute any documents in relation to this matter deemed appropriate by Council's legal advisors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Draft Memorandum of Understanding - Greenway Park

 

 

File Reference:           F2004/09527-02

Document Number:   D01418184

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. EN32/10

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

20      TREE REMOVAL - 163 MIDSON ROAD, EPPING   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This report recommends that Council refuse the application for consent to remove a Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) located in the rear yard of the property at 163 Midson Road, Epping. The applicant has appealed previous decisions to refuse consent by the Parks and Landscape Team and has requested that the matter be referred to an Ordinary Meeting of Council.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The owner of the property seeks Council approval to remove a Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark).

 

DISCUSSION

 

The applicant purchased the property on 22 February 2010.  An initial application was lodged on 24 March, 2010, requesting permission to remove three trees, including a large Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) from the middle of the rear of the subject property. The large Ironbark is about 40 metres from the existing house and some 9 metres from the neighbouring northern property. Reasons for the request were that:

 

a.        The tree was on a large lean

b.        The tree swings dangerously in stormy/windy weather

c.        The tree was diseased

d.        The neighbours have expressed their concern

 

An inspection was undertaken by Council’s Tree Management Officer, Mr Doug Foster, who refused the application, finding the tree to be in good health and condition at the time of inspection.  Approval was granted to remove the large lowest limb on the northern side of the tree and further pruning by up to 10% of the foliage area.  Approval was also granted to remove one Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) located at the rear left corner of the property and one Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) located at the front of the property.

 

On 20 May 2010 the applicant requested a second inspection be undertaken on the tree. Additional reasons put forward for the removal of the tree were safety concerns for life and property. An arborist report was submitted with the request to support the removal of the tree for structural reasons including internal decay within an open wound at 5m from the ground. The arborist report recommended that the large E. paniculata was structurally unsound and should be removed as soon as possible.

 

The second inspection was carried out by Council’s Tree Management Coordinator, Mr Dennis Hoye.  Pruning authorised from the first inspection had not been undertaken.  The arborist report was taken into consideration and discussion with the applicant’s arborist was undertaken by Mr Hoye to clarify the findings.

 

The applicant’s arborist uses a method developed by Mattheck and Breloger to determine the degree of likelihood of a tree failing due to a defect in the trunk of the tree.  A critical point is reached when the loss of strength results in the failure or breakage of the stem where the decay has occurred.  Mattheck and Breloers’ formula is based on the theory of bending stress in a hollow cylinder: the ratio of the thickness of the sound wood to the radius of a notional defect.  It is generally agreed that a ratio of 0.30 represents the threshold for action. That is, if the defect is 70% of the diameter of the tree or the remaining sound wood is only 30% of the diameter.  Most arborists consider a figure of 35% sound wood to be the level at which action should be considered and 30% to be the figure where action must occur.  Action could include drastic crown reduction or tree removal.  With most trees, drastic crown reduction is only seen to be appropriate for rare situations where a single tree has high heritage or environmental significance as this action requires long term and expensive management.

 

Council’s arborists feel that the Mattheck and Breloger method is inappropriate for this particular tree as the method does not adequately account for open cavities.  The applicant’s arborist report clearly states that there is an open wound on the main stem and as a consequence the equation used to support the removal of the tree is not appropriate.  This view is supported by Dennis Marsden, a highly respected consulting arborist and part time TAFE lecturer.  He confirmed that if the tree has an open wound the notional defect equation “cannot” be used to ascertain the degree of cavity in the trunk of the tree.

 

Notional defects do not have openings at the exterior of the trunk whereas the large E. paniculata has an open cavity.  A tree with an open cavity does not require as much sound wood as a tree with a notional defect.  This is because the tree reinforces the open cavity with extra strong wood around the opening.  If the tree has an open cavity, there needs to be a lot more decay before the tree is condemned.

 

Permission to remove the tree was again refused.

 

Council’s Parks and Landscape Manager, Mr Peter Kemp, advised Mr Singh via email on 28 May 2010 that Council had found the results of the arborist report to be insufficient and that further testing (Resistograpth – Smart Drill) may be required to gain a more accurate result.  Otherwise he may request to have the matter heard at Ordinary Meeting of Council. Mr Singh has requested that the matter be heard at an Ordinary Meeting of Council.

 

Council officers have assessed this tree as being one of the larger in the locality, in good health and worthy of preservation.  In Council’s assessment there is currently insufficient cause to justify removal.  However, should the tree cause damage, for example as a result of a storm, Council could be liable, especially if this occurred in the near future following refusal of consent.  This is always the situation which must be considered when assessing trees. Council’s guidelines allow a tree to be removed in the case of safety concerns if there are signs that the tree is diseased, dying or dangerous.  None of these signs were evident.

 

All tree assessments by Council Officers were made by visual external inspections - internal, underground or aerial investigations were not undertaken.

 

THE TREE

 

Tree details

Species:                          Eucalyptus paniculata

Common Name:             Grey Ironbark

Height:                            20+ metres

Crown spread:                20+ metres

DBH:                    1200mm     

Age Class:                      Mature

 

The subject tree is a Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) and was in good health and condition at the time of inspection and worthy of preservation. The tree is located at the rear of the property approximately 40m from the dwelling and is located approximately 9 metres from the neighbouring northern property.

 

It is assumed that the tree originally self seeded or was planted by a previous owner. The site is not located within an Ecological Endangered Community.

 

The tree exhibits a minor cavity under the lowest large branch to the north. The tree is on a slight lean to the north with the majority of the canopy located on that side.

 

The tree was is in good health and vigour at the time of inspection, the foliage colour and density are normal and there are few epicormic shoots with no evidence of dieback or major branch loss. There are some moderate signs of insect and fungal damage located under the lowest branch within an open wound in the tree.

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budgetary implications arising from this decision.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications arising from this decision.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Dennis Marsden, a highly respected consulting arborist and part time TAFE lecturer, was consulted.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line attempts to improve decisions by being more accountable and transparent on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council’s strategic themes.

 

As this report provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is Doug Foster, Tree Management Officer, Parks and Landscape, telephone 9847 6546, between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council refuse consent to remove a Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) located at the rear of 163 Midson Road, Epping and permission be granted to remove the lowest large limb on the northern side and crown thin the tree by 10% of the foliage area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Environment Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Applicant's Arborist Report

2.View

Location Maps

 

 

File Reference:           TA/348/2010

Document Number:   D01427455

    


 

Executive Manager's Report No. WK43/10

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

21      2010/2011 IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - CIVIL WORKS   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This report brings together the various improvement programs being undertaken by the Design and Construction Branch of Works Division for 2010/2011. These programs include Local Roads, Footpaths, Traffic Facilities, Drainage, Civic Improvements, Catchment Remediation and other special projects. The timing of the various works under these programs is shown in the included Gantt Charts now presented for Council's adoption.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this report is to provide information as to the timing of the various Improvement Programs being undertaken by the Design and Construction Branch and for Council to adopt the Program.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Construction works are carried out under Council's various Improvements Programs namely: Local Roads, Footpaths, Stormwater Drainage, Traffic facilities and special projects. In addition to this, the Design and Construction Branch is involved in other works such as Catchment Remediation projects for the Water Catchments Team of the Environment Division and civil works such as car park construction for the Parks and Landscape Team.

Individual projects have been financed from Divisional allocations in accordance with the 2010/11 budget which is the subject of another report at this meeting.  If complementary grant funding identified for a project alters, the program will be reviewed and reported to Council in a subsequent quarterly review.


Following is a copy of the Gantt charts for the programs listed above.








BUDGET

 

The program is in accordance with the annual operating plan for 2010/2011.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The program has been developed in consultation with the respective program managers.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

A Triple bottom line summary is not required for this report as this is done at an individual program level.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is the Manager, Design and Construction branch Mr Rob Rajca telephone 9847 6675 between 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Civil Works program for 2010/11 as shown in the included Gantt Charts be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell Woodward

Executive Manager

Works Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

File Reference:           F2004/05959-02

Document Number:   D01423219

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. WK33/10

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

22      WORKS DIVISION 2010/11 ASSETS BRANCH PROGRAMS   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Works Division's Assets Branch Programmes for 2010/11 are presented for Council's adoption in accordance with Council's Policy POL00110, “Civil Infrastructure – Maintenance”.

 

Programmes presented include:

 

·    Works Maintenance Programmes for the Northern and Southern Districts (managed by the Roads and Drainage Section and work undertaken by the Field Operations Section and contractors).

·    Works Maintenance Programme for Road Pavements (managed by the Pavements Section and work undertaken by the Field Operations Section and contractors).

·    Stormwater Management Programme (managed by the Asset Management Section and work undertaken by the Design & Construction Branch, consultants and the Field Operations Section).

·    Asset Management Systems Implementation Programme (managed by the Asset Management Section and work undertaken by consultants and contractors).

 

Gantt charts showing the various activities and their proposed timing, as well as details of upgrading works are included in the programmes presented in the bound document titled, "2010/2011 Assets Branch Programmes".

 

OBJECTIVE

 

This report presents the Works Division's Assets Branch Programmes for 2010/11 for Council's adoption.  The following programmes are presented:

 

•           Northern and Southern Districts Works Maintenance Programmes

•           Pavement Works Maintenance Programmes

•           Stormwater Management Programme

•           Asset Management Systems Implementation Programme

 

BACKGROUND

 

The replacement cost of Council's civil assets is estimated at $460 million.  It is hence essential that these assets are maintained by the most efficient and effective methods.  The works maintenance programmes proposed have been formulated in accordance with strategies which were developed to meet the objectives of the various programmes in the Delivery Program for 2010 - 2014.

 

The maintenance of Council’s civil assets by the Works Division’s Assets Branch is managed and undertaken by the various sections within the Assets Branch, contractors and consultants:

 

Programmes

Programme managed by:

Works undertaken by:

Northern and Southern District Works Maintenance Programmes

Roads & Drainage Section

Field Operations Section and Contractors

Pavement Works Maintenance Programmes

Pavements Section

Contractors and               Field Operations Section

Stormwater Management Programme

Asset Management Section

Field Operations Section, Contractors & Consultants

Asset Management Systems Implementation Programme

Asset Management Section

Contractors and Consultants

 

PROPOSED 2010/11 PROGRAMMES

 

The Works Division 2010/11 Assets Branch Programmes are in a bound document, dated June 2010, presented to Council under separate cover.  This document outlines the proposed programmes, including various upgrading works, based on the funds allocated in the draft 2010/11 Budget to be adopted by Council in June, 2010.

 

The proposed funding allocation for civil infrastructure maintenance in the draft 2010/11 Budget is $12,142,000.  The breakdown for the various programmes is tabulated below:

 

Programme

Funding Allocation for 2010/11

Northern and Southern District Works Maintenance Programmes

$  6,123,000

Pavement Works Maintenance Programmes

$  2,750,000

Stormwater Management Programme

$     272,000

Asset Management Systems Implementation Programme

$  2,997,000

Total for Civil Infrastructure Maintenance

$12,142,000

 

NORTHERN DISTRICT WORKS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMMES

(A Ward and Part B Ward)

 

Gantt Chart A

 

Road Shoulder Maintenance

      Routine Maintenance

      Upgrading (Stabilisation and Flush Seal or Asphaltic Concrete)

 

Unsealed Road Maintenance

      Routine Maintenance

      Urban Unsealed Road Upgrading

 

Stormwater Drainage Maintenance

      Routine Drainage System Checking/Repair

      Minor Repairs (kerb inlets, pits, pipelines, channels)

      Minor Repairs (kerb & gutter)

      Minor Upgrading (kerb inlets, pits, pipeline, and channel stabilisation)

 

Footpath Maintenance

      Routine Maintenance

      Minor Footpath Repairs

 

Foreshore Facilities Maintenance & Upgrading

      Routine Inspection/Maintenance

      Upgrading/ Reconstruction

 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT WORKS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMMES

(Part B Ward and C Ward)

 

Gantt Chart B

 

Road Shoulder Maintenance

      Routine Maintenance

      Upgrading (Stabilisation and Flush Seal or Asphaltic Concrete)

 

Stormwater Drainage Maintenance

      Routine Drainage System Checking/Repair

      Minor Repairs (kerb inlets, pits, pipelines, channels)

      Minor Repairs (kerb & gutter)

      Minor Upgrading (Kerb inlets, pits, pipelines, and channel stabilisation)

 

Footpath Maintenance

      Routine Maintenance

      Upgrading/Reconstruction

      Minor Footpath Repairs

 

PAVEMENT WORKS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMMES

(Northern and Southern Districts)

 

Gantt Chart C

 

Pavement Heavy Patching

      Suburb groupings

 

Pavement Rehabilitation

      Suburb groupings

      Regional Roads

 

Flush Seal Resurfacing

      Primer Seals  - Stabilised Pavements

      C170 Seals - One (1) suburb grouping

      Poly Seals - One (1) suburb grouping

      Regional Roads

 

Pavement Surface Rejuvenation

      Suburb groupings

 

Zubri Program

      Shire wide

 

Profiling Program

      Regional Roads

      Suburb groupings

     

Asphaltic Concrete Resurfacing

      Regional Roads

      Suburb groupings

 

Pothole Repair

      12 monthly periods

     

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

 

Gantt Chart D

 

Major Drainage Works

      Hornsby Creek Catchment SWIP: Hornsby CBD Stage 1 - Water Street to Hunter Street

      SWIP Preconstruction Activities

 

Minor Drainage Works

      Design

      Community Consultation/Design Finalisation

      Construction

            Royston Parade, Asquith - Drainage Upgrading

            22 Boronia Avenue, Beecroft - Drainage Upgrading

            Oaklands Avenue, Beecroft - Drainage Upgrading

 

Major/Minor Drainage Projects List

      Update Priority Lists incorporating FMA requirements

      Scoping of high priority projects

 

Floodplain Risk Management

      Storm Inundation Record review and update

      Floodplain Management Authorities Conference

      Floodplain Risk Management Plan Development

 

Stormwater Catchment Management Plans

      General Review of completed SCMPs

 

Other Stormwater Management Activities

      Planning Division Referrals with respect to DAs and s149 Certificates

      State of Environment Report with respect to Stormwater Management

      Urban Runoff Management Code Review

      Various Minor Drainage Correspondence Matters

 

ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

 

Gantt Chart E

 

 Pavement Management System (PMS) Implementation

      PMS Model Refinement

      PMS Maintenance and Update

      Pavement Management Strategy Development/Refinement

 

PIPEPAK (DRAMS-Drainage Asset Management System) Implementation

      GPS/Condition Data Audit

      PIPEPAK (DRAMS) Development

Drainage Asset Management Strategy Development 

 

Footpath Management System (FMS) Implementation

      FMS Maintenance and Update

      FMS Development

 

DISCUSSION

 

Council's policy on maintenance programmes requires that maintenance be undertaken in accordance with programmes adopted by Council.

 

Where works in the maintenance programmes are in Heritage or Conservation areas, such maintenance works will require strategies that are different and more expensive than those adopted for normal works.

 

The achievement of the programmes presented is subject to weather conditions.  This is especially so with regard to Unsealed Road maintenance.

 

BUDGET

 

The Programmes presented are based on funds allocated in the draft 2010/11 Budget to be adopted by Council in June 2010.

 

POLICY

 

The Programmes presented meet the objectives of Council Policy POL00110, “Civil Infrastructure – Maintenance”.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation with the Environment and Planning Divisions was made in respect of Stormwater Management activities.  Intra Works Division branch consultation was made when preparing the programmes presented in this report.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line (TBL) attempts to improve Council's decisions by being more accountable and transparent on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council's Strategic Theme.

 

The TBL assessment summary for the 2010/11 Assets Branch Programmes presented is as follows:

 

Working with our community

 

This report and the Proposed 2010/11 Assets Branch Programmes that are being presented to Council for adoption are readily accessible and understandable to the community.  The programmes presented promote social equity by undertaking maintenance activities throughout the Shire on a priority basis.

 

Conserving our natural environment

 

The maintenance and upgrading activities in the various programmes facilitate the recovery of materials such as profiled materials during road resurfacing work and the winning of old concrete footpath slabs for recycling during footpath reconstruction work. Recycled profiled materials are used for unsealed road shoulder and unsealed road maintenance and recycled crushed concrete footpath slabs are used for some drainage maintenance works

 

Contributing to community developments through sustainable facilities and services

 

The maintenance and upgrading activities proposed will have a positive effect on the safety of the public environment, as well as the development of a healthy, equitable and active community.

 

Fulfilling our community's vision in planning for the future of the Shire

 

The maintenance and upgrading activities proposed will give special consideration to the heritage values of the natural and built environment such as heritage footpaths, bushland and trees, and gardens.  The well-being of the area's current and future population will also be promoted by maintaining facilities and assets that are safe for use by the community.

 

Supporting our diverse economy

 

Effective and efficient maintenance of Council's assets will have a positive effect on economic development in people wanting to live and work in the Shire.

 

Maintaining sound corporate and financial management

 

The maintenance and upgrading activities proposed will ensure that asset life-cycle costs are minimised and assets are able to function as planned during their life cycle.  The activities proposed will also protect the value of Council's assets.

 

Other Sustainability Considerations

 

Potential negative impacts from maintenance and upgrading activities have been identified in the Review of Environmental Factors for such activities and appropriate measures will be undertaken to avoid or minimise such impacts.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is the Manager, Assets Branch, Mr. Chon-Sin Chua, telephone No.  9847 6677.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT Council adopt the Works Division 2010/2011 Assets Branch Programmes contained in the bound document dated May 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell Woodward

Executive Manager

Works Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

2010/2011 Assets Branch Programmes – To Be Printed Under Separate Cover

 

 

 

 

File Reference:           F2004/05959-02

Document Number:   D01387154

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. WK35/10

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

23      2010/14 4-YEAR ROLLING STORMWATER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program was commenced by Council in 1989 as a result of severe storms which affected the Shire in 1988.

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 10 June 2009, considered Executive Manager's Report No. WK30/09 and adopted the 2009/13 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs.  The next 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs are presented for Council's consideration and adoption.  A 4-year rolling program has been prepared to tie in with the Delivery Program which comes into effect in 2012.

 

An amount of $500,000 has been allocated for Stormwater Drainage Improvement in the draft 2010/11 Budget.  The Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program has four components - Major Drainage Projects with proposed funding of $360,000, Minor Drainage Projects with proposed funding of $100,000, Preconstruction Works for major and minor drainage projects with proposed funding of $10,000, and Floodplain Risk Management with proposed funding of $30,000.

 

The recommended 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs, formulated on the Major Drainage Projects Priority List and allocated funding in the draft 2010/11 Budget and future budgets, is presented at Appendix A.  The Major Drainage Projects Priority List, reviewed following the February 2010 storms with the flow scores revised for some projects, is updated as at 31 May 2010 and is presented at Appendix B.  Details of Major Drainage Projects completed as at 31 May 2010 are presented at Appendix C.

 

OBJECTIVE

 

This report presents the recommended 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs at Appendix A for Council's consideration and adoption.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Drainage improvement projects are divided into major and minor drainage projects.  Major drainage projects are projects with an estimated cost exceeding $50,000 while minor drainage projects have estimated costs of $10,000 to $50,000.  Drainage projects with estimated cost of less than $10,000 are considered as drainage upgrading works and are undertaken under annual works maintenance programs.

 

Major and minor drainage projects as well as the associated preconstruction work and floodplain risk management activities are funded from the stormwater drainage improvement budget allocation.  Drainage upgrading works are funded from the works maintenance budget allocation.


The major drainage projects for all the 41 Council adopted Stormwater Catchment Management Plans (SCMPs) have been included in the priority list to produce an overall priority ranking.

 

Priority Ranking Methodology

 

The methodology adopted for the ranking of major drainage projects considered the following factors:

 

•     The number of properties potentially affected by stormwater inundation or benefiting from the works - the higher the number of properties to benefit from the proposed works, the higher the score.  Properties that have reported habitable area inundation were also given a higher weighting to give emphasis to this category of property.

•     The estimated project cost - the higher the project cost the lower the points scored.

•     The capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system to carry the 1 in 20 year and 1 in 100 year stormflows - a system with a 1 in 20 year existing capacity will have a lower score than one with a 1 in 5 year capacity.

 

For each category, a relative score ranging from 0 (least favourable) to 5 (most favourable) was attributed to each factor.  The individual scores were then aggregated to arrive at a total score out of a maximum of 15 and ranked accordingly.

 

Major Drainage Projects Priority List

 

The result of this overall priority ranking including scores for the various factors considered is presented at Appendix B - Major Drainage Projects Priority List.  A total of 107 future major projects are listed in priority ranking from the 41 adopted SCMPs.  It will be noted that some projects with habitable property inundation are lower in the overall rankings.  Generally, this is due to a higher project cost and resulting lower overall score.

 

Consideration has also been given to the packaging of projects that are in the same sub-catchments and which could reasonably be carried out more cost effectively.  This gives advantages in economy of scale, especially for items such as preconstruction work and site establishment costs.

 

The Major Drainage Projects Priority List was reviewed following the February 2010 storms. The review has resulted in the flow score being revised for some projects and has resulted in changes to the ranking for some projects.   The Major Drainage Projects Priority List, updated as at 31 May 2010, is presented at Appendix B.

 

Total funding requirements are estimated at some $54.0 million.  This represents a significant unfunded future commitment.  The recommended programs reflect current funding levels, which will require enhancement if these works are to proceed in a reasonable time frame.  Council will need to consider this issue in the context of its financial strategy and future works programs.

 

Major Drainage Projects Completed

 

Details of the 55 Major Drainage projects completed since 1989 are presented at Appendix C- Major Drainage Projects Completed - Status as at 31 May 2010.

 


RECOMMENDED 2010/14 4-YEAR ROLLING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

 

Funding of $500,000 has been allocated in the draft 2010/11 Budget for stormwater drainage improvement.  Funding allocations of $500,000 per year have been assumed for the 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 Programs.   

 

The Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program has four components - Major Drainage Projects with proposed funding of $360,000, Minor Drainage Projects with proposed funding of $100,000, Preconstruction Works for major and minor drainage projects with proposed funding of $10,000, and Floodplain Risk Management with proposed funding of $30,000.

 

The recommended 2010/11 Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program is presented as the first part of the recommended 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs presented at Appendix A.  The 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs have been formulated based on the Major Drainage Projects Priority List presented at Appendix B.   

 

Based on the current allocations and funds restricted for Stormwater Drainage Improvements, work on the previously adopted Hornsby CBD major drainage project will not commence in the foreseeable future.  The status of this project was reported to Council vide Report WK38/10 on 19 May 2010.  The investigation referred to in that report has commenced, and a strategy for funding this project will be reported to Council when the investigation is complete.  Alternative funding options for this project will be considered at this time in order to bring this adopted project on stream as early as possible.  

 

Further consideration should be given to increasing the funding under this program when formulating the 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 budgets with a view to bringing forward the commencement of other projects, the need for which was highlighted with the recent storms, reported to Council vide Report WK27/10 on 21 April 2010. 

 

Consideration may also need to be given to undertaking lower priority projects in order to make effective use of the funds now accumulated. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The ranking of the projects in the Major Drainage Projects Priority List is reviewed and updated annually as projects are funded and completed by Council. 

 

In addition, the State Government Flood Prone Land Policy and the Floodplain Development Manual impacts on the Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program.  In particular, consideration needs to be given to the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and its impact on properties.  This may affect the ranking of projects and cost of works.

 

In addition to the Major Drainage Projects, there are also Minor Drainage Projects with an estimated cost for each project between $10,000 to $50,000.  These projects are ranked using similar methodology as for the Major Drainage Projects and have funding of $100,000 per year.

 

Localised drainage issues and problems with an estimated cost of less than $10,000 are undertaken by the Assets branch, Roads and Drainage Section under the Northern and Southern District Works Maintenance and Upgrading Programs.

 


BUDGET

 

The adoption of the programs also indicates the funding allocations that should be considered for future budgets in 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14.  The actual funding allocations for the 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 Programs are indicative at this stage and will be subject to future adoption by Council in conjunction with future budget considerations.

 

In order to complete the programs within a reasonable time frame, funding consideration for the Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs in future budgets in excess of the current funding level of $500,000 would be desirable.  Alternative funding options should also be considered to bring the adopted Hornsby CBD Stage 1 and Stage 2 projects on stream as soon as possible.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The preparation of the 2010/14 4-year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs has been carried out in consultation with the relevant officers from the Environment, Planning and Works Divisions.  Reference has been made to the SCMPs to ensure compatibility and consistency.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is the Investigations Engineer, Michael Bickford, on 9847 6825.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

Triple Bottom Line (TBL) attempts to improve Council's decisions by being more accountable and transparent on social, environmental and economic factors.  It does this by reporting upon Council's Strategic Theme.

 

The TBL assessment summary for the 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs presented is as follows:

 

1.       Working with our community.

This report is readily available to the community.  Social equity will be considered as part of the process for the Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program (SDIP) projects.

 

2.       Conserving our natural environment.

The SDIP projects will lead to measures that minimise the impacts of stormwater on the natural environment.  It is anticipated that the design process will explore various measures, including storage and treatment of stormwater as well as better management of any impacts on bushland and environmentally sensitive areas.

 

3.       Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and

services.

Community consultation is part of the design process for SDIP projects and the resulting increased public awareness of flooding issues will contribute to community development.  Safety in the public environment will be improved through the development of the SDIP projects and their community participation required.  Council will cater to the physical access needs of the community as required.

 

4.       Fulfilling our community's vision in planning for the future of the shire.

The existing built and natural environment and their associated heritage values will be considered as part of the design process for the SDIP projects.  Improved stormwater management will promote the well- being of the population.

 

5.       Supporting our diverse economy.

Better management of stormwater will lead to reduced impacts and financial losses.  Any restrictive development controls arising are in the public interest in the long term, although they may have some impacts on locally affected owners.  There will be a neutral effect on local employment.

 

6.       Maintaining sound corporate and financial management.

The capital works proposed at this time address some of the normal life cycle costs of the stormwater drainage network.  There is a budget allocation in 2010/2011 for the Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program.  The implementation of the SDIP over time will involve significant cost to Council, however, it will provide a substantial benefit to the community.

 

7.       Other Sustainable Considerations.

There are no negative impacts from this proposal known at this stage.  However the SDIP process will identify impacts from stormwater and any mitigation measures required

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council adopt the 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs presented at Appendix A in Executive Managers Report No. WK 35/10.

 

2.   Council note the requirement for future funding of $500,000 per year to achieve these programs.

 

3.   A further report is prepared for Council on completion of the study to review the existing CBD drainage proposals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell Woodward

Executive Manager

Works Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Appendix A - Recommended 2010/14 4-Year Rolling Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs (2 pages)

2.View

Appendix B - Major Drainage Projects Priority List - Status as at 31 May 2010 (3 pages)

3.View

Appendix C - Major Drainage Projects Completed - Status as at 31 May 2010 (2 pages)

 

 

File Reference:           F2004/05959-02

Document Number:   D01387696

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. WK41/10

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

24      HILLS M2 MOTORWAY UPGRADE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

On Wednesday 19 May 2010 the then Minister for Transport and Roads, The Hon David Campbell MP, announced that the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the M2 Upgrade was on public exhibition until Monday, 21 June 2010. The environmental assessment reviews the potential environmental, economic and social impacts associated with the proposed upgrade of the Motorway from Windsor Road, Baulkham Hills to Lane Cove Road, North Ryde.

The M2 Upgrade project provides essential improvements to a key link in the Sydney Orbital Motorway network which would support the significant growth planned in Sydney’s North West and the ‘global arc’. The major features of the Upgrade project, which extends over 14.5 kilometres in length, involves:

 

·       Widening and/or provision of a third lane along sections of the eastbound and westbound carriageways between Windsor Road and Lane Cove Road

·       Provision of new on and off-ramps at Windsor Road, a new on-ramp at Christie Road and a new off-ramp at Herring Road

·       Widening and provision of a third lane eastbound and westbound in the Norfolk Road Tunnel;

·       Restoration of the westbound breakdown lane and provision of 3.5 metre wide traffic lanes between Lane Cove Road and Beecroft Road

·       Upgrade to the intersection of the M2 Motorway and Windsor Road, and the Christie Road and Herring Road intersections with Talavera Road

·       Upgrade to the M2 Motorway Intelligent Transport System

·       Removal of the Beecroft Road bus on and off-ramp

 

The Department of Planning has been requested to allow an extension of the deadline to allow Council a considered response to the Environmental Assessment. As no response was received by the closing date for the Council business paper, a draft of this report was sent on Friday 18 June 2010.  Council now has the opportunity to consider the comments that have been made by Council staff and make any additional comment that it considers appropriate.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

This report has been prepared to inform Council of the details of the M2 Upgrade and detail the effects the proposal will have on the local environment and transport services, and seek endorsement of the Environmental Assessment submission.

 

DISCUSSION

 

A copy of the May/June community update detailing the background, project need, upgrade features and upgrade benefits is included in Attachment 1. Council staff have assessed both construction and operational impacts and identified key issues. Summaries of the key issues are listed under. For more detail refer to the attachments as identified - 

 


 Traffic and Transport – Attachments 2 and 3

 

·    Due to access constraints most construction movements will be limited to the M2 corridor and main roads however dilapidation surveys of local roads and properties likely to be affected by the proposed works must be undertaken prior to commencement of construction activities, and arrangements made to rectify any damage or compensate Council. 

·    Removal of the bus ramps at Beecroft Road is not supported as this will severely limit future public transport options. City bus services are at or near saturation in Sydney CBD.

·    Distance tolling should be provided on the M2 to encourage through traffic to use the M2 rather than Epping railway bridge. The current M2 tolling regime makes the short run from Beecroft Road to the toll booths comparatively expensive.

·    The pavement on the approaches to Kirkham Road bridge (constructed as part of the initial construction of the M2) has failed after 10 years. Council requires Transurban/RTA to rectify this work – if not undertaken prior, it should be undertaken concurrently with the reconstruction of the bridge as part of the M2 Upgrade.

 

Bushland and Biodiversity – Attachment 4

 

·    The level of construction detail in the EA does not enable a complete assessment of the impacts of development on the natural environment.

·    Works during the initial construction of the M2 have resulted in the degradation of bushland under Devlin’s Creek Bridge and at the end of Allerton Road. Rehabilitation of these sites (proposed to be undertaken following construction) has not occurred resulting in increased weed dispersal and the erosion of creek banks.  This work id required to be undertaken as part of the subject upgrade.

·    The Flora and Fauna Assessment Report has failed to identify the presence of the Eastern Bentwing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), a threatened species.

·    Aboriginal heritage sites within the M2 lease area have not been suitably maintained since initial construction of the M2.

·    As yet there are no details of vegetation clearing and the detail for these works must be contained in the Construction Environment Management Plans and a Biodiversity Offset Strategy.

·    At a public meeting the M2 representatives indicated that truck access will be required from Midson Road east to the M2 through the creek line.  Objections are made to this site being used an access way as it will destroy significant remnant canopy trees, significant native orchids, the creek line wildlife corridor and undo considerable conservation work. 

 

Environmental Sustainability and Health – Attachment 5

 

·    There is no evidence to suggest that the current noise levels are compliant with the original predicted noise levels and the subsequent conditions of consent for the M2 development. Noise measurements should be undertaken to determine the current noise levels along the M2 (as data being utilised is dated back to 2008).  It is highly possible that noise levels along the M2 have increased since 2008 and could possibly be higher than those predicted for 2011.  Following the provision of new measurements, mitigation measures must be revised.

 

·    It is recommended that appropriate signage be installed to remind drivers to limit compression breaking.

·    The M2 Upgrade and ongoing operation of the M2 is to comply with the EPA Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (1999) and that all noise mitigation measures recommended are applied to the development consent.

·    All properties owners impacted by noise level increases and/or adjustments to noise barriers to be notified.

·    The development consent should include a condition that requires planned maintenance of the road surface to ensure that the running surface is kept in good condition, to maximise any noise reduction that this can provide.

·    Further noise readings must be undertaken periodically following completion of the upgrade to ensure that the ongoing use of the M2 is complies with the environmental noise criteria. A condition on the development consent should state that mitigation measures are to be undertaken to ensure compliance if elevated levels are found.

 

Town Planning Services – Attachment 6

 

·    The environmental assessment documentation states that land owned by Council near Devlins Creek and currently utilised as open space would need to be acquired. Town Planning Services Branch is uncertain of the exact location of this land to be acquired and requests further consultation. In particular, Council’s Bushland and Biodiversity Branch should be consulted as the land to be acquired may be located in the vicinity of Blackbutt Gully Forest.

·    The M2 upgrade may potentially impact on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage items. All necessary precautions should be taken during construction to minimise any impact on these Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage items.

·    It is also noted that the Beecroft/Cheltenham Conservation Area and Chilworth Recreation Reserve may be visually affected by the M2 upgrade. The need for appropriate landscaping and revegetation measures in these areas is supported. Council’s Bushland and Biodiversity Branch should also be consulted in regard to this vegetation.

·    The heritage listed Epping stone causeway over Devlin Creek is located directly beneath the existing bus ramp between the M2 and Beecroft Road which is to be removed. The undertaking of further studies prior to demolition of the Beecroft Road bus ramp is supported to assist in avoiding impacts to the heritage causeway. These studies should investigate the logistics of accessing the site and demolishing the bus ramp to minimise any impacts to the causeway.

 

BUDGET

 

There are no budget implications in this report.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications in this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Manager Assets, Manager Design and Construction, Acting Manager Environmental Sustainability and Health, Manager Bushland and Biodiversity and Manager Town Planning Services were consulted in the preparation of this report.

 


TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

A Triple Bottom Line summary is not applicable as this report considers Council’s response to an Environmental Assessment of a state government project.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

This report was prepared by Council’s Manager Traffic and Road Safety, Mr Lawrence Nagy telephone 9847 6524.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council endorse this report and attachments, and note that it has been forwarded to the Director, Major Infrastructure Assessments, Department of Planning, as Council’s submission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell Woodward

Executive Manager

Works Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Community Update

2.View

Traffic and Transport

3.View

Assets

4.View

Bushland and Biodiversity

5.View

Environmental Sustainability and Health

6.

Town Planning Services and Heritage

 

 

File Reference:           F2010/00058

Document Number:   D01421629

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. WK42/10

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

25      COUNTY DRIVE CHERRYBROOK TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council commenced construction of a traffic calming scheme for County Drive in late January 2010. Sections of the community objected to the traffic calming treatment leading Council to suspend work pending further public consultation, which occurred in February 2010. At the Ordinary Meeting of 17 March 2010 Council considered report WK22/10 and resolved to trial an amended traffic calming scheme, which required another round of public consultation and referral to a meeting of the Local Traffic Committee.

 

The Local Traffic Committee met on the 27 March 2010 to consider the trial proposal and voted unanimously to recommend that the trial be adopted, subject to amendments. 

 

On going site monitoring by Council staff indicates that the proposed changes to the traffic calming scheme will improve traffic flow as the result of extended auxiliary and turning lanes while still achieving the goals of reducing crash severity and managing use by non local traffic. However, the key cause of congestion in County Drive, the delays experienced at the New Line Road roundabout, is beyond Council’s control.  Signalization of the intersection by the RTA will address this concern.

 

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

At the March Ordinary Meeting of 17 March 2010 Council considered report WK22/10 and resolved THAT:

1.      Council note that County Drive has an adverse crash history and traffic calming is appropriate for reasons of safety and community amenity.

 

2.       Council note that Local Traffic Committee items are circulated to emergency services, bus operators and other public agencies with an invitation to object or comment. 

 

3.       The amended traffic calming proposal for County Drive as detailed in Report No. WK22/10 be trialled using water filled barriers, appropriately coloured and marked to ensure visibility, and other temporary materials for a period of six months with bi-monthly reviews of traffic condition reported to Council.

 

4.       The dual right turn facility out of John Road into County Drive be installed in permanent materials, including the required merge lane in County Drive.

 

5.       The amended proposal detailed in Report No. WK22/10 be readvertised for public comment and referred to the Local Traffic Committee for a recommendation.

 

6.       Council note that in future, where a proposal involves work on a regional or collector roads, and the proposal will have an impact outside the immediate area, the Local Traffic Committee will meet face to face and the recommendation will be reported to Council prior to implementation.

    

7.       Council provide on its website, and promote through its communications channels, an on-line petition calling for the roundabout at New Line Road and County Drive to be signalised, including pedestrian crossings to Shepherds Drive, and that additional signalised pedestrian crossings be provided in New Line Road between County Drive and Boundary Road, and in Boundary Road between Cedarwood Drive and Lee Road.

 

8.       Council subsequently write to the RTA requesting the roundabout at New Line Road and County Drive be signalised and that additional signalised pedestrian crossings be provide in New Line Road between County Road and Boundary Road, and in Boundary Road between Cedarwood Drive and Lee Road, providing the RTA with a copy of any petitions and submissions collected.

 

9.       Council write to the Minister for Transport, The Hon. David Campbell, MP and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Roads, The Hon. David Borger, MP, requesting the outcomes detailed at point 7 and that a meeting consisting of The Mayor, interested Councillors, the General Manager and representatives from Council's Traffic Branch also be requested and organised.

 

10.     Council make representations through the State Member for Castle Hill, requesting that the Minister for Transport and Roads meet a deputation from Council in support of Council’s request that the intersection of New Line Road and County Drive to be signalised, and to urge progress on the Strategic Route Development Study for Boundary Rd and New Line Road between Pennant Hills Road and Old Northern Road to alleviate the current congestion issues plaguing this area.

 

11.     Council write to the RTA seeking a double right hand turn from County Drive into New Line Road.

 

12.     That immediate representations be made by the Mayor and General Manager to the RTA to reduce the speed limit on County Drive from 60 kmh to 50 kmh.

 

This report deals with parts 3, 5 and 6 and 12 of Council’s resolution. A copy of the Local Traffic Committee report LTC 15/2010 is attached, along with the results of the public consultation. The other items are in the process of being actioned.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The amended plan, Attachment 1, showing the traffic calming trial in accordance with Council’s resolution of 17 March 2010, was advertised for comment in May 2010. The plan is a variation of the partially installed scheme with left turn lanes and auxiliary storage lanes extended to improve traffic flow. The extended lanes will result in a loss of about 33 parking spaces compared to pre January 2010 conditions however, where possible, parking restrictions have been limited to between 7 am and 9 am, although additional restrictions have been provided at the approach to John Road between 2 pm and 5 pm to cater for school related traffic. Attachment 2 contains a summary of the proposed parking restrictions. On the plan “Proposed parking restrictions” refers to full time parking restrictions and “Proposed period restrictions” refers to parking restrictions in place during morning and/or afternoon peak periods only.

 

Attachment 3 quantifies the responses in both rounds of consultation and summarises the issues raised, along with Traffic and Road Safety Branch’s response to each issue.

 

The Local Traffic Committee report, LTC 15/2010, is Attachment 4. The width of the bicycle lane as marked on site is in accordance with the RTA publication NSW Bicycle Guidelines and will not be remarked for the trial duration.

 

The reduction in the scale of works has resulted in a reduction of the estimated cost to a level where the trial will be fully funded from Roads To Recovery funds, and not require a contribution from Council.

 

Given that most of the pavement marking was installed prior to the work being halted, has been in place for over six months and is more restrictive to traffic flow than the trial scheme, Council may wish to reconsider reviewing the need for a full six month trial when the three month progress report is submitted to Council at the November 2010 Ordinary Meeting. If so resolved by Council, it is anticipated the trial scheme can be installed by Council’s contractor during July 2010, weather permitting.

 

Also attached is the response by the Roads and Traffic Authority to Council’s request for a reduction of the speed limit in County Drive, Attachment 5.

 

BUDGET

 

The project as now recommended (including the changes requested by the Local Traffic Committee) is estimated to cost $100,000.  The works are proposed to be funded as part of Council’s Roads to Recovery program.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications in this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Public Consultation included letterbox dropping residents of County Drive who are affected by the loss of on street parking, notifications to everyone who emailed or wrote to Council during the last consultation, notices in Council’s corporate page in two local papers and on Council’s website. The proposal was referred to the Local Traffic Committee for a recommendation. The Manager Network Strategy of the local bus operator, ComfortDelgroCabcharge and Council’s Manager Design and Construction were also consulted.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

1.    Working with our community

·   Traffic calming County Drive is a recommendation of the Cherrybrook Integrated Local Transport Study developed in consultation with the Cherrybrook community.

 

2.    Conserving our natural environment

·   The project encourages walking, cycling and public transport use which over time reduces fuel use and congestion, improves road safety and reduces obesity.

 

3.    Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and services

·   Walking, cycling and public transport use are more sustainable than private vehicle use.

4.    Fulfilling our community’s vision in planning for the future of the Shire

·   Fulfils one of the community goals of the Cherrybrook Integrated Local Transport Plan.

 

5.    Supporting our diverse economy

·   Financial savings resulting from crash reductions are passed onto the community.

 

6.    Maintaining sound corporate and financial management

·   Managing road safety risk is sound corporate and financial management.

 

7.    Other Sustainability Considerations

·   Traffic calming manages traffic growth and encourages individuals to use alternatives to private vehicle use.

 

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

This report was prepared by Council’s Manager Traffic and Road Safety, Mr Lawrence Nagy, telephone 9847 6524.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed traffic calming measures on County Drive, Cherrybrook proceed on a trial basis for a period of up to six months, as recommended by the Local Traffic Committee, subject to the amendments outlined in Local Traffic Committee report LTC 15/2010, with a progress report to Council after 3 months to allow a review of the results of trial and the trial period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell Woodward

Executive Manager

Works Division

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Trial Consultation Plans

2.View

Parking Summary Plan

3.View

Public Consultation

4.View

Local Traffic Committee Report

5.View

Speed limit review

 

 

File Reference:           F2010/00089-05

Document Number:   D01421633

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. WK44/10

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

26      EXPRESSION OF EOI 13/2010:  EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE DESIGN AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF STOREY PARK COMMUNITY & CHILD CARE CENTRE   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council at its meeting held on 11/06/2008 considered Report No CC58/08 regarding community consultation on the future uses of the Asquith Community Centre at Storey Park and resolved et al (Minute No 21) that:-

 

“ The recommendation from the May Meeting of the Community, Cultural and Recreation Facilities Task Force that the project proceed to Phase 2 – Design, Partnerships and Costings, be endorsed and that the funding source identified for progressing the project  during Phase 2 be noted and endorsed”

 

Further to this resolution Expressions of Interest (EOI)  have now been called in accordance with the Local Government Act and it has been recommended that Council invite 6 of the 33 conforming submissions received to submit tenders for the Design and Project Management of Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre.

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

This report provides a recommendation for EOI 13/2010: Expression of Interest for the Design and Project Management of Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre.

 

DISCUSSION

 

EOI 13/2010 was called to select a short list of consultants from which tenders can be sought for the Design and Project Management of Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre.  A summary of all submissions together with full evaluation details have been placed on file (Trim Folder F2010/00205). Excepting this report, the summary and details of the EOI’s received are to be treated as confidential in accordance with the Local Government Act.

 

Thirty three (33) conforming EOI submissions were received from the following companies:

 

·         DEM

·         Kinsley

·         Melocco & Moore

·         Altus Page

·         AM/FM

·         Architects Beccera

·         Baker Kavanagh

·         Butler

·         Caldis Cook

·         Coffey

·         Complete Urban

·         DesignInc

·         Donald Cant Watts

·         GHD

·         Greenway Hirst

·         Hassell

·         HBO + EMTB

·         Hely Horne

·         Imagescape

·         JDH Architects

·         MCA

·         McPhee

·         Mode Design

·         Neilly Davies

·         Nicholas Assoc

·         Noel Bell Ridley Smith (NBRS)

·         Quinn O'Hanlon

·         SBA

·         Silvester Fuller

·         Stephenson & Turner

·         Suters

·         Techton

·         Truway

 

The following criteria have been used for the evaluation of the EOI’s :

 

·         Past performance and experience (Satisfactory evidence that they have satisfactorily completed projects similar to that required by a potential contract or that they are competent to carry out the works pertaining to the contract in a workmanlike manner and to the satisfaction of the Principal)

·         Details of proposed consultants and sub consultants

·         Details of experience in public consultation

·         Occupational Health and Safety systems

·         Quality Assurance systems

·         Financial Capacity

·         Sustainability/Environmental Management

 

 

Criteria were assessed on information submitted with each submission.

 

The attached Confidential Memo WD D&C 40/10 provides a summary of the evaluation. Full details of the tender evaluation are also on file.

 

From the results of the evaluation it is recommended that Council invite the following organisations to tender for the design and project management of the proposed Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre.

 

·    Mode Design

·    Suters

·    Noel Bell Ridley Smith (NBRS)

·    JDH Architects

·    HBO+EMTB

·    Baker Kavanagh Architects

BUDGET

 

It is anticipated that funds will be available from S94 contributions, and from the sale of redundant property that arises from relocation of existing Council services to the new facility.  The exact funding and source will be identified following the concept designs and prior to approval of the final design.

 

POLICY

 

There are no policy implications.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The tender has been evaluated in consultation with Council’s Manager Design and Construction, Mr Rob Rajca, Council’s Children’s Services Manager, Ms Narelle Misko, Council’s Landscape Architect, Mr David De-Fina and Council’s Engineer Construction, Mr Steven Crowe.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

A triple bottom line summary is not required for this type of report.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

For further information, please contact Mr Steven Crowe, Engineer Construction, on (02) 9847 6679.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council invite Mode Design, Suters, Noel Bell Ridley Smith (NBRS), JDH Architects, HBO+EMTB and Baker Kavanagh Architects to tender for Design and Project Management of Storey Park Community & Child Care Centre

 

2.   The result of the tender be reported back to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell Woodward

Executive Manager

Works Division

 

 


 

Attachments:

1.

Refer to Confidential Attachment to WK44/10, located in the Confidential Section of Business Paper Confidential Memo WD D&C 40/10 (circulated separately to Councillors). - This attachment should be dealt with in confidential session, under Section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993. This report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

 

 

 

File Reference:           F2010/00205

Document Number:   D01424177

 


 

Executive Manager's Report No. WK45/10

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 30/06/2010

 

27      OPERATION OF COUNCIL'S AQUATIC CENTRES   

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council’s aquatic centres at Epping, Galston and Hornsby provide opportunities for informal water-based recreation, with Council also offering learn to swim (LTS), squads (swim coaching) and other related activities to the patrons of each centre.  The fees for the additional services offered serve to partly offset the cost to Council of the overall operation of the centres.  The number of centres is among the highest in the Sydney area.

 

The net cost of operation of the three centres was $852K in 2005/06, increasing to $926K in 2009/10.  These costs include operations, utilities and capital expenditure, with each element having separate objectives and being separately influenced.

 

The centres were constructed in the 1960s, and significant major maintenance is now required, as the increasing commitment to capital expenditure indicates.  As the Hornsby centre has reached the end of its life, planning is proceeding for its replacement. 

 

Opportunities to reduce the costs to Council of providing this service have been identified.  The impacts of a decision to outsource operations are identified, and it is concluded that such action would not result in savings to Council in less than a three year period.  

 

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the operation of its aquatic centres at Epping, Galston and Hornsby, with a view to determining a course of action that will enable the costs of operation to be managed in the most appropriate manner.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council operates Aquatic Centres at Epping, Galston and Hornsby.  The centres were opened in 1960, 1969, and 1962 respectively.  A detailed historical review of their operation has not been undertaken, but it is understood that the centres were operated by a lessee until the early 1990s.  Following concerns with the performance of the lessee, Council took a decision to operate the centres in house, and at the time, considered establishing a separate corporate structure to operate the three centres.  For reasons unknown, this did not eventuate, and the centres continue to be operated in-house by Council staff, many of whom were engaged in the mid 90s.  The centres today reflect their age, and previous minimal expenditure on significant maintenance, which only recently has begun to be addressed.

 

While Council has successfully focused on operational issues, the challenges of a long term plan for the maintenance of the centres are still being addressed, with a structured approach to additional capital expenditure (asset management) commencing in 2007/08. 

 

Consultants reviewing the structural condition of Hornsby Aquatic Centre have confirmed that this centre will need to close by mid 2012, but may close at short notice before this should more rapid deterioration be evident on regular inspections.  Council is in the process of planning for a new centre. Tenders for the design and construction management of a new facility have been invited, with a closing date of 29 June 2010.

 

Details of the services and facilities offered by each centre are set out in Attachment 1 to this report. 

 

The following summary information is noted in respect of each centre:

 

Epping:  This centre is 50 years old, and is constrained by steep access.  Recent maintenance works have improved its presentation to the public.  However, the mechanical plant is nearing the end of its life, and reliability cannot be guaranteed.  The program pool is operating at capacity.  Construction of a new program pool to provide additional LTS capacity is not considered practical due to the access constraints for clients at the site.  The gym is constrained by the available space.  There is no opportunity to build on the squads program, as these are currently running to capacity.  Recreational swimming could only be enhanced with significant capital expenditure, such as a water feature.  This centre has adequate on site parking, and most patrons either drive or walk to the centre.

 

Galston:  This centre is operating at capacity, and has built up a loyal clientele with its LTS program and the squads program.  There are no further opportunities to make large scale improvements or variety in the services offered without significant capital expenditure.  An additional program pool (<$500K) could be built to cater for LTS and further offset the operational costs of the centre.  This would also provide additional recreational swimming opportunities in the existing pool.  The gym is constrained by the available space and location in the Centre.  The mechanical plant is also ageing, with significant expenditure anticipated in the next few years.  This centre has on site parking and most patrons drive to the centre.

 

Hornsby:  This centre has an extensive LTS program, with a large unmet demand.  Squads are operating under licence as part of the Aquabliss operation, but there is no branding or other significant spin-off for Council.  The overall condition of this centre is known to Council, and as reported above, planning has commenced for its replacement.  This centre has no on site parking and patrons use public transport. t, drive to nearby parking, or walk to the centre  

 

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

 

The current challenging financial climate requires Council to consider opportunities for savings to its budget.

 

The financial performance of the three Centres can be summarised as follows:

 

 

2005/06

$’000

2006/07

$’000

2007/08

$’000

2008/09

$’000

2009/10

(Pred)

$’000

2010/11

(Budget) $’000

Operations*

525

545

588

322

321

544

Utilities

      310

354

      341

381

354

 360

Capital Expenditure

 17

 23

      196  

155

251

**

Total Cost

852

922

    1125

858

926

na

 

*        Net costs, after allowing for income

**      Asset management program not determined at this stage.

 

The above line items are detailed:

 

1.       Operations

 

This involves the day-to-day delivery of the various services at each centre.  The principal cost is wages, with income from entry fees and other activity fees offsetting these costs.  The costs of operation include routine maintenance and repairs as well as chemicals etc, and incidental revenue (e.g. kiosk sales).  The cost of providing unstructured water recreation opportunities can be offset by providing other opportunities for which a fee is charged.  These costs directly reflect the services offered, relating to short term objectives in the use of the centres. 

 

2.       Utilities

 

The cost of electricity, water and gas, and sullage (at Galston) is a significant component of the operations of each centre.  Although an operational cost, it has been separated from the other operational costs, as these costs are significant and also reflect capital expenditure decisions in relation to energy use.  Costs are increasing and other than by reviewing levels of service, Council can not influence these costs.

 

3.       Capital Expenditure

 

Council has a significant investment in the three centres, and has recently embarked on a program of planned improvements in order to improve their attractiveness to patrons, and to extend the life of the asset.  Excluding the Hornsby Centre, for which replacement is planned, significant expenditure is required to keep the centres operational, to bring them to a suitable standard of presentation and to improve the reliability of the mechanical plant.  These costs do not necessarily reflect or influence operational costs, as they are driven by differing, longer term objectives relating to the consumption and replacement of the asset.  Attachment 2 provides further details of the asset condition and future expenditure requirements of each centre.

 

Operational costs increased in the period to 2007/08, with improvements in 2008/09 and 2009/10 reflecting hot seasons and increased revenue, and income generating opportunities that were pursued (LTS).  In addition, ongoing close management of staffing levels and wages costs continued.  Increased maintenance costs of $150K have been provided for in the 2010/11 budget, in addition to any capital expenditure that may be incurred.  Provided conditions are similar to the 2009/10 year, it is possible that a result similar to 2009/10 will be achieved in 2010/11.

 

When capital expenditure and utility costs are extracted from the costs of operation, the Hornsby centre shows a net cost to Council in 2008/09 of $70K, with potential break-even in 2009/10.  In comparison, Galston shows a net cost to Council of $114K and $139K, and Epping $138K and $181K.

 

Comments regarding other influences on costs follow:

 

The opening of the Cherrybrook centre (Carlile, in late 2005) had an adverse impact on LTS revenue at Galston, and with attention to customer service and payment flexibility, has been partly won back.  The opening of the Macquarie Centre, also around this time, had an adverse impact on LTS and squads at Epping, but has only partly been reversed.  The recent loss of the head coach at Epping may influence costs at this centre in the short term. 

 

Hornsby, with its LTS program, is increasing its contribution to an overall improved bottom line at the expense of Epping and Galston.  This movement is considered likely to continue, and future costs will be impacted by Hornsby’s impending closure.

 

Analysis shows that operational costs for recreational swimming are the greatest contributor to the net operating result incurred by each centre.  This ranges from 65%-75% of expenditure.  However, this is offset by only 30-35% of income in the case of Epping and Hornsby, with Galston only 13% of income (due to lesser available space and focus on LTS and squads).

 

The kiosk contribution is constant across all three centres (6-7% of expenditure, 13-15% of income).

 

The contribution of LTS is significant at Hornsby and Galston (<20% of expenditure, >40% of income), but much lower at Epping, where available space and access precludes expansion.

 

The contribution from squads is minimal at Hornsby (<1% expenditure and 2% income - this activity is contracted out) when compared to Epping (11% expenditure and 29% income) and Galston (8% expenditure and 21% income).

 

The analysis confirms the reliance on LTS and squads to offset the cost of recreational swimming, and an opportunity for Council to improve its position by commencing a squads program at Hornsby. 

 

The financial analysis also confirms the relative strengths of each centre:

 

Epping

- a strong squads program (contributes 29% of income)

- LTS: small increase limited by available teaching space and poor access

- operational result is not as strong as Galston or Hornsby

 

Galston

- strong LTS and squads program

- size of this indoor facility permits easier supervision (labour costs)

 

Hornsby

- strong LTS subsidises operational costs to a greater extent than the other centres

 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST SAVINGS

 

Council operates three aquatic centre complexes.  This is among the highest per Council in the Sydney area.  Notwithstanding the age of the centres, informal discussion among other Council operators indicates that the overall cost to Council of these centres is consistent with or better than other Councils, and that Council is taking advantage of the commercial opportunities available to a greater extent than many other Councils.

 

It should be noted that there will always be a cost to Council to provide recreational swimming, particularly in a 50m pool.  The opportunities to offset this cost lie with LTS and to a lesser extent, squad training activities.

 

Opportunities for cost savings include:

 

Continued reduction in operating costs:  Staff costs represent a significant proportion of overall costs.  These are governed by Award conditions and staffing levels set by Practice Note 15 (a Division of Local Government Guideline that must be followed).  Centre Supervisors actively monitor staff levels and use casual staff to facilitate flexible staffing arrangements.  Water quality is monitored in accordance with standards set by the Department of Health, and cleanliness etc is carefully maintained.  Chemical and other costs are carefully monitored.  These activities will continue.

 

Staffing details for the three centres are set out in Attachment 3 to this report.  The attachment is considered confidential.

 

Utility Costs:  These costs reflect the level of service that Council has determined, but otherwise are largely outside its control.  2006/07 - $354K, 2007/08 - $341K, 2008/09 - $381K, 2009/10 (anticipated) - $354K.  Electricity and gas heating costs are the main contributors, and are carefully monitored.  Energy saving initiatives have been installed, and will require further maintenance and upgrading to ensure that savings are achieved.  Additional capital expenditure may be necessary to achieve this objective, and grant opportunities will be pursued.

 

Increase fees for service:  Fees have been regularly reviewed as part of Council’s annual budgetary process, and are set having regard to the market generally.  Competition in LTS and squads is taken into account, and while recreational swimming is a different market, entry costs at other centres are noted.  Council is conscious of its obligations insofar as the Trade Practices Act and National Competition Policy is concerned.

 

Reduce level of service:  Opportunities for savings are available if Council is prepared to consider a reduction in service level, particularly in circumstances where the cost of the service far outweighs the use being made by the community.  The decision to close Epping and reduce Galston’s operating hours in the winter period of 2009 and 2010 is one example.  Community reaction to such initiatives will need to be considered.

 

Reduction in capital expenditure:  As reported above, Council has commenced a significant program of maintenance to the centres.  This program has had a positive response from patrons and has addressed a number of concerns of the centre staff.  Significant capital expenditure on the mechanical plant at Epping and Galston will be required in coming years to ensure continued operational reliability, as identified above.  A reduction of expenditure in this area will lead to increased risk of plant failure, and consequent operational instability.

 

Closure of one or more centres:  A decision to close one or more centres is likely to arouse strong community response, whether in favour of or against such action.  As Council has committed to planning for the replacement of the Hornsby centre, either Epping and/or Galston could be considered for closure.  The planned reconstruction of Hornsby will necessitate its closure for a potential two year period (greater if this centre is forced to close at an earlier time due to its declining structural condition).  Any such decision should only be considered when the new centre is operational.  Notwithstanding, a significant ongoing saving in operational costs from such action (e.g. Epping - $277K, Galston - $241K in 2009/10) would result, with additional capital cost savings possible, depending on the action necessary to mothball or de-commission any centre.

 

Additional opportunities for cost savings or increased revenue can be further investigated: 

- Close centres (say one month) to allow for essential maintenance activities.

- Further reduction in hours in winter (e.g. open at noon).

- Operate half day on Saturday in winter.

- Close on Public Holidays in winter – Easter, Anzac, Queens Birthday and Labour Day. 

- Operate the Hornsby Squads program in-house (when new centre is operating).

 

OUTSOURCING OF OPERATIONS

 

Outsourcing the operation of the centres has been suggested as a means of reducing the costs of delivery of this service.  The limited (and uncertain) life of the Hornsby centre suggests that such action would not be appropriate for this centre at this time.  The Epping and Galston centres could be further considered.  As the private sector has a perceived advantage in labour costs (Fitness Industry Award is different to local government), there may be a competitive advantage in this area.  This advantage may be absorbed by the need of a private operator to make a profit. 

 

Any potential benefit to Council must be assessed in the context of the opportunity for a potential operator to add value in its operation of a centre, as recreational swimming will still operate at a loss.  This additional value is invariably generated by LTS and squads, as well as gym opportunities.  It is suggested that such opportunities at Epping and Galston have been maximised by Council, and further opportunities are constrained by the sites as discussed elsewhere in this report.  It should be noted that Council continues to actively pursue opportunities in LTS and squads, and the results have contributed to the actual costs now reported above.  In this manner, Council is considered to have added the value referred to, and little scope is now available for an operator to add more. 

 

In planning for the reconstruction of the Hornsby centre, consideration has been given to the re-deployment of that centre’s staff for the duration of the construction period.  It has been proposed that the permanent staff attached to the Hornsby centre be temporarily assigned to the Epping or Galston centres.  In anticipation of this action, casual staff have been engaged at Epping and Galston as vacancies have arisen.  Any action to outsource operations at Epping or Galston would mean that this arrangement could not proceed, and Council would need to make other arrangements for these staff.  The loss of these staff (by resignation or retrenchment) or other sub-optimal arrangement in order to retain their expertise would result.

 

The impending closure of the Hornsby centre may result in a movement of patrons to other centres, predominantly Epping.  This change introduces uncertainty to the community and also to a potential operator, in providing reliable attendance data for specification purposes, essential in managing the risk of an outsourcing arrangement.

 

Should Council wish to consider outsourcing the operation of the Epping and/or Galston centres, further examination of the operating costs of these centres is appropriate, as these are the costs that a potential operator will consider, together with opportunities to add value (in the expectation that Council will not have done so).  As explained above, Council has taken a number of opportunities to add value, and it is considered unlikely that further opportunities can be realised without significant capital investment.

 

The Epping centre has reported net costs of $138K in 2008/09, and $181K is anticipated in 2009/10.  Respective costs for Galston are $114K and $139K.  A target 20% saving (considered optimistic) by outsourcing of these centres would result in a saving to Council in the order of $50K (2008/09 performance) and $65K (2009/10 performance). It is assumed that, as utility costs reflect the level of service desired by Council, these will have a consistent impact in any analysis.

 

Any decision to outsource activities will incur a series of one-off costs, in addition to the ongoing costs associated with contract management.  Legal costs in developing the specification and negotiating the subsequent contract (say $20K), together with redundancy costs (estimated at $170K) could be reasonably anticipated to cost of the order of $190K.  After considering the one-off costs, Council could expect a saving, say only after year 3 of a contract.

 

As a three year contract would be a suitable initial period in which to trial an outsourcing arrangement, it is arguable as to whether there is an economic justification to pursue an outsourcing arrangement at this time.

 

There are a number of risks associated with outsourcing, and these are detailed under.  While the above discussion suggests that there is no certainty that significant savings would be achieved, market testing would confirm whether savings would be achieved.  As Council staff do not have experience in this area, further work will be required if Council wishes to pursue this option.

 

Risk Analysis

 

Any decision to outsource involves some risk.  While most risk can be foreseen and addressed in planning for an outsourcing, it cannot be eliminated.  There will be additional costs that must be taken into consideration when assessing the benefit to Council of an outsourcing arrangement.  While not listed under, cost duplication is a factor that must also be considered if a decision is made to outsource part only of a service.  The following issues have been identified, and require consideration.  Compensatory arrangements are proposed where appropriate:

 

Ability to provide services expected in a contractual arrangement in the event that plant break-down occurs.  Council can contract out of this issue, but the cost of so doing will be reflected in any bid.

 

Loss of staff expertise and intellectual capacity.  This is important if the activity returns in-house, or if the contractor defaults.  There are significant costs in re-equipping Council to provide the service.

 

Loss of operational and/or budget flexibility to re-allocate resources or change the scope of service during the term of contract.  Changes to operations during a contract need to have regard to contractual implications and/or compensation requirements.

 

Longer term maintenance issues not being addressed, whether hidden by contractor, overlooked, or deferred for budget purposes.  This can occur if operated in-house, but is easier to overlook in a contractual situation.  Can be addressed by risk-sharing provisions in any contract, but some residual risk will always remain.  The contractor’s focus is on short term gain (profit) whereas council’s focus needs also to consider long term asset management.  The cost of maintenance is somewhat dependant upon the day to day actions of the operator.

 

Loss of identity as a Council service.  This can be addressed by branding requirements, but some residual risk will remain.

 

Loss of control over safety standards.  Council’s reputation is excellent, and a new provider will need to build a reputation.  This can be addressed to some extent in contract – Practice Note 15 etc, and by supervision and reporting requirements, but some residual risk will remain.  Council cannot contract out its responsibility for ensuring safety, and needs to have adequate ongoing checks in place.

 

Reputation risk insofar as Child Protection management is concerned.  Council has clearly established and tested management protocols in place, and it is important that it have confidence in the ability of a contractor to appropriately deal with such matters.

 

Need to develop skills to effectively manage an outsourced service, either in specification or contract management.  There will be a need to develop systems to monitor and verify the accuracy of operational and financial records.  These skills will take time to develop, and dedicated staff resources will be required.

 

Goodwill.  Council has operated the centres for some time and has built up goodwill and a good reputation for providing a variety of quality services such as LTS, for which there is a strong demand.  If an operator underperforms, this will be lost and may take time to re-establish.  Conversely, should an operator further develop such services, Council will need to deal with such eventuality in its documentation – i.e. whether payment is made on completion, or whether Council assumes any such benefit.

 

Contractor default.  Careful selection can reduce, but not eliminate this risk, with difficulty existing in re-entry at short notice.

 

Transition risk.  Any loss of staff in a transition period will result in a decline in service standards and consequent reputation risk.  This can be addressed by retention payments, but will increase cost of contracting.

 

Industrial risk.  A change in service delivery method may trigger industrial disputation or loss of morale elsewhere in organisation, with attendant increase in costs.

 

Commercial Considerations

 

A preliminary assessment of this option has identified a number of issues that will need to be addressed if Council wishes to pursue this direction.

 

The current condition of the centres is such that it is likely that Council will need to accept responsibility for all maintenance costs that do not directly relate to operations.

 

An operator will need to accept that Council cannot guarantee the reliability of the plant, and further, will not reimburse losses should a centre have to close due to mechanical breakdown.  This is a significant risk to a contract operator and would be reflected in any offer to council.

 

The unknown costs in the next two to three years of utilities (water, gas, electricity and sullage at Galston) are such that Council may need to underwrite some or all of these costs.  This will need further consideration if Council wishes to pursue energy saving initiatives; as such actions will generate uncertainty for potential tenderers.

 

It is accepted that an operator will be responsible for wage costs, chemical costs, cleaning etc, and ground maintenance to an extent that can be reasonably specified.  The level of service can be reasonably specified.  Access for swim clubs and school carnivals can be reasonably specified.

 

The issue of branding (Council or operator to have primacy?) requires consideration, as does marketing, web presence and link to Council website, services to be offered (core services to be specified, operator discretion etc).

 

Consistent and careful contract management (operational, financial, and maintenance) is essential to ensure that Council’s interests are protected.  This will require the allocation of resources and the development or acquisition of specific skills.  Transitional arrangements, both at the commencement and at the conclusion of a commercial arrangement require consideration to ensure that service delivery in this period is not affected.

 

Council will need to consider whether it will retain income from admission fees etc, or whether it should form part of the operator’s income.  Council should also consider whether it wishes to retain the right to set entry fees.

 

Commercial Structures

 

Commercial structures can vary according to particular needs.  Two possible options are:

 

1.       Council retains all income.

Council pays the operator a fixed monthly service fee.

The operator guarantees a minimum net operating result..

[If the loss is greater, operator bears the risk, if less, any profit above certain amount is shared subject to a complex assessment of KPIs measuring service performance]

 

2.      A lease arrangement where the operator holds a lease (peppercorn rental), retains income, and receives a fee for the management of the centre.  Controls are not as specific as the example above. Operators could be offered the opportunity to propose specific improvements that they were prepared to undertake.

 

In both examples, Council would be required to meet maintenance costs, and possibly utilities costs.

 

Other models exist and can be researched if necessary, but are variations on the above themes, and reflect the level of expertise and/or the Council’s commitment to the principle of outsourcing.

 

Notwithstanding, it is necessary to accept that an operator’s interest is in maximising its return from commercial opportunities that exist only for the term of the financial arrangement, and as such these may fundamentally conflict with longer term perspectives (relating to both community, social and infrastructure) that Council needs to take into consideration.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

Operation of Council’s three aquatic centres will result in expenditure of the order of $675K in 2009/10, excluding capital expenditure.  Operating costs have been reduced, with maintenance reflecting the condition of the centres, and utilities costs largely outside Council’s control.

 

The centres operate all year round and provide a range of aquatic activities for the community.  LTS and squads generate significant income that serves to offset the cost of recreational swimming.  Council has acted to increase the services offered in addition to recreational swimming, thereby offsetting this cost, but is finding that the ability for further savings is constrained by the facilities themselves.  The centres are ageing, and while a decision has been taken to commence planning for the replacement of the Hornsby centre, consideration needs to be given to the future of the Epping and Galston centres.

 

A number of possibilities for cost savings have been identified, with outsourcing identified as one such option.  The uncertain future of the Hornsby centre is such that outsourcing of this centre’s operations is not considered viable at this time.  The Epping or Galston centres could be considered for outsourcing if Council wishes to pursue this option.  Council will need to have regard to the physical condition of these centres, the expectation of potential operators (and desirability) that Council retain responsibility for their maintenance, and the consequent contractual risks involved, in addition to the other risks that have been identified.

 

On the basis of net operating costs for 2008/09 and 2009/10, a target 20% saving in costs would result in a saving of an estimated $50K - $65K per year.  The additional costs incurred in transition and in establishing an outsourcing capability would offset this saving in the first three years.  The target level of savings anticipated from outsourcing could be achieved by other means, and continuing close attention to costs. 

 

While closure of a centre is also an option to be considered, the need to provide continuity of the service is such that it should not be considered before replacement of the Hornsby centre is settled.  In the interim, consideration of changes to levels of service and operations as suggested in this report would provide savings of a similar order. 

 

BUDGET

 

There is no budgetary impact arising from this report.  The budgetary impact of any subsequent decision of Council will require further assessment. 

 

POLICY

 

Any decision to outsource operations will have an impact on staff currently employed by Council.  Such impact will be managed in accordance with Council’s policy.

 

CONSULTATION

 

This report has been prepared following discussion with the Manager Aquatic and Recreation Facilities.

 

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

 

As this report does not recommend a specific course of action a Triple Bottom Line assessment has not been undertaken.

 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

The responsible officer is the Executive Manager, Works Division, Mr Maxwell Woodward, telephone 9847 6665.

 


 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.      Report No. WK45/10 be received and noted.

 

2.      A further report be prepared that identifies further opportunities for cost savings or further revenue generation from Council’s operation of the centres.

 

3.      Council determine whether any further action is warranted at this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell Woodward

Executive Manager

Works Division

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.View

Service Details

 

 

2.View

Asset Management Considerations

 

 

3.

Staffing Details and Industrial Considerations - This attachment should be dealt with in confidential session, under Section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993. This report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

 

 

 

File Reference:           F2010/00250

Document Number:   D01430215