Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Hornsby Shire Council Agenda and Summary of Recommendations

Page 1

AGENDA AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

PRESENT

NATIONAL ANTHEM

OPENING PRAYER/S

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 acknowledge we are on the traditional lands of the Darug and Guringai Peoples. We pay our respects to elders past and present."

AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETING

Statement by the Chairperson:

"I advise all present that tonight's meeting is being audio recorded for the purposes of providing a record of public comment at the meeting, supporting the democratic process, broadening knowledge and participation in community affairs, and demonstrating Council’s commitment to openness and accountability. The recordings will be made available on Council’s website once the Minutes have been finalised. All 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

Presentation of Environmental Innovation Award (Finalist), New South Wales Government Sustainability Green Globe Awards 2011.

Presentation of Excellence in Research, Innovation, Policy and Education Award (Winner), Stormwater Industry Association of New South Wa les.

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.

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 19 October, 2011 be confirmed; a copy having been distributed to all Councillors.

Petitions

Rescission Motions

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 1....... GM22/11 September Quarterly Review against the Delivery Program 2011-2015 and Operational Plan 2011/12

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The September 2011 Quarterly Review of the Operational Plan (Budget) 2011/12 be received and noted.

2. Council decline to amend the adopted fees and charges for 2011/12 including the fees for hire of cricket grounds.

Page Number

Item 2 GM23/11 Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism partnership

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council becomes a partner member of the Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism organisation.

2. Council allocates $5,000 from within existing budget to the Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism organisation per year as a partnership contribution.

3. Council reviews the partnership arrangement each year.

Page Number

Item 3 GM24/11 Hornsby Shire Council's Annual Report 2010-2011 to the Minister for Local Government

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council receive and note Hornsby Shire Council’s Annual Report 2010-2011.

Corporate and Community Division

Page Number

Item 4 CC68/11 2011/12 Investments and Borrowings - period ending September 2011

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of the Executive Manager’s Report No. CC68/11 be received and noted.

Page Number

Item 5 CC69/11 Conduct of Council's 2012 Local Government Election

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC69/11 be received and noted.

2. Council note the NSW Premier’s response to the Presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations about the issues raised at a meeting between the Premier and Presidents on 19 September 2011, and the views of the Associations as expressed in the Presidents’ letter to the Premier dated 4 November 2011.

3. Council appoint the NSW Electoral Commission to run its 2012 elections, and advise the NSW Electoral Commissioner and the Chief Executive of the Division of Local Government of such decision by 30 November 2011.

4. Following the 2012 election, to allow appropriate consideration to be made regarding who should conduct Council’s elections beyond 2012, Council officers review the process and evaluate the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the running of Council’s 2012 election and make comparisons with the outcomes of the election process where other councils chose to use a supplier other than the NSW Electoral Commission for their 2012 election.

Page Number

Item 6 CC70/11 Financial Assistance Grant - 2011/12

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No CC70/11 be received and noted.

Page Number

Item 7 CC71/11 Local Government Association Conference 2011

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council’s motions submitted to the 2011 Local Government Association Annual Conference, which are not already Association policy, be submitted directly to the relevant areas of Government, independent of any action which may be taken by the Executive of the Association.

Environment Division

Page Number

Item 8 EN54/11 Catchments Remediation Rate (CRR) Annual Expenditure Report 2010/2011

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. EN54/11 be received and noted.

Page Number

Item 9 EN55/11 Future of E-waste

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The current E-waste drop off service be replaced with a user pays E-waste drop off service until such time that the industry E-waste scheme commences. This is subject to the outcomes of points 2 to 4 of the recommendation.

2. Council advertises the fees applicable for E-waste as outlined in this report for a period of 28 days in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, section 610(f).

3. At the conclusion of the exhibition period, a further report to be presented to Council detailing the submissions received. If there are no submissions received, the fees and charges to be considered adopted.

4. Once the fees have been adopted, the no-charge service to be discontinued and replaced with the adopted fees as outlined in this report.

Page Number

Item 10 EN56/11 Application to Revoke Dangerous Dog Order

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council refuse the request to revoke the dangerous dog order imposed on Duke on 19 June 2007; and

2. Give notice to the owner that Council has refused to revoke the dangerous dog order.

Page Number

Item 11 EN57/11 Application to Revoke The Dangerous Dog Orders on 2 Dogs

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Refuse the request to revoke the dangerous dog orders imposed on Frisky and Fiesty on 20 July 2004; and

2. Give notice to the owner that Council has refused to revoke the dangerous dog orders.

Page Number

Item 12 EN58/11 Climate Change Adaptation Plan

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The contents of Executive Managers Report No. EN58/11 be received and noted.

2. Council endorse priority actions included in Tables 1 and 2.

3. Council endorse priority actions included in Table 3 subject to receiving grant funding.

4. Council monitor priority actions included in Table 4 for consideration when developing future budgets.

Page Number

Item 13 EN59/11 Catchments Remediation Rate Capital Works Program - Annual Report 2010-2011

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. EN59/11 be received and noted.

Planning Division

Nil

Works Division

Page Number

Item 14 WK60/11 Works Progress Report - September Quarter 2011 - Design and Construction Branch

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. WK60/11 be received and noted.

Page Number

Item 15 WK64/11 Consideration of submission made in response to advertisement of the proposal to lease the Epping YMCA Centre in West Epping Park, west Epping to the YMCA for 21 years

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The submission concerning the proposed lease to YMCA over the Epping YMCA Centre in West Epping Park, West Epping be acknowledged.

2. Given that the submission referred to in recommendation 1 does not militate against the issue of the lease Council approve the grant of lease.

3. The terms of lease mentioned in item 1 be in accordance with item 5 of Council’s resolution in respect of report EN 32/11 on 24 August 2011.

4. The General Manager be authorised to execute all associated documents under Power Of Attorney or pursuant to this delegation.

5. Council authorises the Execution under Seal where necessary, of the registration of documents to record the lease on title and the removal of superseded notations.

Page Number

Item 16 WK65/11 Review of Suburb Boundary between West Pennant Hills and Beecroft

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council agree to alter the suburb boundary between West Pennant Hills and Beecroft as outlined within Executive Managers Report WK65/11.

2. The necessary administrative actions be put in place with any objections received by the GNB being considered by Council.

Page Number

Item 17 WK66/11 Works Progress Report - September Quarter 2011 - Assets Branch

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. WK66/11 be received and the progress of the 2011/12 Assets Branch Programmes for the September 2011 quarter be noted.

Page Number

Item 18 WK67/11 Works Progress Report - September 2011 Quarterly - Traffic and Road Safety Branch

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council endorse the activities undertaken by the Traffic and Road Safety Branch for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 September 2011 as outlined in Executive Managers Report WK67/11.

Page Number

Item 19 WK68/11 Council Owned Property - Johnson Road Galston

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council note the potential returns available from the former Johnson Road Pony Club site at Galston and endorse the strategy to hold on to the property for at least the next three years.

2. Council agree in principle to allocating any revenue raised from a future sale of the Johnson Road site to recreational uses in Waitara and/or Old Mans Valley.

PUBLIC FORUM – NON AGENDA ITEMS

Questions of Which Notice Has Been Given

Mayor's Notes

Page Number

Item 20 MN10/11 Mayor's Notes from 1 to 30 September 2011

Page Number

Item 21 MN11/11 Mayor's Notes from 1 to 31 October 2011

Mayoral Minutes

Notices of Motion

Page Number 96

Item 22 NOM13/11 CWA RELOCATION

COUNCILLOR Smart To Move

THAT:

1. Council invite the Hornsby Branch CWA to relocate to ground level ‘shop front’ space at 11 Coronation Street, Hornsby, as soon as possible before 1 March 2012, until the completion of the new Hornsby Aquatic Centre.

2. Council undertake the necessary refurbishment and fitout works to bring the shop front space into conformity with the Building Code of Australia and maintain a similar standard as the existing space within the current CWA Rooms.

3. Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate the terms of the lease, generally consistent with the existing lease arrangements between Council and the CWA.

4. Council receive a report outlining options for upgrading the remainder of 11 Coronation Street, Hornsby to offer up to three separate commercial leases for a period up to 10 years.

SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA

MATTERS OF URGENCY

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

General Manager's Report No. GM22/11

General Manager Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

1 SEPTEMBER QUARTERLY REVIEW AGAINST THE DELIVERY PROGRAM 2011-2015 AND OPERATIONAL PLAN 2011/12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Accountable organisations like Council review their budget and operational performance each quarter. In this regard, the September 2011 Quarterly Review of the Delivery Program 2011 – 2015, including the Operational Plan (Budget) for 2011/12 is attached.

The 2011/12 Original Budget forecast a surplus at 30 June 2012 of $6K. The September 2011 Quarter Review has resulted in no budget changes to the Original Budget. The amended 2011/12 Budget forecast at 30 June 2012 remains at $6K.

This liquidity result is satisfactory in maintaining Council’s current working funds position.

The operational performance of the organisation has been in line with the service delivery standards adopted by Council.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this Report is to present for Council’s consideration the September 2011 Quarterly Review of the Delivery Program 2011 – 2015, including the Operational Plan (Budget) for 2011/12.

DISCUSSION

Operational comment

On 23 March 2011 Council adopted its 2011 – 2015 Delivery Program which included the 2011/12 Operational Plan and Fees and Charges. The Delivery Program sets out the manner in which Council intends to align its business goals with its intent of "creating a living environment" and is divided into the following five elements:

· Governance

· Ecology

· Economy

· Society and culture

· Human Habitat

The attached graphs demonstrate satisfactory operational performance during the September 2011 Quarter.

Budget comment

This Review includes the first quarter results for 2011/12, comparing actual expenditure and income for the first quarter against the budget for the first quarter. The Net Operating and Capital result after internal funding movements showed a positive variance of $1.473 million or 3.67% as compared to the September 2011 Quarter Budget. This variance has largely been the result of the timing differences of project related works and the initial phasing of the 2011/12 Budget.

The 2011/12 Budget was included as part of Council’s Long Term Financial Plan which formed part of the Special Rate Application to the Independent and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) in 2011. An important commitment within the 2011/12 Budget and Council’s rate application to IPART is the need to identify savings totalling $1.45 million. To date savings totalling $1.301 million has been identified from labour and non-labour related costs. Labour savings were determined from an independent review of Council internal services.

Considerable effort will be made to realise the full amount of $1.45 million savings by 30 June 2012. It is expected by the end of December 2011, a further report will be available on the review of external services that may potentially identify further savings. Potential savings arising from the external review will most likely be considered as part of the March 2012 Quarterly Budget review with the aim to improve the current working funds position.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements

The Division of Local Government issued in December 2010 a set of minimum financial reporting requirements that councils are required to report against from 1 July 2011. Collectively, these reporting requirements will be known as the quarterly budget review statement (QBRS) and will be reported to council at the end of each quarter.

The QBRS is composed of, but not limited to, the following budget review components:

· Statement by the responsible accounting officer on council’s financial position at the end of the year based on the information in the QBRS;

· Budget Review Income and Expenses Statement;

· Budget Review Capital Budget;

· Budget Review Cash and Investments position;

· Budget Review Key Performance Indicators; and,

· Budget Review Contracts and Other Expenses

Attachment 2 of this report provides the information in respect to the above requirements.

Fees and Charges comment

Council has always supported a variety of sports by providing sportsgrounds at a subsidised rate for use by various groups. The provision of turf cricket pitch grounds requires a greater financial subsidy than any other group sport.

Council exhibited its proposed 2011/12 Fees and Charges schedule in March 2011. The proposed schedule of fees increased the seasonal hire rate for a class 1 (turf pitch) ground by 30% more than the hire rate for the previous year. At that time, cricket organisations opposed the 30% increase, arguing instead for a 20% hire fee increase. The proposed fee increase for all other sportsground hire was 15%.

Council also proposed to reduced the number of class 1 (turf pitch) grounds from eleven to nine by converting 2 turf pitch grounds to synthetic wicket grounds. The budget impact of this reduction in turf wicket grounds was estimated at an ongoing saving of $40K per year.

The cricket clubs, through the Northern Metropolitan Cricket Council, opposed both the 30% fee increase and a reduction in turf wicket grounds, however the Cricket Council stated a preference to accept the 30% fee increase while taking time to prepare a detailed submission opposing a reduction in turf wickets.

At the July 2011 Ordinary Meeting (CC41/11), Council considered a number of budget issues including the matter of wicket conversion. At that meeting, Council determined to proceed with converting two grounds from turf to synthetic wickets. Council also altered its position on fees for class 1 cricket grounds, decreasing the fee increase from 30% to 20% increase on the previous year. This meant the fee for class 1 ground season fees decreased from $7,318 to $6,754. All other sportsground hire fees incurred a 15% fee increase.

The Northern Metropolitan Cricket Council is now requesting that Council further reduce its season fee structure for ground hire to cricket clubs and Associations for 2011/12, as per the attached letter, summarised in the following table.

Type of ground	2010/11 Fee	2011/12 Adopted Fee	Fee proposed by cricket clubs
Class one (turf wicket)	$5,629	$6,754 (20% increase)	$6,192 (10% increase)
Class two (synthetic wicket)	$1,944	$2,235 (15% increase)	$2,041 (5% increase)
Class three (synthetic wicket)	$902	$1,037	$947 (5% increase

The requested reduction in hire fees would result in

· A decrease in Council income of $17K

· A perception of bias because the fee increase for cricket grounds in 2011/12 would be a lesser percentage than other sports

If Council was to address the issue of perceived bias by reducing all sportsground fees from 15% increase to 10% increase, the decrease in 2011/12 income is estimated at $68K.

For these reasons Council’s Parks and Landscape Branch recommend that Council not reduce the adopted fees for cricket ground hire in 2011/12.

BUDGET

This Report provides the September 2011 Quarterly Review of the 2011/12 Operational Plan (Budget).

POLICY

There are no specific policy implications associated with this Report.

CONSULTATION

All Divisions and appropriate staff have had input into the September 2011 Quarterly Review process.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council's 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 officers responsible for preparation of this Report are Julie Williams - Manager, Strategy and Communications and Glen Magus - Manager, Financial Services. They can be contacted on 9847-6790 and 9847-6635 respectively.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The September 2011 Quarterly Review of the Operational Plan (Budget) 2011/12 be received and noted.

2. Council decline to amend the adopted fees and charges for 2011/12 including the fees for hire of cricket grounds.

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

Scott Phillips

General Manager

General Manager Division

Attachments:

1.View	Letter from NMCC requesting review of hire fees
2.View	QBRS reporting - 1st Qtr 2011
3.View	1st Quarter Review - September 2011

File Reference: F2010/00575

Document Number: D01784854

General Manager's Report No. GM23/11

General Manager Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

2 HILLS HAWKESBURY AND RIVERLANDS TOURISM PARTNERSHIP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tourism is a valuable contributor to the local economy, but the effort needed to effectively market the Shire’s most prominent tourist destination, the Hawkesbury River, is beyond the core business of Hornsby Shire Council. Partnering with an existing local tourism promotion venture such as Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism offers Council the benefits of tourism marketing in a cost effective manner.

Participating in the Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism alliance, thereby gaining wider promotion of the Hawkesbury River and its surrounding areas is expected to provide tangible benefits to local tourism operators, and therefore this report recommends Council becomes a member partner of the Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism alliance.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to propose that Hornsby Shire Council partner with Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism organisation, and that an amount of $5,000 be allocated to Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism per year as a partnership contribution for the term of the partnership.

DISCUSSION

The economic worth of tourism to the Hornsby local government area has been estimated at more than $102 million per annum. The Hawkesbury River and its surrounding areas are prominent tourist destinations in Hornsby Shire.

Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism (HHART) is a joint initiative of businesses involved in local tourism, The Hills Shire Council and Tourism NSW.

HHART was established in 2008 as an industry driven, industry led tourism promotion organisation. The purpose of HHART is to grow the visitor economy by increasing visits to the region, increasing the financial yield of visitors and by encouraging wider visitation throughout the region.

HHART partners with Tourism NSW and as such is the ‘first port of call’ or entry point for potential tourists seeking information on things to do, places to see and stay, and general interest in the region.

The area represented by HHART ranges from Brooklyn in the east to Mt Tomah in the west and includes a significant portion of A Ward in the Hornsby local government area.

HHART produces the Hills, Hawkesbury and Riverlands Destination Guide, a high quality A4 sized visitor guide for the region which is distributed in Sydney City and regional New South Wales. HHART also hosts a web site with the functionality to book accommodation and visitor experiences and will shortly be offering a free smart phone app. HHART has oversight of the running of the Dural and Rouse Hill Visitor Information Centres.

A HHART representative recently met with the Hornsby Shire Council Mayor and staff, and has offered Council a strategic level membership of HHART for $5,000 per annum.

In return Council can expect marketing and promotion on the HHART web site and via industry familiarisation tours of facilities such as Fagan Park, Parsley Bay, Kangaroo Point and other council-owned sites of visitation interest. Additionally Council can expect a positive ‘flow on’ effect or multiplier effect on local businesses and tourist operators.

HHART also offers Council access to the latest data on visitation to the Hornsby local government area as well as assistance in planning tourism campaigns specific to the area.

Strategically it would be of benefit to local tourism operations if Council was to be more involved HHART as it is considered the 'go to' contact for Destination NSW, Events NSW and Tourism Australia.

The tangible return Council could expect on its investment of $5,000 primarily relates to improving business opportunities for local tourism, particularly:

1. Increasing numbers of tourism visitation, demonstrated by increased bookings per HHART campaign as well as benchmark numbers for responses and hits to the website

2. Provision of more opportunities to speak to greater number of potential customers by being part of HHART campaigns

3. Up-skilling of tourism operators to increase visitor conversion and retention

For contribution of $5,000 annually to HHART for marketing aimed at improving regional tourism, there is the potential to grow the tourism economy by an estimated 6% per annum, which equates to a return of an additional $6 million to the economy.

BUDGET

The $5,000contribution to HHART will be funded from within existing resources, and therefore no direct budgetary implications are anticipated.

POLICY

This report does not have any policy implications.

CONSULTATION

This proposal has evolved following a mayoral interview on Wednesday 14 September 2011 with a representative from HHART. Council’s Finance Branch and Strategic Town Planning Branch have been consulted in preparing this report.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

Economy – a resilient local economy and sustainable resource use

· Economic sustainability is essential to local communities because it provides jobs and contributes to the prosperity of the area.

Society and Culture – enhance social and community wellbeing

· Council works in partnership with residents, community groups, agencies and networks to make sure opportunities are addressed in a timely and equitable manner.

Governance – guidance towards a sustainable future

· Ensure long term financial sustainability through effective service provision that is appropriate to the needs of the community and provides value for money.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for this report is Julie Williams, Manager Strategy and Communications and she can be contacted on 9847 6790.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council becomes a partner member of the Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism organisation.

2. Council allocates $5,000 from within existing budget to the Hills Hawkesbury and Riverlands Tourism organisation per year as a partnership contribution.

3. Council reviews the partnership arrangement each year.

Scott Phillips

General Manager

General Manager Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2004/06532

Document Number: D01784877

Executive Manager's Report No. CC68/11

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

4 2011/12 INVESTMENTS AND BORROWINGS - PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 2011

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 quarter ending September 2011 was $468,000 compared to the budgeted income for the same period of $397,000. Of the investment income earned, 32% relates to externally restricted funds (such as those collected under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act), 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 of Surplus Funds Policy (which was last reviewed by Council at its 20 April 2011 Ordinary Meeting).

DISCUSSION

Council's Investment Performance – September 2011

· The At-Call and Term Deposits achieved an annualised return of 5.84% for the month compared to the benchmark of 4.75%.

· NSW T-Corp Long Term Growth Facility achieved a marked to market annualised return of -25.04% for the month compared to the benchmark of -29.04%. 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 6.76% for the month compared to the benchmark of 4.81%. The current market value for this investment category as at 30 September 2011 is $2,000,000. This note will mature in November 2011.

· The Capital Guaranteed Notes achieved an annualised return of 0% for the month compared to the benchmark of 4.81%. No interest will be accrued for the remaining life of the securities. The current market value for this investment category as at 30 September 2011 is $3,493,000.

For total investments, the annualised return for September 2011 was 4.40% compared to the benchmark of 3.76%.

Economic Commentary

Statement by Glenn Stevens, Governor: Monetary Policy Decision – Media Release - 4 October 2011

At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 4.75 per cent.

Conditions in global financial markets have continued to be very unsettled, with uncertainty increasing about both the prospects for resolution of the sovereign debt and banking problems in Europe, and the outlook for global economic growth. While temporary impediments that had contributed to a slowing in growth in some countries over recent months are lessening, recent data suggest a continuing period of soft economic conditions in both Europe and the United States. Moreover, the uncertainty and financial volatility have reduced confidence, which could result in more cautious behaviour by firms and households in major countries.

It will take more time for evidence of any effects of the recent European and US financial turbulence on economic activity in other regions to emerge. Thus far, indications are that economic activity is continuing to expand in China and most of Asia. Nonetheless, recent events have led forecasters to reduce their estimates for global GDP growth, which is now expected to be about average this year and next. Prices for commodities have declined over recent weeks, though in general they remain high.

Australia's terms of trade are very high, which has increased national income considerably. Investment in the resources sector is picking up very strongly and some related service sectors are enjoying better than average conditions. In other sectors, cautious behaviour by households and the earlier rise in the exchange rate have had a noticeable dampening effect. The impetus from earlier Australian Government spending programs is now also abating, as had been intended. While there remain good reasons to expect solid growth over the medium term, the indications are that the pace of near-term growth is unlikely to be as strong as earlier expected, due both to local and global factors, including the financial turmoil and related effects on business confidence.

Underlying inflation stopped falling and began to increase earlier this year. The Board has been concerned about the prospect of a further pick-up over the period ahead, but over recent months has been weighing the question of whether a period of weaker than expected conditions would contain that pick-up in inflation. Recently revised data show a pick-up to date in the underlying pace of price rises that was less sharp than initially indicated. Moreover, with labour market conditions now a little softer and households more concerned about the possibility of unemployment rising, the likelihood of a significant acceleration in labour costs outside the resources and related sectors is lessening.

Taking into account all the recent information, the path for inflation may now be more consistent with the 2–3 per cent target in 2012 and 2013, abstracting from the impact of the carbon pricing scheme. This assessment will be reviewed on receipt of further data on prices ahead of the Board's next meeting. An improved inflation outlook would increase the scope for monetary policy to provide some support to demand, should that prove necessary.

The Board noted that financial conditions have been easing somewhat, with interest rates for some housing and business loans declining slightly due to increased competition and the fall in some funding costs in financial markets. The exchange rate has also declined from the very high levels of a few months ago. Credit growth remains low, however, and asset prices have declined.

At today's meeting the Board judged the current cash rate remained appropriate. As always, the Board will continue to assess carefully the evolving outlook for growth and inflation.

Borrowings

In respect of borrowings, the weighted average interest rate payable on loans taken out from June 2002 to June 2011, based on the principal balances outstanding, is 6.89%. The Borrowings Schedule as at 30 September 2011 is attached for Council’s information.

BUDGET

Total investment income for the quarter ending September was $468,000. The budgeted income for the period was $397,000. Approximately 32% of the investment income 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 of Surplus Funds Policy.

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.

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. CC68/11 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 Sep 2011
2.View	HSC Borrowings Schedule as at 30 Sep 2011

File Reference: F2004/06987

Document Number: D01782444

Executive Manager's Report No. CC69/11

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

5 CONDUCT OF COUNCIL'S 2012 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Up to and including the 2004 local government election, councils received varying levels of assistance from the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) in respect of the conduct of their council elections. After the 2004 election, the NSWEC took on full responsibility for the running of local government elections with the exception of the preparation of non-residential rolls, and charged councils on a full cost recovery basis. This led to complaints from councils about the amount they were charged for the 2008 election, particularly when compared to amounts they had paid for previous elections.

In June 2011, the State Government amended the Local Government Act to enable councils to make a choice as to who would run their 2012 election. Where a council decides to run its own elections, rather than appoint the NSWEC, responsibility for the conduct of the election rests with the general manager.

This Report provides details of advice received from the Division of Local Government (DLG) about the matter; outlines concerns raised by the Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA) with the State Government about various issues associated with the election; and explains what has occurred in respect of an assessment by Council staff of other election service providers. Two options are then presented for Council’s consideration.

In respect of the first option, which is that the General Manager be responsible for Council’s 2012 election, it is considered that there is a reasonably high level of risk in a number of areas and that failure to comply with certain requirements in running the election has the potential of repercussions for Council. There is also a major issue associated with the timeframe that the legislation sets for the making of a decision. In respect of the second option, which is that the NSWEC be appointed to conduct Council’s 2012 election, it is noted that Council could be confident that the election would meet all legislative requirements and would be conducted at arm’s length. It is also noted that the repercussions of any failure to comply with legislative requirements would reflect on the NSWEC rather than Council.

The recommendation is that Council appoint the NSWEC to run its 2012 elections, but at the same time express its disappointment in the NSW Premier’s response to the Presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations about the 2012 election issues raised at a meeting between the Premier and Presidents on 19 September 2011, and endorse the views of the Associations as expressed in the Presidents’ letter to the Premier dated 4 November 2011. A further recommendation is that following the 2012 election, to allow appropriate consideration to be made regarding who should conduct Council’s elections beyond 2012, Council officers review the process and evaluate the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the running of the 2012 election and make comparisons with the outcomes of the election process where other councils chose to use a supplier other than the NSWEC for their 2012 election.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with information and options to allow it to make a decision in respect of who will conduct Council’s September 2012 election.

DISCUSSION

Background

Council’s 2012 election will involve the election of a Mayor by electors from across the Shire (popularly elected Mayor); and the election of three Councillors from each of the Shire’s three Wards (A, B and C) by electors within those Wards. In total, 10 councillors will be elected. It is noted that Council is required to ensure that the number of electors in each of the Wards does not vary by more than 10%. In this regard, periodical checks have been made by Council staff and the latest statistics (September 2011) published by the NSWEC indicate that the number of electors in each of Hornsby’s Wards is well within the 10% tolerance between Wards.

Up to and including the 2004 local government election, councils received varying levels of assistance from the NSWEC in respect of the conduct of their council elections. This level of assistance depended on the individual council’s requirements but generally included the recruitment, appointment, training and indemnity of a returning officer; the provision of support and advice in respect of the election process; the supply of election materials including ballot boxes and voting booths; the provision of election forms; the count of the vote and finalisation of results; etc. After the 2004 election, the NSWEC took on full responsibility for the running of local government elections and administered all aspects of the election with the exception of the preparation of non-residential rolls.

Following on from commitments made to the LGSA in the lead up to the 2011 State election, the State Government, in June 2011, amended the Local Government Act to enable councils to make a choice as to who would run their 2012 election. In this regard, Section 296 of the Act now provides that council elections are to be administered by the general manager of the council. In administering the council’s elections, the general manager may engage the services of a contractor to undertake the relevant tasks associated with conducting the election. In such cases, the general manager is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the election and for the calling of tenders where costs for running the election are expected to exceed $150,000. The Act also states, however, that a council may resolve to enter into a contract or make arrangements with the NSWEC to administer its elections. Notably, Section 55(3)(p) of the Act provides that a council need not invite tenders before entering into a contract with the NSWEC for the administration of its elections.

Where a council decides to run its own elections, the responsibilities of the general manager would include conducting the election and count of the votes; the appointment of a suitably qualified independent returning officer and a substitute returning officer; appointing the polling places; determining the fees payable to electoral officials; confirming the roll of non-resident owners, occupiers and rate paying lessees; preparing a list of names of apparent non-voters; managing the relevant election costs; and preparing a report on the election for the Minister for Local Government. The report to the Minister must disclose a number of things required by legislation including full and transparent costings.

Councils initially had until 30 October 2011, now extended until 30 November 2011, to decide whether or not they would appoint the NSWEC to run their 2012 election and to advise the NSWEC and the DLG of that decision. Council’s decision must be by way of a Council resolution.

The NSWEC has visited councils across the State to discuss their proposed approach to the running of the 2012 election and to promote their services. Although they are unable to provide a firm cost estimate to run a council’s 2012 election, the NSWEC has indicated a minimum increase for each council on their 2008 election cost would be based on:

· Wage costs of 4 years x 4% (17% cumulative)

· CPI over 4 years (12.8% cumulative)

· Number of electors being serviced (2% increase)

· Potential “economy of scale” loss if some councils do not choose to use the NSWEC

In Hornsby’s case, the amount paid to the NSWEC in respect of the 2008 election was $616,000 (exclusive of GST). Therefore, applying the estimated increases to the various components would bring the estimated cost of the 2012 election to $720,000 (exclusive of GST). It is worth noting that this compares to the cost of $375,000 charged by the NSWEC in respect of the particular services they provided to Council for the 2004 election.

[N.B. Following the 2008 elections, the NSW Parliament appointed a Joint Standing Committee to undertake a review of the NSWEC’s conduct of the 2008 elections in light of concerns raised by the LGSA and a number of councils, particularly in relation to the significant cost increases imposed by the NSWEC on most councils for the running of their elections. The Joint Standing Committee made 16 recommendations identifying a number of areas of improvement, with two of those recommendations relating to costs. The recommendations relating to costs did not comment specifically on the actual amounts charged by the NSWEC but recommended a review of the operation of the full cost recovery model used in the 2012 elections and recommended that the NSWEC provide detailed information about actual and budgeted costs for the 2012 election to councils.]

In its discussions with councils, the NSWEC has indicated that if it is to administer the 2012 election for the council, minimal flexibility will be provided to the council to tailor their particular requirements and lessen the cost of the election. Only a few options will be available to councils to achieve a small reduction in costs, such as a decrease in the number of polling places, choices on the printing and distribution of election brochures, other printing costs, etc. The NSWEC have effectively adopted an “all or nothing” approach i.e. if councils choose not to engage the NSWEC to run their election, the NSWEC will not provide any advice, assistance or materials whatsoever in relation to the election. The only thing that will be provided through the NSWEC would be the electoral roll because this is a legislative requirement.

Despite the fact that the NSWEC has indicated that it cannot provide a firm price for conducting the 2012 elections, the new legislation allows a council to enter into a contract with the NSWEC to run their election without going through a tendering process. However, if a council wishes to investigate the engagement of an alternative election company, usual tendering rules apply and a full public tender process must be undertaken. This obviously makes the deadline of making a decision and providing advice to the NSWEC and the DLG by 30 November 2011 unrealistic to meet.

Advice from the DLG

The DLG has issued a number of Circulars in relation to the conduct of the 2012 elections. The latest, Circular No. 11-22, advises that the DLG has issued Guidelines (copy attached) under section 23A of the Local Government Act to assist councils understand the level of service and accountability that will be required of them if they administer their own elections. Because the Guidelines are issued under section 23A of the Act, councils must take the Guidelines into consideration when determining whether to administer the 2012 elections themselves or to engage the NSWEC.

In the Guidelines, the DLG advises that transitional provisions in the Act enable councils to retain the services of the NSWEC to administer their elections, referendums and polls until the conclusion of the 2012 elections if they wish. As the engagement of the NSWEC will be on a contractual basis post the 2012 election, councils will be able to negotiate on commercial terms how their future elections will be administered.

Also, the DLG states that where a council chooses to use the NSWEC, the council must pass a resolution to this effect by 30 November 2011. To give the NSWEC certainty, councils must provide a definite commitment by this date. This means that councils need to make an unconditional resolution and cannot place caveats such as “subject to cost” on their resolution. Once the 30 November 2011 deadline has passed, any council that has not resolved to engage the NSWEC will by default be responsible for the conduct of its own elections. There are no provisions in the legislation enabling an extension to be granted or to approach the NSWEC at a later date

Representations by the LGSA to the State Government

On 19 September 2011, the Presidents of the LGSA met with the NSW Premier and the Minister for Local Government to discuss various aspects of the 2012 election process. At the meeting, the LGSA requested that:

· the deadline of 30 November 2011 in respect of the appointment of the NSWEC to run the 2012 election be extended

· the tendering requirements in respect of the appointment of an alternative provider to run the 2012 election be waived

· the NSWEC be required to assist councils with respect to the support they provide if a council chooses to run its own election

· the NSW Government share the revenue derived from failure to vote penalties.

[N.B. In respect to the last dot point, the LGSA noted that at the 2008 elections, 398,489 failure to vote penalty notices were issued across the State at $55 each, totalling $21,916,895, all of which was forwarded to the NSW Government’s Consolidated Fund. It was further noted that the total amount charged to all councils by the NSWEC for the 2008 elections was $25,911,000.]

The Premier has responded to the Presidents of the LGSA indicating that there will be no extension to the deadline of 30 November 2011 to make a decision about whether the NSWEC would be engaged to run a council’s 2012 election, because the NSWEC needs “….sufficient time to prepare for the elections that it will be responsible for conducting.” The Presidents of the LGSA have since written back to the Premier indicating that the Premier’s letter “….leaves nothing but extreme disappointment and a very bitter taste.” Copies of the Premier’s letter and the Presidents’ response are attached for information.

Alternative Suppliers

The LGSA has expressed both surprise and concern to councils that there appears to be a very limited number of alternative suppliers to conduct the elections. Local Government Procurement has been approached to assist in this regard but the only assistance they would be able to provide at this stage is to develop a tender specification document for use by councils. They do not believe they can run a tender process on behalf of all councils or develop an appropriate preferred supplier list in the timeframe allowed.

At a meeting convened by the LGSA on 29 August 2011, a presentation was made to attending councils by the Australian Election Company (AEC). The AEC had previously written to all NSW councils to offer their services to run the 2012 elections. From the presentation made by the AEC, it appears that:

· They have 15 experienced returning officers on their books which they can offer in respect of responding to tenders to run the 2012 election.

· They are willing to consider additional returning officers nominated by councils, subject to those returning officers being trained by the AEC and meeting their standards.

· They offer two levels of service: one being a fully outsourced service where they take care of all aspects of running the election, or a reduced level of service by way of an election “package” whereby the council and their appointed returning officer do the rest.

· Their election “package” excludes ballot paper printing and scanning/counting of ballot papers.

· They have the appropriate vote counting software to cover the various voting methods. That software, although currently in a DOS based program format, is being converted to windows based and will be appropriately audited prior to use at the 2012 elections. If the windows version is not available, the DOS based version will be used

· Their method is to scan the ballot papers enabling automatic population of vote counting software, thereby eliminating the need for manual data entry and checking.

· They have had significant experience in Queensland including local government elections there but have no current experience in running local government elections in NSW.

Council staff attended the AEC presentation on 29 August 2011 and provided an update about the AEC to Hornsby Councillors at an informal briefing session on 31 August 2011. Following that briefing, Council officers have sought and obtained a quote from the AEC to run the 2012 election for the Hornsby Shire. The quote received indicates a potential saving of approximately $100,000 as compared to the estimated cost provided by the NSWEC. It is noted, however, that the quote is not a formal tender. Unless the request by the LGSA referred to above to waive tender guidelines is acceded to by the Government, Council would still need to progress through a full tender process before selecting an alternative supplier for the elections.

Options for Council

There appear to be two options available to Council in respect of conducting its 2012 election. Comments in respect of those options are provided below.

Option 1 – Election to be Administered by the General Manager

The Guidelines for Council Administered Elections 2012 provide details regarding the level of service and accountability that will be required of the General Manager if Council administers its own election in 2012. The General Manager would be responsible for all aspects of conducting the election. They are extensive and include, but are not limited to:

· Awareness of, and ensuring compliance with, all relevant legislative provisions

· Appointing a Returning Officer and substitute Returning Officer

· Appointing polling places

· Determining fees payable to the Returning Officer, the substitute Returning Officer and electoral officials

· Confirming the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land and the roll of occupiers and rate-paying lessees

· Preparing a list of apparent non voters and forwarding to the Electoral Commissioner within 14 days of the election

· Managing the election costs

· Preparing a report for the Minister for Local Government on the conduct of the election with such report to disclose full and transparent costings

In addition, many other administrative tasks are involved in conducting an election, such as developing and printing all forms, managing candidate information, managing postal votes and pre poll voting, ensuring results and other relevant information are displayed on Council’s website, etc. In determining whether it is appropriate for the General Manager to administer the elections, serious and careful consideration needs to be given to the above and many other issues. Some immediate reservations which come to mind are: the availability of appropriately skilled and experienced staff to provide the necessary support; the risk of not being able to source a suitably qualified and experienced Returning Officer and substitute; and the availability of software equipped to manage the vote counting. Underlying these concerns is the complete lack of support available from the NSWEC should Council choose to conduct its own election.

In undertaking to conduct its own elections in accordance with Section 296 of the Act, Council would have the opportunity of engaging the services of a supplier other than the NSWEC to assist. However, given that the decision must be made by 30 November 2011, it is simply not possible for the required tender process to be undertaken and a decision made by the given timeframe. Also, if Council has not resolved to engage the NSWEC by 30 November 2011, Council will, by default, be responsible for managing its own election in 2012.

If Council decides to conduct its own election, it will need to proceed through a tender process to identify and engage another supplier. Several points would need to be acknowledged in moving down this path. Firstly, there appears to be an extremely limited choice of alternative service providers, with the only organisation yet identified as a potential supplier being the AEC. Although the AEC has significant experience in managing local government elections in Queensland, their experience does not extend to local government elections in NSW. Also, it is uncertain as to the capacity of the AEC to deal with a large number of requests for assistance by councils, and there is no guarantee that their pool of resources of appropriately skilled staff would be sufficient to satisfy such demands.

The AEC has provided Council officers with a quote to conduct the elections for Hornsby Shire and this quote indicates an estimated saving of approximately $100,000 as compared to the estimate provided by the NSWEC. It is, however, important to note that the quote is indicative only, and no firm costing would be available until the tender process had been undertaken. Further, the timelines involved are extremely tight, and will probably cross the Christmas/New Year period which would also lessen the time available to resource and train appropriate staff should the AEC’s current staff numbers not be sufficient to satisfy demand from councils across NSW.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that a decision for Council to manage its own elections, either on its own or through the engagement of an alternative supplier, would involve a reasonably high level of risk in a number of areas. Careful consideration needs to be given as to whether that level of risk is acceptable in the critical operation of conducting its elections, and whether that risk is worth a projected $100,000 saving. It is noted that failure to comply with certain requirements in running the election has the potential of financial and other repercussions for Council.

Option 2 – Election to be Administered by the NSWEC

Should Council decide to use the NSWEC to conduct its election, the NSWEC is able to provide a full and complete service to Council. The NSWEC would undertake the tasks and responsibilities of the General Manager referred to in Option 1 above, and would ultimately be responsible for the successful conduct of the election i.e. they assume the risk.

It is recognised that there has been some dissatisfaction with the NSWEC in its conduct of the 2008 elections, significantly in terms of costs and also in some administrative matters and levels of service provided. As a result of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following the 2008 elections, the NSWEC developed a service charter which sets out the services that the NSWEC can provide, and also the standards of service that local councils, electors, and candidates can expect from an election run by the NSWEC. The charter is intended to be a means of managing expectations of service levels, guide performance within the NSWEC, and provide a means for measuring such performance. This will hopefully encourage cooperation between local councils and the NSWEC, and minimise the type of dissatisfaction which was reported following the 2008 election.

Whilst it is disappointing that the NSWEC is unable to commit to a firm cost of running the 2012 election at this point, they have advised that they do not make any profit from the conduct of local government elections and that they will invoice on a cost recovery basis the actual costs of the election. Council officers would closely monitor this situation and look for savings opportunities in the planning phase.

It should be noted that if Council determines to engage the services of the NSWEC to conduct its 2012 elections by 30 November 2011, the NSWEC is obligated to provide that service. There is provision for councils, within the 12 months following the 2012 elections, to again choose who they wish to conduct any required elections up to and including the 2016 election. However, as part of the process post 2012, the NSWEC is under no obligation to provide the service if selected to do so and councils may be forced to go through a tendering process and engage an alternative supplier.

There is no doubt that the NSWEC have the relevant experience, resources, and skilled personnel to successfully manage Council elections. If the NSWEC were engaged to conduct the election, Council could be confident that the election would meet all legislative requirements, and would be conducted effectively and at arm’s length from the elected Councillors and candidates as well as Council staff. It should also be noted that should the election be conducted by the NSWEC, the repercussions of any failure to comply with legislative requirements would be incurred by the NSWEC and should not reflect on Council.

Conclusion

It is important that Council’s consideration of this Report leads to a decision which provides an efficient and cost effective 2012 election, ensures compliance with all legislative requirements and manages voter and the DLG’s expectations. Given the time constraints involved, and the risk levels associated with engaging an alternative supplier at this stage, it is recommended that Option 2 be adopted and that Council engage the services of the NSWEC to conduct its 2012 election. It is noted that this would not preclude Council from choosing an alternative supplier to conduct elections beyond 2012. In this regard, it is proposed that following the 2012 elections, Council officers review the process and evaluate the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the running of the 2012 election and make comparisons with the outcomes of the election process where other councils chose to use an alternative supplier. Appropriate consideration can then be made regarding who should conduct Council’s elections beyond 2012.

BUDGET

Sufficient funding has been included in Council’s budget through a restricted asset to cover the NSWEC’s estimated cost of running the 2012 election.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

CONSULTATION

The preparation of this Report has had regard to discussions and communications with the DLG, Northern Sydney Region of Councils, NSWEC, AEC, LGSA, representatives from other NSW councils, Council’s previous and current General Manager, other relevant Council staff, and the DLG Guidelines for Council Administered Elections 2012.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

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 the preparation of this Report are the Manager, Governance and Customer Service – Ms Robyn Abicair and the Executive Manager Corporate and Community Division – Mr Gary Bensley. They can be contacted on 9847 6608 and 9847 6605 respectively.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. CC69/11 be received and noted.

Robyn Abicair

Manager - Governance & Customer Service

Corporate and Community Division

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

Attachments:

1.View	Division of Local Government Circular No. 11-22 - Guidelines for Council Administered Elections 2012
2.View	Letter to Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM dated 28 October 2011
3.View	Letter to The Hon Barry O'Farrell MP dated 4 November 2011

File Reference: F2011/00019

Document Number: D01783959

Executive Manager's Report No. CC70/11

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

6 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GRANT - 2011/12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is noted that Hornsby is one of 23 councils, all in the Sydney metropolitan area, who receive the minimum financial assistance grant entitlement. This is predominantly because the grant calculation process determines that Hornsby has a higher than average revenue raising capacity because its average value per property is higher than the average value per property across the State.

It is recommended that the Report be received and noted.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this Report is to table a letter received from the NSW Local Government Grants Commission in respect of the calculation of Council’s financial assistance grant for 2011/12.

DISCUSSION

General

Council has received a letter from the Executive Officer of the NSW Local Government Grants Commission which provides a detailed summary of the calculation of Council’s financial assistance grant for 2011/12. The Commission has requested that a copy of the documents be tabled at a Council meeting. In accordance with that request, a copy of the letter, and a previous related document received earlier this year, are attached for Council’s information.

It should be noted that local government financial assistance grants (FAG’s) are general purpose grants that are paid to local councils under the provisions of the Commonwealth Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995. The Act details how the total amount of grant funds is determined and how the funds are to be distributed between the States and Territories.

Each State and the Northern Territory must have a Local Government Grants Commission for it to receive funding. It is the responsibility of each Grants Commission to make recommendations on the allocations of grants to local governments in their State or Territory. In NSW, the Grants Commission makes recommendations to the NSW Minister for Local Government and, if accepted, the recommendations are referred to the Commonwealth Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government.

Although there are two separately identified grant components of FAG’s, the total funds are paid to councils as unconditional grants. Councils have complete autonomy in deciding how the funds should be spent. The two components of FAG’s are distributed on the basis of national principles under the provisions of the Commonwealth Act, and NSW principles which were developed in consultation with local government. The two components are:

· The general purpose component which attempts to assess the extent of relative disadvantage between councils. The approach taken by the Commission considers the extent of cost disadvantage in the provision of services on the one hand (expenditure allowances) and an assessment of the relative capacity of councils to raise revenue on the other (revenue allowances). The national principles require that the method used to assess the grants should exclude, as far as practicable, councils’ policies and practices (the effort neutral principle). The Act also specifies that all councils are entitled to a minimum amount, which is the amount it would be allocated if 30% of the funds were distributed to all councils on a per capita basis - for the 2011/12 financial year this is $21.01 per capita.

· The local roads component which is assessed on the basis of the council’s proportion of the State’s population and the lengths of local roads and bridges. The formula used to determine this component was developed by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

The national allocation of FAG’s for 2011/12 was $2.152 billion which consisted of the general purpose component ($1.491 billion) and the local roads component ($661 million).

The general purpose component is distributed to the States and Territories on the basis of their share of the national population. For 2011/12, NSW received $482.36 million or 32.36% of the national pool. The local roads component is distributed on the basis of an historical formula and for NSW for 2011/12 it amounts to $191.91 million, which is 29.01% of the national pool.

Hornsby Shire Council’s share of the general purpose component for 2011/12 is $3,282,188, which was the minimum entitlement of $21.01 per capita referred to above. Council’s share of the local roads component is $1,434,191.

Calculation of General Purpose Component of FAG Grant

Councils have some ability to influence the general purpose component of their grant by submitting to the Grants Commission details regarding cost disabilities which are inherent to the council area. The same opportunities do not currently apply in relation to the local roads component.

The general purpose component of the grant calculations is made up of three elements. They are the:

· expenditure element which recognises the additional costs faced by councils in providing services because of inherent cost disabilities (N.B. Council policy decisions are not considered);

· revenue element which attempts to assess the relative revenue raising capacity of councils;

· pensioner rebate element which assesses the relative cost of mandatory rate rebates to pensioners.

In simple terms, and subject to the total amount of funding provided by the Commonwealth Government, a council’s general purpose component is calculated by the addition of the expenditure disability allowances, a discounted revenue allowance and a pensioner rebate allowance.

Expenditure Disability Allowances

Expenditure disability allowances are calculated by the Commission for 20 functions or areas of expenditure using the formula:

Allowance = No of Units x Statewide Standard x Council’s Cost Disability Factor

The allowances attempt to compensate councils for expected above average costs caused by factors beyond their control (inherent disabilities). Council policy decisions concerning the level of service provided, or the lack of a service at all, are not considered.

The cost disability factor for each council used in the calculation is determined firstly by identifying variables which are considered to be significant in influencing a council’s expenditure, e.g. the percentage of aged in the council area affects the amount spent on aged services, and secondly by analysing information about those variables which is either gained from sources such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Social Security, etc or from the council itself through an annual return.

Revenue Allowances

The calculation of revenue allowances seeks to compensate or penalise councils for their relative revenue raising capacity.

Each council’s theoretical revenue raising capacity is determined by comparing their land value per property to a State standard and applying the State standard rate-in-the-dollar to the difference. Councils with average values per property less than the State standard are assessed as being disadvantaged and are brought up to the average (via positive allowances), while councils with average values per property greater than the State standard are assessed as being advantaged and are brought down to the average (via negative allowances).

When developing its methodology, the NSW Grants Commission was concerned that the revenue allowances were substantially more significant than the expenditure disability allowances. It raised the issue with the Commonwealth Government (who are required to approve the principles of distribution of the funds) and reached an agreement whereby revenue allowances are able to be discounted to give them the same weight as expenditure allowances.

The discounting helps to overcome the weighty nature of the revenue calculations, in particular the impact of Sydney metropolitan property values. The approach to discounting revenue allowances reduces the extreme positives and negatives calculated whilst maintaining the relativities established in the initial calculation.

Pensioner Rebate Allowances

The pensioner rebate allowance recognises that councils with a high proportion of eligible pensioner assessments have extra costs in providing the mandatory rebate of rates to pensioners. Positive allowances are calculated for councils with an above average number of eligible assessments as a proportion of residential assessments and negative allowances calculated for councils with a below average number of eligible assessments as a proportion of residential assessments.

Final Calculation

There are four major steps involved in the final calculation of a council’s general purpose component:

1. A notional general purpose component is determined for each council by adding together the expenditure disability allowances, the discounted revenue allowance and the pensioner rebate allowance.

2. An adjusted general purpose component is determined for each council by discounting the notional general purpose components for all councils on a pro-rata basis to ensure that the total of all councils’ adjusted general purpose components equals the total amount of funds available for NSW councils.

3. A check is carried out to see if any council’s adjusted general purpose component is below the minimum entitlement required by the legislation i.e. $21.01 per capita for the 2011/12 financial year.

4. A final adjusted general purpose component is determined for each council by:

· increasing the adjusted general purpose component for any council which is below the minimum entitlement, to the minimum entitlement; and

· decreasing all other council’s adjusted general purpose components on a pro-rata basis to ensure that the total of all councils’ final adjusted equalisation components equals the total amount of funds available for NSW councils.

Steps 3 and 4 are repeated if other councils are moved below the minimum entitlement when the final adjustment in Step 4 is carried out.

Impact on Hornsby

For 2011/12, Hornsby is one of 23 councils, all in the Sydney metropolitan area, who receive the minimum FAG entitlement of $21.01 per capita. The others are Botany Bay, Burwood, Canada Bay, The Hills, Hunters Hill, Hurstville, Kogarah, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney, Pittwater, Randwick, Rockdale, Ryde, Strathfield, Sutherland, Warringah, Willoughby and Woollahra.

Hornsby has been on the minimum entitlement since the early 1990’s, predominantly because the revenue allowance calculation process determines that Council has a higher than average revenue raising capacity because its average value per property is higher than the average value per property across the State. In an exercise undertaken by Council officers in 2007/08 when the Grants Commission last visited Hornsby, it was determined that Council would need to identify at least $7.5 million of expenditure disability allowances that no other councils would be eligible to receive, and have them accepted by the Grants Commission, before there was any hope of Council moving above the minimum entitlement. As such, it would appear that the preparation of a submission at this stage would be of no benefit to the quantum of Council’s grant.

BUDGET

Council’s financial assistance grant is included in the 2011/12 Budget. There are no other budgetary implications associated with the preparation of this Report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with the preparation of this Report.

CONSULTATION

There has been consultation with the General Manager and the Manager, Financial Services in the preparation of this Report.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Executive Manager, Corporate and Community Division – Mr Gary Bensley. He can be contacted on 9847-6605.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No CC70/11 be received and noted.

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

Attachments:

1.View	Letter from Local Government Grants Commission dated 24 October 2011 - Summary of 2011-12 Grant Calculations for Hornsby Shire Council
2.View	Letter from the Minister for Local Government dated 26 August 2011 - Distribution of Federally Funded Financial Assistance Grants

File Reference: F2004/07229

Document Number: D01792567

Executive Manager's Report No. CC71/11

Corporate and Community Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Due to the absence of a quorum on the final day, the business of the 2011 Local Government Association Conference was unable to be completed. This resulted in the six motions that Council had submitted not being debated or considered by the Conference.

Although it is understood that the Executive of the Association will now be responsible for considering and dealing with any motions not dealt with by the Conference, it is recommended that Council directly raise its particular issues, for those Council motions which are not already Association policy, with the relevant areas of Government.

It should be noted that the General Manager has discussed the outcomes of the Conference with the Executive Director of NSROC. She has indicated to the General Manager that the matter will be discussed at the NSROC Board Meeting to be held on 10 November 2011. Should any additional relevant information be forthcoming following the NSROC Meeting, a Late Items Memo will be prepared and issued prior to Council’s 16 November 2011 Ordinary Meeting.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this Report is to recommend a course of action in respect of motions which Council submitted to, but which were not dealt with at, the 2011 Local Government Association Conference.

DISCUSSION

The 2011 Local Government Association Conference was held in the Shoalhaven at Nowra from 23 to 26 October 2011. Due to the absence of a quorum on the final day, the business of the Conference was unable to be completed. This resulted in the six motions that Council had submitted not being debated or considered by the Conference.

Council’s six motions, which were supported by explanatory notes in the Conference Business Paper, are listed below:

Motion No 68

Issue: Local Development Contribution System

Motion: That the Local Government Association lobby the NSW Government to amend the local development contribution system in respect of all brownfield development to provide Councils the ability to impose a condition of consent requiring the payment of a levy set at 3% of the value of the development, or $20,000 (indexed at CPI) for subdivision and that Councils be able to use funds collected from the levy to construct new community services and infrastructure and/or augment/update existing community services and infrastructure in accordance with an adopted infrastructure/community plan.

Motion No 106

Issue: Funding of Grant Programs for Local Councils and Other Organisations

Motion: That the Local Government Association request the NSW Government to consider a substantial increase in the funding of grant programs that make funds available for the development of public open space and community sport and recreation facilities generally.

Motion No 113

Issue: Public Library Funding

Motion: That the Local Government Association lobby the NSW Government to increase funding to NSW public libraries. Public libraries provide a vital service to NSW residents from a wide range of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. If this high quality service is to continue, it is critical that the growing imbalance between State and Local government funding be addressed.

Motion No 119

Issue: Waste Levy Revenue to Finance State Owned Alternate Waste Treatment Facilities

Motion: That the Local Government Association request the NSW State Government to investigate the feasibility of using revenue gained from the Waste Levy to provide appropriate waste treatment infrastructure to enable local government to achieve the State’s 66% waste diversion from landfill target.

Motion No 121

Issue: Funding for Crisis Support Services

Motion: That the Local Government Association request the NSW Government to consider a substantial increase in the funding of programs that address crisis support, in particular services that provide immediate and ongoing support to individuals at crisis points in their lives, in order to address mental health, financial crises, suicide prevention and homelessness.

Late Motion No 32

Issue: Procedures to Control Theft of Metal from Council Facilities

Motion: That the Local Government Association request the State Government to implement the necessary procedures to require a person attempting to sell brass or copper to a metal recycling facility to provide personal identification, a description and registration number of the vehicle used to transport the metal, and either:

· Provide evidence in writing that the person was the legal owner or lawfully was entitled to sell the metal; or

· Sign a written statement provided by the facility that the person legally owned or was entitled to sell the metal offered by sale.

The recycling facility shall be required to visually verify and photocopy the seller’s identification for record keeping purposes. Additionally, the facility shall be allowed to take a picture of the seller and the vehicle used to transport the metal, a photo of which could be accepted in lieu of the description and registration number, if the registration number is clearly identifiable in the photo.

[N.B. The following Notes from the Executive of the Association are displayed in the Conference Business Paper in respect of three of Council’s motions:

Motion No 113 – This is existing policy and the Associations will continue to make representations on the matter.

Motion No 119 – This is existing policy and the Associations will continue to make representations on the matter.

Motion No 121 – This is existing policy.]

Although it is understood that the Executive of the Association will now be responsible for considering and dealing with any motions not dealt with by the Conference, it is recommended that Council consider directly raising its particular issues, for those Council motions which are not already Association policy, with the relevant areas of Government.

It should be noted that the General Manager has discussed the outcomes of the Conference with the Executive Director of NSROC. She has indicated to the General Manager that the matter will be discussed at the NSROC Board Meeting to be held on 10 November 2011. As that Meeting will not be held until after this Report has been finalised, should any additional relevant information be forthcoming following the NSROC Meeting, a Late Items Memo will be prepared and issued prior to Council’s 16 November 2011 Ordinary Meeting.

BUDGET

There are no budgetary implications associated with the preparation of this Report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with the preparation of this Report.

CONSULTATION

There has been consultation with the General Manager in the preparation of this Report.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Executive Manager, Corporate and Community Division – Mr Gary Bensley. He can be contacted on 9847-6605.

RECOMMENDATION

Gary Bensley

Executive Manager

Corporate and Community Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2009/00787

Document Number: D01795235

Executive Manager's Report No. EN54/11

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

8 CATCHMENTS REMEDIATION RATE (CRR) ANNUAL EXPENDITURE REPORT 2010/2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The revenue received for the Catchments Remediation Rate (CRR) for 2010/11 was $2,751,000 with the balance of funds at period ending 30 June 2011 being $367,000. This was as a result of income generated, $2,751,000 plus $379,000 brought forward from 2009/2010, less expenditure of $2,763,000.

At the Catchments Remediation Rate Annual Expenditure Panel (the Panel) meeting held on 18 October 2011, the Panel noted that it had sighted and discussed the financial details of the CRR expenditure as of 30 June 2011 and considered all reports acceptable and reasonable. A cost summary of expenditure for the 2010/2011 financial year and the CRR Expenditure Review Panel's Report are provided in the attachments.

The Panel made a number of comments and observations which were recorded in its report. In particular, the Panel noted that in relation to projects and initiatives eligible for funding by the CRR, the criteria should be restated in the review of the Sustainable Total Water Cycle Management Strategy noting that the original intent of the CRR program was to improve water quality in the Shires waterways. Furthermore, to ensure that the CRR program engages in responsible asset management, lifecycle cost modelling should be regularly updated.

Also, in response to Council’s proposal to use the CRR to fund the riparian management component of the Bushcare program, a business case justifying that riparian works satisfies the CRR funding model should be presented to the Panel.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to document the expenditure of CRR funds by Council from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011. The report also includes commentary of the external Expenditure Review Panel, as well as the subsequent progress on the assessment, investigation and completion of catchment remediation projects across the Shire.

DISCUSSION

Catchments Remediation Capital Works

A major component of the 2010/2011, CRR budget has been allocated for capital works projects across the Shire. These works included bioretention systems, stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes, creek stabilisation/remediation and gross pollutant traps.

As of the 30 June 2010, $1,054,000 was spent on capital works with 10 catchments remediation projects being initiated and completed. These works involved the construction of:

· Six end-of-pipe bioretention systems: Pennant Hills (2), Glenorie, Cherrybrook, Mount Kuring-gai and North Epping

· Drainage line stabilisation works: North Epping, Pennant Hills and Cherrybrook

· Seven streetscape bioretention basins: Waitara, Cowan and Brooklyn

· Ten bioretention tree pits: Epping

In addition:

· Two projects from previous years had minor residual expenditure

· Eight projects on the 2010/2011 works schedule had survey and design work carried out

· Leachate investigations were undertaken at Salt Pan Reserve, Brooklyn

Council's Design and Construction Branch conducted survey, design and construction of a majority of the capital works program in consultation with the Catchments Remediation Team Leader.

Non-capital Expenditure

A component of the CRR budget for 2010/2011 supported various Environment Division operations which contribute to fulfilling obligations to improve water quality Shire-wide. Attachments 1 and 2 show the specific expenditure breakdown for:

· Pro-active maintenance of all stormwater improvement assets

· Water quality research and monitoring

· Street sweeping

· Community project support, e.g. Streamwatch and various committees

· Implementation of a Geographic Information System (GIS)

· Emergency response to spills

· Riparian restoration works

· Salaries, wages, overheads and associated administrative costs for project management

CRR Expenditure Review Panel

On 18 October 2011, the CRR Expenditure Review Panel met to discuss expenditure for the 2010/2011 financial year (the Panel’s report is included as Attachment 3). The Panel noted that it had sighted and discussed the financial details of the CRR expenditure and considered all reports presented by council officers as acceptable and accountable. The Panel also included a number of specific comments and observations:

· That in relation to projects and initiatives eligible for funding by the CRR the criteria should be restated, noting that key Council strategies and management plans (eg, Water Management Plan, Total Sustainable Water Cycle management Strategy) are consistent with the Statement of Joint Intent’s (SOJI) purpose and contain actions directly addressing SOJI objectives

· That stormwater management, specifically water quality control, of new developments is not eligible for funding by the CRR as this should be done through Council’s planning control requirements

· That lifecycle cost modelling of CRR assets should be regularly updated to ensure responsible asset management and consideration is given to establishing a fund for future asset management, specifically renewal and repair

· That considering Council’s proposal to use the CRR to fund the riparian management component of the Bushcare program a business case justifying that riparian works satisfies the CRR funding model needs to be put to the panel. The business case needs to demonstrate the benefits of funding Bushcare trainers and to what part of the Bushcare groups’ scope of work this training would add value.

BUDGET

The relevant budget and incurred expenditure for the Catchments Remediation Rate (CRR) is shown in Attachments 1, 2 and 4.

POLICY

There are no policy implications.

CONSULTATION

This Progress Report has been compiled by staff from Environment Division's Water Catchments Branch and Executive Unit. Advice from Council's Finance Branch was also sought and incorporated.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

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

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The responsible officer is Mr David Beharrell, Catchments Remediation Team Leader, Water Catchments, telephone 9847 6860, hours 8:30am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. EN54/11 be received and noted.

Stephen Fedorow

Executive Manager - Environment

Environment Division

Attachments:

1.View	Catchments Remediation Rate Non-Capital Expenditure
2.View	Catchments Remediation Rate Total Expenditure Summary
3.View	Catchment Remediation Balance 2010-11
4.View	Catchment Remediation Rate Panel Report

File Reference: F2005/00829-02

Document Number: D01786169

Executive Manager's Report No. EN55/11

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

9 FUTURE OF E-WASTE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recognising the growing environmental problems associated with E-waste, the lack of practical action at either a State or Federal level and a desire from residents to responsibly recycle this material, in 2004 Council introduced an E-waste recycling program. This has proved to be a very popular program with a current average of four to six tonnes of E-waste being recycled weekly.

Costs associated with the program have recently escalated due to reasons beyond Council’s control, primarily increased transport and processing costs, to the point where it is projected that based upon current demand, Council’s 2011/12 budget of $100,000 for this service is likely to be exceeded by approximately $100,000-$150,000.

In September 2011 following the introduction of the new Product Stewardship Act 2011, the Federal Government released the Draft Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations 2011. These regulations will require the computer and television industry to take responsibility for E-waste collection and recycling. It is anticipated that the industry scheme will be operating by June/July 2012.

With the industry scheduled to take responsibility for the recycling of E-waste and the high costs incurred by Council in providing the current service, it is now an appropriate time to re-evaluate Council’s involvement.

This report canvasses three options for Council’s consideration as follows:-

· Maintain the status quo. Continue to provide the current valuable E-waste service to residents, acknowledging that doing so would in effect subsidise the industry;

· Continue an E-waste program, but on a user pays basis until the industry system is operational. With this option residents would be encouraged to store E-waste until the industry system commences but with an option to drop off small amounts for a fee if they choose to do so. This option would remove the current free service option; and

· Discontinue the E-waste drop off service completely.

Having regard to forthcoming industry scheme, and the increased costs being borne by Council in providing the service, this report recommends that Council discontinue the current free service and introduce a user pays E-waste system until such time as the industry scheme is operational.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on issues that relate to the E-waste service operated by Council and to provide options for the future of this service.

DISCUSSION

What is E-waste?

Until recently, E-waste was defined as anything electrical or at least had a cable that was capable of being operated by electricity that is no longer wanted.

The Federal Government’s ‘National Waste Policy” has since redefined E-waste as computers, associated peripherals and televisions. One reason for this was to simplify the soon to be implemented Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations.

E-waste has been a very high profile waste of concern for many years. Its profile has escalated in recent years for the following main reasons:-

· The Federal Government’s National Waste Policy highlighting E-waste as a priority;

· Rapid developments in computer technology;

· Life expectancy of electronic equipment gradually reducing;

· The influx of digital televisions and more advanced computers; and

· The highly hazardous nature of the materials that is present in E-waste.

E-waste is comprised of many different hazardous waste products as well as some valuable resources that are recoverable.

In general terms, the main hazardous components that are recoverable include:-

· Lead (in cathode ray tubes and glass);

· Cadmium (in semiconductors);

· Arsenic (in cathode ray tubes);

· Mercury (in switches);

· Cobalt (in steel);

· Selenium (in circuit boards); and

· Antimony Trioxide (flame retardant in plastic cases).

In addition to the hazardous materials there are other materials that are valuable resources including gold and platinum.

For approximately ten years E-waste has been identified as a waste of concern by both the State and Federal Governments. In September 2011, following the introduction of the new Product Stewardship Act 2011, the Federal Government released it’s Draft Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations 2011. These draft regulations will require the computer and television industry to take responsibility for E-waste collection and recycling and it is anticipated that the industry scheme will be operating by June/July 2012.

Council E-waste Collection History

Recognising that E-waste was a growing environmental issue and that there was little immediate likelihood of a product stewardship, take-back system commencing, in 2004 Council commenced its E-waste program. The program initially consisted of a one off (8 week) program that collected and recycled approximately 54 tonnes of E-waste. Due to demand, this initial eight week program was followed by an annual drop off event, progressing to twice a year. The program has since evolved to the current free (Monday to Friday) drop off system in place at the Thornleigh Depot.

As of October 2011, the system is working far better than anticipated with between four and six tonne of E-waste being recycled weekly.

Council has amended the list of items accepted by the E-waste drop off facility in line with the changes in the State and Federal Government’s definition of E-waste. Whilst this has significantly reduced the range of materials dropped off; the steady increase in the use of the service has meant there has been no corresponding reduction in the quantities collected.

Review of the service

It is important to note that Council originally commenced the E-waste service due to a perceived lack of progress and the likelihood that an industry system would not eventuate for many years. This assumption subsequently proved to be correct.

Despite expectations that the cost of E-waste recycling would reduce over time in the same manner that plastic, paper and glass recycling costs reduced as the volumes increase, E-waste costs have instead escalated.

Three main factors have been identified as being the cause of this increase:-

1. The technology investment to handle the rapidly increasing volumes;

2. The new safety systems that have been implemented; and

3. The restrictions recently imposed that prevent screens from being exported to both reputable and not so reputable organisations overseas for disassembly.

Since July 2011, Council’s E-waste recycling costs escalated from approximately $550 a tonne to over $1,000 a tonne plus transport costs. Council has since sought prices from other recyclers and now pays approximately $850 per tonne to recycle E-waste. This amount remains well in excess of the pre-July 2011 cost.

In addition to increased costs, Council is continuing to receive high volumes of E-waste at the Thornleigh drop off centre. As a result Council’s 2011/12 E-waste budget of $100,000 is likely to be exceeded by approximately $100,000-$150,000.

With the introduction of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and industry responsibility for E-waste nearing commencement, it is now timely to re-evaluate Council’s continued involvement in providing an E-waste service.

Three options relating to the period from now until the commencement of an industry system have been identified and are discussed below.

Option one – Maintain the Status quo, continue to invest in the E-waste service.

Under this option Council would maintain the E-waste service in its current form and continue to provide a valued service to residents.

Advantages of this option include:

· There would be no disruptions to the current service; and

· Council would achieve maximum recovery of E-waste from landfill.

Disadvantages of this option include:

· Increased costs to Council in providing the service. It is anticipated that the total cost to Council in providing an E-waste service for the 2011/12 financial year could reach $250,000; and

· Council would in essence be subsidizing the industry scheme whilst it is being established.

If Council were to continue the E-waste service in its current form it is likely that Council’s 2011/12 E-waste budget would be exceeded by approximately $100,000-$150,000.

Option two – Discontinue the current no charge service and replace it with a user pays service.

At the present time many waste services are provided on a user pays basis. In the Hornsby Shire Council area this partly applies to domestic waste. Residents must use the standard waste system but can purchase additional services if they desire. A significant number of residents take up paid additional services, demonstrating the willingness of residents to pay for environmentally sound recycling and disposal of waste. E-waste services would be viewed in the same light.

Residents have had over a year to access the current free drop off service with many bringing in stock piles of old TVs and computers which had been stored somewhere on their property. With a user pays system, a similar option would be available. Residents would have the choice to either store old, unwanted or broken E-waste on their property until an industry scheme commences, or if they are unable to store the material, pay a small charge to recycle their E-waste.

Staff have reviewed other private and government user pays E-waste recycling schemes and have suggested that the following price structure might be appropriate should Council endorse this option:

· Televisions (regardless of size) $15 per unit

· Monitors (regardless of size) $15 per unit

· Components/peripherals for each computer $10 per equivalent unit

· Laptops $10 per unit

· Part units such as tubes/dismantled computers $20 per equivalent unit.

The advantages of a user pays system include:-

· Residents are still able to access an E-waste recycling service;

· Provides an opportunity to recover Council’s costs in providing the service; and

· Council would not be funding a service that to reduce the E-waste stockpile found in homes that will shortly be covered by an industry scheme.

The disadvantages of a user pays system include:-

· If residents are unwilling or unable to pay for the service, they would be required to store their E-waste until the industry system commences;

· A possible increase in E-waste being placed out in clean up collections;

· A possible increase in illegal dumping; and

· Resident dissatisfaction.

If this option was considered to be an appropriate way forward, Council would be required under Section 610(f) of the Local Government Act 1993 to publicly advertise the fees for a period of twenty eight days. At the end of the exhibition period Council would be required to consider all submissions before formally adopting the fees or taking any other action. If no submissions are received, Council can have the fees automatically adopted at the close of the exhibition period.

Option three – Discontinue the E-waste drop off service

In the past it has been suggested that councils should not be providing an E-waste service and that a product stewardship approach should be adopted, with the industry taking responsibility for this material. The Local Government and Shires Association supported this view and recommended that councils not get involved with E-waste as well as banning it from clean-up services.

The reasoning behind this recommendation was sound in that there was a concern that if councils provided E-waste services, other levels of government could see the problem as being taken care of by Local Government.

Whilst agreeing in principle, many councils proceeded to introduce E-waste services as at the time there was little foreseeable likelihood of a product stewardship system being established.

Legislation is now in place, requiring the television and computer industry to undertake the collection and recycling of E-waste and placing the financial burden on the electronics industry. It may now be timely for Council to step back from providing E-waste services and to request residents to hold old TV’s and computers for a short period until the industry scheme commences.

It should be noted that many residents have held onto old computers for many years and it is only now that they are starting to dispose of them due to systems like Hornsby Council’s.

The main advantage of discontinuing Council’s E-waste service would be financial in that no further expenditure would be required. Remaining budgeted funds could be used for other waste management activities.

The disadvantages of discontinuing Council’s E-waste service include:

· Until such time as an industry scheme commenced residents would no longer have a convenient option to recycle their E-waste;

· A possible increase in E-waste being placed out in clean up collections;

· A possible increase in illegal dumping; and

· Resident dissatisfaction.

BUDGET

This report provides advice that the E-waste drop off program will exceed its original budget estimate if the service remains in its current form.

POLICY

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

CONSULTATION

This report has been prepared without external consultation.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

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 Rob Holliday, Manager Waste Management Services Branch, telephone 9847 4816, hours 8.30 am to 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

2. Council advertises the fees applicable for E-waste as outlined in this report for a period of 28 days in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, section 610(f).

4. Once the fees have been adopted, the no-charge service to be discontinued and replaced with the adopted fees as outlined in this report.

Stephen Fedorow

Executive Manager - Environment

Environment Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2004/08803

Document Number: D01786981

Executive Manager's Report No. EN56/11

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

10 APPLICATION TO REVOKE DANGEROUS DOG ORDER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 19 June 2007, following an incident where the dog known as Duke attacked and injured another dog, an authorised officer of Council declared Duke to be dangerous.

A dangerous dog order imposes strict control requirements upon the owner of a dangerous dog including the requirement that the dog be kept in a prescribed enclosure and whenever outside of the enclosure be kept on a lead and muzzled.

Council officers have recently commenced a round of inspections to ensure that all owners of declared dangerous dogs are complying with the dangerous dog control requirements.

On 30 August 2011, Council officers conducted a compliance inspection that revealed that whilst the yard was securely fenced, Duke’s enclosure does not comply with the prescribed enclosure requirements.

On 10 September 2011, Council received an application from Duke’s owner to revoke the dangerous dog order. The application was not supported by any independent behavioural assessment of Duke.

Notwithstanding the fact that the yard is securely fenced and that Council has had no further concerns raised about Duke since the incident on 2 May 2007, in the interest of public safety and health this report recommends that Council refuse to revoke the dangerous dog order.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the information required to consider an application made by the registered owner of Duke to revoke the dangerous dog order presently in force in respect of Duke.

DISCUSSION

Following an attack on 2 May 2007 where a Chihuahua who was being walked on a lead along the footpath was attacked and bitten, requiring surgery and ongoing veterinary treatment, on 28 May 2007 Council issued the owner with notice of its intention to declare Duke to be dangerous. Details of the dog are presented below.

Breed: Alaskan Malamute Cross German Shepherd

Sex: De-sexed Male

Name: Duke

Microchip: 968000000498803

The Companion Animals Act 1998 states that a dog is dangerous if it:

(a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(c) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(d) is kept or used for the purposes of hunting.

A notice of intention to declare a dog dangerous provides the owner with seven days in which to formally object to the proposed declaration. Council is bound to consider any objections before making a decision as to whether to proceed and make a declaration.

Whilst the notice of intention is current, a number of obligations are imposed upon the owner. These obligations include requirements that the dog must be restrained in such a way that it cannot attack or chase anyone lawfully at the property; and that when the dog is away from its home that it must be kept on a lead and muzzled.

On 19 June 2007, having received no objections from the owner Council proceeded to declare the dog dangerous.

A dangerous dog declaration is designed to protect the community and imposes a number of strict control requirements on the owner of the dog as follows:

· The dog must be de-sexed within 28 days (if not already de-sexed)

· The dog must not at any time be in the sole charge of a person under 18 years of age

· The dog must be kept in a prescribed enclosure that has been certified by Council

· Approved ‘Dangerous Dog’ signs must be displayed and be clearly visible at the boundaries of the property

· A prescribed, distinctive collar must be worn by the dog at all times

· Whenever the dog is outside of the prescribed enclosure it must be kept on a lead and muzzled.

Council has received no further concerns or complaints about Duke in the four years since the dangerous dog declaration was made.

Request to revoke the dangerous dog order

Section 39 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 provides that:

(1) The owner of a dog that has been declared dangerous under this Division can apply to the council of the area in which the dog is ordinarily kept (whether or not it is the council whose authorised officer made the declaration) for the declaration to be revoked.

(1A) An application under subsection (1) cannot be made until after the period of 12 months following the date on which the dog was declared to be dangerous.

(2) The council to which the application is made can revoke the declaration but only if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

(3) The council must, as soon as practicable, give notice to the owner of the dog that the declaration has been revoked or that the council has refused to revoke the declaration.

On 10 September 2011, Council received an application from Duke’s owner to revoke the dangerous dog order (Attachment 1). The application was not supported by any independent behavioural assessment of Duke.

Guidelines issued by the Division of Local Government to assist councils in exercising their functions under the Companion Animals Act 1998 indicate that a dangerous dog declaration can only be revoked by a resolution of Council.

The Division of Local Government guidelines also provide advice to councils regarding the types of issues that should be considered when assessing an application to revoke a dangerous dog declaration, including:

The circumstances under which the dangerous dog order was issued

The original order was issued following an unprovoked attack on a Chihuahua that was being walked on a lead along the footpath outside the property where Duke resides. Duke was roaming uncontrolled at the time of the attack and picked up and shook the Chihuahua in its mouth, breaking the lead. The Chihuahua was wounded and required veterinary treatment including surgery and ongoing wound care.

The dog’s current circumstances and behaviour in relation to the original order, including any behaviour modification training that may have been undertaken

Duke is now nine and a half years of age and the owner states that he never leaves the property. The property is securely fenced, and contains an enclosure for the dog that is separated from the rest of the yard.

A compliance inspection of the property where Duke is ordinarily kept was conducted by Council officers on 30 August 2011. The inspection revealed that whilst the yard is secure, the enclosure on the property did not comply with the prescribed requirements under the Companion Animals Regulation.

The owner has requested that Council take into account that, since the incident, the family have been diligent in their responsibility for containing Duke within the yard. The owner has also asked Council to consider the cost involved in upgrading the enclosure based on the fact that Duke has been kept securely in the yard for the past four and a half years.

Since the original incident and dangerous dog declaration Council has not received any reports or complaints regarding Duke, however this may be as a result of Duke not leaving the property.

Should Council elect to revoke the dangerous dog order, Duke would no longer be required to be contained in an enclosure on the property, could be walked without the need for a muzzle and would be permitted to use an off-leash park.

For the purposes of the application to revoke the dangerous dog order, the owner has not advised Council or provided evidence that Duke has undertaken any behaviour modification training.

Any behavioural assessment obtained by the owner from a licensed vet, animal behaviour specialist or other qualified professional.

For the purposes of the application to revoke the dangerous dog order, the owner has not provided Council with any behavioural assessment.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the secure fencing provided at the property where Duke is ordinarily kept, and the lack of further reports or complaints regarding Duke since the dangerous dog order was issued, having regard to:

1. An absence of behaviour modification training

2. The lack of any behavioural assessment report to provide Council with some certainty regarding the propensity of Duke to be involved in further attacks

3. Council’s obligations to act in the public interest and for the safety of the community

It is recommended that Council refuse the request to revoke the dangerous dog order currently imposed upon Duke.

Upon notification of Council’s refusal to revoke the dangerous dog order, the owner is provided with 28 days in which to appeal to the Local Court.

BUDGET

There are no budget implications arising out of this report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications arising out of this report.

CONSULTATION

No consultation was required to complete this report.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

As this report provides Council with information and does not pose any policy implications for Council requiring a sustainability assessment, No Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The responsible officer for this report is Sue Moyes, Sustainable Health Coordinator, telephone 9847 6816

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council refuse the request to revoke the dangerous dog order imposed on Duke on 19 June 2007; and

2. Give notice to the owner that Council has refused to revoke the dangerous dog order.

Stephen Fedorow

Executive Manager - Environment

Environment Division

Attachments:

1.View

Request that Council revoke the dangerous dog order

File Reference: F2006/00179-05

Document Number: D01788303

Executive Manager's Report No. EN57/11

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

11 APPLICATION TO REVOKE THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDERS ON 2 DOGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 17 August 2004, following separate incidents where the dogs known as Frisky and Fiesty rushed at and threatened a postman; and attacked and bit a person pushing a pram on the upper leg requiring medical treatment, an authorised officer of Council declared Frisky and Fiesty to be dangerous.

Council officers have recently commenced a round of inspections to ensure that all owners of declared dangerous dogs are complying with the dangerous dog control requirements.

On 27 September 2011, Council officers conducted a compliance inspection that revealed Frisky and Fiesty’s enclosure does not comply with the prescribed enclosure requirements.

On 29 September 2011, Council received an application from Frisky and Fiesty’s owner to revoke the dangerous dog orders. This application has not been supported by any independent behavioural assessment of either Frisky or Fiesty.

Notwithstanding the length of time since the dangerous dog orders were initially issued, the current age and health of the dogs and that Council has had no further concerns raised about Frisky or Fiesty since the incident in 2004; in the interest of public safety and health this report recommends that Council refuse to revoke the dangerous dog orders.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the information required to consider an application made by the owner of Frisky and Fiesty that Council revoke the dangerous dog orders presently in force in respect of her dogs.

DISCUSSION

Following separate incidents where a postman was rushed at and threatened, and a person was bitten requiring medical treatment, on 20 July 2004 Council issued the owner with notice of its intention to declare Frisky and Fiesty to be dangerous. Details of the dogs are presented below.

Breed: Dalmatian

Sex: De-sexed Male

Name: Frisky

Microchip: 968000000145105

Breed: Border Collie/Cross

Sex: De-sexed Male

Name: Fiesty

Microchip: 0A00195006

The Companion Animals Act 1998 states that a dog is dangerous if it:

(a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(c) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(d) is kept or used for the purposes of hunting.

Whilst the notice of intention is current, a number of obligations are imposed upon the owner. These obligations include requirements that the dog must be restrained in such a way that it cannot attack or chase anyone lawfully at the property; and that when the dog is away is away from its home that must be kept on a lead and muzzled.

On 17 August 2004, having received no objections from the owner Council proceeded to declare the dogs dangerous.

A dangerous dog declaration is designed to protect the community and imposes a number of strict control requirements on the owner of the dog as follows:

· The dog must be de-sexed within 28 days (if not already de-sexed)

· The dog must not at any time be in the sole charge of a person under 18 years of age

· The dog must be kept in a prescribed enclosure that has been certified by Council

· Approved ‘Dangerous Dog’ signs must be displayed and be clearly visible at the boundaries of the property

· A prescribed, distinctive collar must be worn by the dog at all times

· Whenever the dog is outside of the prescribed enclosure it must be kept on a lead and muzzled.

Council has received no further concerns or complaints about Frisky or Fiesty in the seven years since the dangerous dog declarations were made.

Request to revoke the dangerous dog order

Section 39 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 provides that:

(1A) An application under subsection (1) cannot be made until after the period of 12 months following the date on which the dog was declared to be dangerous.

(2) The council to which the application is made can revoke the declaration but only if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

(3) The council must, as soon as practicable, give notice to the owner of the dog that the declaration has been revoked or that the council has refused to revoke the declaration.

On 29 September 2011, Council received an application from Frisky and Fiesty’s owner to revoke the dangerous dog orders (Attachment 1). This application has not been supported by any independent behavioural assessment of either Frisky or Fiesty.

The circumstances under which the dangerous dog order was issued

The original dangerous dog orders were issued following two separate incidents where the dogs known as Frisky and Fiesty rushed at and threatened a postman; and attacked and bit a person pushing a pram on the upper leg who required medical treatment. A passing motorist stopped and assisted the person and chased the dogs away. The Police were called and attended the scene.

Prior to this incident, in 2003 the dogs had a history of roaming in the street not under effective control and barking at people walking in the street. There had not been any previous contact with the people but nuisance orders were issued for chasing and endangering the health of the people being harassed.

The dog’s current circumstances and behaviour in relation to the original order

The owner has installed a double gate and has continued to contain the dogs on the property since the dangerous dog orders were issued in August 2004.

At the time the dangerous dog orders were issued, the owner was required, amongst other things, to keep the dogs in a child proof enclosure. The yard enclosure implemented by the owners was deemed to be sufficient at that time.

In response to a number of dog attacks across NSW, in January 2006 the Companion Animals Act and Regulations were updated to prescribe the form and materials that must be used in constructing a child proof enclosure. Owners of existing dangerous dogs were provided with a six month transitional period to bring their enclosure up to compliance with the new requirements.

A compliance inspection of the property where Frisky and Fiesty are ordinarily kept was conducted by Council officers on 27 September 2011. The inspection revealed that whilst the yard is secure, the enclosure on the property does not comply with the prescribed requirements under the Companion Animals Regulation.

The owner states that as it is now over seven years since the original declaration and that the dogs have aged considerably. The owner has advised that Fiesty has been operated on for a tumour, has advanced arthritis in the lower back and unable to go for walks outside the property, and that Frisky has lost most of his teeth and is soon to have the remaining teeth removed.

The owner has requested that Council consider the cost involved in providing an enclosure that meets the prescribed requirements due to the advanced ages of the dogs and that the dogs have been kept securely in the yard for the past seven years.

The owner has also asked Council to take into consideration that there have not been any incidences since the attacks that led to the dangerous dog orders being issued in August 2004, however it should be noted that this may be as a result of the dangerous dog control requirements being in place.

Should Council elect to revoke the dangerous dog orders, Frisky and Fiesty would no longer be required to be contained in an enclosure on the property, could be walked without the need for a muzzle and would be permitted to use an off-leash park.

For the purposes of the application to revoke the dangerous dog order, the owner has not advised Council or provided evidence that either Frisky or Fiesty have undertaken any behaviour modification training.

Any behavioural assessment obtained by the owner from a licensed vet, animal behaviour specialist or other qualified professional.

The owner has provided Council with a statement from a vet relating to the health of Fiesty, (Attachment 2), however the veterinary statement does not extend to a behavioural assessment and therefore for the purposes of the application to revoke the dangerous dog orders, it is considered that the owner has not provided Council with any behavioural assessments.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the secure fencing provided at the property where Frisky and Fiesty are ordinarily kept, the ages and reported medical conditions of the dogs, and the lack of further reports or complaints regarding either Frisky and Fiesty since the dangerous dog orders were issued, having regard to:

1. An absence of behaviour modification training

2. The lack of any behavioural assessment report to provide Council with some certainty regarding the propensity of Frisky and Fiesty to be involved in further attacks

3. Council’s obligations to act in the public interest and for the safety of the community.

It is recommended that Council refuse the request to revoke the dangerous dog orders currently imposed upon Frisky and Fiesty.

Upon notification of Council’s refusal to revoke the dangerous dog order, the owner is provided with 28 days in which to appeal to the Local Court.

BUDGET

There are no budget implications arising out of this report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications arising out of this report.

CONSULTATION

No consultation was required to complete this report.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

As this report provides Council with information and does not pose any policy implications for Council requiring a sustainability assessment, No Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The responsible officer for this report is Sue Moyes, Sustainable Health Coordinator, telephone 9847 6816

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Refuse the request to revoke the dangerous dog orders imposed on Frisky and Fiesty on 20 July 2004; and

2. Give notice to the owner that Council has refused to revoke the dangerous dog orders.

Stephen Fedorow

Executive Manager - Environment

Environment Division

Attachments:

1.View	Application to revoke dangerous dog orders for 2 dogs
2.View	Advice from vet on health condition of declared dangerous dog

File Reference: F2006/00179-05

Document Number: D01788333

Executive Manager's Report No. EN58/11

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

12 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In August 2009 Council adopted a Climate Change Adaptation Strategic Plan requesting that a works program be developed and reported to Council prioritising actions, assigning responsibilities, estimating costs and identifying funding opportunities for the work.

A prioritised works plan has been developed for Council’s consideration identifying actions that are able to be undertaken with existing staff resources, funded through the Special Rate Variation, and potentially funded through grants and those that are presently unfunded.

This report recommends that Council endorse those priority actions that are able to be undertaken at no additional cost to Council, and monitor the remaining actions for consideration when developing future budgets.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a prioritised and costed works program arising out of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION

Background

Since this time Council’s insurer Statewide, commenced a Climate Change Adaptation Project to address the potential climate change impacts facing member councils. Hornsby Council was invited to participate in this project.

To avoid duplication, staff worked with Echelon Australia (Statewide’s consultant) to review the climate change scenarios and further develop and prioritise actions.

Climate Change Scenarios

For the purposes of the prioritisation process, seven key climate change scenarios were adopted as follows:

Hot Days There is a risk that there will be between 4 to 6 hot days (above 35 degrees) by 2030 (currently 3 days).

Temperature There is a risk that the average annual temperature may increase between 0.2 and 1.6 degrees by 2030 and 1.5 to 3 degrees by 2050.

Average Rainfall There is a risk that the average annual rainfall will change with increased rainfall in spring and summer, and a decrease in winter.

Rainfall Intensity There is a risk that intense rain periods (i.e. the number of 1 in 40 year, one day events) will increase by between -3% and +12% by 2030.

Sea Level Rise There is a risk that the sea level will rise by up to 0.91m by 2100 with a linear rise over the intervening period.

Fire Weather There is a risk that the number of days annually when the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) is very high or extreme will be between 9 and 11 days by 2030 (currently 9 days).

Average Wind Speed There is a risk that there will be a change in average wind speed of between -5% and +8% by 2030

Under each of these scenarios, specific risks were identified and categorized. A full list of climate change scenarios and categorized risks are included in Attachment 1 to this report.

Methodology

Prioritisation of actions was completed using the following methodology:

1. Climate change risks were categorised as Extreme, High, Medium & Low based upon the likelihood of the risk occurring and the severity of the consequences.

2. Specific responses were then developed for all Extreme and High risk scenarios.

3. Response actions to Extreme & High risk scenarios were prioritised having regard to the following criteria:

· Cost of the action

· Whether the action addresses multiple risks

· Residual risk after the action has been implemented (effectiveness)

· Implementation timeframe

· The positive impact of the action on the affected community

· Whether the action extends work previously or presently being undertaken by Council.

Results

Twenty-seven priority actions over the next decade have been identified that would assist Council in adapting to the projected changes in climate.

A significant number are able to be undertaken with existing staff resources, funded through the Special Rate Variation or may be able to be funded through grants.

Tables 1-4 below list the priority climate change adaptation actions for Council.

TABLE 1 – ZERO ADDITIONAL COST PRIORITY ACTIONS
Action	Cost	Timeframe	Responsibility	Risk(s) Addressed
Review Council’s asset design standards.	$0	2014	Works	HD5, TE4, RI1, RI7, FW4
Review and update Council’s local emergency response plans.	$0	2013	Works	RI1, RI2, RI5, RI10, FW1, FW3, FW5
Maintain surveillance of sediment and erosion control practices.	$0	2013	Planning	RI3
Lobby the State Government to increase Council’s protection against liability relating to coastal planning and development.	$0	2014	Planning	SL1, SL3, SL5
Develop a Vegetation Plan for Council’s landscaping and street tree planting program including a planting guide for heat and wind tolerance in microclimatic settings and changes to rainfall patterns.	$0	2014	Environment	HD1, TE1, TE2, TE5, AR1, AR5, SL2, FW8, WS1
Undertake project management for detailed sea level rise modelling and mapping.	$0	2012	Environment	SL1, SL2, SL5
Lobby the State Government to review Bush Fire Risk Management Plan template, especially risk modelling parameters.	$0	2014	Environment	FW1
Develop a staff resource plan for local emergencies linked to Council’s Emergency Response Plan	$0	2014	Works	FW5, HD9, RI10

TABLE 2 – SPECIAL RATE VARIATION PRIORITY ACTIONS
Action	Cost	Timeframe	Responsibility	Risk(s) Addressed
Review Council’s assets and upgrade integrity where necessary.	$100,000 p.a. (Special Rate Variation)	2012-2022	Environment/Works	HD5, TE4, RI1, RI7, FW4
Investigate new, more drought tolerant grass varieties for sportsgrounds.	$20,000 per field (Special Rate Variation)	2012	Environment	AR2, AR3, TE1
Introduce automated irrigation systems to Council’s parks, where possible using recycled water.	$30,000 per field. (Special Rate Variation)	2014	Environment	AR2
Develop and implement revised engineering standards for Council’s road infrastructure.	$50,000 (Special Rate Variation)	Ongoing	Works	RI6, RI8, HD4, SL1

TABLE 3 – POTENTIAL GRANT FUNDED PRIORITY ACTIONS
Action	Cost	Timeframe	Responsibility	Risk(s) Addressed
Implement actions from Council’s Interface Control Line Strategy.	$100,000 p.a. (Seek Grant Funding)	Ongoing	Environment	FW1, FW3, FW4
Implement actions to reduce the impact of sea level rise on terrestrial, estuarine and marine habitats.	$400,000 (Seek Grant Funding)	2015	Environment	SL2
Undertake detailed assessment of the potential impacts of increases in temperature and changes in rainfall patterns on flora.	$100,000 (Seek Grant Funding)	2012	Environment	TE2, TE5, AR1, AR5, RI15, FW8
Undertake detailed assessment of the potential impacts of increases in temperature and changes in rainfall patterns on fauna.	$100,000 (Seek Grant Funding)	2012	Environment	TE2, TE5, AR1, AR5, RI15, FW8
In conjunction with the Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) develop and implement a disaster recovery plan.	$80,000 (Seek Grant Funding)	2012	Corporate and Community	FW5, HD9, RI10

TABLE 4 – UNFUNDED PRIORITY ACTIONS
Action	Cost	Timeframe	Responsibility	Risk(s) Addressed
Review the monitoring and maintenance schedule for Council’s stormwater system.	$20,000 p.a.	Ongoing	Works	RI1, RI2, RI7, RI14
Replace over-mature trees with locally indigenous, reliable specimens.	$50,000 p.a.	2012	Environment	HD1, TE1, AR2, RI4, WS1
Review and update relevant planning instruments having regard to sea level rise, stormwater and flood levels.	$50,000	2015	Planning	RI1, RI6, RI7, RI8, RI10, SL1, SL5
Encourage, identify and plan for the use of alternative facilities in cases of damage/threat or pressure on staff/resources.	$50,000	2014	Works	FW1, FW4
Develop a staff resource plan for local emergencies linked to the Emergency Response Plan for Council.	$50,000	2014	Works	FW5, HD9, RI10
Review and update asset management plans.	$70,000	2013	Environment/ Works	RI1, RI2, RI7, RI8
Review Council’s Interface Control Line Strategy.	$80,000	2012	Environment	FW1, FW3, FW4
Develop a stormwater reuse program that considers locally appropriate alternative uses of stormwater including measures to reduce peak flows (e.g. increased use of stormwater harvesting).	$100,000	2013	Environment	RI1, RI3, RI14
Undertake detailed flood models of local catchments in accordance with the 2005 Floodplain Development Manual. Note: this Manual requires flood studies and flood risk management studies to consider and where necessary manage climate change implications and associated vulnerabilities as part of strategic management of flood risk.	$500,000	2014	Works	RI1, RI6, RI7, RI8, RI10, SL1, SL5
Establish a second tree maintenance crew to carry out proactive street tree management.	$500,000 p.a.	2013	Environment	WS1, RI1, RI2, RI4, RI6, HD1, TE1, AR2

Over two thirds of priority actions would be able to be implemented at no additional cost to Council; that is they can be achieved utilising existing staff resources, funded through the Special Rate Variation or may be able to be funded through grants. It is recommended that subject to receiving grant funds (where applicable) Council endorse these actions for implementation.

Whilst indicative costs and timeframes have been established, a funding source has yet to be identified for the remaining priority actions. It is recommended that Council monitor these actions for consideration when developing future budgets.

BUDGET

As this report recommends that Council endorse priority actions that are:

· Able to be achieved utilising existing staff resources

· Funded through the Special Rate Variation

· May be able to be funded through grants

and that the remaining actions be monitored for consideration when developing future budgets, there are no direct budget implications for Council arising out of this report.

POLICY

As this report provides Council with a prioritised and costed works program arising out of the previously adopted Climate Change Adaptation Strategic Plan, there are no policy implications associated with this report.

CONSULTATION

As this report provides Council with a prioritised and costed works program arising out of the previously adopted Climate Change Adaptation Strategic Plan, this report has been prepared without external consultation.

Environment Division’s Environmental Health and Sustainability Team have consulted with managers and staff across Council in developing a prioritised and costed works program.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

As this report provides Council with a prioritised and costed works program arising out of the previously adopted Climate Change Adaptation Strategic Plan, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The responsible officer for this report is Steve Fedorow, Acting Executive Manager Environment Division, telephone 9847 6541.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The contents of Executive Managers Report No. EN58/11 be received and noted.

2. Council endorse priority actions included in Tables 1 and 2.

3. Council endorse priority actions included in Table 3 subject to receiving grant funding.

4. Council monitor priority actions included in Table 4 for consideration when developing future budgets.

Stephen Fedorow

Executive Manager - Environment

Environment Division

Attachments:

1.View

Climate Change Scenarios and Risks

File Reference: F2007/01067

Document Number: D01789968

Executive Manager's Report No. EN59/11

Environment Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

13 CATCHMENTS REMEDIATION RATE CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM - ANNUAL REPORT 2010-2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the year 2010/2011, the Water Catchments Team has progressed with the Catchments Remediation Rate (CRR) Capital Works Program. The annual report for this program is attached and provides an overview of program planning, performance, operations, implementation, and future goals. Once adopted by Council, this report will be placed on Council's website for public information and viewing.

The principal objective of the CRR Capital Works Program is to install stormwater quality improvement devices that capture and remove pollutants, thus preventing them from entering the Shire’s waterways. The current focus of the program is to install measures that effectively capture the full range of pollutants found in urban stormwater, e.g., litter, sediment and dissolved contaminants, while minimising ongoing maintenance. Hence, bioretention systems, whether they be end-of-pipe or at source streetscape systems are currently the preferred option when considering new capital works as they are seen to meet the above criteria.

In 2010/2011, 10 catchments remediation projects were initiated and/or completed. These works primarily involved the construction of bioretention systems, varying in scope and location from large end-of-pipe systems to raingardens within the streetscape, carparks and tree pits.

The performance data collected over the 2010/2011 period showed that over 500 cubic metres of sediment, litter and organic matter was captured by CRR devices. In addition thousands of kilograms of dissolved pollutants, e.g., nutrients and heavy metals were prevented from entering the Shire’s waterways by these devices.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the Catchments Remediation Rate Capital Works Program – 2010/2011 Annual Report.

DISCUSSION

Catchment Remediation Capital Works - Annual Performance Report (2010/2011)

This report aims to provide quantitative data and analysis of the relative performance of different water quality treatment measures, including gross pollutant devices (GPD’s), sediment basins, wetlands and bioretention systems that have been constructed to improve stormwater quality in Hornsby Shire.

The results of the report will be used by stormwater and catchment managers to provide a better insight into determining the type of structures that are suitable for specific sites. Furthermore, the data provides valuable information about the costs (both capital and maintenance), benefits and device optimisation which can aid in the formulation of strategies to improve catchment and land use practices by both structural and non-structural means.

The principal objective of installing stormwater quality improvement devices (SQUIDs) is to improve water quality by removing pollutants and in some instances retaining stormwater flows. In the 2010 - 2011 financial year, $1,054,000 was spent on capital works with 10 catchment remediation projects being initiated and completed. These works involved the construction of:

· Six end-of-pipe bioretention systems: Cherrybrook, Glenorie, Mount Kuringai, North Epping and Pennant Hills (2)

· Ten bioretention tree pit systems: Epping

· Drainage line stabilisation works: Pennant Hills, Cherrybook and North Epping

· Seven streetscape bioretention basins: Brooklyn, Cowan and Waitara

A further three stormwater harvesting and reuse projects were completed with grant funding. These projects included the installation and construction of:

· Five gross pollutant devices: Eastwood, Epping, North Epping

· Two streetscape bioretention systems: Eastwood

While these structural interventions treat and remove pollutants directly, the Catchments Remediation Program also promotes and funds non-structural initiatives in the pursuit of improving water quality in the Shire’s creeks, waterways and receiving waters. These include: monitoring, maintenance, street sweeping, riparian bush regeneration, environmental education, business auditing, compliance programs, pollution clean-ups and estuary management initiatives.

The collection of performance data over the 2010 - 2011 financial year has allowed Council to quantify the volume of gross pollutant (sediment, litter and organic matter) removal from Council’s 420 plus water quality improvement assets. The data shows that 500 cubic metres of sediment, litter and organic matter was captured and prevented from entering the Shire’s waterways during this period. In addition, modelling indicates that over 1000kg of phosphorous and 3200kg of nitrogen was removed by CRR funded initiatives which is of particular significance because of their known detrimental impact on aquatic ecosystems, such as creeks and estuaries.

The total cost to Council to maintain its water quality improvement devices and adjacent landscaped areas was approximately $392,000 in the 2010 - 2011 financial year. This included $136,000 for the cleaning of SQUIDS and disposal of waste to landfill, and $127,000 for landscaping maintenance and bush regeneration at the sites. Other associated costs included the monitoring and maintenance of leachate treatment facilities, tree work and staff wages.

The report also provides information on the design principles behind new and innovative stormwater treatment measures known as bioretention systems. Projects of particular interest in the 2010 - 2011 period were the bioretention systems constructed in Mount Kuring-gai, Glenorie and Pennant Hills, and the car park raingardens at Parsley Bay, Brooklyn.

Overall, the findings of this report give stormwater managers a better insight into the cost-effectiveness and performance of water quality improvement structures and the management of life-cycle costs for individual stormwater treatment measures. The performance of these devices allows Council to both refine and modify the design of future water quality control measures, and judge their appropriateness for proposed remediation sites based on catchment size and land use impact.

BUDGET

There are no budgetary implications arising as a result of this report.

POLICY

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

CONSULTATION

This report was prepared by the staff of the Water Catchments Team.

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 that does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no triple bottom line considerations apply.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The responsible officer is Mr Ross McPherson, Manager Water Catchments, telephone 9847 6708, hours 8:30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. EN59/11 be received and noted.

Stephen Fedorow

Executive Manager - Environment

Environment Division

Attachments:

1.View

Catchments Remediation Rate Capital Works Program 2010-2011 Annual Report

File Reference: F2005/00829-02

Document Number: D01791543

Executive Manager's Report No. WK60/11

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

14 WORKS PROGRESS REPORT - SEPTEMBER QUARTER 2011 - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION BRANCH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is a report on the progress of works which are carried out by the Design and Construction Branch of the Works Division for the first quarter of 2011/2012. Overall, projects were undertaken in accordance with the timing and budgets shown in the previously adopted program. A number of changes to the Program are highlighted under the heading of “Significant Impact” and reflected in the Gantt Charts.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to provide information as to the progress of the various 2011/2012 Improvement Programs (Civil Works), and other works undertaken by the Design and Construction Branch.

DISCUSSION

Improvement Program

Construction works are carried out under Council's various Improvement Programs namely: Local Roads, Footpaths, Stormwater Drainage, Traffic Facilities and Special Projects. Local Roads, Footpaths and Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs have additional funding as a result of Council’s successful IPART application. Some of the Stormwater Drainage Improvements Program requires significant design and the 2011/2012 program reflects the need to carry out design works prior to construction.

In addition to the above programs, 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 for the Parks and Landscape Team.

The Gantt charts for the programs listed above, together with comments in the right hand column as to the status of each project, form part of this report.

Any change in the timing of construction for any project from the adopted program, is shown on the Gantt charts by shading the construction period shown on the previously adopted program.

Individual projects have been financed from Divisional allocations in accordance with the 2011/12 budget. If complementary grant funding identified for a project alters, the program will be reviewed and reported to Council in a subsequent quarterly review.

Significant Impacts

There have been a number of changes to the Program since reported (Report No. WK38/11) to Council at the July 2011 Ordinary Meeting. These changes include:

· (LRI) Willarong Road, Mt Colah – No. 32 to Narraburra Cl. This project has been deferred as a result of a budget reallocation of $170,000 to Lady Street, Mt Colah (also a Local Road project). These additional funds have enabled the completion of all drainage works as identified in the final design plans for Lady Street. Details of this budget/project change were provided to Council in Memo No. D&C43/11.

· (LRI) Lady Street, Mt Colah – north side - No. 2 to No. 26. The budget amount has been increased from $230,000 to $400,000 (see Willarong Road above). Also a change in the scope of works now includes the construction of both sides of the road from no.2 to no. 26 (cnr. Mount Street).

· (Footpaths) SRV Hakea Crescent, Galston – 15 Hansen Ave to Footpath link. This project has been added to the program with a budget amount of $14,000.

· (Minor Traffic Facilities) Sefton Rd, Thornleigh – Traffic calming Dartford Rd to Chilvers Rd and Hannah Street, Beecroft – Pedestrian refuge north of York Street. These two projects have been removed from the program. Grant applications have been submitted for both projects under the Auslink Black Spot program for 100% funding in 2012/2013. As result of this the available funds in the current financial year will be reallocated to Brooklyn Rd – Cycle route – Stage 1 near Wharf Street project.

· (Major Drainage) Quarter Sessions Road, Westleigh – West Side No. 149 to Silver Crescent. The description of this project was previously incorrect and has been changed to Quarter Sessions Road and Nicholson Ave, Westleigh.

· (Other Projects) Old Peats Ferry Road, Cowan. This project has been added to the program. Funds will be made available from the Assets Branch Unsealed Road Maintenance program.

· (Other Projects) Brickpit Park – extension to basketball courts. The budget amount of $100,000 as previously stated is incorrect and currently the budget is zero. Hence the project has been removed from the program.

· (Other Projects) Dangar Island RFS – existing building (estimated cost approx $300K). This project has been removed from the D&C Civil Works program and will be handled by Engineering Services Branch.

· (CRR Projects) Hornsby CBD – raingardens and Sefton Rd – raingardens. These two rain garden projects are linked to the individual traffic projects. Since these traffic projects are not included in the current program the above rain garden projects will be removed.

· (CRR Projects) Duneba Drive/Apanie Place, Westleigh – Bioretention. This project has been added to the program with a budget amount of $100,000.

· (CRR Projects) Braidwood Ave/Boundary Rd, North Epping – Bioretention. This project has been added to the program with a budget amount of $100,000.

The Design and Construction Branch has a number of staff vacancies in the Design Team, this includes the positions of Hornsby Aquatic Centre Project Manager and Engineer Design and Major Projects (drainage). These staff vacancies have impacted on preconstruction activities for the 2011/2012 Program. The most significant impact of these vacancies is on the drainage program. It is expected that once an appointment is made to this position (expected in December 2011), the program will be updated in the next quarterly report. Progress in this regard will be monitored and further reported in the future.

Tenders / Contracts

Tenders called during the September quarter were:

1. Minor Asphalt Works

2. Stabilisation of Road Pavements

3. Survey & Design of Major Stormwater Drainage Upgrades

Current contracts include:

1. Sprayed Bituminous Surfacing

2. Widening Berowra Waters Road

3. Grinding of Concrete Footpaths

4. Construction of John Purchase Oval Extension and Car Park at 46-60 Purchase Road, Cherrybrook

5. Construction of Vehicular Crossings and Footpaths

6. Design and Project Management – Storey Park Community and Child Care Centre

7. Material Testing of Site Investigation

8. Concreting Form and Finish

9. Supply of Delivery of Precast Concrete Drainage Products

10. Electrical Services

11. Supply and Delivery of Road Materials

12. Supply and Delivery of Concrete

13. Design and Construction Epping Water Harvesting Schemes

14. Patching of Road Pavements in Full Depth Asphalt

15. Supply and Lay Asphaltic Concrete

16. Grass Cutting of Roadsides

17. Plumbing Services

18. Pavement Marking (NSROC)

19. Grass Cutting of Roadsides

20. Construction of Hornsby Ku-ring-gai District Rural Fire Centre and Emergency Facility

21. Hornsby Quarry – Land Filling Approval

22. Design and Construction Management of Hornsby Aquatic Centre

Vehicular Crossing Construction

The Design and Construction Branch is also responsible for issuing plans and specifications and supervising vehicular crossing construction. Property owners have the choice of using a contractor from Council's Authorised Contractors List, or pay Council to construct vehicular crossings on their behalf. There are currently 51 Authorised Contractors, including one new contractor authorised during the quarter.

During the September quarter 55 plans and specifications were issued and five (5) crossings constructed by Council's contractors.

BUDGET

Any budget implications are covered under the heading of “Significant Impacts” in this report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications.

CONSULTATION

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

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

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 the Manager, Design & Construction, Mr Rob Rajca who can be contacted on telephone 9847 6675 between 8.30am - 5.00pm, Monday to Friday.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. WK60/11 be received and noted.

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Works Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2004/05959-02

Document Number: D01765033

Executive Manager's Report No. WK64/11

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

15 CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSION MADE IN RESPONSE TO ADVERTISEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL TO LEASE THE EPPING YMCA CENTRE IN WEST EPPING PARK, WEST EPPING TO THE YMCA FOR 21 YEARS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council’s approval to lease the YMCA Centre at West Epping Park to the YMCA for 21 years is subject to the statutory advertising process.

At the expiration of the advertising period, one submission had been received. The submission requires Council’s consideration and if it is decided the submission is an objection and that the lease proposal should proceed, the lease proposal requires the Minister’s consent.

The substance of the submission is not considered to be relevant to the proposed grant of lease and the author of the submission has acknowledged it was not meant as an objection to the lease proposal. Subject to Council’s approval it is proposed to implement the proposed lease in the terms previously approved by Council.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to deal with the submission made in regard to the proposal to lease the YMCA Centre for 21 years.

DISCUSSION

Council’s meeting on 24 August 2011 considered report EN 32/11 in response to a requested lease extension by the YMCA. The YMCA holds existing leases in relation to the Epping YMCA Centre which afford it tenure until 2019.

Significant expenditure of funds for the planned major redevelopment of the Centre is the basis of the YMCA wishing to resolve uncertainty over current tenure and to provide for the amortisation of its capital outlay, by extending its lease term to 21 years. The redevelopment works have been approved under DA 19/2010.

Council approved the proposed lease being advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local government Act 1993 (the Act). The land concerned is classified Community Land and consequently special provisions apply to advertising and dealing with submissions. Council directed that a further report be submitted to it on any submission received.

The Act provides that if a person makes a submission by way of objection to a proposed lease, “the Council must not grant the lease, licence or other estate except with the Minister’s consent”. An application for the Minister’s consent requires the Minister to obtain a report from the Director-General of Planning and Infrastructure before deciding whether to grant consent to the lease.

In this matter the objector is a resident of an adjoining street, Lillipilli Street. The submission is attached. The substance of the submission is that “concerns” are expressed in relation to the proposal and it is claimed that –

· “YMCA always cause traffic congestion and parking problem in the nearby area”

· “Council/YMCA have not provided enough facility and space for traffic and parking”

· “People go to YMCA kill the lawn while Council failed to provide footpath”

· “These people leave rubbish such as water bottles and chips package”

· “we are entitled to get a quiet, convenience and clean environment”

· “Please improve the traffic, parking facility and build enough footpath before considering new lease”

· “Ask YMCA to give residents free membership or other discounts to compensate what we have been suffering for years”

Council’s Manager, Parks and Landscape has commented –

“….the [submission] to the lease is not made on a matter of substance related to the tenure of the premises by the YMCA, but to a development matter that has been considered under a separate process. The YMCA has been in occupation of these premises for some 50 years, and the development is a comparatively minor addition to the recreation facilities that have long been available at the premises. The extension of the lease is necessary for the YMCA to secure funding for the project, which is considered to be in the general community interest.

The [submission] raises issues of traffic and parking. These are considered to be related to the development of these additional facilities at the YMCA, not the lease itself. Council exhibited a DA 19/2010 in 2010 for this development, took public comments and objections into consideration, and made the development conditional on the provision of additional parking, as recommended by traffic experts.”

An examination of the comments and objections to the DA 19/2010 did not reveal any submission by the resident now making the submission in regard to the lease.

A representative of the YMCA has commented that there are other contributors to the generation of traffic in this locality including a primary school, sports oval and tennis courts. The works proposed under the Development Consent will result in a slight increase in parking.

Council officers have reviewed the comment on the need for foot paving but note at this stage that significant paving is already provided. There is evidence of pedestrian traffic on the northern side of Lillipilli Street causing some deterioration to the grassed and unpaved nature strip. Having noted this extent of usage it is reasonable to include consideration of paving this side of the street in future works programmes; however, priority for such work will be limited by the existence of concrete paving already on the southern side of the street.

Following discussion with the author, over the nature of the submission, written confirmation has been received that it was not intended the submission be treated as an objection to the lease proposal. It was intended to raise issues to be considered by Council more generally.

BUDGET

No other budgetary issues are raised from this report than were dealt with in Report EN32/11

POLICY

No other Policy issues are raised from this report than were dealt with in Report EN32/11

CONSULTATION

There has been consultation with representatives of the YMCA and officers from the Parks and Landscape Branch in the preparation of this Report

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

As was reported to Council in report EN32/11, the benefits of the proposed lease are that contribution would be made to the following strategic themes:

· Society and Culture – enhance social and community well-being.

· Economy – vibrant local economy and sustainable resource use.

· Human Habitat - effective community infrastructure and services.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager, Land and Property Services, Mr Peter Thompson who can be contacted on 9847 6669.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The submission concerning the proposed lease to YMCA over the Epping YMCA Centre in West Epping Park, West Epping be acknowledged.

2. Given that the submission referred to in recommendation 1 does not militate against the issue of the lease Council approve the grant of lease.

3. The terms of lease mentioned in item 1 be in accordance with item 5 of Council’s resolution in respect of report EN 32/11 on 24 August 2011.

4. The General Manager be authorised to execute all associated documents under Power Of Attorney or pursuant to this delegation.

5. Council authorises the Execution under Seal where necessary, of the registration of documents to record the lease on title and the removal of superseded notations.

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Works Division

Attachments:

1.	Comments - New Lease YMCA - West Epping Park -pdf - This attachment should be dealt with in confidential session, under Section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993. This report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).
2.	Confirmation -Submission raising concerns in relation to the Proposed Development of the YMCA premises - ~ Not intended as objection -- pdf - This attachment should be dealt with in confidential session, under Section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993. This report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).
3.View	MINUTE ACTION Extension of Lease Application from YMCA of Sydney- Epping YMCA Centre and West Epping Park Tennis ~ 24 August 2011_pdf
4.View	REPORT Extension of Lease Application from YMCA of Sydney- Epping YMCA Centre and West Epping Park Tennis Centre - pdf

File Reference: F2009/00832

Document Number: D01783138

Executive Manager's Report No. WK65/11

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

16 REVIEW OF SUBURB BOUNDARY BETWEEN WEST PENNANT HILLS AND BEECROFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Concerns have been raised by three residents of Lancaster Avenue (1A, B and C – hatched area below) regarding inconsistencies and mail delivery problems due to the current location of the suburb boundary between West Pennant Hills and Beecroft.

The original three properties all had access to Pennant Hills Road and hence were located in West Pennant Hills. However the re-subdivision of these properties separated the rear parts of the original properties with access available only via Lancaster Avenue. All addresses along Lancaster Avenue, including House No. 1 are located in Beecroft.

Council officers believe there is merit in amending the suburb boundary to include the subject properties in Beecroft rather than West Pennant Hills. The proposal requires the support of the Geographical Names Board (GNB).

Current suburb boundary Proposed new suburb boundary

(approx. location and not to scale) (approx. location and not to scale)

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to correct an anomaly as a result of subdivisions to:

a) alter the suburb boundary between West Pennant Hills and Beecroft as outlined within this report; and

b) authorise the lodgement of this proposal with the Geographical Names Board to alter the suburb boundary between West Pennant Hills and Beecroft.

DISCUSSION

Three residents have contacted Council with a petition to change their suburb boundary due to mail delivery problems and historic usage of the Beecroft suburb in their address. Their current and new proposed suburb locations are as follows:

CURRENT ADDRESS	DESCRIPTION	PROPOSED NEW ADDRESS
1B Lancaster Avenue WEST PENNANT HILLS NSW 2125	Lot 4 DP 848648	1B Lancaster Avenue BEECROFT NSW 2119
1C Lancaster Avenue WEST PENNANT HILLS NSW 2125	Lot 6 DP 848646	1C Lancaster Avenue BEECROFT NSW 2119
1C Lancaster Avenue WEST PENNANT HILLS NSW 2126	Lot 2 DP 848647	1C Lancaster Avenue BEECROFT NSW 2119

Council was contacted in previous years by two of the three residents with the same issues in May and July 2009. Council responded on both occasions that the correct legal suburb is West Pennant Hills and that Council does not generally support applications to the GNB for individual property suburb boundary changes. However renewed contacts with Council by the residents and mail delivery problems encountered by Council to those three properties have reactivated the issue.

When Council encountered mail delivery problems to 1A and 1B Lancaster Avenue, West Pennant Hills, Council’s mailing addresses were changed to Beecroft. Recently these were changed back to West Pennant Hills; however mail deliveries were again delayed or not received by the residents. After contact with the residents, Council officers are convinced that there is merit in changing the suburb boundaries to alleviate mail delivery problems.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

The GNB has statutory responsibility to determine suburb and locality boundaries within New South Wales. In order to change suburb boundaries the GNB requires Council’s concurrence with any proposal.

The procedure to change a suburb boundary with less than 10 properties involved, provided there are no objections, is a straight forward administrative process, whereby Council notifies the GNB of its proposal including a map. Once considered and approved by the GNB the boundary change will be made effective.

If objections are received or there are more than 10 properties involved in a proposal the GNB will advertise the proposed boundary in a local newspaper and the NSW Government Gazette. Objections will need to be addressed and then the proposal will be re-advertised, abandoned or determined by the relevant Minister. Once finalised or determined the address locality will be formalised by way of notice in the Gazette. The GNB will notify Council of the outcome and Council can then update its rates, property database etc.

BUDGET

The residents have been charged with a non-refundable application fee of $550 per household to Council to proceed with an application to Council and the GNB. This fee covers Council’s administration fees and other costs such as advertising, if required.

POLICY

There is no impact on Council policy arising from this report.

CONSULTATION

Consultation has taken place by writing to all three property owners seeking agreement in writing and payment of the administration fees. All three have agreed to the suburb boundary change and payed the administration fee.

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 for the preparation of this report is Dr Renate Mason, GIS Co-ordinator, available on telephone number 9847 6715 between 9am and 4pm, Monday to Friday.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council agree to alter the suburb boundary between West Pennant Hills and Beecroft as outlined within Executive Managers Report WK65/11.

2. The necessary administrative actions be put in place with any objections received by the GNB being considered by Council.

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Works Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2011/00070

Document Number: D01786239

Executive Manager's Report No. WK66/11

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

17 WORKS PROGRESS REPORT - SEPTEMBER QUARTER 2011 - ASSETS BRANCH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Assets Branch Works Progress Report for the September 2011 Quarter provides information to Council regarding the progress of the adopted 2011/12 Assets Branch Programs relating to works maintenance, road pavement and stormwater management in the Shire, and the implementation of asset management systems for sealed road pavement and drainage.

The various activities are generally proceeding in accordance with the adopted programs for the 2011/12 Service Plan.

OBJECTIVE

This report provides information to Council on the progress of the adopted Assets Branch Programs relating to works maintenance, road pavement and stormwater management in the Shire, and the implementation of asset management systems for pavement and drainage.

The report covers work carried out by the Assets Branch of the Works Division for the first quarter of the 2011/12 Service Plan ending 30 September 2011.

WORKS MAINTENANCE

Works maintenance is undertaken throughout the Shire, and includes maintenance activities for the following assets:

· Road shoulder and Unsealed Road

· Stormwater Drainage

· Footpath and Footway

· Roadside Furniture

· Foreshore Facilities

Maintenance works of a routine nature are mainly carried out by Council crews with either Council-owned plant or externally hired plant and occasionally by contractors. Such works include: road shoulder and unsealed road regrading; stormwater drainage system checking and clearing of obstruction/repair of drainage structure; inspection of footpaths and repair/replacement of isolated sections of paths; inspection and repair/replacement of road signs and furniture; and inspection and minor repairs of foreshore facilities.

Upgrading works which are readily defined are generally carried out by contractors. Such works include road shoulder upgrading, footpath reconstruction, and major repair/replacement of foreshore facilities. Other upgrading works such as construction of drainage pits and pipelines, lining of walls and floor of drainage channels, construction of short lengths of kerb and gutter are generally carried out by Council crews.

Civil assets maintained by the Works Division include:

· 635km of sealed roads and footways

· 376km of unsealed road shoulders

· 28km of unsealed roads

· 417km of footpaths

· 18,331 stormwater drainage pits

· 390km of stormwater drainage pipelines and channels

· 5 public wharves

· 8 pontoons

· 1 tidal bath

· 3 boat ramps

· 2 loading docks

· 815m of seawall (8 sections), and 1 breakwater

Works maintenance is undertaken in accordance with programmes adopted by Council and from work requests received. Progress of programmed activities for the Northern and Southern District Works Maintenance Programs are given in Gantt Charts A and B, respectively.

Road Shoulder and Unsealed Road

Road Shoulder Maintenance is carried out to ensure that unsealed road shoulders on roads with only a central sealed pavement are safe and serviceable. Activities carried out include:

· On demand grass cutting and repair of damaged sections of grassed shoulders and swales;

· Programmed periodic regrading and repair of worn shoulders;

· Programmed upgrading of shoulders to reduce/eliminate high frequency maintenance.

Unsealed Road Maintenance is carried out to ensure that unsealed roads are safe and serviceable. Activities carried out include:

· Programmed routine repair/ and periodic re-sheeting of all unsealed roads;

· Programmed stabilisation/sealing of sections of unsealed roads to minimise/ eliminate dust problem;

· On demand repair of unsealed roads especially after heavy rainfall.

The Key Performance Indicator (KPI), stated as the average maintenance cost per km per year on unsealed roads, is $7,200. The performance at the end of the September quarter was $4,250. The service level, stated as the number of complaints per 10km of unsealed roads, of <30 (less than 30) was 10 at the end of the September quarter.

This activity relates to the Strategic Theme, Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and services.

Drainage

Drainage maintenance is carried out to ensure that Council's drainage systems are effective in providing safety and enhance amenity to the community. Drainage maintenance comprises routine maintenance and minor upgrading of drainage structures.

Routine Maintenance comprises: programmed routine stormwater drainage system checking and clearing by Council crews on an area basis; and on demand drainage structure repair and lining of the side and floor of open drainage channels. The KPI for drainage maintenance, stated as the average maintenance cost per km per year of urban drainage maintenance, is $2,350. The performance for at the end of the September quarter was $690.

Minor Upgrading comprises programmed upgrading of drainage pits, construction of short sections of kerb and gutter, pipelines and new pits, and lining of walls and floors of open drainage channels. Minor upgrading works in Pierre Close, Mount Colah were undertaken during this quarter.

Footpath and Footway

Footpath and footway maintenance is carried out to ensure that Council's footpath system provides safe and convenient access. Footpath maintenance comprises routine maintenance, footpath reconstruction and access ramp construction. Footway maintenance comprises programmed routine grass cutting, and programmed on demand reshaping of footway and repair of footway.

Routine Footpath Maintenance comprises programmed routine inspection and repair of isolated section/s of footpath, and programmed re-sheeting of segments of footpaths with asphaltic concrete to eliminate minor trip edges or concrete grinding to address moderate trip edges. The 417km footpath network is inspected at least once a year by Council crews or a contractor. During the September quarter, repairs to footpaths totalled 456m ², and grinding of trip edges totalled 1192m.

The KPI for footpath maintenance, stated as the average maintenance cost per km per year, is $2,500. The performance at the end of the September quarter was $410. The Service Level stated as the number of reported trip and fall incidents on footpaths per 100km of <10 (less than 10) per year was 5 at the end of the September quarter.

Footpath Reconstruction comprises programmed reconstruction by contract for segments of various types of footpaths ranging from concrete slabs to asphalt, brick, tile and heritage slabs. During the September quarter, 60m of footpath was reconstructed.

This activity relates to the Strategic Theme, Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and services.

Roadside Furniture

Roadside furniture maintenance is carried out to ensure traffic safety and convenient movement of traffic. Roadside furniture maintenance comprises routine maintenance of street name and traffic signs, guide posts and safety fences.

Street Name and Traffic Signs routine maintenance comprises programmed installation of new advisory and directional signs, and on demand repair/replacement of street name and traffic signs. During the September quarter, 316 signs were maintained and 119 new signs were erected.

Guide Post and Safety Fences routine maintenance comprises programmed installation of new guide posts and safety fences and on demand repair/replacement of guide posts and safety fences. During the September quarter: 454 guide posts and 438 metres of safety fence were maintained. No new safety fences or new guide posts were erected.

This activity relates to the Strategic Theme, Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and services.

Foreshore Facilities

Foreshore facilities maintenance is carried out to ensure that public facilities are safe and serviceable. Foreshore facilities maintenance comprises routine maintenance and periodic upgrading/replacement of public wharves, pontoons, boat ramps, tidal baths, loading dock and seawalls.

Routine Maintenance comprises programmed routine inspection and minor repairs of public wharves, pontoons, boat ramps and tidal baths by Council crews and specialist contractors, and on demand minor repair works. During the September quarter, all 19 facilities have been inspected. Step, boat ramp and fish-cleaning table pressure cleaning were also carried out at Parsley Bay and Berowra Waters.

Upgrading/Replacement normally comprises programmed major repairs/upgrading on public wharves, periodic replacement of pontoons and periodic reconstruction of sea walls by contract. The replacement of the pontoon and refurbishment of the tidal pool were commenced at McKell Park in the September quarter.

This activity relates to the Strategic Theme, Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and services.

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT

Pavement Management is undertaken throughout the 635km sealed road network consisting of 1,521 roads. Pavement maintenance activities include:

· Road Resurfacing

· Preparation for Resurfacing

· Pothole Repairs

· Road Restorations, Hydrants and Car Park Maintenance

Progress of programmed activities for the Pavement Works Maintenance Program is given in Gantt Chart C.

There are two key performance indicators in the Principal Activity Service Plans for sealed roads:

· The KPI for the sealed road network, stated as the percentage of road network rated in "Good/Very Poor" condition, are >68/<2 (greater than 68% / less than 2%). The performance for 2011/12 is only available early in 2012 following the collection of road condition data in the December quarter. These percentages are expected to remain relatively constant due to the Roads to Recovery and RTA REPAIR Program Funding as well as Council’s Sealing of Unsealed Roads Program.

· The KPI for sealed roads, stated as the average maintenance cost per km, is $7,500 per year. The performance at the end of the September quarter was $2,650.

Road Resurfacing

Road resurfacing comprises programmed Reclamite surface treatment, and asphaltic concrete (AC) and flush seal resurfacing by contract. The programmed resurfacing is on 127 roads totalling 205,657 square metres, as listed below. The performance at the end of the September quarter, shown within brackets, was 16 roads totalling 38,347 m2 and was as follows:

· Asphaltic Concrete resurfacing: 52 roads - 77,913 m ² (16 roads - 38,347m²)

· Flush Seal resurfacing: 19 roads - 45,912 m ² (0 roads - 0 m²)

· Reclamite surface treatment: 56 roads - 81,832 m ² (0 roads - 0 m ²)

A list of roads proposed for resurfacing is identified by Council's Pavement Management System based on funding allocation and appropriate treatment options selected. The roads selected for inclusion in the program are then made following inspection by the Pavements Engineer. Approximately 5% of the road network is resurfaced or treated per year.

Preparation for Resurfacing

Preparation for resurfacing comprises programmed pavement repair by contract and crack sealing by Council crews. Pavement repair involves heavy patching of pavement using AC and pavement stabilisation with cement. On demand pavement repair involving heavy patching of pavement with AC is also carried out by contract as well as by Council crews depending on availability and extent of work required.

The programmed preparation works is on 51 roads totalling 18,596 m ², as listed below. The performance at the end of the September quarter, shown within brackets, was 15 roads totalling 13,980 m ² and was as follows:

· Heavy Patching with AC 45 roads - 2,012 m ² (13 roads - 5,539 m ²)

· Pavement Stab. with Cement 6 roads - 16,584 m ² (2 roads – 8,441 m ²)

Pothole Repairs

Pothole repair comprises programmed inspection and filling of potholes with AC on 12 patrol area basis by a Council crew with a Flocon truck. During the September quarter, 636 potholes were repaired in 159 roads and consumed approximately 22 tonnes of AC.

Road Restorations, Hydrants and Car Park Maintenance

This activity comprises programmed restoration of road openings by public utility authorities and plumbers in asphaltic concrete, rising of hydrants, and carpark maintenance involving some pavement and pothole repair by Council crew, line marking and resurfacing by contractors. During the September quarter, 279m ² of restorations were carried out on 58 roads and 15 service adjustments were made on 4 roads.

The activities above relate to the Strategic Themes, Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and maintaining sound corporate and financial management.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Stormwater management major activities include:

· General review of all completed Stormwater Catchment Management Plans (SCMPs).

· Project management of minor stormwater drainage projects.

· Review of Council's Urban Runoff Management Code.

· Development of conceptual designs for Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs.

· Development of Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

The Service Level, stated as the cumulative percentage of 1,084 known properties subject to stormwater inundation benefiting from the Stormwater Drainage Improvement Programs, is 52.1%. Progress of programmed activities for Stormwater Management is generally in accordance with the adopted programme given in Gantt Chart D.

The development of the Floodplain Risk Management Plan will culminate with the preparation of Flood Planning Maps for the Shire. The Hornsby Overland Flow Study Report and draft Flood Planning Maps were submitted to Council’s OM on 20 October 2010 wherein Council resolved to endorse and place these documents on public exhibition. At its Ordinary Meeting on 18 May 2011, Council endorsed the process for considering the submissions received in response to the public exhibition. Currently, the Assets Branch is implementing that process, with monthly progress reports being made available to all councillors.

The Major Drainage Improvement Program for 2011/12, and progress to date, is shown on the accompanying Gantt Chart D. This consists of works for the Hornsby CBD and the next four projects from the Major Drainage Priority List. As a result of the detailed Flood Study undertaken for the CBD area (Report WK87/10) the CBD works can now be significantly scaled back enabling other projects on the priority list to be commenced earlier. Council has now appointed consultants to commence feasibility assessments and preliminary designs for the additional four projects for 2011/12 (Report WK62/11).

The Minor Drainage Improvement Program has been expanded due to additional funding from the Special Rate Variation. The attached Gantt Chart D indicates the proposed projects and current progress.

This activity relates to the Strategic Themes Contributing to community development through sustainable facilities and services and Maintaining sound corporate and financial management.

ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Three asset management systems are currently being maintained/implemented:

· Pavement Management System (PMS)

· Drainage Asset Management System (DRAMS-PIPEPAK)

· Footpath Management System (FMS)

The progress of programmed activities for the implementation of asset management systems is generally in accordance with the adopted programme given in Gantt Chart E.

Pavement Management System (PMS)

The Pavement Management System (PMS) Implementation Program consists of the following programmed activities for PMS Model refinement:

· Investigation of pavement structure by staff from project investigations.

· Collection of road condition and road roughness data by contract for the third 20% of the network for the Fifth Sweep.

· Collection of subdivision road data using casual staff.

· Traffic Counts by contract for 21 "typical" roads for refinement of traffic volume data.

Other PMS development activities include: preparation of valuation for AAS27 requirements; update of feedback system for data updating; preparation of Grants Commission reports, and development of PMS-GIS interface to enable graphical access to PMS data. Running of the optimisation model on the PMS in conjunction with the preparation of the 2011/12 Pavement Works Maintenance Program was undertaken in April 2011.

This activity relates to the Strategic Theme, Maintaining sound corporate and financial management.

Drainage Asset Management System (DRAMS-PIPEPAK)

The Drainage Asset Management System (DRAMS-PIPEPAK) Implementation Program consists of the collection of stormwater drainage asset data in respect of the location and condition of the pits and pipes. The location of pits in Council's stormwater drainage system was undertaken using a global positioning system (GPS). The collection of the pit and pipe condition was undertaken by field inspection.

The original DRAMS database has been converted to the updated version named PIPEPAK.

PIPEPAK implementation activities include: GPS and condition data audit, update of feedback system for data updating; development of PIPEPAK model; formatting PIPEPAK for AAS27 requirements; and development of PIPEPAK-GIS interface for graphical access to PIPEPAK data. Checking of drainage data for asset valuation is currently in progress.

This activity relates to the Strategic Theme, Maintaining sound corporate and financial management.

Footpath Management System (FMS)

The Footpath Management System (FMS) Implementation Program consists of the following programmed activities:

· Collection of footpath condition data for the whole network.

· Ongoing development of graphical access to FMS data.

· Formulation of the Annual Footpath Maintenance and Reconstruction Programs.

The collection of footpath condition and inventory data by a contractor has been scheduled for the December quarter.

This activity relates to the Strategic Theme, Maintaining sound corporate and financial management.

BUDGET

There are no budget implications with the preparation of this report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications.

CONSULTATION

Consultation with the Environment and Planning Divisions was made in respect of Stormwater Management activities. Consultation with outside groups is not required with the other activities.

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.

A TBL assessment is not required for this progress report.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The responsible officer is the Acting Manager, Assets Branch, Mr Mike O’Connor, on telephone No. 9847 6824.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Executive Manager’s Report No. WK66/11 be received and the progress of the 2011/12 Assets Branch Programmes for the September 2011 quarter be noted.

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Works Division

Attachments:

1.View	Gantt Chart A - 2011/12 Northern District Works Maintenance Programme, Progress as at 30 September 2011
2.View	Gantt Chart B - 2011/12 Southern District Works Maintenance Programme, Progress as at 30 September 2011
3.View	Gantt Chart C - 2011/12 Pavement Works Maintenance Programme, Progress as at 30 September 2011
4.View	Gantt Chart D - 2011/12 Stormwater Management Programme, Progress as at 30 September 2011
5.View	Gantt Chart E - 2011/12 Asset Management Programme, Progress as at 30 June 2011

File Reference: F2004/05959-02

Document Number: D01786604

Executive Manager's Report No. WK67/11

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

18 WORKS PROGRESS REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2011 QUARTERLY - TRAFFIC AND ROAD SAFETY BRANCH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides Council with information on the works and activities undertaken by the Traffic and Road Safety Branch for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 September 2011. The Branch is continuing to develop and deliver on projects identified in Council’s 2011/12 Operational Plan. Projects are generally on schedule.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the functions of the Traffic and Road Safety Branch during the period of review and to seek Council’s endorsement of the activities undertaken.

DISCUSSION

The Traffic and Road Safety Branch comprises 17 staff, i.e. 1 x Senior Traffic Engineer, 1 x Transport Planner, 1 x Assistant Traffic Engineer, 1 x Road Safety Officer, 9 x Rangers, 1 x Ranger Coordinator, 1 x Administration Support Officer, 1 x Administration Assistant and 1 x Manager. The areas of responsibility within the Branch are; Traffic and Transport Planning, Traffic Engineering, Traffic and Road Safety Education and Traffic and Car Parking Enforcement. The core activities undertaken within these areas of responsibility are:-

· Management and Administration

· Traffic Management

· Traffic and Transport Planning

· Car Parking Management

· Road Safety Education

· Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning

· Development Assessment

Management and Administration

The Traffic and Road Safety Branch has two responsibility centres within the Annual Operating Plan, Traffic and Road Safety and Traffic and Parking Enforcement and as such it is required to provide budget control, program reports through quarterly reviews, program development, annual reporting and human resource management.

Traffic Management

Council is the responsible Authority for the management of traffic on public streets within its proclaimed boundaries other than classified roads. However, the Roads and Traffic Authority has revoked Council’s delegated powers to approve traffic facilities that prevent or restrict access of vehicles or pedestrians on public roads and approve some categories of parking restrictions near public transport infrastructure. Council remains an applicant for the implementation of any restriction, e.g. road closures, turning restrictions, etc., on public roads and “No Parking” and “No Stopping” restrictions on currently unregulated roads within a kilometre of Berowra railway station. These applications are determined by the Roads and Traffic Authority.

During the period under review 7 items were referred to the Local Traffic Committee for a recommendation as shown in Attachment 1. Throughout all of the above projects the community was consulted and where possible amendments made to suit the community’s needs or requests.

Traffic and Transport Planning

As a Road Authority, proactive measures are required to ensure proposals comply with adopted standards, guidelines and best practice.

Major Traffic and Transport Planning projects undertaken during September 2011 quarter are outlined below:

· Updating of Hornsby CBD and Shire traffic models (on-going)

· Maintain database for traffic and transport planning

· Assessing the traffic impacts of proposed Parking and line marking amendments on Pacific Hwy, Hornsby Westside

· Development of Hornsby Town Centre Car Parking Management Actions

· Review and assessment of Hornsby Shire Road Hierarchy

· Review and implementation of Hornsby Shire Integrated Land Use & Transport Strategy (on-going)

· Review and assessment of access options for Hornsby Aquatic Centre

· Assessment of traffic impacts of proposed traffic signals at Intersection of Edgeworth David Ave with Balmoral Street

Car Parking Management

In addition to patrolling on street parking restrictions Traffic Rangers are contracted to patrol private parking areas used by the public. Coles has agreed to resumption of patrols of the Thompsons Corner car park. 1460 parking spaces in 16 car parking areas within the Shire are currently patrolled as shown in Attachment 1.

Car Parking Management activities carried out during the period under review include:-

· 185 (198) patrols of schools to enforce parking regulations.

· 2,852 (2,788) infringement notices were issued.

· 4 (2) matters were defended in Hornsby Local Court.

(--) denotes activities from July to September 2010.

The use of electronic handheld devices for the issuing of traffic infringement notices commenced in July 2008. The devices allow improved data collection and transfer of data between the State Debt Recovery Office and Council.

Road Safety Education

The Road Safety Officer returned from maternity leave 6 July 2011 after which a number of deferred projects are being developed for 2011/2012 –

· Safer Senior Driver Workshops - This is an extremely popular program in the community. A workshop was held 20 September.

· Safety Outside Schools – Road Safety Educational material continues to be available to all schools in the Shire.

· Fatigue and Drink Drive projects - Council will continue to remind the community of the signs of fatigue and the dangers of drink driving. Council will work with local Police and provide promotion assistance where required during Police operations, such as Operation Roadsafe.

Further projects 2011/2012 under development subject to Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) funding include –

· Local Speed Project – This project seeks to combine the resources of Council, RTA and local Police to target speeding in our local government area. Three locations have been selected for the program Quarter Sessions Road, Edgeworth David Ave and Arcadia Road

· Child Restraints Project – Two Child Restraint checking days are planned.

· Graduated Licensing Scheme workshops – Two workshops to be delivered to the Hornsby community. The workshop is designed to help the supervising driver of Learner drivers become safer drivers.

Bicycle, Pedestrian and Public Transport Facilities and Planning

The Transport Officer position was deleted from the establishment in order to meet corporate budget targets, however Branch staff have been involved in –

· Audit of all bus stops across the Shire in accordance with Disability Discrimination Act requirements

· Prioritising bicycle projects for Design and Construction Branch, and providing input into other traffic management and road construction projects to improve pedestrian and bicycle access where possible

· Public consultation and development of Brooklyn Shared Path Report which has led to the RTA providing 50% funding for the construction of Stage 1 in 2011/2012

Development Assessment and advice on Town Planning Issues

The Traffic and Road Safety Branch provides advice to the Planning Division on ‘as needed’ basis. During the period under review, traffic comments and impact assessments were made on 19 development applications, 1 pre lodgement application and 1 project application as shown in Attachment 1.

BUDGET

There are no budget implications intended in this report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications.

CONSULTATION

There is ongoing extensive consultation with the community and other stakeholders during the course of the traffic facility and bicycle program implementation.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

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 for this report is the Manager Traffic and Road Safety Mr Lawrence Nagy telephone 9847 6524.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council endorse the activities undertaken by the Traffic and Road Safety Branch for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 September 2011 as outlined in Executive Managers Report WK67/11.

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Works Division

Attachments:

1.View

Traffic and Road Safety Branch Activities 1 July 2011 to 30 September 2011

Included under separate cover

File Reference: F2004/05959-02

Document Number: D01793539

Executive Manager's Report No. WK68/11

Works Division

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

19 COUNCIL OWNED PROPERTY - JOHNSON ROAD GALSTON

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been provided in response to item 1 of a Notice of Motion dated 20 July 2011 and provides information regarding sale (including timing) options for the disposal of the former pony club site at Johnson Road Galston and to identify any projects that might benefit from the proceeds of the sale of the property.

Having regard to potential increases in value to the land this report recommends that Council does not sell the former Pony Club site in the short term. Instead it recommends that Council hold the property for a future sale in the medium term.

Having regard to projected increases in population and to preserve the current ratio of open space per head of population into the future, this report recommends that Council agree in principle to allocating revenue raised from the future sale of the former Pony Club site to recreational uses in Waitara and Old Mans Valley.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to seek the endorsement of Council of the recommended property strategy and direction of future sale proceeds.

DISCUSSION

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 July 2011 Council considered a Notice of Motion NOM9/11 and resolved in part “THAT:

1. The Executive Manager, Environment in conjunction with the Executive Manager, Works prepare a report for Council’s consideration at the 19 October 2011 Ordinary Meeting of Council canvassing:

(a) Sale (including timing) options for the disposal of the former Pony Club site at Johnson Road, Galston.

(b) Projects that could benefit from the proceeds of the sale of the property.

Particulars of Property

The former pony club site is known as Lot 6 DP 712235 on the corner of Johnson Road and Sallaway Road at Galston. It comprises an area of 1.669ha (about 4.1 acres) and is subject to an easement for overhead electricity transmission lines 30.48m (100 feet) wide, at the rear.

The property is effectively vacant, cleared level land with surrounding development comprising single residential dwellings on the opposite (eastern) side of Johnson Road and adjoining industrial development at the rear (western) boundary.

Adjoining the subject property at the southern boundary is a Council owned depot and the local Rural Fire Service, on land known as Lot 5 DP 712235, comprising an area of 1.553ha (about 3.8 acres). This land is also subject to the easement for overhead electricity transmission lines.

The property is zoned Rural BR under the Hornsby LEP 1994 and is proposed to be zoned RU4 Primary Production Small Lots under the draft Comprehensive LEP. In both zonings the minimum subdivision lot size is 2 hectares.

Property Strategy and Sale Options

It is generally considered that the former Pony Club land is surplus to Council’s current requirements and options for development and/or disposal should be considered in developing a property asset strategy for this asset.

Development options are restricted by the current Rural BR zoning and the proposed zoning of the land to RU4 Primary Production Small Lots under the draft Comprehensive LEP, to uses that maintain the rural environment and are within the servicing capacity of the area, including agricultural uses. The minimum 2 hectare lot sizes preclude both the “Pony Club” land and the adjoining Council Depot land from any further subdivision, effectively capping the financial returns Council might expect to realise from any disposal.

Nevertheless, there may be a future opportunity for an increased scope for development of the lands, arising from the proposed provision of sewer services to Galston and Glenorie, under the State Government’s Priority Sewerage Program. This supply of major infrastructure is unlikely to occur until later this decade.

The current market value of the Pony Club site reflects recent nearby sale values of acreage lots and due to its size, land features and location may be estimated at around $800,000. The “added value” (capital gain) possible from the future provision of sewer services and increased development opportunities may result in a future sale achieving a price at least four times the current market value. These estimates are based on maintaining the prescribed separation distances from the existing electricity easement and developing the Johnson Road frontage only for residential purposes. There may be an opportunity to increase this revenue if part of the Council depot land is included in future redevelopment opportunities.

The sale options available to Council are essentially to sell in the short term, or hold and sell in the medium term after the provision of the sewer infrastructure. Having regard to the potential to realise a substantial increase in the financial return, it is considered prudent to hold this property for sale in the medium term. It is also considered prudent that this holding position be monitored and reviewed.

Potential Projects

As a result of the Hornsby Shire Housing Strategy the population of the Shire is projected to increase over the coming decade with the bulk of the increase centred on northern parts of the Shire such as Asquith, Hornsby and Waitara.

Having regard to the projected increase in population additional open space will be required to preserve the current ratio of open space per head of population in the Shire.

Given that the Johnson Road Pony Club site was used for recreational activities, ideally any revenue raised from a future sale of the land would be allocated to recreational projects.

Projects considered to be compatible with the above would include land acquisition in Waitara and enhancing recreational opportunities in Old Mans Valley.

BUDGET

No adverse budgetary issues are attached to this report.

POLICY

This report seeks Council’s in-principle approval to allocate revenue raised from the future sale of the former Pony Club site in Galston to recreational uses in Waitara and Old Mans Valley. Any sale of the property would need to comply with Council’s Disposal of Land Policy.

CONSULTATION

No external consultation was required to prepare this report.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

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

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

This report has been prepared by Council’s Manager, Property Development, Mr Peter Thompson and Council Acting/Executive Manager, Works, Mr Robert Stephens. Additional information can be obtained by calling 9847 6669 or 9847 6665 respectively.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council note the potential returns available from the former Johnson Road Pony Club site at Galston and endorse the strategy to hold on to the property for at least the next three years.

2. Council agree in principle to allocating any revenue raised from a future sale of the Johnson Road site to recreational uses in Waitara and/or Old Mans Valley.

Robert Stephens

Executive Manager

Works Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2004/09437

Document Number: D01773289

Mayor's Note No. MN11/11

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

21 MAYOR'S NOTES FROM 1 TO 31 OCTOBER 2011

Saturday 8 October - The Mayor and Mayoress attended the Hornsby Model Engineers 38^th Birthday Celebration Morning Tea at Galston.

Saturday 8 October - The Mayor delivered the Opening Address at the Presentation of the Queens Scout Award to Stuart McManis of Normanhurst Scout Group.

Sunday 9 October - The Mayor attended the St John Ambulance Open Day and Official Opening of the new facility at Hornsby Heights.

Sunday 9 October - The Mayor and Councillor Browne attended the Official Opening of the Wallarobba Arts and Cultural Centre in Hornsby.

Friday 14 October - The Mayor attended the Presentation to the Winning Student of the 2011 NAIDOC Week Schools Initiative at Mt Kuring-gai Public School.

Saturday 15 October - The Mayor officially opened the Berowra Christian Community School Biannual Pet Show.

Saturday 15 October - The Mayor attended the 25^th Anniversary of Mt Colah Neighbourhood Watch at Asquith Bowling Club.

Sunday 16 October - The Mayor and Councillor Browne attended the Pennant Hills Baptist Church, new Church Opening Ceremony.

Monday 17 October - The Mayor and Councillor Evans officiated at three Citizenship Ceremonies at Hornsby Council Chambers.

Tuesday 18 October - The Mayor attended a lunch with the Dural Rotary Club.

Tuesday 18 October - The Mayor attended a special meeting of The Shack Youth Outreach.

Tuesday 18 October - The Mayor and Councillors Browne and Hutchence attended a special meeting of the Epping Civic Trust Inc.

Wednesday 19 October - The Mayor attended the Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate Celebration at Asquith Leagues Club.

Thursday 20 October - The Mayor attended the ‘Turning of the Sod’ Ceremony at Mt Wilga Private Hospital.

Saturday 22 October - The Mayor officially opened the 2011 Hornsby Shire Festival of the Arts at Hornsby Mall.

Saturday 22 October - The Mayor attended the Linc Church Hornsby Service of Thanksgiving.

Saturday 22 October - The Mayor attended the Cherrybrook Chinese Community Association Annual Cherrybrook Lantern Night at Greenway Park, Cherrybrook.

Saturday 22 October - The Mayor attended the Opening Ceremony of the 2011 Relay for Life Event at Rofe Park.

Sunday 23 October - The Deputy Mayor, on behalf of the Mayor, attended the Closing Ceremony for the 2011 Relay for Life Event at Rofe Park

Friday 28 October - The Mayor attended the 2011 Volunteer of the Year Hornsby Region Awards Ceremony at Willow Park Community Centre.

Friday 28 October - The Mayor attended the Opening Night of ‘Land Marks’ Exhibition by Linda Baranov at the Wallarobba Arts and Cultural Centre.

Sunday 30 October - The Mayor attended the Hornsby Kuring-gai District Tennis Association Tennis Marathon 2011.

Monday 31 October - The Mayor and Councillor Browne attended the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust Inc Open Meeting at the Cheltenham Recreation Club.

Note: These are the functions that the Mayor, or his representative, has attended in addition to the normal Council Meetings, Workshops, Mayoral Interviews and other Council Committee Meetings.

File Reference: F2004/07053

Document Number: D01795761

Notice of Motion No. NOM13/11

Date of Meeting: 16/11/2011

22 CWA RELOCATION

COUNCILLOR Smart To Move

THAT:

3. Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate the terms of the lease, generally consistent with the existing lease arrangements between Council and the CWA.

4. Council receive a report outlining options for upgrading the remainder of 11 Coronation Street, Hornsby to offer up to three separate commercial leases for a period up to 10 years.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2004/09431

Document Number: D01797614