COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council  Agenda

 

 

 

23 July 2014

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 23 July 2014

 

 

 

TO:                               THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council  will be held in the the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton on Wednesday, 23 July 2014, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

10 July 2014


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council  MEETING TO BE HELD ON 23 July 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 5

2....... Attendance. 5

Apologies. 5

Approved Leave of Absence. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

4....... Public Question Time. 5

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice. 5

Public Question Time. 5

5....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 5

Announcements by the Presiding Member. 5

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member. 5

6....... Application for Leave of Absence. 5

7....... Petitions and Presentations. 5

8....... Disclosure Of Interests. 5

9....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 5

Previous Council Meetings. 5

9.1          Minutes of the Council  held on 9 July 2014. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

10..... Reports of Committee. 6

10.1        Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014. 6

10.2        Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – MAY 2014. 34

11..... Planning and Development Services Report. 88

11.1        APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE. 88

12..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 103

12.1        HOOKLIFT TRUCK UTILISATION.. 103

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 106

13.1        MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES. 106

13.2        PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A RESTAURANT / MICROBREWERY / FUNCTION CENTRE / CELLAR DOOR FACILITY AT THE BUSSELTON FORESHORE. 131

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 155

14.1        BUSSELTON COMMUNITY GARDEN INCORPORATED AND FAWNA INCORPORATED APPLICATION TO LEASE/LICENCE. 155

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 163

15.1        PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CITY CIVIC AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AND CONSIDERATION OF INCLUSION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CIVIC CENTRE. 163

15.2        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 232

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 246

Nil

17..... Confidential Reports. 247

17.1        REQUEST FOR TRANSFER - RESERVE 44384 FORD ROAD BUSSELTON

This report contains information of a confidential nature in accordance with Section 5.23(2(e)(iii) of the Local Government Act 1995, as it contains information relating to a matter that if disclosed, would reveal  information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person, where the information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government

18..... Questions from Members. 247

19..... Public Question Time. 247

20..... Next Meeting Date. 247

21..... Closure. 247

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                                          23 July 2014

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

 

Nil

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

3.               Prayer

4.               Public Question Time

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Public Question Time

5.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member

6.               Application for Leave of Absence

7.               Petitions and Presentations 

8.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

9.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

9.1             Minutes of the Council  held on 9 July 2014

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 9 July 2014 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

Committee Meetings 


Council                                                                                      7                                                                          23 July 2014

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014

SUBJECT INDEX:

Budget Planning and Reporting

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance

REPORTING OFFICER:

A/Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Financial Activity Statements - May 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 3 July 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act (‘the Act’) and Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations (‘the Regulations’), a local government is to prepare, on a monthly basis, a statement of financial activity that reports on the City’s financial performance in relation to its adopted/ amended budget.

 

This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis for the period ending 31 May 2014.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Regulations detail the form and manner in which financial activity statements are to be presented to the Council on a monthly basis; and are to include the following:

 

§ Annual budget estimates

§ Budget estimates to the end of the month in which the statement relates

§ Actual amounts of revenue and expenditure to the end of the month in which the statement relates

§ Material variances between budget estimates and actual revenue/ expenditure/ (including an explanation of any material variances)

§ The net current assets at the end of the month to which the statement relates (including an explanation of the composition of the net current position)

 

Additionally, and pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Regulations, a local government is required to adopt a material variance reporting threshold in each financial year. At its meeting of 22 July 2013, the Council adopted (C1307/185) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2013/14 financial year:

 

That pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, the Council adopts a material variance reporting threshold with respect to financial activity statement reporting for the 2013/14 financial year to comprise variances equal to or greater than 10% of the year to date budget amount as detailed in the Income Statement by Nature and Type/ Statement of Financial Activity report, however variances due to timing differences and/ or seasonal adjustments are to be reported on a quarterly basis.  

 


 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations detail the form and manner in which a local government is to prepare financial activity statements.    

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Any financial implications are detailed within the context of this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’. The achievement of the above is underpinned by the Council strategy to ‘ensure the long term financial sustainability of Council through effective financial management’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk assessments have been previously completed in relation to a number of ‘higher level’ financial matters, including timely and accurate financial reporting to enable the Council to make fully informed financial decisions. The completion of the monthly Financial Activity Statement report is a treatment/ control that assists in addressing this risk.   

 

CONSULTATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

In order to fulfil statutory reporting requirements, and to provide the Council with a synopsis of the City’s overall financial performance on a year to date basis, the following financial reports are attached hereto:

 

§ Statement of Financial Activity

This report provides details of the City’s operating revenues and expenditures on a year to date basis, by nature and type (i.e. description). The report has been further extrapolated to include details of non-cash adjustments and capital revenues and expenditures, to identify the City’s net current position; which reconciles with that reflected in the associated Net Current Position report.

 

§ Net Current Position

This report provides details of the composition of the net current asset position on a year to date basis, and reconciles with the net current position as per the Statement of Financial Activity.

 

§ Capital Acquisition Report

This report provides year to date budget performance (by line item) in respect of the following capital expenditure activities: 

Land and Buildings

Plant and Equipment

Furniture and Equipment

Infrastructure

 

§ Reserve Movements Report

This report provides summary details of transfers to and from reserve funds, and also associated interest earnings on reserve funds, on a year to date basis. 

 

§ Reserve Transfers to Municipal Fund

This report provides specific detail in respect of expenditures being funded from reserves.  

 

Additional reports and/ or charts are also provided to further supplement the information comprised within the statutory financial reports.

 

COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 31 MAY 2014

 

Operating Activity

 

§    Operating Revenue

 

As at 31 May 2014, there is a variance of -0.8% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+27%

+$955

Other Revenue

+51%

+$206

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

-28%

-$2,962

Profit on Asset Disposal

-71%

-$39

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (YTD Variance: +$955K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

 

§   The reimbursement of approximately $825K in relation to storm damage clean-up costs (January 2013 - $107K and September 2013 - $718K). However, this revenue is significantly offset by the additional costs associated with the September 2013 clean-up.

§   The earlier than projected receipt of a range of sundry grants and reimbursements (on a net basis).         

 

Other Revenue (YTD variance: +$206K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Recyclables revenue is presently $50K above year to date budget estimates, with this principally due to the transfer of longstanding Trust funds held for recycling purposes.

§ Collective fines and penalties revenue is presently $34K above year to date budget estimates, albeit the variance is impacted by current budget timing differences (i.e. bushfire fines revenue is currently $45K, however the annual revenue budget of $70K is fully allocated to June 2014).     

§ Unbudgeted Long Service Leave contributions from other local government authorities totalling $41K have been received, although this revenue is offset through employee costs.

§ Registration fees totalling $31K, relating to the Local Government CEO Conference. The adopted budget did not include an allocation for this revenue item.     

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (YTD Variance: -$2,962K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ The unbudgeted recognition of Bushfire Service donated assets totalling $1.3M

§ The receipt of additional developer contribution funds of approximately $1.5M (above YTD budget estimates), albeit these funds are transferred to Restricted Assets upon receipt.

§ A collective year to date budget variance of approximately -$4.9M in respect of government grant funding, relating to projects such as the Busselton Regional Airport (-$0.9M) and the Busselton Foreshore project (-$3.0M).

 

§ The non-receipt of a (budgeted) contribution of $1.0M from the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association Inc. in respect of the Railway House Project (albeit this project has been deferred in 2013/14)

 

In numerous instances, grant funding has not been successful, and as such, the associated capital expenditures will not be incurred. 

 

Profit on Asset Disposal (YTD Variance: -$39K)

This (accounting) variance is directly related to the year to date performance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure classification.   

  

§ Operating Expenditure

 

As at 31 May 2014, there is a variance of -1.3% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Other Expenditure

-17%

-$498

Allocations

+12%

+$174

Interest Expenses

-48%

-$169

Loss on Asset Disposals

-30%

-$52

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Other Expenditure (YTD Variance: - $498K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§   Donations, contributions and sponsorships expenditure is presently $240K below YTD budget estimates.

§   Regional Development Strategies expenditure is presently $71K below YTD budget estimates

§   Collective advertising expenditure is presently $42K below YTD budget estimates

§   Marketing and promotions expenditure is presently $36K below YTD budget estimates

§   Overall valuation expenditure is presently $35K below YTD budget estimates

§   Community consultation related expenditure is presently $30K below YTD budget estimates

 

Allocations (YTD Variance: +$174K)

The current (accounting) variance is primarily due to timing differences. Whilst the majority of individual allocations are administration based (and clear each month), this activity also includes plant and overhead related allocations. Due to the nature of these line items, the activity reflects as a net offset against operating expenditure, in recognition of those expenses that are of a capital nature (and need to be recognised accordingly). The present variance is reflective of the increased level of capital works activities being undertaken prior to winter.                  

 

Interest Expenses (YTD Variance: -$169K)

The current variance is primarily due to the delay in the drawdown of budgeted new loan facilities, with the variance further impacted by only a portion of two budgeted loans being drawn this financial year.  In terms of the Annual Budget Review, it was projected that budget savings of approximately $173K would be achieved in this activity by financial year end, excluding reserve funded loan repayments. With all ‘expected’ borrowings now drawn, this estimate has been revised upwards by approximately $10K to $183K.          

 

Loss on Asset Disposals (YTD Variance: - $52K)

As with the ‘Profit on Asset Disposal’ operating revenue category, this (accounting) variance is directly related to the year to date performance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure classification.   

 

Capital Activity

 

§ Capital Revenue

 

As at 31 May 2014, there is a variance of -16% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Proceeds from the Sale of Assets

-48%

-$367

Proceeds from New Loans

-49%

-$3,650

Transfers from Restricted Assets

-47%

-$1,889

Transfers from Reserves

+340%

+$3,770

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Proceeds from the Sale of Assets (YTD Variance: -$367K)

This variance is directly impacted by the current performance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure classification. With total plant and equipment acquisitions approximately $1.7M (or 44%) below year to date budget estimates, the revenue associated with budgeted plant disposals/ trade-in’s is also well below year to date projections.       

 

Proceeds from New Loans (YTD Variance: -$3,650K)

In terms of the amended budget, the following loan facilities were budgeted to have been drawn by 31 May 2014:

Description

2013/14 Budget

($M)

Land Acquisition for Parking

$2.2

Geographe Leisure Centre (GLC) Extensions

$1.2

Busselton Foreshore

- Active Playing Fields ($1.1M)

- Tennis/ Croquet Club Infrastructure ($2.1M)

- Brown Street Extension ($0.8M)

$4.0

TOTAL

$7.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, as at the end of May, only $3.75M in borrowings had been drawn, comprising:

§   $1.1M for ‘Land Acquisition for Parking’ (pertaining to Busselton land only)

§   $1.2M for the GLC Extensions

§   $1.1M for the Barnard Park Active Playing Fields (Busselton Foreshore)

§   $0.35M for the Busselton Regional Airport Jet Refuelling Facility (budgeted to be drawn in June)  

 

The residual borrowing allocations for the ‘Land Acquisition for Parking’ ($1.1M) and ‘Busselton Foreshore’ ($2.9M) projects will not be required to be drawn in 2013/14. 

Transfers from Restricted Assets (YTD Variance: - $1,889K)

This budget comprises a range of matters including the transfer of:

§   cash in lieu of parking (land acquisitions)

§   unspent loan funds (geothermal project)

§   unspent grant funding (for a range of projects)

§   contributions to works as identified in the adopted budget   

 

Whilst actual performance remains below year to date budget projections at this juncture, this is primarily due to timing matters in relation to grant funded capital projects. Notwithstanding this, transfers are now being made as and when associated projects are completed, with over $1.45M transferred during May.     

 

Transfers from Reserves (YTD Variance: +$3,770K)

This variance is primarily attributable to the earlier than projected transfer of funds (to recoup associated expenditures incurred), to assist in funding the City’s operational cash-flow requirements. Details of the specific transfers made are included in the attachments to this report.           

 

§  Capital Expenditure

 

As at 31 May 2014, there is a variance of -27% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Land and Buildings

-48%

-$5,292

Plant and Equipment

-44%

-$1,730

Infrastructure

-50%

-$11,878

Total Loan Repayments – Principal

-25%

-$204

Transfers to Restricted Assets

+1,693%

+$6,022

Transfers to Reserves

+15%

+812

 

The attachments to this report include detailed listings of the following capital expenditure (project) items, to assist in reviewing specific variances:

§   Land and Buildings

§   Plant and Equipment

§   Furniture and Equipment

§   Infrastructure

 

In respect of the other classifications, an overview of the year to date financial performance is provided as follows:

 

Total Loan Repayments – Principal (YTD Variance: - $204K)

This variance mirrors the ‘Interest Expenses’ operating expenditure variance, albeit this activity refers to principal repayments. In terms of the Annual Budget Review, it was projected that budget savings of approximately $138K would be achieved in this activity by financial year end, excluding reserve funded loan repayments.  With all ‘expected’ borrowings now drawn, this estimate has been revised upwards by approximately $13K to $151K.          

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets (YTD Variance: +$6,022K)

The annual budget in any year is based on a conservative estimate of contribution funds that may be received, plus an estimated transfer of Aged Housing funds. The current favourable variance is primarily due to:

§   The receipt of contribution monies of approximately $1.8M (initially brought to account via the non-operating grants, subsidies and contributions operating revenue category)

§   Bond and deposit receipts of approximately $1.9M (for which no annual budget allocation is made)

§   The quarantining of borrowings drawn in May 2014 of $2.65M, pending end of financial year reconciliations    

 

It is important to note that performance in this activity does not directly impact on the City’s overall annual closing position, as funds received are quarantined.   

 

Transfers to Reserves (YTD Variance: +$812K)

This variance is primarily due to the earlier than projected transfer of the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association Inc. (BJECA) licence fee for 2013/14 ($669K) to the Jetty Maintenance Reserve, along with additional interest earnings on reserve funds of approximately $83K.  

 

As with ‘Transfers to Restricted Assets’, performance in this activity does not directly impact on the City’s overall annual closing position, as transfers and interest earnings are quarantined.  

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

Councillors were recently informed that consequent to the Engineering and Works Services Directorate’s review and compilation of ‘donated assets’ for the 2013/14 financial year, that this figure is estimated to be in the order of $15M. Whilst not directly impacting on the cash position, the ‘Non-operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions’ budget for 2013/14 (through which donated assets pass) will be exceeded by an equivalent amount.     

 

In addition to the above, preliminary estimates are that the fair valuation of Land and Buildings will result in a collective increment of in excess of $40M as at 30 June 2014. Whilst also not impacting on the cash position, this will nonetheless represent a material transaction in the Council’s 2013/14 Financial Report.    

 

CONCLUSION

 

In terms of the Annual Budget Review, completed as at 28 February 2014, a surplus closing position of approximately $330K was projected as at 30 June 2014 (excluding re-list items). The Net Current Position as at 31 May 2014 ($3.3M) is some $0.75M less than the 31 May 2013 position, in which a closing surplus position of $1.7M was achieved at financial year end. Whilst acknowledging this variance, the closing position for 2013/14 will continue to be impacted by a range of factors, including those funds that are required to be quarantined as at 30 June (e.g. net transfer of funds to the Waste and Airport Reserves etc.); which will reduce the closing Net Current Position. Staff will continue to closely monitor the City’s cash position leading up to financial year end.   

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine not to receive the statutory financial activity statement reports.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

F1407/001           Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor J Green

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 May 2014, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

CARRIED 5/

0


Council                                                                                      15                                                                                    23 July 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - May 2014

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      17                                                                                                          23 July 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - May 2014

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      19                                                                                    23 July 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - May 2014

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      23                                                                                                          23 July 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - May 2014

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      27                                                                                    23 July 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - May 2014

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      33                                                                                                          23 July 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - May 2014

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      37                                                                        23 July 2014

10.2           Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – MAY 2014

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Operations

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance

REPORTING OFFICER:

A/Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Payment Listing - May 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 3 July 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of May 2014, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations require that when the Council has delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the City’s bank accounts, that a list of payments made is prepared each month for presentation to, and noting by, the Council.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act and more specifically, Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations; refer to the requirement for a listing of payments made each month to be presented to the Council. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

NA.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

NA.

 

CONSULTATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

NA.

 

CONCLUSION

 

NA.

 

OPTIONS

 

NA.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

F1407/001           Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

That the Council notes the payment of voucher numbers M108669 – M108909, EF034228 – EF034757, T007080 – T007086, and DD002185 – DD002205, together totalling $5,928,476.46.

CARRIED 5/

0


Council                                                                                      39                                                                                                          23 July 2014

10.2                             Finance Committee - 3/07/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – MAY 2014         

Attachment a          Payment Listing - May 2014


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      65                                                                        23 July 2014

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.1           APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Development/ Planning Applications

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Senior Development Planner - Pete Malavisi

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Site Plan

Attachment c    Floor Plan

Attachment d   Elevations Plan

Attachment e    Schedule of Submissions

Attachment f    Petition Opposing Child Care Centre at 39 Carey St  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The City has received an application for the approval of a Child Care Centre at Lot 33 (Hse 39) Carey St, Busselton (See Attachment A for Location Plan and Attachment B, C & D for the Site, Floor and Elevation Plans).

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the Scheme and Local Planning Policy 7A – Child Care Premises/Centres and is considered to be consistent with the relevant planning controls.

 

Approval is recommended subject to conditions.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The application (DA14/0197) for a Child Care Centre at Lot 33 (Hse 39) Carey St, Busselton was received on 12 May 2014.

 

The application proposes the construction of a Child Care Centre with a maximum capacity of 43 children and up to 7 staff members

 

The land is zoned ‘Residential’ in the City of Busselton Town Planning Scheme No.20 and coded at a density of R30.

 

The application was publicly advertised and referred to adjoining landowners for comment for a period of 21 days.  The closing date for submissions was 25 June 2014.

 

Six submissions were received by the close of advertising (See Attachment E – Schedule of Submissions). A petition also received, and that has been considered as part of the amendment undertaken.

 

The applicant has provided revised plans relative to what was originally lodged and initially referred for comment.  These have been recirculated to those making submissions

The proposal has been referred for Council determination because there has been significant public interest in relation to the proposed land use.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key, relevant, statutory environment is set out in our town planning scheme. There are a number of elements of the scheme that bear particular consideration.

 

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ in the scheme, and there are a range of land-use permissible in that zone, in addition to residential dwellings. That includes medical consulting rooms, home businesses and child care centres. A child care centre is identified as an ‘SA’ use in the Residential zone, which means it is a use approval of which is at the reasonable discretion of the City, following compulsory consultation processes.

 

In determining applications for planning approval in any zone, the City must consider the objectives and policies of the relevant zone, which in the case of the Residential zone include the following –

 

Objectives…

(i)            To ensure, as a primary consideration, that the amenity and character of residential areas is maintained…

 

Policies…

(d)           To provide for other uses (including medium density in-fill development), only where they –

(i)            are compatible with the residential environment and afford services to residents at a local level; and

(ii)           are unlikely to adversely affect residential amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for detached housing….

 

In determining all applications for planning approval, the City must also consider the ‘matters to be considered’ set out at clause 13 of the scheme, some of the most relevant in this context are as follows –

 

…(d)        the social effect and the economic effect of that development in the locality;

 

(e)           the character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design or external appearance of that development…

 

…(h)        the relationship of that development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality;

 

(i)            whether the proposed means of entrance to and exit from that development and the land to which that application relates are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles within that development or on that land;

 

(j)            the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect of that traffic on the movement of traffic on that road system…

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City has adopted local planning policy provisions relating to child care centres, which are set out in Local Planning Policy Part 7A – Childcare Premises Provisions. The objectives of the policy include the following:

-              Provide for the establishment of Child Care Premises in an orderly and proper manner;

 

-              Ensure that the Child Care Premises are located in circumstances where the use is compatible with surrounding uses and does not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the locality in which they are to be located;

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policy, and is considered to be consistent with the policy.

 


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The recommendation on this report is a planning determination.  It does not impose any direct financial implications upon the City. 

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendation in this report reflects Community Objective 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.’

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework.  The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well.  Risks are only identified in Council reports where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is ‘medium’ or greater. No such risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Six submissions were received objecting to the proposal, two directly adjoining the property.  A further submission opposing the proposal has been received since completion of the initial consultation.

 

The planning concerns are summarised as:

·          Inappropriate and poor location;

·          noise affecting amenity;

·          increased traffic;

·          pedestrian safety; and

·     poor consultation*.

 

*Several submissions raised concerns that the proposal had not been adequately advertised.  As an ‘SA’ use the proposal was advertised in the local paper and sent to all adjoining land owners.  The proposal was advertised for 3 weeks in accordance with Scheme requirements.  The applicant took it upon themselves to consult locally but this is not a planning requirement.

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The fact that the application has received objections is not in itself determinative; it is not a justification alone to refuse an application.  Representations either in support or objection are used to inform the planning matters, but notwithstanding it is an obligation upon the deciding authority to make an objective decision of comparing material elements of the proposal against our town planning scheme.

 

Regard however has been given to the planning matters contained in the representations and in framing the following assessment against the relevant matters in Clause 13 of Scheme 20.

 

(d)          the social effect and the economic effect of that development in the locality;

 

The Revised Plans have been circulated to those making submissions, but opposition remains to the use of the land as a Child Care Centre in the first instance.

 

The Policies for the Residential Zone provide for other uses that afford services to residents at a local level where there are unlikely to adversely affect residential amenity.  Further, if it was intended that Child Care Centres were not to establish in the Residential Zone then such a use would listed as Prohibited (table 2).  Instead there are certain land uses that are not permitted as of right, as in they are not the primary use intended for the zone, but where planning consideration can be given recognising they are other uses best located in Residential Zones in terms of convenience and a number of other factors.  Medical consulting rooms are similarly facilitated in the Residential Zone.  The appropriateness of location within a Residential Zone is both social (serves a local population, mixes a local population and fosters connectedness) and an economic one (convenience, walkability, reduced travel) for the benefit of the community.

 

The location of this proposed Child Care Centre is relatively central, close to services and is well distributed, there are no other Child Care Centres in the area to serve the population of the area.  The location is well positioned in terms of its catchment as it is convenient to route to the CBD and the City’s employment centres.

 

(e)          the character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design or external appearance of that development;

 

The proposed building is of residential character in terms of its appearance (bulk and scale, roof height and roof pitch and setbacks) and sits consistently with the form of residential buildings in the locality when viewed from Carey Street.  The building does not present as an institutional type building.  The building itself other than for the car park is unremarkable in the context of its locality, and should the Child Care Centre not continue the building is purposefully designed to revert to a single dwelling.  The carpark, set to one side, could also be developed, as a vacant block, for a single dwelling.

 

The building presents no elements of structure that may cause over shadow or be of an imposing bulk to any of the adjacent properties, to either the sides or rear.

 

The building will however be distinguished from other dwellings in the street by the presence of the carpark and signage.

 

The applicant has agreed to provide a landscaped front verge (nature verge in accordance with the City’s requirements).  Apart from improving the appearance, particularly of the carpark, it will discourage the ability to park on the verge, promoting use of the carpark to ensure that amenity and safety is maintained.

 

A landscaped strip is proposed to the northern boundary of the carpark, to improve the visual amenity but also to separate car movements to avoid disturbance or damage at the northern boundary.

 

(h)          the relationship of that development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality;

 

A primary concern has been the potential to adversely impact upon the amenity through noise associated, with children and the coming and going of vehicles in the car park.

 

The applicant has applied for weekday operation with a start time of 6.30am and close by 7pm.  There will be no outside play at 6:30am and the majority of the children arrive after 7:30am.

 

The applicant in responding to neighbour concerns has advised that outdoor play is limited by climatic conditions and regulations affecting outdoor exposure.  The applicant has also revised the application to locate the primary play area toward the Carey Street frontage to reduce noise to the immediate neighbours.  The car park has also been redesigned to concentrate vehicle movements and the noise from opening and closing car doors away from the side boundaries.

 

The activities are within the normal operating hours and parameters established by the EPA.

 

(i)            whether the proposed means of entrance to and exit from that development and the land to which that application relates are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles within that development or on that land;

 

Based on the proposed number of children and staff, the City parking policy recommends up to 15 car parking bays for this Child Care Centre.  The applicant operates 2 Child Care Centres within the City and has been doing so for over 10 years, they have put forward that they can manage the centre quite comfortably with 10 bays. 

 

The nature of car parking requirements for Child Care Centres is a relatively quick stop and drop off scenario; this is spread over several hours.  It is therefore unusual to have a bank of parents wanting to either drop off or pick up their children. 

 

Whilst the numbers proposed are less than policy requirements (10 instead of 15) it is supported both in terms of practical operation and to minimise the extent of the carpark, to improve appearance in the street and minimise disturbance to the adjacent property.

 

(j)            the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect of that traffic on the movement of traffic on that road system;

 

The Child Care Centre will bring with it additional traffic to the locality, but it is not beyond the capacity of Carey Street, and other than at prime drop off and pick up times little traffic would be generated. With a maximum number of 43 children and 7 staff there would be around 100  traffic movements per day. That is more, but not substantially more, than what would be expected with a six unit residential development on the site (i.e. 48-60 per day).  Some concern was raised about confluence of activity at the Child Care centre and City events, traffic along Carey Street and potential hazard during these times.  The Child Care Centre, because it is closed over the weekend and in the evening, is not expected to be operating coincident with major events.

 

The road has a nominal width of 6 metres which is the standard width.  The road has a flush kerb and approximately another 500 mm of seal outside of the flush kerbing, which makes it wider than the standard required for this location.  The road complies with Access Street requirement C and D - 1000-3000 vehicles per day as per (Liveable Neighbourhoods).  Traffic counts collected in 1995 had 220 vehicles per day but this dropped to 118 vehicles per day in 2008, after Stop signs at the intersections preferenced east west movements across Carey Street.  Whilst the Child Care Centre may significantly increase the daily number of vehicle movements from the last count of 118 to 218, this is still a very low number of vehicle movements and well within the capability of Carey Street.

 

Concern was also raise about the safety and convenience of pedestrians that use Carey St.  It is acknowledged that there is no dual use path in this section of Carey Street.  This section of street is grouped 2nd on the City’s priority list - subject to resolution of drainage issues now being investigated and scheduled, to be determined, for fixing.  Subject to the resolution of drainage issues, the dual use path, whilst not guaranteed, is anticipated in the 2015-2016 financial year.

 


 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed Child Care Centre has been assessed against the Scheme.  Notwithstanding that number of submissions were lodged against the proposal, the assessment finds on balance the social benefit outweighs the impact upon the local amenity, primarily because the presentation of the building is compatible with residential forms in the street, the hours of operation being week days provide adequate opportunity for peace consistent with a residential amenity, and the capacity of the infrastructure is also adequate.

The proposal is deemed to satisfy the requirements in the Scheme and is recommended to be approved subject to conditions.

 

OPTIONS

 

That the Council refuse planning consent to application DA14/0197 for a Child Care Centre at Lot 33 (Hse 39) Carey St Busselton if it is not satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with District Town Planning Scheme No. 20, the orderly and proper planning of that locality and the preservation of the amenities of that locality.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

The proponent will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council making a resolution.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council determine:

 

                1.            That the Application for a Child Care Centre – Lot 33 (Hse 39) Carey St Busselton is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with District Town Planning Scheme No. 20 and the orderly and proper planning of that locality and the preservation of the amenities of that locality.

 

                2.            That Planning Consent be granted for the proposal referred in 1. above, subject to the following conditions:

 

General Conditions:

1.                            The development hereby approved shall be substantially commenced within two years of the date of this decision notice.

 

                2.             The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the signed and stamped, Approved Development Plan(s) (enclosed), including any notes placed thereon in red by the City, and except as may be modified by the following conditions.

 

                3.            The operating hours are restricted to 6.30am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday.

 

                Prior to Commencement of Any Works Conditions:

                4.             The development hereby approved, or any works required to implement the development, shall not commence until the following plans or details have been submitted to the City's Planning department and have been approved in writing:

                   a.         A Landscape Management Plan which includes the verge shall be submitted to and approved by the City. 

                   b.         A Drainage Management Plan.

                   c.          Details of all boundary fencing.

                Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions:

                5.             The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used until all plans, details of works required by Conditions(s) 2 and 4 have been implemented and/or the following conditions have been complied with:

                   a.         A minimum number of 10 car parking bays (including 1 disabled bay) is provided on site.  The parking area(s), driveway(s) and point(s) of ingress and egress [including crossover] shall be designed, constructed, sealed, drained and marked.

                   b.         Bicycle parking facilities are provided on site. Bicycle Parking facilities shall be located designed and constructed materials in accordance with the requirements of Local Planning Policy 8A - Car Parking Provisions.

                   c.          Landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the City.  Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die or, as assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

                On-Going Conditions:

6.      The works undertaken to satisfy Condition(s) 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

 


Council                                                                                      95                                                                                                          23 July 2014

11.1                             APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE   

Attachment a          Location Plan

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      73                                                                                                          23 July 2014

11.1                             APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE   

Attachment b          Site Plan

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      75                                                                                    23 July 2014

11.1                             APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE   

Attachment c          Floor Plan

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      77                                                                                    23 July 2014

11.1                             APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE   

Attachment d          Elevations Plan

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      99                                                                                                          23 July 2014

11.1                             APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE   

Attachment e          Schedule of Submissions

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      81                                                                                    23 July 2014

11.1                             APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTRE   

Attachment f          Petition Opposing Child Care Centre at 39 Carey St

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council                                                                                      83                                                                        23 July 2014

12.             Engineering and Work Services Report

12.1           HOOKLIFT TRUCK UTILISATION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Waste Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Operations Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Waste Management

REPORTING OFFICER:

Waste Coordinator - Vitor Martins

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Confidential Hooklift Truck Utilisation Report Adjusted  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council voted in November 2012 to approve the purchase of a hooklift truck and ten 30-cubic-metre hooklift bins.  The purpose of the plant was primarily to transfer waste from the Busselton Transfer Station to the Dunsborough Waste Facility on a weekly basis, and also to perform a variety of other waste-hauling functions.  When approving the purchase of the truck and bins, the Council resolved that a financial report be presented after the plant had been in operation for 12 months to inform the Council about its utilisation.  This report serves that purpose, and demonstrates that the truck and bins will pay for themselves during the fifth year of operation.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The closure of the Busselton Waste Facility as a burial site on June 30, 2012 and its conversion to a transfer station resulted in the need for all domestic waste deposited at Busselton from July 1, 2012 onwards to be transferred for burial to Dunsborough Waste Facility.  A contractor was initially engaged to perform this service using a hooklift truck and a series of eight 30-cubic-metre hooklift bins, at a cost of $300 per bin per transfer each week.  This service was costing the City nearly $10,000 per month in contractor fees.

 

City staff investigated and found that the purchase of a City owned hooklift truck and bins would be the best option in managing the City’s resources to provide optimum benefit to the community.  In addition to transferring waste from Busselton Transfer Station, a City-owned hooklift truck could also be used to perform other functions. These include the internal transfer of waste at Dunsborough Waste Facility (from the domestic tipping area to the tip face), the transportation of sand for cover material, and the transport of glass to Perth for recycling.

 

The City took delivery of the hooklift truck and ten 30-cubic-metre bins in the first week of May 2013.  Subsequently, it was found that the large bins were not ideal for transporting sand internally at the Dunsborough Waste Facility.  A smaller 15-cubic-metre bin was bought in late 2013 and has proved to be ideal for this purpose.

 

This report outlines the savings and costs associated with the hooklift truck for its first 12 months of operation.  It shows that the City has paid $349,207.00 for the truck and 11 bins.  In the first year the gross savings amount to $185,800.00, while the gross costs (including depreciation) totalled $106,625.76.  This has resulted in a net saving to the City of $79,174.24.  Given the continuation of this trend, the truck and bins will be totally paid off after 4.4 years.  The truck is expected to have a life of approximately 6 years, while the bins are expected to last around 10 years each.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The provision of waste collection services by Local Government is regulated by the Health Act 1911 and the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act).

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City does not have a specific policy relating to the transfer of waste.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City has paid $349,207.00 to buy the hooklift truck, 10 x 30-cubic-metre bins and 1 x 15-cubic-metre bin.  The attached spreadsheet shows that the net saving for the first year of operation of the truck was calculated to be $79,174.24.  This indicates that the truck and bins will pay for themselves after 4.4 years of operation.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The City’s 2013 Strategic Community Plan identifies one of its key goal areas as “Cared For and Enhanced Environment”, under which it supports the development and implementation of a strategy for the responsible provision of waste management services.

               

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Due to the fact that the City has already bought the truck and bins, this report is not associated with bringing further risk to the City, but is simply a summary of the financial outcomes involving the first year of operation of the plant.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Nil.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Since the City took possession of the hooklift truck this piece of equipment has been extensively utilised and is among the most valuable pieces of plant in the City’s fleet.  The truck and 30-cubic-metre bins have proven to be well suited to the task of transferring waste from Busselton to Dunsborough. This type of utilisation alone is sufficient to support the viability of the purchasing decision.

 

The hooklift truck is highly regarded by the waste staff, and the financial analysis demonstrates that it has been a sound acquisition by the City. It is expected to continue to bring a net benefit to City well into the future.

 

In fact, in addition to the utilisation for the waste transfers between Busselton Waste Facility and Dunsborough Waste Facility, the truck and the bins are also utilised to transfer waste internally at the Dunsborough site, to transfer glass for recycling in Perth and to cart sand used as cover material at Dunsborough. These types of utilisation further reinforce the viability of the purchasing decision, as each also contributes a net gain to the City, as compared to the use of contractors to that end.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The City has made a sound investment in buying its own hooklift truck and bins, rather than relying on a contractor to provide this service.

 

OPTIONS

 

Not applicable.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

No further action is required to be taken.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council notes the benefits of the previous decision to purchase the hooklift truck and bins, and approves that the City continue to use its own truck and bins to transfer waste until further notice.

 

  


Council                                                                                      87                                                                        23 July 2014

13.             Community and Commercial Services Report

13.1           MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Events

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and services.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Events

REPORTING OFFICER:

Events Coordinator - Shane Walsh

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Minutes of MERG 26 June 2014 Meeting

Attachment b    Round 1 Event Sponsorship Summary

Attachment c    MERG Terms of Reference  

  

PRÉCIS

 

A meeting of the Marketing and Events Reference Group (MERG) was held on Thursday 26 June 2014.  This report presents recommendations from this meeting.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council, at its meeting of 13 April 2011 (C1104/114), resolved to endorse the implementation of a differential rating system whereby properties rated within the Industrial and Commercial zones across the City would directly contribute toward the City’s continued support of tourism, marketing and event activities.  This resolution also endorsed the establishment of a ‘Key Stakeholders Reference Group’ (now known as the ‘Marketing and Events Reference Group’) to make recommendations to Council with respect to the marketing and events budget allocations.

 

Further to this Council, at its meeting of 22 June 2011 (C1106/201), resolved to introduce a 3% Differential Rate on the abovementioned properties and as a result, $180k was included in the 2011/2012 budget towards events and marketing. Through the 2012/2013 budget, Council increased the Differential Rate to 6% resulting in the allocation of $270k for the purpose of Events and $90k for the purpose of Marketing, and in 2013/14 Council increased the Differential Rate to 7%, allocating $253k towards events and $126k towards marketing.

 

As part of the 2014/2015 budget process, Council provided ‘in-principle’ support to increase the Differential Rate to 8%, allocating $366k towards events and $122k towards marketing.

 

A MERG meeting was held on Thursday 26 June 2014, and the outcomes of that meeting were as following:

 

The key focus areas in the ongoing implementation of the City of Events Strategy include:

·          Development of assessment guidelines for the Events Sponsorship program

·          Quantifying and recording of financial and in-kind support for events

·          Streamlining the event application process.

 

Key matters discussed included:

·          Identifying and quantifying the City’s contribution to all events – incorporating cash and in-kind support

·          Inclusion of a ‘buy-local’ clause as part of the event sponsorship guidelines

·          Recommendation to renew Ironman WA Busselton contract– 5 year multi-year agreement

·          Continuation of negotiations to secure 2015 Wings for Life event

·          Recommendation of $49k in round 1 event sponsorship program applications

·          Engagement of an experienced grants consultant to prepare and submit funding applications for specific events, to be funded from event budget

·          Recommendation to allocate $25k towards the 2015 Fringe Festival of Arts event

·          Recommendation to allocate $43,750 (offset by $10k in funding) towards the 2015 Jazz by the Bay event

·          Recommendation to allocate $45k towards the Busselton Jetty 150th Celebrations event

·          Recommendation to allocate $10k towards the 2015 Telstra Triathlon Series Busselton event

·          Recommendation to include the Australian Junior Surf Titles event in December 2014 in the 2014 surf calendar for Yallingup in line with the Surf Events and Competition Policy.

·          Recommendation to support the 2014 Gourmet Escape event being held at Castle Rock

·          Recommendation of a revised MERG Terms of Reference.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Nil 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The recommendations are in line with Council policies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

As part of the 2014/2015 budget process, Council provided ‘in-principle’ support to increase the Differential Rate to 8%, allocating $366k towards events and $122k towards marketing.  Due to previous Council resolution to support various events within the 2014/15 financial year, should Council endorse the Officer recommendations contained within this report, $19.5k will remain in the events budget and $22k in the marketing budget for the 2014/15 financial year.

 

In addition to employing Events staff and the funding of marketing and events through the Differential Rate, the City funds the following events through multi-year funding arrangements, as per the 2014/15 proposed budget:

 

Events - Multi-Year Agreements funded through Municipal funds

14/15 Proposed

Busselton Jetty Swim

 $15,600

Ironman WA Busselton

$169,4000

Busselton Ironman 70.3

$45,000

Geographe Bay Race Week

$10,000

Cinefest Oz

$50,000

Festival of Busselton

$6,000

Carols by the Jetty

$1,000

Australia Day

$3,000

TOTAL

$300,000

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter aligns with the City of Busselton’s endorsed Strategic Community Plan 2013, and principally with the following Strategic Goal:

 

Well planned vibrant and active places;

 

·          A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, and leisure facilities            and services.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The recommendations contained within this report are considered low risk and as such a formal risk assessment is not provided.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has been undertaken with members of the Marketing and Events Reference Group, consisting of representatives from the Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Geographe Bay Tourism Association and the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association, and the City of Busselton.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Marketing and Events Reference Group has been established with representatives from the City of Busselton, local Chambers of Commerce, the Geographe Bay Tourism Association and the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association.  A Terms of Reference guides the operations of the Group and an Events Sponsorship Programme has been developed. 

 

Supporting the development and attraction of new events throughout the year, the Events Sponsorship Programme promotes the City of Busselton as an attractive host and event tourism destination for a range of events.  The City, through the programme has attracted exciting new events to boost the local economy through event tourism.

 

In 2013/2014, the City increased its number of major events from 61 to 83. This is an increase of 22 events or 36% in the 12 month period. This follows an increase of 47% in the previous financial year. Based on bookings as at 27 June 2014 the number of events for 2014/2015 could exceed 90.

 

Planned new events for 2014/2015 include the Geographe Bay Tasar World Championships, Aussie Nash Hash Busselton 2015, Rally by the Bay, Australian Junior Surf Championships, City of Busselton Triathlon as part of the Telstra Triathlon Series, South West Mud Fest, Wise Winery Half Marathon and the 150th Year Jetty Celebrations.

 

Further, the development of free annual community events that value-adds to existing events will benefit not only the local community, but will also add to the experience of tourists to the region, further cementing the City of Busselton as the ‘Events Capital of Regional WA.’

 

The Officer recommendations presented in this report, as put forward by MERG, are in line with the Groups terms of reference and objectives to support and promote events in the City of Busselton.

 

The specific outcomes and recommendations of the Marketing and Events Reference Group (MERG) are as follows:

 

Ironman WA

As per Council resolution C1212/349, City Officers have continued negotiation with Ironman Asia Pacific for a new five year contract to secure the Ironman WA Busselton event. Officers have been advised that the funding proposal presented has been accepted, and as a result MERG recommends that Council enter into a new 5 year contract based on the following: $175k cash support in 2015, increasing by $5k per year to $195k in 2019, plus $18k in-kind support per annum not indexed.  The increase in sponsorship funds beyond the 2014 event will be funded through the Differential Rate Events budget.

 


 

Event Sponsorship Programme Round One

City Officers undertook a review of the Event Sponsorship Programme and developed draft guidelines to establish funding criteria to guide MERG with assessing applications and making subsequent recommendations to Council.

 

Applications were received for Round One of the Events Application Programme.  A total of 15 applications were received totalling $156k.  Recommendations for the sponsorship of individual events will promote Busselton as a cultural and iconic sporting event destination.  Seven events are recommended to be funded on an annual basis, and three on a multi-year (three year) basis.  All events are to be funded from the Differential Rate Events budget:

 

Annual Event Funding (2014/15)

Request

MERG Recommendation

Rally by the Seaside

$  10,000

$    2,500     

Busselton Festival of Triathlon

$    8,500

$  6,750^~

Sunsmart Ironman Western Australia

$  17,500

$  6,250^~

Geographe Bay Tasar World Championship

$  30,000

$14,700

Wise Winery Half Marathon

$    5,000

$  2,500

Australia Day Ceremony (Dunsborough)

$    1,000

$  1,000

Aussie Nash Hash Busselton

$  20,000

$  3,300

 

 

 

Multi-Year Event Funding (2014/15-2016/17)

 

 

Busselton Spring Running Festival

$  15,000

$    7,000

City of Busselton Half (former Jets Half Marathon)

$    5,000

$    2,000

Dunsborough Song Fest

$    3,000

$  3,000

TOTAL

$156,000

$49,000

 

All events are to be funded on the condition that ten (10) high resolution images be provided electronically, without copyright, (in formats as agreed) to the City of Busselton for its own promotional purposes.

 

* Funded on the condition that two (2) minutes of high quality, edited video footage be provided electronically, without copyright, (in formats as agreed) to the City of Busselton for its own promotional purposes;

                                                                                                                                         

^ That the organiser officially recognises each individual volunteer and City of Busselton has an appropriate size logo on the event volunteer T Shirt.

 

~ subject to formally recognising the volunteer and City of Busselton contributions.

 

2014/15 City of Busselton Events

For the past few years the City has organised two main events; Fringe Festival of Arts Busselton/Culture on Queen, and Jazz by the Bay. Based on post event evaluations, and recognising the significance of 2015 being the 150th year of the Busselton Jetty, it was recommended by MERG that the following City-organised events be funded through the Differential Rate Events budget:

 

Event

MERG Recommendation

150th Year Jetty Celebrations

$45,000

Fringe Festival of Arts Busselton(Culture on Queen)

$25,000

Jazz by the Bay (offset by $10k Eventscorp Funding)

$45,375

TOTAL

$115,375

 


 

National Triathlon Series

City Officers have been working for a period of time in securing an Olympic triathlon event.  The Telstra Triathlon Series is a premier triathlon series run throughout the state, each event held in different areas.  Staff have managed to attract the 2015 event to Busselton, previously held in Mandurah.  The event involves 1,200 elite senior athletes and over 150 elite national junior athletes competing in an Olympic Distance Triathlon on a course around Port Geographe Marina, proposed for February 2015.  A recommendation was made by MERG that $10k be allocated towards the event, to be fundd from the Differential Rate Events budget.

 

Australian Boardriders Battle 2014

The Australian Boardriders Battle 2014, a national junior surf title event, is scheduled to be held in Yallingup in December 2014.  The City’s Surfing Events and Competition Policy guides the number of surfing events that can be held in Yallingup and is designed to achieve consistency and co-ordination for the staging of surfing events utilising land managed by the City of Busselton. The Policy also seeks to ensure equitable use of the surf locations by recreational surfers, and assists in minimising damage to, and promoting the recovery of coastal systems within the City managed coastal reserves.

 

Under the Policy, there is a total of 13 approved surfing events within the 2014 calendar year, including:

 

Club Events - Yallingup Boardriders - 4, Indian Ocean Longboard Club – 4;

 

International, major or large event, as arranged by Surfing Western Australia – 2 (Australian Junior Surf Titles in December 2014 and the Taj Small Fries in January 2014);

 

Traditional and Philanthropic events – 2 (annual Yallingup Malibu Classic in November and ECU Surf Challenge in October 2014);

 

Large or minor from a ballot system – 1 only. This has been allocated to Surfing WA for a state body board event in October 2014.

 

Last year, the Yallingup Boardriders won the inaugural state leg of the Australian Boardriders Battle.  From there they went on to represent the state at the National Final, coming 5th in an event which boasted over $100k in prize money for grassroots boardriding clubs.  This massive event series is set to travel the country once again in 2014 with a major national marketing and promotion campaign of the event, clubs and event locations.

 

Given Yallingup won the state leg and placed so highly at the National final, Surfing WA have requested to Surfing Australia that the club host the 2014 event in Yallingup on either 23 or 24 November 2014.  This is a unique opportunity for the City to promote the region to the state’s best surfers. 

 

In order to secure this event, Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 14 May 2014 resolved (C1405/125) to enter into a sponsorship agreement for the 2014 Australian Junior Surfing Titles to be held at Yallingup for $25k cash.  However this event is now outside the parameters of the City’s Surfing Events and Competition Policy as it will exceed the number of allowable annual surfing events held at Yallingup.  The Policy does allow for any application for an event that is in addition to the number of events allowed in the Policy to be referred to the Council for consideration.

 

Given that this event is classed as a major event due to the significant number of competitors, and staged by the Sate surfing body, Surfing WA, it is recommended by MERG that the city exercises its right under the Policy to include the event in the 2014 Yallingup Surf Calendar.

 


 

Gourmet Escape 2014

After the success of the 2013 Gourmet Escape Beach BBQ function held at Castle Bay Beach, and due to the fact that Smiths Beach is no longer wide enough to be able to host the event, event promoters Brand Events have requested that the Beach BBQ function be held at the same location in 2014.  This event will showcase the Dunsborough region, and more specifically Meelup Regional Park, and will also compliment other Gourmet Escape functions held at nearby venues including Wise Winery and Eagle Bay Brewery.

 

It is recommended by MERG that Council supports the Gourmet Escape Beach BBQ function at Castle Bay Beach and that City staff and the Dunsborough-Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and Industry consult with the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee in relation to environmental conditions.  It should be noted that as per the City’s 2014/15 Schedule of Fees and Charges, that the event fee of $2.50/attendee will apply.

 

MERG Terms of Reference

Officers undertook a review of the MERG Terms of Reference and made some minor adjustments to reflect the changing way in which the Group operates.  The changes comprised of amending the ‘Shire of Busselton’ to the ‘City of Busselton’, and including the Deputy Mayor and Coordinator, Environmental Health as voting members of the Group.  The revised Terms (Attachment C) are recommended for Council endorsement. 

 

2014/15 Marketing Program

In 2013/14 the Council endorsed an allocation of $100k towards a ‘Recharge’ tourism marketing campaign managed by the GBTA.  MERG was presented with a general evaluation of the program, and recommended that the success of the program be capitalised upon and that it be continued with $50k to be allocated towards a spring marketing campaign and $50k towards a summer marketing campaign.  This will leave $22k within the marketing budget for marketing activities throughout the year.

 

Black Dog ‘Around Australia Ride’ 2014

The Black Dog Ride Busselton Branch are hosting a national reception for 160 Black Dog Riders who will make their way around Australia, some 32,000km.  Black Dog Ride is a national fundraising body that promotes awareness and raises funds for people suffering from depression.  The Council was approached to host the reception, to be held at the Goose on 14 August 2014.  Council supported the allocation of $1,500 towards the event and that this be funded from the Differential Rate Events budget.  Council also advised the event organisers also seek sponsorship from the Busselton and District Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Marketing and Events Reference Group (MERG) has been assigned by Council to make recommendations on the way in which funds raised through the Industrial and Commercial Differential Rate for the purposes of events and marketing are allocated.  This report contains the recommendations made at the July 2014 meeting, which if endorsed by Council, will result in a number of events high quality events being held within the region, supported by a successful tourism marketing campaign managed by the GBTA.  All recommendations support Council’s vision of being recognised as ‘The Events Capital of Regional WA.’

 

Options

Council may choose to disagree with the recommendations made by the Marketing and Events Reference Group and resolve not to endorse part or all of the recommendations.

 


 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Following Council’s decision, the outcomes will be communicated to all members of the Marketing and Events Reference Group for their information and to successful and unsuccessful event organisers.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council;

1.           

a.            Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a new five (5) year event sponsorship agreement for the Ironman WA Busselton event to be held in 2015 to 2019 inclusive, with an annual cash sponsorship contribution of $175k in 2015, increasing by $5k per annum to $195k in 2019, plus $18k in-kind support per annum not indexed

 

b.            Funds the excess sponsorship contribution of the current base ($169.4k cash and $18k in-kind) from the Differential Rate Events budget

 

2.            Endorses the funding allocation toward the following events to the total value of $49k through the City’s Events Sponsorship Programme Round One, to be funded through the Differential Rate Events budget:

 

Annual Event (2014/15)

Funding

Rally by the Seaside

$    2,500     

Busselton Festival of Triathlon

$  6,750^~

Sunsmart Ironman Western Australia

$  6,250^~

Geographe Bay Tasar World Championship

$14,700

Wise Winery Half Marathon

$  2,500

Australia Day Ceremony (Dunsborough)

$  1,000

Aussie Nash Hash Busselton

$  3,300

 

 

Multi-Year Event (2014/15-2016/17)

 

Busselton Spring Running Festival

$    7,000

City of Busselton Half (former Jets Half Marathon)

$    2,000

Dunsborough Song Fest

$  3,000

TOTAL

$49,000

 

All events are to be funded on the condition that ten (10) high resolution images be provided electronically, without copyright, (in formats as agreed) to the City of Busselton for its own promotional purposes.

 

* Funded on the condition that two (2) minutes of high quality, edited video footage be provided electronically, without copyright, (in formats as agreed) to the City of Busselton for its own promotional purposes;

                                                                                                                                         

^ That the organiser officially recognises each individual volunteer and City of Busselton has an appropriate size logo on the event volunteer T Shirt.

 

~ subject to formally recognising the volunteer and City of Busselton contributions.

 

3.            Endorses the funding allocation towards the following City events to the total value of $115,375, to be funded from the Differential Rate Events budget:

 

Event

Funding

150th Year Jetty Celebrations

$45,000

Fringe Festival of Arts Busselton(Culture on Queen)

$25,000

Jazz by the Bay (offset by $10k Events Corp funding)

$45,375

 

4.            Endorses the funding allocation of $10k towards the 2015 City of Busselton Triathlon event as part of the State Telstra Triathlon Series, to be funded through the Differential Rate Events budget

 

5.            Endorses the inclusion of The Australian Boardriders Battle at Yallingup in November 2014 into the Surfing Calendar at Yallingup for 2014/2015, as per the Surf Events and Competition Policy

 

6.            Supports, as part of the the 2014 Gourmet Escape event, a Beach BBQ function to be held at Castle Bay Beach and that City staff and the Dunsborough-Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and Industry consults with the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee in relation to environmental conditions

 

7.            Endorses the revised terms of Reference for the Marketing and Events Reference Group

 

8.            Endorses the continuation of the Recharge Marketing Campaign by allocating $50k towards a spring marketing program and $50k towards a summer marketing program, to be funded from the Differential Rate Marketing budget

 

9.            Endorses the allocation of $1,500 towards the Black Dog Around Australia Ride 2014, and that this be funded from the Differential Rate Events budget

 

 


Council                                                                                      95                                                                                    23 July 2014

13.1                             MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES    

Attachment a          Minutes of MERG 26 June 2014 Meeting

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      103                                                                                                        23 July 2014

13.1                             MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES    

Attachment b          Round 1 Event Sponsorship Summary

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      105                                                    23 July 2014

13.1                             MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES    

Attachment c          MERG Terms of Reference

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MARKETING & EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP

Terms of Reference

1.         Background

A strategic priority of the City of Busselton Strategic Action Plan 2010 – 2020 is to assist and provide for the economic development of the region.  This is achieved through the development of initiatives aimed to promote the City as the Events Capital of Regional WA, and as a premier destination for tourism, lifestyle and business.

In accordance with this strategic priority, the City has developed a diverse annual calendar of events that attracts a number of sporting, arts, cultural and community events to the region.  Additionally, as the peak regional tourism industry body, the City significantly contributes to the funding of the Geographe Bay Tourism Association to provide visitor servicing throughout the City.  The Association also implements a range of regional tourism and marketing initiatives with the aim of attracting intrastate, interstate and international visitors to the region and further building on the region’s calendar of events. 

Recognising the positive economic and social benefits events and tourism has on the region, at its meeting of 22 June 2011, Council resolved to implement a differential rating proposal wherein properties rated within the Industrial and Commercial Zone Groups and the Commercial Land Use Group, directly contribute toward the City’s continued support of tourism, marketing and events activities.

Funds raised through the differential rating scheme will be evenly directed towards the development and implementation of a regional events strategy that aims to advance the region as the Events Capital of Regional WA, and promote the region as an attractive destination for tourism, business and events, including the branding of the region in a local government sense.

2.         Purpose

 

The Reference Group provides a formal mechanism for the City to consult with key stakeholders, seek specialist advice and enable community participation in the development of initiatives aimed to attract tourism, business and events to the region.

 

The key roles of the Reference Group are to:

(a)        Develop a Regional Events Strategy aimed to promote and market the region as the Events Capital of Regional WA, for endorsement by Council;

(b)        Stimulate the City’s cultural development and tourism potential by providing appropriate support for events;

(c)        Develop and administer an events sponsorship application programme;

(d)        Make recommendations to Council, via the Council’s Finance Committee, on the sponsorship of events as part of the events sponsorship programme;

(e)        Ensure that the sponsorship of events in the Shire provides the best possible return on investment;

(f)        Support the development and improvement of existing events within the City of Busselton;

(g)        Facilitate formal and informal communication and consultation processes regarding regional events;

(h)        Maintain strong links with the private sector, government and the local community to achieve high levels of stakeholder investment and activity required to realise the events potential of the City of Busselton;

(i)         Build on opportunities to advance the corporate image of the City of Busselton with significant public events, marketing and business development initiatives;

(j)         Develop and implement a range of initiatives aimed to promote the region as a premier destination for events, tourism and business;

(k)        Provide advice to Council on issues and initiatives aimed to promote events, tourism and business to the region;

(l)         Develop and make recommendations to Council on a range of infrastructure developments and marketing initiatives aimed to attract visitors and events to the region and to promote the region as an attractive place to visit, hold events and conduct business;

(m)      Identify and source funding and sponsorship opportunities for events, and the implementation of marketing strategies, and business and infrastructure development initiatives.

 

3.         Membership and Term of Appointment

 

The Marketing and Events Reference Group will consist of:

 

1 x Mayor of the City of Busselton, or his/her delegate;

1 x Councillor of the City of Busselton;

1 x Director Community and Commercial Services, City of Busselton;

1 x Events Coordinator, City of Busselton;

1 x Environmental Health Officer, City of Busselton

1 x Representative, Geographe Bay Tourism Association;

1 x Representative, Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry;

1 x Representative, Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce;

1 x Representative, Busselton Jetty Environmental and Conservation Association

 

 

In the event of being unable to attend a meeting, representatives may nominate a deputy member, endorsed by the representative organisation.  The Mayor of the City of Busselton will Chair the Reference Group, and in the event of the Chairperson being unable to attend a meeting, the Director Community and Commercial Services will Chair for that meeting.

 

The Reference Group may request the attendance of any other person or representative for advisory purposes only. 

 

The Reference Group may be wound up at any time by resolution of the Council. 

 


4.         Member Responsibilities

 

In order to fulfil the Reference Group’s objectives, members are expected to:

(a)        Keep informed of current developments, issues and concerns in the events, tourism, marketing and business development sectors;

(b)        Be conversant with relevant plans and policies within the City of Busselton, particularly those related to events, tourism, marketing and business development;

(c)        Be aware of the activities, interests and concerns relating to events, tourism, marketing and business development sector organisations and groups within the City;

(d)        Prepare for and actively participate in regular Reference Group meetings;

(e)        Have an understanding and experience in the events, tourism, marketing and business development sectors;

(f)        Act in the best interest of the City of Busselton;

(g)        Maintain confidentiality of meetings held and activities undertaken.

 

If a Representative has any conflicts of interest, they need to declare these to the Reference Group prior to discussing any relevant issues.

 

Representatives must not make any public statements in reference to the Marketing and Events Reference Group’s activities unless prior approval has been provided by the City’s Communications Officer.

 

5.         Reporting Procedures

 

The Marketing and Events Reference Group is not a formal Committee of the City of Busselton, but rather a Reference Group that is established by the City.  Minutes of meetings, including recommendations, are to be submitted to the City through the Finance Committee as a formal report.  Reports and recommendations to Council made by the Group must be formally approved at scheduled Council meetings before being fully endorsed and enacted.

 

6.         Administrative and Support Services

 

The City of Busselton will provide administrative support to the Reference Group:

·          Agendas and minutes, along with special reading material, will be forwarded to members prior to the meeting;

·          Attending meetings and taking minutes of proceedings;

·          Any item from a meeting requiring action by Council officers will, in the first instance, be communicated to the relevant officer/s for consideration and/or action. Actions will be communicated at the next meeting.

 

7.         Extent of Authority

 

The role of the Events and Marketing Reference Group is to provide advice and make recommendations to the City of Busselton in respect to the expenditure of funds raised through the differential rating scheme towards matters related to events, tourism, marketing, and business and infrastructure development.

 

The Group may only act within the Terms of Reference and procedural arrangements endorsed by the City of Busselton.

 

The City of Busselton will ultimately determine actions, having regard to the advice and recommendations of the Reference Group.  The Reference Group is not intended as a definitive tool of consultation for events and marketing, and the City of Busselton may consult with other stakeholders outside of the Group.

 

The Reference Group has no authority to:

·          Expend moneys on behalf of the City;

·          Commit the City to any arrangement;

·          Consider any matter outside its specific reference; and

·          Direct City Officers in the performance of their duties.


Council                                                                                      129                                                    23 July 2014

13.1                             MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES    

Attachment c          MERG Terms of Reference


Council                                                                                      111                                                                     23 July 2014

13.2           PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A RESTAURANT / MICROBREWERY / FUNCTION CENTRE / CELLAR DOOR FACILITY AT THE BUSSELTON FORESHORE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Foreshore Master Plan

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A strong, innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Economic and Business Development Coordinator - Jon Berry

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Submission Pro Forma

Attachment b    Restaurant/Microbrewery/Function Centre/Cellar Door Proposal  

  

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides an overview of public submissions received as a result of an Expression of Interest process, on a proposal to establish a commercial restaurant/microbrewery/function centre/cellar door facility as a component of the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (BFMP).

 

Preliminary submissions from the community were sought by the City of Busselton in early 2014, when a revised Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (BFDGP) was advertised.  The revised BFDGP had included a 2,100sqm covered area building footprint plus alfresco for the restaurant/microbrewery/function centre/cellar door facility.  In response to the public feedback received, the City requested the proponent to reduce the size of the proposed covered area footprint down to 1,700sqm plus alfresco and prepare artistic impressions and conceptual floor plans of the proposed two level building to provide the public with a clearer understanding of scope, scale and form of the proposal.

 

This report recommends Council acknowledges receipt of the public submissions and the issues summarised within this Agenda report and endorse the restaurant/microbrewery/function centre/cellar door concept.  It also recommends Council proceed with negotiations with the proponent to facilitate a proposal that is compliant with the BFDGP adopted by Council and subject to endorsement by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Following a publicly advertised Expressions of Interest process in 2013, the City of Busselton identified a ‘preferred proponent’ to further investigate the concept of establishing a new tourist-orientated hospitality enterprise, as a component of the Busselton foreshore redevelopment.

 

In response to feedback from previous consultation on the concept of a new two level restaurant/microbrewery/cellar door and function centre, the concept proposal was reduced in size from 2,100sqm covered ground areas (plus alfresco) to 1700sqm covered ground areas (plus alfresco).

 

Public comment was sought on a new, smaller concept having the following features:

 

·          Building footprint:  Built form  (1350sqm) plus covered  alfresco  (350sqm)  =  1700sqm plus 400sqm uncovered alfresco

·          Services:  Restaurant, boutique microbrewery, function centre, cellar door/regional food and wine, viewing decks, water/landscape features in the alfresco area

·          Height: Two storeys (max of 10.2m) with no habitable loft proposed

·          Land tenure: Leasehold for a negotiated term.

Public submissions on the above concept were invited during the period 29 May 2014 to 18 June 2014.  The consultation process was advertised in the local newspaper, on the City’s website and communicated in a variety of other media as described in the section below ‘Consultation’.  A total of 140 submissions were received.  As part of the submission process, respondents were asked to comment on specific issues such as parking, environmental impact, location and scale as well as a specific ‘yes/no’ response as to their general support for the concept shown, which included artists impressions and floor plans for each building level.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

               

Prior to the concept being progressed further, it will need to comply with the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (DGP) adopted by Council and endorsed by the WA Planning Commission.

 

Additionally, in accordance with s3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, before agreeing to dispose of the property, the local government is required to:

 

(a) give local public notice of the proposed disposition by:

·          describing the property concerned;

·                                                 giving details of the proposed disposition (including names of the parties concerned; the consideration to be received by the local government  and the market value of the disposition)

·                                                 inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given

(b)          consider any submissions made to it before the date specified in the notice and, if its decision is made by the council or a committee, the decision and the reasons for it are recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made.

 

Furthermore, the location of the proposed restaurant/microbrewery/function centre and cellar door is on Crown land, requiring compliance with the Land Administration Act 1997 and approval of lease terms and conditions by the Minister for Lands. 

 

A future liquor licensing application would also need to be approved by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor in accordance with Liquor Control Act 1988.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (BFMP)

 

The BFMP is a strategic document that provides detailed guidance for the planning and development of the Busselton Foreshore extending between King Street and Ford Road.  The proposal for a restaurant/microbrewery/cellar door and function centre is consistent with the land uses identified in the BFMP.  The proposed location for the facility is within the Busselton Jetty Precinct, wherein the objective is ‘to function as a magnet to enliven the central part of the Busselton Foreshore; and enhance the views of the foreshore and jetty, improving the pedestrian experience and development to provide for maximum activation of surrounding spaces’.  Council reviewed the BFMP at its 09 July 2014 meeting.

 

 

 

 

Draft Development Guide Plan (DGP)

 

The DGP incorporates statutory controls relating to land use, building heights and floor areas that reflect the BFMP. The DGP is not proposed to incorporate controls relating to more detailed design elements, relying on the BFMP and subsequent documents providing guidance on these matters.  Council reviewed the BFMP at its 09 July 2014 meeting.

 

City of Busselton Community Engagement and Consultation Policy

 

To achieve the aims of its Strategic Community Plan (2013) Council has placed high priority on the need to engage with the community and encourage community participation in decision-making processes.

 

In recognising this need, Council acknowledges the value of instigating a coordinated approach to stakeholder engagement with a key focus on consultation.  Council has committed to engaging broadly and proactively with the community and utilises an Engagement and Consultation Policy which includes the implementation of a framework to assist with planning initiatives, putting them into practice and reporting on outcomes.

 

Activities undertaken in accordance with the Engagement and Consultation Policy are outlined in the section ‘Consultation’ below.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications arising as a result of the Officer recommendations contained within this report.

 

Should Council resolve to enter a ground lease of the proposed location in the future, any lease revenue would be required to be directed to the Jetty Maintenance Reserve.  This will result in a reduced reliance on municipal revenue to fund the Council’s commitment to jetty maintenance.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

   Key Goal Area 2:

Well-planned vibrant and active places: An attractive city offering great places and facilities promoting an enjoyable and enriched lifestyle.

2.1                       A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and Services

2.2                       A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections

Key Goal Area 3:

Robust local economy: A strong local economy that sustains existing and attracts new business, industry and employment opportunities.

3.1           A strong innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit

3.2                       A City recognised for its high quality events and year round tourist offerings

3.3           A community where local business is supported

 

 

 

 

 

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Should Council adopt the Officer recommendation, the following risks have been identified:

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Rating

Perception that the high number of submissions not supporting the concept have been disregarded by the Council

 

Ensure that the concerns raised within the submissions are dealt with in a meaningful way and communicated to the respondents and the broader community.

 

The City is proactive in advising the media and wider community on mitigation strategies for the major concerns raised and produces a communications plan

Minor

Likely

Medium (M12)

 

CONSULTATION

 

Public submissions on a proposed restaurant/microbrewery/function centre/cellar door hospitality offering were invited during the period 29 May 2014 to 18 June 2014, using the following communication methods:

·          City of Busselton website (artists impressions, concept description, online survey and a downloadable form (as shown in Attachment A);

·          Radio interview on ABC encouraging comment;

·          Liaison and meetings with stakeholders including;

§   Busselton Foreshore Reference Group - (BJECA, BADRA,GBTA, SWDC,BCCI, community representatives),

§   Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry,

§   Geographe Bay Tourism Association,

§   Member for Vasse,

§   Chief Executive Officer - South West Development Commission;  and,

§   Regional Manager - Department of Lands.

·          Personal correspondence to previous submission respondents inviting further comment;

·          Advertising information pack for public display available at the two libraries and the City of Busselton Administration reception;

·          The building footprint was marked out on-site with pegs and tape within the proposed containment zone;

·          Two signs encouraging public comment incorporating artist’s impressions of the proposal were erected at the site; and,

·          Advertisements in print media using Council for the Community page.

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As a result of the invitation to make a submission on the proposal, a total of 140 responses were received.  As part of the submission process respondents were asked to comment on specific issues as well as answer either ‘yes or no’ to their support for the proposal as shown in Attachment C.  A summary of the public submission responses received follows:

·          I support the proposal  Support 33  - Do not support 107

·          Comments relating to "Location" - Respondents  117

·          Comments relating to "Scale" (too big / too small) - Respondents 102

·          Comments relating to "Parking" - Respondents 99

·          Comments relating to "Environmental Impact" -  Respondents 82

·          Comments relating to "Visual Impact" - Respondents 91

·          Additional comments - Respondents  109

There were three dominant themes in the submissions provided by those respondents that do not support the proposal.  The main concerns relate to, as highlighted in the submissions;

1.            An additional licensed premise within the foreshore redevelopment area is perceived not to be family-friendly and will attract anti-social behaviour

2.            Lack of parking within the Jetty foreshore precinct

3.            The size of the development, which related more to any development at this location, rather than the actual footprint of the proposal.

The table below shows a representation of some of the comments received relating to each of issues. The full list of submissions and feedback received can be viewed at Attachment B.

 

ISSUE

OFFICER’S COMMENTS

The proposed location attracted comment from 117 of the 140 responses which was the highest of any of the suggested issues.  For those against the proposal 44 identified that any development on the foreshore should be family friendly and that a microbrewery, function centre or licensed premises would not be welcome.

 

Examples of comments included:

 

Ø  “I am worried about the proposed development situated so close to the playground area; it would be more suitable to a rural location.”

 

Ø  “A microbrewery should be located away from the foreshore area and away from the children’s playground.”

 

Ø  “An inappropriate place for a brewery.”

 

Ø  “Proposed site is totally unsuitable.  This site is supposed to be a family area with the emphasis on children.  A liquor outlet with all its related problems would be most unsuitable.”

 

Ø  “Busselton has one of the best locations in the world; this would be a great location to have a place to socialise with friends and Family.”

 

Ø  “A foreshore development such as this one is just what this city needs. What better place than the proposed site of the nautical lady to take advantage of and showcase our beautiful beaches!”

 

Comments in relation to the ecological impact also generally relate to the location and size of the structure, impact on the view, size of the building, infrastructure and appropriateness of a licensed venue in the jetty precinct environment.

The Busselton Foreshore Master Plan has always identified licensed hospitality premises within the Foreshore area.  Whilst there are a limited number of licensed premises within this vicinity, the consumption of alcohol within the public Foreshore area is permissible, albeit not managed through a liquor license.  The location of an additional licensed premise will provide an alternate venue for members of the public to consume alcohol in a safe and orderly environment, managed by a licensee through the Liquor Licensing Act.

 

The master plan originally proposed three outlets comprising of food, retail and/or licensed premises.  As a high level planning document, the foreshore master plan was prepared without specific consideration of the business viability of small holdings on the Foreshore.  The Expression of Interest process identified four lease areas, however failed to attract significant interest on each site due to the lack of confidence that a small scale business would be economically sustainable.

 

The new concept amalgamates a number of sites originally proposed, however will be able to be used for multiple purposes and provide the catalyst in showing confidence to invest in Busselton’s future growth and potential.

 

With the increasing population and continuing efforts to attract visitation to the City, the current facilities on the foreshore area are often at capacity in the peak season.  When special functions or events are held at the current facilities there are limited alternative food and beverage outlets near the City’s prime attraction.  A proposal such as this would address this issue.

 

Similar types of establishments in the South West and further abroad have proved to be very family friendly and offer a safe, affordable product to locals and visitors alike.  Examples include the many micro-breweries located throughout the Busselton district, which attract a high number of families specifically because of the atmosphere of the offering.

 

 

The concern that parking in the vicinity would be inadequate was identified equally as a percentage of the 99 respondents by both for and against groups.

 

However supporters of the proposal were more willing to accept that parking near a popular attraction will never be adequate and that a “short walk to a venue would be acceptable”.

 

Ø  “There will never be "enough" parking - because we as a population are becoming lazy.  More parking is always encouraged, but I think us locals will cope anyway.”

 

Ø  “Parking is already a problem around that area and another facility will only add to the problem.”

The design principles contained within the BFMP include avoidance of a ‘sea’ of car parking within the central, ‘core’ section of the redevelopment.  Rather, it encourages visitors to park to the east or west and walk into the central area.  People are also encouraged to use alternative methods of transportation.

 

A number of additional car parking bays will be made available on the spine road leading to the facility, with approximately 1,043 car parking bays planned throughout the Busselton foreshore master plan area, including at the rear of the proposed short-stay accommodation sites.  There are also parking options within the CBD area.

 

 

The scale of the building received 102 comments of the total submissions with 68 of these relating to either the overall size of the building, that is the footprint too big or that a two storey building in the foreshore area was not desirable.

 

Ø  “I believe that the proposed 2-storey development would have a negative impact on this beautiful, not built up section of beachfront. It is this that sets Busselton apart from other more commercial towns in the south west and makes it a very family oriented town. Busselton is currently a quintessential country town.”

 

Ø  “As you walk the jetty, the beach and Norfolk Pines are Busselton, any intrusion will spoil it.”

 

The other comments related to impacts on the view, either from the foreshore back towards the CBD or from the CBD to the foreshore. There was also a number that made the comment that this type of building would not suit Busselton and was more suited to Mandurah, Fremantle or the Gold Coast.  Only a small number specifically mentioned the square metres of the building.

 

From the positive side it was recognised by some respondents that to be commercially viable the business would need to reach a critical mass to be economically sustainable.

 

Ø  “The scale of the development will have a fairly high capital investment so a careful business plan is essential. If the Facility is well appointed it should attract a variety of functions to the quality situation.

The brewery area of the Proposal seems rather small, but no doubt it could market craft beer from the Hinterland as well.”

 

Ø  “The venue needs to be sufficiently large to cater for the increasing popularity of Busselton as a major function venue; otherwise it wouldn't be worth doing!”

The revised proposal advertised in May/June 2014 included a covered area of 1700m2 \ including verandas (1350m2 of building; 350m2 of covered alfresco); and 400m2 of uncovered alfresco.

 

The preliminary proposal advertised in January 2014 was for a 2,100m2 development including building, verandas and covered alfresco and 400sqm of uncovered alfresco.

 

As part of the Expression of Interest process, three sites were identified for commercial opportunities, two within the area of the proposal currently being considered.  Following a review of the submissions received through the Expression of Interest process, the Council resolved to discontinue redevelopment of the existing Nautical Lady site (Site 2) and focus on a single development at Site 1 (behind the Nautical Lady building) and selected a single preferred proponent to further develop concept plans and artists impressions.  The area that was proposed to be taken up by two built forms has been consolidated to one specific building, capitalising on broader open public space.  Council also resolved to discontinue seeking commercial interest in a development site at Site 3 (adjacent the Equinox Café) at this point in time. 

 

Submissions supporting the proposal were received from membership based organisations, including the Geographe Bay Tourism Association Inc (GBTA) and the Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc.  Conversely, the Busselton and Districts Residents’ Association Inc and Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association Inc (BJECA) (also member-based organisations), did not support the concept as was shown.  These organisational submissions are only counted as single responses (although they are industry and/or community based member organisations) and are not afforded a weighting in the analysis.  It should also be noted that there is a concept plan for a ‘Railway House’ building adjacent to the proposal, which will house GBTA and BJECA, which may have had an impact on the responses received.  A number of responses against the proposal appear to be engineered by interest groups, evidenced by multiple responses from discrete geographic areas with remarkably similar comments.  Responses from large, membership based organisations and other anecdotal evidence suggests there is wider support than suggested by the public submissions received.

 

Issue 1:  An additional licensed premise within the foreshore redevelopment area is perceived not to be family-friendly and will attract anti-social behaviour.

 

This sentiment concentrated on the anti-social aspects that are apparent with some licensed premises without considering the number of successful family oriented venues of this nature which operate throughout the South West.  For example, restaurants incorporating microbreweries, galleries and children’s playgrounds offer a contemporary family friendly experience generally in an attractive environment.  Some local examples include: Cheeky Monkey Brewery and Cidery, Duckstein Brewery, Eagle Bay Brewery, Bootleg Brewery and Occy’s in Dunsborough.  All of these venues and similar facilities within the region have a strong appeal and cater to families, couples, individuals and groups and offer a safe, affordable product to locals and visitors.  There are no other similar hospitality service offerings in Busselton, with the closest venues being in Bunbury to the north or the Eagle Bay/Yallingup area to the south, approximately 80km apart.  The proposed offering is also consistent with the food/wine/indulgence experience brand that is used to promote visitation to the region.

 

The Busselton Foreshore Master Plan identifies the proposed location as ideal for this type of facility, where the recreational uses and playgrounds are within easy accessibility and enable a range of activities to be undertaken on the foreshore by families.

 

Responsible service of alcohol legislation and licensing laws place the onus on the operators and staff at the venue to ensure that patrons behave in an acceptable manner and if they fail in this obligation there are legal implications for the business.  In addition, the Council has the ability to place controls on the type of liquor license permitted and service offering permitted by including conditional provisions within the ground lease agreement.

 

A contemporary development within the location proposed may also improve passive surveillance by activating the area overlooking the foreshore, with the potential to reduce crime.

 

With the increasing population and visitation to the City the current hospitality facilities at this location are often at capacity in the peak season.  When special functions or events are held at the current facilities, there is no alternative food and beverage outlet near the City’s prime attraction.  The proposal may also provide an additional venue for tourists that may be accommodated in the future at the short-stay accommodation sites identified on the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan and indeed, facilitate further private investment into these sites and public investment into the broader foreshore public areas.

 

Issue 2:  Lack of parking within the Jetty foreshore precinct.

 

In the proposed modified Busselton Foreshore Master Plan, existing car parking has been rationalised and substantially increased.  There are approximately 1,043 car parking bays planned throughout the Busselton Foreshore area extending between Gale Street and Georgette Street.  However, there is a greater reliance on street and shared parking areas against the existing arrangements which have parking within the core foreshore area.   Car parking will also be provided informally during events, where parking is directed to ovals and grassed areas away from activity.

 

Issue 3:  Size of the proposed development

 

As outlined in the Development Guide Plan, the site proposed for the restaurant/microbrewery/function centre originally had a notional area of 450m2.  The Nautical Lady tower café site had a total building area of 350m2 and the eastern-most kiosk site (near the equinox café) had an area of 90m2.  The intention of the revised DGP is to combine all the above sites into a single development platform of 1,700sqm covered area building for the purpose of a single restaurant/microbrewery/function centre/cellar door.  The City also proposes to restore prime foreshore land near the base of the Busselton Jetty back into public open space via the demolition of the existing Nautical Lady Lighthouse Tower and existing refreshments kiosk.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Busselton foreshore developments of recent years and the reopening of the Jetty in 2011 has seen the Busselton foreshore emerge as one the premier seaside locations in Western Australia.  The Jetty is one of the iconic experiences for visitors coming to the South West and is featured extensively in promotional material for the region.  During the peak summer period the capacity of venues in the Foreshore precinct is at capacity and with a growing population on average of 4% per annum, it is an opportune time to increase the hospitality offering available in the area whist maintaining the economic viability of similar businesses in the area due to population and visitor growth.

 

The proposed site is underutilised, degraded and detracts from the overall ambience of what has been achieved with the foreshore works.  Since The Goose café was opened in 2004, there have been no additional food and beverage offerings of this nature in the Foreshore vicinity.  This is an ideal time to refresh the product offering of the Busselton foreshore experience especially as a willing proponent with the capital to invest has been identified.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may choose to review the size of the proposal and scale it back to a smaller footprint or single storey.  It is the view of the proponent that if the size of the restaurant/microbrewery/ function centre / cellar door facility is reduced it will not be financially viable and consequently they would be unlikely to proceed.

 

The Council may choose to restrict the purpose of the facility to just a restaurant / function centre and not a microbrewery or object to any licence to serve alcohol from the premises, this will however have ramifications on the proposal received.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

If the Officer recommendations are accepted, then the City would commence drafting a heads of agreement (development agreement) with the proponent including proposed conditions of a future ground lease including term, consideration and design issues.  It is anticipated this would be considered by Council in August/September 2014 and be validated subject to endorsement of the BFDGP by the WAPC and approval by the Minister for Lands

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            Acknowledges public submissions received on the concept of a restaurant/microbrewery/ function centre/cellar door venue within the Busselton Foreshore Precinct;

 

2.            Supports the concept of a restaurant/microbrewery/ function centre/cellar door venue being established within the Busselton Foreshore Precinct on the designated site (as shown in Attachment C) that:

a) is compliant with the adopted Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (BFDGP);

b) facilitates increased vibrancy of the foreshore area;

c) provides a revenue stream to support future maintenance of the Busselton jetty; and,

d) facilitates passive surveillance over the core area of the foreshore redevelopment

 

3.            Authorises the CEO to commence drafting terms for a pre-lease Development Agreement with the preferred proponent, to be further considered by Council and validated upon the BFDGP being endorsed by the WA Planning Commission; and,

4.      Authorises the CEO to commence negotiations with the Department of Lands on mutually    acceptable terms and conditions for a future lease of the designated site (as shown in         Attachment C), for the purposes of establishing a new restaurant/microbrewery/ function   centre and cellar door venue.

 


Council                                                                                      139                                                                                  23 July 2014

13.2                             PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A RESTAURANT / MICROBREWERY / FUNCTION CENTRE / CELLAR DOOR FACILITY AT THE BUSSELTON FORESHORE

Attachment a          Submission Pro Forma

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      121                                                                                                        23 July 2014

13.2                             PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A RESTAURANT / MICROBREWERY / FUNCTION CENTRE / CELLAR DOOR FACILITY AT THE BUSSELTON FORESHORE

Attachment b          Restaurant/Microbrewery/Function Centre/Cellar Door Proposal

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council                                                                                      129                                                                     23 July 2014

14.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

14.1           BUSSELTON COMMUNITY GARDEN INCORPORATED AND FAWNA INCORPORATED APPLICATION TO LEASE/LICENCE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Agreements / Contracts

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Property and Compliance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Coordinator - Ann Sanford

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Manager, Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Lease and Licence Plan Busselton Community Gardens

Attachment b    Lease and Licence Plan FAWNA Inc  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City of Busselton lease land on Reserve 21295, Lot 300 Strelly Street Busselton to the Busselton Community Garden Incorporated (“the BCG”).  The BCG wish to expand their gardens into adjoining land, Lot 22 Roe Terrace..  

 

FAWNA Incorporated (“FAWNA”) have been looking for suitable premises on which to  construct a storage shed to house their Wildlife Emergency Response Trailer and BCG have agreed that this would be an appropriate co share of the area. 

 

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the outcome of consultation with both the BCG and FAWNA and present a recommendation that would meet the requirements of both parties. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In 2008, the City entered into a lease agreement with the BCG for Lot 300 Strelly Street, Busselton which is crown land vested with the City for the purpose of “Recreation and Community Gardens”. 

 

BCG have developed their leased premises with a café, garden beds, under cover car parking and shade covers.  Due to the demand for additional garden beds BCG submitted a development application in March 2013 seeking to expand their operation onto adjoining land. 

 

The adjoining land, Lot 22, Roe Terrace, Busselton (“the Land”) as indicated in Attachment 1, is crown land vested with the City for the purpose of ”Recreation”.  At the time of the application the conditions contained in the management order for the Land did not permit the City to enter into any lease or licence agreement.  To enable the City to progress this application, the Department of Lands agreed to amend the management order.

 

The City received a request from FAWNA seeking a suitable site to construct a shed on which to house their Wildlife Emergency Response Trailer.  A number of land parcels were investigated, however given the location and the potential co-share opportunity with the BCG, Lot 22  was their preferred site.

 

In January 2014, the City received a development application submission from FAWNA to construct a shed on a portion of the Land. The area concerned is identified on Attachment 2. The proposed shed site is approximately 108m2 with an additional 3m curtilage around the shed.

 

In April this year, the City was granted the power to lease or licence the Land, for any term not exceeding 21 years.  Prior to any construction or works commencing on the Land, both parties must enter into formal agreements with the City.

The development application received from BCG includes the provision of an informal parking area.  This will accommodate overspill from the current car parking area within the community gardens on busier days.  The surface of the car park will be made structurally sound and therefore provide an appropriate surface over which FAWNA can access the portion of the Land they wish to lease.  To facilitate this joint access it is proposed that BCG and FAWNA be granted a licence over this area – shown hatched black on both plans – the terms of which will coincide with the duration of their respective leases.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

When disposing of property whether by sale, lease or other means, a Local Government is bound by the requirement of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act.  However 3.58 (5) (d) provides exemptions to this process under Regulation 30 (2) (b) (i) (ii) of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations.

 

This section states “disposal of land to incorporated bodies with objects of benevolent, cultural, educational or similar nature and the members of which are not enlisted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions, are exempt from the advertising and tender requirements of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act”.  The constitution of both BCG and FAWNA are such that this exemption applies.

 

Lot 22 Roe Terrace, Busselton on Deposited Plan 82131 Volume LR3147 Folio 436, Reserve 24540, is vested with the City for the designated purpose of “Recreation”.   Subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands, the City now has the power to lease or licence for a term not exceeding 21 years.  

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The rent charged to Community and Sporting groups for City land and/or building is currently $200 per annum (inclusive of GST) in accordance with the Council adopted 2014/2015 Schedule of Fees and Charges. 

 

If council adopt the officer recommendation, the lessees in each case would be responsible for management and maintenance of the leased premises at their own cost.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The request for the Lease and the Licence is consistent with the following City of Busselton Strategic Priorities:

 

Key Goal Area 2

·          Well planned, vibrant and active places

·          Provide a range of quality leisure, cultural, recreation and sporting facilities and services;

·          Responsible management of public infrastructure assets.

 

Council Strategy

·          Ensure our recreational facilities meet the needs of our growing community

·          Maintain community assets at an appropriate standard, consulting with the community about expectations and costs of maintenance.

 


 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework.   In circumstances such as this, it is not considered that there is any risk to the City in entering into lease and licence agreements with either party.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Department of Lands were consulted regarding the proposed future use of the Land by BCG and FAWNA.  As a result, they have amended the management order enabling the City to enter into the proposed leases and licences with FAWNA and BCG.

 

City staff have discussed with the BCG the potential for shared use of the Land with other community groups.  BGC have confirmed their willingness to support FAWNA in their need for a storage facility and understand that this will mean that FAWNA will require a right of access over the informal carparking area being created by BCG.  

 

The committee of FAWNA have been provided with a draft of the City’s standard community and sporting group lease agreement.  The terms and conditions associated with the lease were discussed at a recent meeting with members of the group who indicated they are in general agreement and would like to enter into a lease for a portion of the Land for a term of 5 years with a further 5 year option.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

FAWNA

 

FAWNA is a local community group formed with the aim and objective of providing a means of mutual support for people involved in caring for wildlife in need of aid and assistance.  They became incorporated in 2005. They assist in the provision of care, shelter and rehabilitation of wildlife and release them into a suitable natural environment.  They educate and increase awareness of the issues which threaten the environment for the benefit of indigenous fauna.

 

Following a successful funding bid FAWNA were able to purchase a purpose built caravan suitable to take to any emergency involving wildlife.  The group is now seeking a suitable secure and accessible storage facility for this ‘Wildlife Emergency Response Trailer’.  They are also in need of storage space for their rescue and care equipment which ideally should be located in a central location that is easily assessable to all their members.  The proposed location of the shed will not only suit their current needs but the proposed leased footprint will provide for further growth. 

 

It is recommended that the term of the lease be consistent with the term that has been offered to other sporting and community groups in recent times.  Therefore it is proposed to enter into a 5 year lease with a further 5 year option.

 

Busselton Community Gardens

 

BCG had initially requested a lease of the whole of the Land but were subsequently willing to accept the reduced area proposed to accommodate FAWNA’s needs.

 

As the FAWNA shed is to be located at the northern end of the Land, a right of access through the informal car park is required.  To ensure this access is clearly defined, the proposal is to enter into a lease for the portion of Land where the gardens and water tank are being constructed and a licence for the portion of Land where the informal car park is being constructed.  A licence will also be provided to FAWNA for this portion.

 

Since its inception, the gardens have become a significant and popular community facility.  The development application received from the BCG highlights their need for further expansion.  The key aspects of the proposal included additional garden areas designed to fit within the spaces of native trees and informal overflow parking.  An additional water tank is to be installed to supplement their existing rain water supply.

 

The term of the lease will be consistent with the term of BCG’s current lease of the adjoining land.  The proposed new lease will expire on the 31 December 2019, the same date as the end date of BCG’s lease of the adjoining land.  The licence over the informal car parking area will be for a similar duration. The potential then exists for both the BCG lease agreements to be renewed in 2020.

 

As there is no major infrastructure proposed on the Land and it is anticipated that their leases and licence would be renewed at the end of the term they will not find the relatively short term of the new arrangement inhibiting in any way.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The introduction of another community group at this location in Roe Terrace will help in creating more of a community hub in the area. Both FAWNA and the BCG are well established and supported organisations who provide significant community benefit.  It is therefore recommended that Council enter into the proposed leases and licences on the terms and conditions detailed in the Officer Recommendation.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.            Council can resolve not to enter into a lease agreement with the BCG

2.            Council can resolve to enter into a different term of lease with the BCG, for any term not exceeding 21 years.

3.            Council can resolve not to enter into a lease agreement with FAWNA

4.            Council can resolve to enter into a different term of lease with FAWNA, for any term not exceeding 21 years.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

The lease/licence agreements would be forwarded to the Minister for Lands seeking in-principle approval prior to both parties executing the documents.  It is anticipated that the lease agreements would be executed by all parties no later than 1 January 2015.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            Authorises the CEO to enter into a lease and licence agreement with FAWNA Incorporated for the occupation of a portion of Reserve 24540 Lot 22, Deposited Plan 82131, LR3147 Folio 436, Roe Terrace, Busselton, as indicated in Attachment 2 on the following terms;

 

a)            The lease agreement is to be consistent with the City’s standard community and sporting               groups lease agreement;

b)            The term of the lease commencing  1 September 2014 and expiring on the 31 August 2019            with a further 5 year option expiring 31 August 2024; and

c)            The annual rent to be $200.00 inclusive of GST with annual CPI rent reviews; and

d)            All costs associated with the preparation of the lease to be met by the Lessee.

 

2.            Authorises the CEO to enter into a lease and licence agreement with the Busselton Community Garden Incorporated for the occupation of a portion of Reserve 24540 Lot 22, Deposited Plan 82131, LR3147 Folio 436, Roe Terrace, Busselton, as indicated in Attachment 1 on the following terms;

 

a.            The lease and licence agreement is to be consistent with the City’s standard community and sporting groups lease agreement;

b.            The term of the lease and licence commencing  1 September 2014 and expiring on the 31 December 2019; and

c.             The annual rent to be $200.00 inclusive of GST with annual CPI rent reviews; and

d.            All costs associated with the preparation of the lease and licence to be met by the Lessee.

 

 


Council                                                                                      133                                                                                  23 July 2014

14.1                             BUSSELTON COMMUNITY GARDEN INCORPORATED AND FAWNA INCORPORATED APPLICATION TO LEASE/LICENCE           

Attachment a          Lease and Licence Plan Busselton Community Gardens

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      161                                                                                  23 July 2014

14.1                             BUSSELTON COMMUNITY GARDEN INCORPORATED AND FAWNA INCORPORATED APPLICATION TO LEASE/LICENCE           

Attachment b          Lease and Licence Plan FAWNA Inc

PDF Creator

 


Council                                                                                      137                                                                     23 July 2014

15.             Chief Executive Officer's Report

15.1           PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CITY CIVIC AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AND CONSIDERATION OF INCLUSION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CIVIC CENTRE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Administration Centre Building Review

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services; Major Projects

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Major Projects - Admin Building

REPORTING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

Manager, Governance Services - Lynley Rich

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Concept plan including MCC

Attachment b    Concept plan without MCC

Attachment c    Submissions received

Attachment d   Schedule of submissions

Attachment e    Style of a proscenium theatre  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report is presented to Council for a determination on the plans for the construction of a City Civic and Administration Facility and consideration of whether to include a Multi-functional Civic Centre (MCC) in the construction project.  As a result of a recent community consultation process undertaken and some further investigation of requirements for performance and convention spaces, it is recommended that the City Administration Facility includes only a function / community and civic use space, and the Council reconfirms its intention to pursue the construction of a dedicated Performing Arts Centre (PAC) in the Cultural Precinct in Queen Street. 

 

It is recommended that the MCC component is not included due to concerns with parking, site coverage and congestion, that the MCC does not entirely meet the community’s expectations as a PAC, potential duplication of facilities, the proposed location (ie not being in the Cultural Precinct) and the potential for the achievement of a PAC at a reduced cost than that previously anticipated.  Further, to support this proposal, the Council could identify the PAC in the Cultural Precinct as another local priority project, incorporate the PAC and its future anticipated operating costs in the Long-term Financial Plan (LTFP) and note that this would advance the City’s Corporate Business Plan action “Progress the business case for the design and development of a performing arts space / convention centre”.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

A Council decision on 27 March 2013 set the framework within which the Civic and Administration Building project would progress.  The community was advised that the Council had committed to move to the next stage of the project to deliver new, modern and expanded administration and Council facilities for the City of Busselton. 

 

The Council later appointed an architect for this purpose (C1307/200) on the 24 July 2013 and delegated authority to the CEO to finalise negotiations and enter into a contract.  The architects have been working on the concept designs since that time as the project has evolved over a series of briefings with the Councillors.

 

A status update on the elements of the decision of the 27 March 2013 will demonstrate that:

1.            The architect has been appointed and a separate building tender would be conducted upon design finalisation.  In progress.

2a.          Panel architectural design brief.  Completed.

2b.         Architectural concepts presented to Councillors.  Completed.

2c.          Proposals to be shortlisted.  Completed.

2d.         While it was set out as part of that Council decision that the short-listed concepts be presented for community consultation, the Council resolved that a preferred architect be appointed with the community consultation to occur during the next phase.  Completed.

2e.         As above.  Completed.

2f.          Architectural contract.  Completed.

2g.          The Administration Building Working Group consisting of Councillors nominated by the Council in October 2013 and various staff as required has been involved as required, with all Councillors also being involved through briefing sessions.  In progress.

2h.         The project has not yet reached detailed design stage, with the concepts still being refined.  To date approximately $300,000 has been spent on design work.  The detailed design will commence after determination of the potential inclusion of the MCC.  In progress.

3.            Allocation of funds for panel submission of concepts.  Completed.

4.            The project has been proceeding in accordance with the timing instruction, however, it is now intended that construction will be delayed until 2015/16.  In progress.

5.            It is noted that the financial model has been refined throughout the process of Council developing its long-term financial plan and budget, however, the project is recognised in the long-term financial plan, corporate plan and draft 2014/15 budget.  In progress.

 

Since that time, at its meeting on 12 March, 2014, the Council resolved:

 

That the Council:

1.        Commits to a civic administration project and indicates its intention to include a multi-functional civic centre/performing arts space as a component of the design and building process of that project.

2.        As soon as possible the Council, invites – over a period of 28 days -, public comment in relation to the concept plans shown to Council on 5th March, and also in relation to the funding model that relates to this project.   The council will be fully informed of the results of this consultation when making any final decisions.

 

The advertising as required by this Council resolution concluded on 5 May 2014.  Prior to this, the City held an open day on 12 April 2014 and made the concept plans and an information paper developed for this purpose widely available through the website and City facilities.  A survey was made widely available and the survey and information paper were also sent to 1000 ratepayers and residents randomly selected from the City’s database.  Councillors have also been sent previously (3 July 2014) under separate cover a summary of the submission outcomes.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Sections 6.20 and 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations 20 and 21 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refer to a Local Government’s power to borrow.  The financial model for either a Civic and Administration building, or a Civic and Administration building including a multi-functional civic centre and performing arts space, would include borrowings and therefore these sections of the Act and associated Regulations would apply.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Both the Civic and Administration Building and a Performing Arts Space are recognised in the City’s four-year Corporate Business Plan for 2014/15 to 2017/18.  The recommendations in this report are consistent with the corporate actions in that plan.

City Administration Centre Redevelopment

Design and construct a redeveloped City Civic and Administration Centre on the current site that meets the needs of a growing community.

Performing Arts / Convention Centre

Progress the business case for the design and development of a performing arts space / convention centre.   

 

Further investigation of the establishment of a Performing Arts / Convention Centre is also specifically referenced in the Strategic Community Plan 2013 as a Council strategy to meet the community’s objectives under achieving an attractive City offering great places and facilities promoting an enjoyable and enriched lifestyle.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Provision has been made in the City’s Long-term Financial Plan (LTFP) for the Civic and Administration Building in accordance with the financial model that was advertised with the proposal.  Therefore, if the MCC is included, it would also be formally included in the LTFP.  It is noted that the LTFP is currently under review.  There is some capacity in the plan for the Council to consider other priority projects that it may wish to pursue.  On that basis, if the MCC did not proceed, there would be an opportunity to include a PAC in future years of the LTFP.   

 

When the Civic and Administration and MCC proposals were advertised, the following rating scenario was described. “If the project proceeds in accordance with the financial model presented, three rate increases of 1.25% would be required (2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17) for the capital infrastructure of the new facility followed by 0.5% in 2017/18 to provide for funding to operate the Multi-functional Civic Centre with Performing Arts Space.  This is in addition to rate increases already identified in the Long-term Financial Plan predicted at 3% to cover CPI based on a 10 year average and 1% for the Road Asset Renewal Program.  Therefore, if the Civic and Administration Facility and MCC proceeds, the rate increases will be 5.25% in 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 and 4.5% in 2017/18.”

 

The table below was provided to demonstrate the typical impact that this would have on general rates, using an example base rate.  The first section demonstrated the total rating increase including the portion for the Civic and Administration and MCC facilities.  The second section identified that portion only attributable to the project.

 

Financial Year

Project Year

Full % rate increase

Example

Base rate

 

Portion of rate increase to cover project

Amount attributable to project per year

2013/14

 

 

$1570

 

 

2014/15

Year 1

5.25%

$1652

1.25%

$20

2015/16

Year 2

5.25%

$1739

1.25%

$41

2016/17

Year 3

5.25%

$1830

1.25%

$63

2017/18

Year 4

4.5%

$1913

0.5%

$72

TOTAL

 

$343

 

$196

 

The following statements reflect the information provided in the table above.

·          The average ratepayer currently pays $1570 in rates.

·          Rates would increase by a total of $343 to an average of $1913 over the next four financial years to cover CPI, the road asset renewal program and the Civic and Administration and Multi-functional Civic Centre project.  This would be $82 in 2014/15, followed by $87 in 2015/16, then $91 in 2016/17 and $83 in 2017/18.

·          The Civic and Administration and MCC project actually contributes to $196 of that increase over the period of the four years.  This consists of $20 in 2014/15, another $21 to total $41 in 2015/16, another $22 to total $63 in 2016/17 and then another $9 to total $72 in 2017/18.

 

It is noted that further refinement of the funding model has occurred through the budget development process for 2014/15, but this does not materially affect any predicated rate increases.  There are three potential proposals discussed as part of this report, being a Civic and Administration Facility with an MCC at $28 million, a Civic and Administration Facility with a civic and community use function space at $23 million and a standalone Performing Arts Centre valued at around $15 million.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Civic and Administration Building and the MCC and/or PAC support the following community objectives in the City’s Strategic Community Plan.

·          An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community; and

·          A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and services.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The risks associated with the Civic and Administration Building aspects of this proposal have been assessed throughout the life of the project, with controls to mitigate these risks having been built into the project and contract management practices.  Therefore, the risks to be assessed at this stage of the project are those associated with the aspects of the proposal that relate to the provision to the community facilities that satisfy the requirement for a performing arts facility.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Under-utilisation of the performance facility MCC or PAC

Location;

Complementary facilities in vicinity;

Accessibility;

Full functionality.

Major

Possible

High

Inability to secure Lot 450 for PAC

Continue negotiations with DPaW.

Major

Possible

High

Increased construction costs of PAC beyond estimation

Undertake PAC business case; prepare detailed designs and QS; undertake tender process.

Major

Unlikely

High

Significant operational deficit of PAC

Undertake PAC business case.

Moderate

Unlikely

Medium


CONSULTATION

 

An information paper entitled “Consideration of Civic and Administration Building and Multi-functional Civic Centre Plans” was released to the community in April 2014 along with the concept plans that had been developed.  A survey that had been developed in conjunction with the Councillors was also included.  The community was asked to answer some specific questions and to provide comments in relation to the plans.

 

The format of the survey is included below and the results from that consultative process are included in full as an attachment to this report.

 

1. Civic Administration Building: Do you think Council should proceed with the redevelopment of its current administration facilities? (tick box)

p Yes p No p No Preference

Comments:

2. Multi-functional Civic Centre with Performing Arts Space: Do you think Council should proceed to develop a Multi-Functional Civic Centre with Performing Arts Space in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Civic Administration Building? (tick box)

p Yes p No p No Preference

Comments:

3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements (tick box)

 

a) The City of Busselton needs to provide new and upgraded administration facilities for the growing community.

p Strongly Agree p Agree p Neither p Disagree p Strongly Disagree

b) The City of Busselton needs a Multi-functional Civic facility that can be used by the community for a wide range of uses including performances, events, conferences, exhibitions and productions.

p Strongly Agree p Agree p Neither p Disagree p Strongly Disagree

c) I accept that my rates would be increased as indicated if the project proceeded.

p Strongly Agree p Agree p Neither p Disagree p Strongly Disagree

Tell us what you think.  What do you like about the proposal and what don’t you like?

 

 

Given that the consultation undertaken was about two separate but complementary aspects to a proposal, it is considered relevant to identify where someone answered yes to both questions 1 and 2, which indicated support or opposition for the Civic and Administration Building and separately the MCC, or a combination of yes and no preference to both questions which demonstrates a fair level of satisfaction.  This consists of 46% of respondents who were not opposed to either aspect.  From the remaining respondents, of those that did not support the MCC inclusion, 46 respondents actively supported or did not oppose the Civic and Administration Building.  Of those who did not support the Civic and Administration Building, only 13 actively supported or did not oppose the MCC.

 

Question 3 was designed to provide further information as to the level of support for the particular aspects of the proposal.  There are several observations worth considering as a result of the analysis of the basic numerical data that is presented as an attachment to this report alongside the more detailed list of submissions.

 

As can be seen from the basic numerical snapshot that has been provided, 271 people responded to the City’s request for submissions.  This is not a significant number in terms of the population of the City of Busselton.  It is however, a good response in terms of the number of respondents who historically respond to City initiatives.  Further to this, it must be noted that the redevelopment or replacement of administrative facilities are notoriously contentious issues in the local government industry.  The fact that more people did not respond to oppose this aspect of the project and only 37% of those who responded opposed this aspect of the project, it is considered fair to make the assessment that there is a level of acceptance in the community that there needs to be something done something about the Council’s current Civic and Administration Centre.

 

With regard to the Civic and Administration facility, just under 56% of respondents supported the redevelopment of facilities at the current location (another 20 respondents had no preference).  This totalled 63% who did not oppose the project.  The same percentage of respondents strongly agreed or agreed to the need for new and upgraded administration facilities for a growing community.

 

On the other hand, 45% of respondents supported the inclusion of the MCC (another 16 respondents had no preference).  This totalled 51% who did not oppose the project, which increased to nearly 54% who strongly agreed or agreed that the City needed an MCC-style facility.  Early on in the analysis it was felt that this increase was potentially due to there being a number of respondents who supported such a facility but had concerns about the proposed co-location.

 

In this regard, it can be demonstrated from the more detailed schedule of submissions that of those who stated that they did not support the inclusion of an MCC in the Civic and Administration Building proposal (132) there were at least 40 of those respondents who alluded to a preference for a standalone performance facility, many of which identified the cultural precinct location.

 

It can be concluded that there are strong themes emerging from the consultation outcomes, that the community generally accepts the need for a redeveloped Civic and Administration facility, and has a desire for performance facilities to be adequately and properly planned for in another location, with the Cultural Precinct the strong contender.  Several of those respondents who supported the MCC also made comments alluding to this preference and longer-term target.

 

As the final aspect to the specific consultation outcomes 46.5% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they accepted the rate increases put forward to assist with funding the proposal.  Another 43% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this aspect, with the remaining 10.5% not having a position on this matter.

 

The schedule of submissions identifies the following issues that need to be addressed:

·          Preference for a Performing Arts Centre in the Cultural Precinct;

·          The cost of the project and the associated rate increases;

·          Lack of parking on the current site, congestion and extensive site coverage limiting expansion possibilities on the Southern Drive site; and

·          Other more important projects and priorities, with the Busselton Foreshore and road and traffic concerns the main two.   

 

In addition to the 271 responses in the submission format, the City also received xx letters with regard to this proposal.  These people, who for various reasons did not want to be confined to responding to the City’s survey, chose to pen their own letters and these have been made available for Councillors to review.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The purpose of this report is to consider the submissions made in response to the Council’s advertised intention to  commit to a civic administration project and to indicate its intention to include a multi-functional civic centre/performing arts space as a component of the design and building process of that project. The schedule of submissions attached includes highlighted sections where common themes are raised throughout the additional comments provided.  These were:

·          Preference for a Performing Arts Centre and / or an alternative location (47 mentions);

·          Concerns about the total cost of the project and / or the rate increases proposed (56 mentions);

·          Concerns about traffic and parking at the Southern Drive site and / or congestion and site coverage with a lack of expansion space (36 mentions);

·          Suggestions that there were important priorities for Council funding (40 mentions).

 

Issues Analysis

 

An alternative location and desire for a Performing Arts Centre

 

It was always identified during the advertising process that the MCC facility would not be a fully dedicated performing arts centre.  The information paper included the following quote:  “The MCC is not intended to be a dedicated performing arts centre as contemplated for the site currently occupied by the Department of Parks and Wildlife in Queen Street.  It is intended to provide a space that facilitates performance and other uses for around 300 people as an interim measure until the growth and development of the City of Busselton is such that a dedicated facility may be required in the future.  Should this occur the MCC would have a continuing role as a community civic centre.”

 

Significant work had already been undertaken towards the feasibility of a Performing Arts Centre, with the Pegasus report that was completed in 2008 and the joint Capes Regional Arts and Cultural Facilities Needs Assessment in 2012.  At that time, a dedicated Performing Arts Centre was costed at upwards of $23 million plus.  During the advertising of the proposed MCC, one of the City’s panel architects not involved in the Administration Building process, who was appointed during the tender process due to their specialist knowledge of PACs, approached the City and offered some assistance and advice which has given City officers confidence that a dedicated Performing Arts Centre could be achieved in the vicinity of $15 million on the Queen Street site. 

 

In addition to this, the City had been undertaking further research as to the key elements that need to be considered to ensure the successful operation of a facility of this type, either in the form of an MCC or a PAC.  The risk assessment included in this report highlights those matters that are considered critical to ensuring full utilisation of any performance facility, and therefore financial viability.  These are listed as location, complementary facilities in the vicinity, accessibility and full functionality.  These matters are highlighted in some of the research material that has been utilised.

 

There was a strong theme throughout the consultation results of a preference for the Queen Street location and this was perhaps summed up best by the submission made by the Busselton Repertory Club who would be one of the major community key stakeholders in any new facility: Busselton Repertory Club's first preference has always been to have a PAC/MCC built to complete the cultural precinct, Queen Street, Busselton.”

 

Reference is made to a report entitled “Oh You Beautiful Stage” – Australian Design and Technical Benchmarks for Performing Arts Centres – Edition 3 – Produced by the Victorian Association of Performing Arts Centres.   This is described as a unique guide combining general advice with specific, detailed information about successful theatre design and project processes, put together by passionate theatre design practitioners and operators. It is intended to help the owners, initiators and designers of theatres to make their renovation, upgrade or new build projects as successful as possible.

 

This report identifies that PACs can be a single theatre or can involve numerous spaces for community use ranging from meeting, functions, rehearsal, theatres, recitals and studios, and their attendant support facilities.  The report describes modern performing arts facilities in Australia as suffering from civic pride syndrome.  “As they were built by public bodies rather than theatre entrepreneurs they were often treated as Civic monuments rather than places of (sometimes risqué) entertainment, as was the case with the old theatres that we all love.  As a result, these performing arts centres were often:

·          located on civic sites instead of the high street;

·          built to look like Council office buildings;

·          combined with Council facilities like offices, health clinics, surrounded by car parks often miles from where people – and public transport – are found.”

 

The report alludes to limited success of some of these venues for these reasons.  In accordance with these factors, the Council’s previously endorsed location for a performance facility, being Lot 450 Queen Street in the Cultural Precinct is considered a more appropriate location for reasons of the complementary facilities in the vicinity and the capacity to build a more fully functional performance facility at that site.  A large part of this is the 2,435m2 available on Lot 450 Queen Street as opposed to the approximate 800m2 to 1,000m2 at the current site of the Civic and Administration facility available for the MCC space.

 

In this regard, the functionality sought from a performance facility and recommended by the theatre architect who has undertaken some preliminary costings for the City, is along the lines of a Proscenium Theatre (refer Attachment F).  Proscenium theatres are for the presentation of drama, dance or musical productions usually involving scene changes or varying stage “dressing”, masking and so on. These venues are suitable for drama, opera, musical productions and dance, which are typical of the performance needs for regional communities. 

 

They comprise two adjoining spaces, the audience occupying one, looking through the proscenium opening to performers on the stage. Additional space is required on the stage outside the visible acting area for change of scenery, masking equipment and off-stage cast crew. The conventional, and preferred arrangement, has sufficient height over the stage to raise (that is, ‘fly’) out of sight those items not required for a particular scene. This is the full flying option within the benchmark.  Some productions use free-standing sets or other means of set change which can be reasonably accommodated without full flying height, provided there is sufficient off-stage area as either wider wing space or rear stage. The Benchmarks include this variation on the proscenium format. The ideal theatre caters for both approaches.

 

It is noted that the performance facilities proposed for the MCC were not to this standard and given space constraints on the Civic and Administration facility site provided limited staging and back of house facilities in the current proposal, due to the restrictive nature of not being able to encroach on the river foreshore environment.  In addition to this, the 800m2 to 1,000m2  site if not utilised for an MCC provides flexibility for consideration for further expansion of any Civic and Administration facilities should the need arise in future beyond the current planning horizon.

 

Concerns about total cost and rate increases

 

There were a number of respondents to the survey who raised concerns with the cost of the proposed project and/or the associated rate increases.  However, as noted previously in the consultation section, it is evident that the number of respondents who strongly agreed or agreed to the acceptance of the rate increases was higher than those that strongly disagreed or disagreed.

 

While noting that there are concerns with the cost, it is also highlighted that there currently exists favourable borrowing conditions with a very low fixed interest rate and a highly competitive building environment, as was detailed in the information paper that was provided to the community.  It is considered that those factors combine to ensure the proposal that has been put forward can deliver best value for money for the City, while also addressing the future growth.

 

The actual concept plans for the proposal have been advanced in such a way as to be mindful of the financial impost on the City’s ratepayers, while also attempting to address the undeniable continued growth of this community.  In this regard, the funding model takes into account inter-generational equity and ensures that future ratepayers will also be contributing to the costs of the facilities.  As identified in the information paper, due to the continued growth of Busselton and its community, the City’s workforce plan demonstrates modest growth in City staff numbers over the next 10-20 years.  The administration facility redevelopment has been on the cards for a number of years, both to provide adequate and professional facilities for existing staff and also to provide for the projected growth. 

 

The City of Busselton is set to become the most populous local government area in the South West.  By just 2021 the City's population is forecast to be approaching 40,000 and the City will be delivering a range of facilities and services to 30% more residents and ratepayers, and then extending to a projected population of 55,000 by 2026.  Against this background, the City has developed a Strategic Community Plan and Long-term Financial Plan as a guide for the next 10 years.  The redevelopment of the City’s administration facilities was provided for in the Long-term Financial Plan.  As part of the proposal to consider the administration facility and a Multi-functional Civic Centre with Performing Arts Space, the Long-term Financial Plan was recast in draft. The plan demonstrates the City’s capacity to fund the repayments associated with the administration building and MCC proposal. 

 

Further to this, additional draft recastings of the LTFP have also demonstrated the City’s capacity to fund a PAC in the vicinity of $15 million from 2017/18 onwards.  Careful consideration has been given to not extending the proposed rate increases to levels previously experienced and to seek a balance between continued development of the community’s assets to ensure social and economic wellbeing, and a considered approach to the rating capacity.  At any time the LTFP has been recast, no rate increase exceeding 5.25% has been utilised.  Within this considered target limit, the capacity to advance projects over the next 10 years has also been planned around achieving a sustainable debt servicing ratio within local government accounting limitations.

 

Traffic, parking and site congestion restricting future development potential at Southern Drive

 

There were a number of submissions that highlighted concerns relating to the traffic on Causeway Road, parking and site congestion in response to the proposal to include an MCC on the Southern Drive site.  It is noted that the parking issue was to be partially addressed by the provision of additional parking facilities at Rotary Park, however, the concerns about the capacity of the site, even with this inclusion, are considered warranted.  It has always been the case that the City would have to pursue parking solutions as part of the proposal.

 

Should the MCC not be included in the project, the demand on parking facilities would reduce and more space would be available for future expansion requirements beyond the current planning horizon.  However, if the MCC were to be included, further parking solutions would be developed and the City would have various options in this regard, although they are currently subject to commercial confidentiality requirements.  If the MCC is included, the future expansion requirements beyond the current planning horizon would be addressed with consideration of an additional floor on the proposed two-storey section of the administration building.

 

While something that would need to be actively managed to ensure adequate provision of parking, and the capacity for an MCC and Civic and Administration facility to co-exist, it is not considered to be a fatal flaw for the project.

 

Suggestions of more important priorities

 

A number of the submissions focused on there being more important priorities for the City.  While a few different ideas were put forward, the strongest contenders in this regard were the continued development of the Busselton Foreshore and road network and traffic concerns.  In this regard, the City’s 2014/15 budget development process proceeded to a draft budget proposal with an intention of facilitating additional immediate funding for the continued development of the Busselton Foreshore, with a corresponding delay for the Civic and Administration Building (inclusive or not of an MCC) until 2015/16.

 

The draft budget (which is subject to final approval on 30 June 2014) development proceeded in accordance with the following directions:

·          Delay the commencement of construction of the Civic and Administration facility and (if approved as part of the project) the Multi-functional Civic Centre and performing arts space until the 2015/16 financial year;

·          Fund an additional $5 million worth of foreshore works (taking the City’s contribution up to $10 million of a $15 million project cost) in two to three years for the next stage Foreshore East (Youth and Community Activities Precinct).

 

In addition to that, the City is already actively addressing the requirement for road upgrades and access issues by pursuing the Road Asset Renewal program captured in years one through six of the LTFP and the long-term recommendations of the Busselton Traffic Study.

 

As a local government organisation that delivers a very wide-ranging scope of community facilities and services to a growing community, it is understood that there will always be competing priorities.  It is for this reason that the City’s Strategic Community Plan, Long-term Financial Plan and Corporate Business Plan have set out a strategic approach to achieve the various outcomes.  Civic and Administration facilities must be considered as part of this process to ensure future capacity to continue to deliver the broad range of facilities and services, along with a range of other new and upgraded facilities that enhance the economic and social well-being of the District.

 

In this regard, the Civic and Administration Facility has been recognised as an organisational priority project, which will not always be on the top of the list for the community, but is required to be considered nonetheless.  Having said this, the level of recognition through the survey of the need for something to be done, especially while the favourable borrowing and building conditions exist, was quite evident. 

 

The Civic and Administration Building

 

In order for the Council to be given the opportunity to consider the concept plans for the Civic and Administration Facility either including an MCC or without an MCC, two sets of concept plans have been attached to this report.  Attachment A is the proposal advertised by the Council to include an MCC at a probable cost estimate of $28 million.  The second concept at Attachment B removes the MCC and incorporates a redesign of the ground floor lower foyer area.  This plan has a probable cost estimate of $23 million and includes a hireable Civic and Community function area that will still deliver a future income stream.  The plan allows for the inclusion of an MCC in the future if it was ever required, such that the redesign does not encroach into any space that was identified for an MCC.

 

The revised concept design that has been presented, which does not include an MCC, incorporates a redesign of the lower foyer area as a Civic and Community function space.  In this regard, this returns community space that was previously provided for at the old Civic Centre and still provides for many of the uses that were previously identified for the MCC, but at a reduced cost.  This includes receptions, presentations, exhibitions, ceremonies, seminars and meetings, but not the performance space, with the intention of not duplicating facilities for uses that would otherwise belong in a dedicated Performing Arts Centre.

 

The current main administration building was constructed in the early 1970s and, along with the previous Civic Centre, transportable office and converted house on the opposite side of Southern Drive, currently houses up to 170 employees with a relatively small area for elected members and public access.  Having contemplated the need for redeveloped facilities some time ago, the City has not significantly developed the existing building since the most recent addition was made in 1997.  This newest section is identified to remain as part of the redevelopment plans. The majority of the current building presents many challenges, having been built before computers and modern technology were contemplated.

 

The concept plans identify the replacement of the facilities that were built in the 1970s and the former Civic Centre with a combination of a new two-storey office accommodation section, which could be extended to three-storey in the longer-term, new three-storey office accommodation section with extended facilities for meetings and elected members.  The new Civic Administration Building facilities as contemplated are designed to allow for sufficient meeting room, reception and storage space, currently critically short in the existing facilities, and for up to approximately 210 employees within a 10-20 year growth horizon. 

 

Given the passage of time since the current building was constructed, some ad-hoc additions and upgrades over the years, and the growth of the municipality and therefore the number of employees in that time, there are a range of matters that will be addressed in the newly constructed and refurbished areas.  This includes important Occupational Safety and Health and Access and Inclusion requirements.  In addition, the new sections will be built an additional half metre above current floor levels to protect against future flood events and provide an option as an evacuation point in such an event. 

 

A Multi-functional Civic Centre co-located with the administration building or the Queen Street site in the Cultural Precinct

 

Locating a future PAC within the Cultural Precinct brings with it many advantages over that of the proposed MCC location within the City Administration building site.  While the latter brings with it an opportunity to create a significant gateway/entry statement into the City, the location somewhat compromises future opportunities to expand the MCC to include additional seat space, back of house and fly tower to cater for larger and/or high-end touring performances.  This would limit the type of bookings and performances the MCC would attract and as such may result in an under-utilised asset; a significant risk identified in the Pegasus 2008 report. 

 

Despite this site having the ability to activate the City entrance in hours that would otherwise remain relatively inactive, there is a perception that this location would create some separation from the CBD, and is some distance to amenities that are expected of patrons when attending performances and conferences, including but not limited to; restaurants, cafes and bars, accommodation (future Foreshore short-stay accommodation), parking, convenience outlets, etc.  Upon comparing the operations of performance centres similar to that of the proposed MCC, it is anticipated that the net operational cost would be in the order of approximately $250-300k per annum.  While the Southern Drive site may lend itself to staffing cost efficiencies due to the potential synergies/co-location of the City’s Administration and performance box-office staff, the potential savings are not considered significant, and is envisaged that this would be outweighed by the increased performance, conference and event bookings derived from the Cultural Precinct site. 

 

The net operational burden of a PAC is therefore not considered significantly higher than that of the proposed MCC.  Although with lower associated capital costs as a result of the economies of scale that can be achieved constructing the MCC as part of the Civic and Administration building, as a potential interim performing arts space solution, there is a significant risk that the investment of approximately $5-6m would be a sunk cost if a future PAC is realised.  The community could also run the risk that constructing an MCC on the Civic and Administration site could defer indefinitely a PAC being built as critics could argue that facility has been provided for the arts.  The recommendations of this report attempt to secure Council support for a PAC and elevate its priority.

 

Home to key cultural organisations and facilities including the ArtGeo Cultural Complex, Courthouse Gallery, Artists in Residents program, Weld Theatre, and the Acting Up performance group, the Busselton Cultural Precinct is becoming increasingly recognised as a significant cultural venue within the South West.  Identified as a key facility desired by the community, the development of a PAC located within this site would further enhance the precinct, and the City being recognised as one of the premier cultural destinations in regional Western Australia.  Located within the Busselton CBD and adjacent to the Busselton Foreshore, the site is in close proximity to restaurants, cafes and bars, future high quality short-stay accommodation, and shopping amenities; conveniences expected by patrons, organisations and performances who would utilise the facility.  The City has also invested approximately $2 million recently in the streetscape in the Cultural Precinct to promote exhibition and performance areas that would complement a PAC.

 

The site also brings with it increased car-parking options compared to that of the Administration building site.  Locating the PAC within this site would assist in activating the CBD and Foreshore areas on a year-round basis, providing some much needed stimulus to the region’s tourism industry within non-peak periods.  Whilst the Cultural Precinct site has a higher estimated construction cost compared to that of the Administration building site, the land size (at more than twice that available on the Civic and Administration site) and ability to draw upon and adapt to adjoining cultural spaces including the Courthouse Gallery and courtyard maximises the viability of the facility. 

 

Recognising the City’s vision to be ‘The Events Capital of Regional WA’, significant work and investment has been undertaken by the City, State Government and regional community to attract and develop existing events within the Busselton District.  Capitalising on this and further enhancing the Busselton Foreshore redevelopment, the Foreshore has a dedicated events space that connects with the Cultural Precinct and CBD.  A facility such as a dedicated PAC within the Cultural Precinct will value-add to the events space by creating an alternate venue that can attract a range of events and entertainment, reinforcing the City as ‘The Events Capital of Regional WA’.

 

The City of Busselton has for a long time lacked a quality centrally located indoor conference facility, and as such has been unable to capitalise on the lucrative conference market.  The proximity to accommodation, amenities, restaurants, culture, recreation, entertainment and transport are all key factors when considering a conference location.  The Cultural Precinct site ticks all these boxes, with the ongoing foreshore redevelopment, including the attraction of commercial developments, short-stay accommodation and recreational opportunities adding value to the City as a conference destination.

 

The Cultural Precinct site does however have a current limitation, in that the development of the PAC on Lot 450 is dependent upon acquiring the land from the Department of Parks and Wildlife.  Previously endorsed by Council as the preferred location for a PAC, the City has been undertaking ongoing negotiations with the Department to secure the land for this purpose.  It was expected that this would occur through a Government-endorsed study of office space requirements, although this has not eventuated.  Through recent correspondence with the Department, it is anticipated that the prospect of the City securing this parcel of land within the short to medium term is likely, and the City should continue with discussions.  The site has minor limitations, in terms of access for delivery vehicles, however this can be overcome through the building design.  The facility would also need to be designed so that it is sympathetic to the surrounds within the Precinct as there is a risk if not designed appropriately, that the building may impose on the existing Cultural landscape.

 

Upon evaluation of the two sites for a future MCC/PAC, it is evident that the Cultural Precinct site brings with it significant advantages over that of the City Administration building site.  As a hub for cultural activities, location within the CBD and Foreshore area, proximity to car parking and amenities, and flexibility to construct a purpose-built facility on a larger site and add-on as demand dictates, the advantages of the Cultural Precinct is obvious.  This is also evidently the preferred outcome through the results of the survey that was undertaken by the City.  As a newly proclaimed City with a pending upgrade to the Busselton Regional Airport to cater for interstate and future international air services, recent and ongoing investments into the Busselton Cultural Precinct, and Busselton and Dunsborough Foreshore redevelopments, and external multi-million dollar investment opportunities currently being realised, the Council now has the opportunity to capitalise on existing infrastructure by re-investing into the Cultural Precinct site, value-adding to the City’s competitive advantages and further enhancing the City of Busselton.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the City’s Corporate Business Plan actions to design and construct a redeveloped City Civic and Administration Centre on the current site that meets the needs of a growing community and to progress the business case for the design and development of a performing arts space / convention centre are best achieved by keeping them as standalone purpose built facilities.  The Civic and Administration facility should be located at 2 Southern Drive Busselton and a performing arts space / convention centre should be located in the Cultural Precinct in Queen Street, preferably on Lot 450.

 

Should the Council resolve in accordance with the Officer Recommendation, it is considered appropriate that the existing Administration Building Working Group would continue to work towards the finalisation of planning for this facility, with the formation of a Performing Arts Centre Working Group to be considered by Council to ensure the achievement of the PAC related targets identified in the recommendation.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council has the option of proceeding with the Civic and Administration Building and including the Multi-functional Civic Centre in that project (in accordance with the plan that was advertised to the community) and either considering that this meets the requirement for a Performing Arts Space, or intending to also pursue a PAC in the Cultural Precinct.

 

The Council has the option of proceeding with the Civic and Administration Building not including the Multi-functional Civic Centre at this time, but identifying an intention to complete this as an addition to the Civic and Administration Building at a later time.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

It is intended that the construction of a Civic and Administration Building would commence in 2015/16.  All actions relating to those recommended for a Performing Arts Centre would occur as identified in the recommendation and be ongoing.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            does not include a Multi-functional Civic Centre in the construction of the Civic and Administration Building at 2 Southern Drive, Busselton;

 

2.            endorses the concept plans of a Civic and Administration Building identified as Attachment B including a function room/community and civic use space in the lower foyer to be constructed in the 2015/16 financial year;

 

3.            reconfirms its commitment to Lot 450 Queen Street, Busselton in the Cultural Precinct being its preferred site for a Performing Arts Centre based on a Proscenium Theatre design concept and continues land negotiations with the Department of Parks and Wildlife to secure the site;

 

4.            endorses the concept of the proposed Performing Arts Centre located in the Cultural Precinct as a City of Busselton local priority project and authorises that grant funding is actively sought for this project; and

 

5.            requires the Corporate Business Plan action for the development of a business case for the design and development of a performing arts space / convention centre to be for a Performing Arts Centre in the Cultural Precinct;

 

6.            includes indicative funding for a Performing Arts Centre in the Long-Term Financial Plan with design costs in 2017-18, construction over two years in 2018-19 and 2019-20 and operational costs from 2020-2021 onwards;

 

7.            earmarks the proposed Performing Arts Centre project as a beneficiary of the proceeds of the sale of land surplus to the City’s requirements in accordance with the Strategic Land Audit in recognition of its District-wide benefits.

 

 


Council                                                                                      177                                                                                                        23 July 2014

15.1                             PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CITY CIVIC AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AND CONSIDERATION OF INCLUSION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CIVIC CENTRE         

Attachment a          Concept plan including MCC


Council                                                                                      149                                                                                                        23 July 2014

15.1                             PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CITY CIVIC AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AND CONSIDERATION OF INCLUSION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CIVIC CENTRE         

Attachment b          Concept plan without MCC


Council                                                                                      151                                                                                  23 July 2014

15.1                             PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CITY CIVIC AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AND CONSIDERATION OF INCLUSION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CIVIC CENTRE         

Attachment c          Submissions received


Council                                                                                      155                                                                                                        23 July 2014

15.1                             PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CITY CIVIC AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AND CONSIDERATION OF INCLUSION OF A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CIVIC CENTRE         

Attachment d          Schedule of submissions

SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF A CIVIC AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CIVIC CENTRE

Comments relating to:

Costs / rate increases                     Preference for PAC / other location                          Concerns with parking, traffic, congestion at Southern Drive                      Other more important projects

Name

Address

Select

Comments on Civic Administration Building

Select

Comments on Multi-functional Civic Centre with Performing Arts Space

a) Admin facilities

b) Multi-functional facility

c) Rates  increased

Tell us what you think.  What do you like about the proposal and what don't you like (the text area is expandable)

Trevor Sargent

Broadwater

No

Too large & grandiose.  Too expensive!   A 22% increase in rates over 4 years.  The City will use up its cash reserves which also means reduced income from investments.  This will be a hidden cost!

No

Nice to have but there are many more important areas of the City that need attention before this project. 

Agree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

The whole project is over the top.  $19.5 million to redevelop the Council Chambers is ridiculous.  The council chambers do need upgrading but why spend this amount now?   We could add more space for a much lower figure then start planning for a larger upgrade say in 5-7 years.  In the mean time we should start a savings plan that adds to our cash reserves and reduces our borrowings when a full redevelopment eventually takes place.  I accept that we will need more staff as the population grows but certainly not at the same rate as the population growth.
The PAC is something we can do without.  The $8.5 million price tag in addition to the Council Chambers is an expense that cannot be justified.  It would be nice to have one but it’s not worth the extra cost burden on ratepayers.
If we commit to this development and expenditure where is the Council going to find funds for other important projects/developments like the foreshore?

Valarie Brierley

Dunsborough

No

Minor modifications to the existing buildings would solve the problems in the short term allowing for other Capital works projects to be completed first

No

Other projects are more important.

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

As per my comments above.

Andrew Dykstra

Yallingup Siding

Yes

Administration facilities will require expansion in conjunction with growing demand and population.  The building as proposed is not supported particularly the Civic Centre component as commented below.

No

The combined uses are far too congested on the parcel of land and the design has aesthetic & functional flaws. See comments below.

Agree

Agree

Neither

The multi-functional civic centre should not be combined with Administration facilities on the site.  There is no space for the centre to grow, is a congested outcome and this should be constructed on a separate site more central to the town.  In detail issues are:
1. There appears to be insufficient parking availability and particularly during a large drawcard event that will result in parking on Causeway Road.  The current parking for administration offices is already at capacity and far removed from the new proposed civic facility.
2. The facility is on the entry statement to town and what could be a landscaped interactive area comprises a second paved driveway and loading area for service vehicles!  This is compounded by the fact the service access and entry for vehicles adjoins the river, which could be better used, and will result in traffic safety implications being right next to the bridge.
3. The plans show the stage area backing right up to the river.  This is a scenic view that should be better used.
4. The additional drive and service vehicle access will result in significant trees to be removed.  This should be accessed from Southern Drive if a service area is required for the administration building.
5. The size of the proposed Civic Centre is likely to be redundant in years to come.  The amount spent on the facility would be better spent on an entertainment centre, perhaps not to the extent of Bunbury however this would then cater for all functions, events, uses as proposed but also include any larger scale community events/functions or the like.  
6. A three storey structure as the entry to Busselton is far too imposing and the style reflects that more of an industrial flavour than something reflecting what the region has to offer.  The Margaret River administration building as an example although modern, has been designed with environmental sustainable principles in mind and not such an imposing superstructure.

Kellie Haunold

Busselton 

Yes

.

No

.

Agree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

I understand that the council has exceeded capacity in regards to staffing accommodation.  I do not believe Busselton needs another big building.  Surely there are enough of them in town, in places like Abbey Beach Resort etc that can be utilised.  I do not agree with having to pay increased rates for this for another big building.  I have enough trouble meeting my current financial obligations, to now have to find extra money to cover Council's spending.

David Binks

Dunsborough

No

In my opinion there are two issues that work against the redevelopment of the existing facility. 1 - I think the financial burden on the ratepayer is too high. It would be a high risk expense. 2 - Current access/egress for traffic is untenable. To continue to create such a hub at this location is to exacerbate the problem. 

No

This is a self-indulgent expense that is not financially viable. There is insufficient evidence of its financial viability.

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Gary Norden

Dunsborough

Yes

New facilities are needed but the project will need to be carefully managed to avoid cost blowouts. Too many projects recently have incurred delays or cost blow outs or both and ratepayers should not have to fund poor project management.

No

This option was investigated by the feasibility study a few years ago into a PAC. The co-located facility ranked poorly (4th out of 6 options. The feasibility study cost tens of thousands of dollars and consulted widely with the community. Its recommendations are clear and should be followed by the City.
Further after a significant cost blow out, nearly $2 million of ratepayers money was spent on paving stones outside where the PAC is supposed to be. To essentially rip up that plan now is absurd.
The City should be trying to progress the larger, multifunction PAC in accordance with the original study. It wasn't long ago that Mayor Stubbs was telling us that a decision on the DEC site was close.
The assertion that Busselton isn't big enough for a full scale multifunction PAC is incredible given all the hype in recent years that we are a City.
Spending nearly $10 million on an interim PAC will ultimately cost ratepayers more in the long run.
Going back to the Civic Centre arrangement similar to Busselton had 20/30 years ago is not progress. We should be looking to move forward with bold ideas for future generations rather than going back to what we had years ago.
Other towns/cities such as Albany and Karratha are managing to do this backed by large sums of State Govt money.
In summary, this idea was essentially rejected by the large feasibility study (and our community some years ago and I am struggling to see any justification for why it has appeared again other than perhaps as a 'sweetener' to enable the City to spend a large sum on its own offices.

Agree

Strongly agree

Disagree

I agree with 3a and 3b above but they are separate projects.
The PAC should be funded by State Govt money as similar projects have been in other towns. No real justification has been provided for why the Queen St PAC has been abandoned other than 'Busselton isn't big enough’.
It is absurd that a local Govt area that calls itself the 'Events Capital of Regional WA' doesn't believe that there are enough events to fill a PAC.
It looks like the real PAC is another facility that our community can add to the never never - another long delay.
Building a co-located performing arts space at this site is short sighted and will end up costing ratepayers much more in the long run. It also will delay the 'proper' PAC by some considerable time, likely at least a decade or more by which time the $2million paving stones will probably need to be replaced.


Ian Rogers

Vasse

Yes

To a Performing Arts Centre and public facilities.

No

Performing Arts Centre certainly - administration Centre? Definitely not.

Agree

Strongly agree

Strongly disagree

Build new non pretentious Admin Building where the Shire depot stands and move the depot to the old tip site. I strongly disagree ratepayers will see any benefit for the outlay on the current proposal.

Tim Shingles

Broadwater

No preference

I do believe that the admin facilities require improvement on the current site but do not support the advertised draft plans.  I did not tick 'Yes' above as this may have indicated that I support both the redevelopment and the current plans.

No

The proposed performing arts space on this site appears to be ill-conceived as it does not address the long term need for a performing arts centre in the district and the site is not adequate to accommodate an admin building and performing arts space, particularly in relation to the provision of parking.  The documentation acknowledges that the proposed performing arts space is an interim measure only and a future entertainment centre will be needed.  I would prefer to see the funding put toward a more meaningful entertainment centre to be developed in or near the cultural precinct and existing parking areas in the town centre.  In addition, the provision of an interim measure will significantly delay the construction of a more adequate entertainment centre in or near the cultural precinct.

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

I agree that the current site adjacent to the River is ideal for the admin building improvements but don't think the architect has adequately recognised the site's opportunities and (north) River aspect/outlook.
To clarify my response to 3. b) above, I would suggest that the district does not need a 'multi-functional civic centre facility' but does urgently need an appropriate regional Entertainment Centre to service the community for the next 50+ years.  The interim measure does not achieve this outcome and may therefore become a poorly used and costly maintenance burden.
In relation to the design of the proposed admin facilities, I have no real issue with the height and scale of a building being greater than currently constructed on the site however I am unable to support the current location of a 3 level frontage immediately adjacent to The Causeway and the introduction of vehicle crossovers and traffic on Causeway Road between Southern Drive and the Vasse River bridge.  The provision of a loading bay off Causeway Road within metres of the adjacent bridge indicates a poor understanding of both the site itself and traffic management/safety principles on main roads.  There should be an attempt to introduce landscaped civic spaces on the Causeway frontage and keep 3 level components of the building internal to the site.  The proposed scale and bulk is too imposing on Causeway Road at the entry to the town centre.  The proposed building itself also does not reflect any town or coastal character and is akin to a more industrial design suited to metro applications, not regional towns.  The proposed 'multi-functional civic centre facility' appears to back on the River with little or sensitivity to this aspect of the site.
I would ask therefore that the plans be revisited with more attention to retaining more character and outlook to the River, removing all traffic activity from Causeway Road and taking some clues from the Shire's own character and townscape publications.

Dee Poole

Busselton

No

Time to make do with what you have. Stop spending money on inessential things like a flash building.

No

It is not the Shires business to provide a performance arts space or civic centre. That is the business of private business. Fix roads and footpaths first. Stop increasing rates to pay for these extra unnecessary services.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

It's time for the shire to stop spending money and making me the ratepayer pay for it. You are cutting back in all services from road repairs, to street sweeping yet you want to spend all this money on an office building when you already have one. Excessive and a ridiculous waste of money.

Gordon Harrison

Iluka

No preference

.

No

.

Neither

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Local councils need to show restraint and learn to live within their means. No one is receiving 5.25% salary increases or pension increases or returns of that nature as self-funded retirees so for the council to consider imposing increases of that nature on rate payers does not indicate responsible financial management of the ratepayers finances.
While there may be a legitimate need to expand the Administration facilities any such project should be scoped in such a way as to be able to be absorbed within the normal acceptable rating allocation.  Alternatively find some other way to fund the project eg. cut costs elsewhere or sell under-utilised assets. This is exactly what businesses are having to do and councils should also apply the same rigour.
As a current resident and ratepayer in the city of Joondalup and current ratepayer and future resident of the city of Busselton, I notice the same financial management practices being applied by both local councils. It is just too easy to put up the rates rather than find alternative and more responsible solutions.

Kieran Ryan

Vasse

No

While I agree the facilities need upgrading I would rather see the Shire do the improvements over time rather than commit to one major spend. What impact will this have on continuing foreshore development or other projects on the shire’s plan? Also what certainty is this spend based on? Is it +/- 30% engineering estimate and what is the risk if it blows out. This is (I assume) the biggest dollar commitment of the shire and if it goes wrong then everything else suffers. Plan the work over at least 5 years and smooth the pain. Rates are expensive enough already.

No

Build this facility independent to the Shire offices and make it a facility to cater for the future. Most schools now have their own facilities so local use will be minimal and if it is to be utilised by performing arts/external parties put it somewhere near the beach front so it can be linked with the entertainment/food outlets. Grow the foreshore region by putting facilities close by.

Agree

Neither

Agree

Poor planning does not mean the ratepayers should fund it in a short term. Reduce the financial impact by stretching out the proposal.
We can wait for a Civic centre facility. I am unsure as to what use this facility would get to make it a sound investment, especially tucked away from the town centre.
All the good credence achieved from developing the foreshore will be lost (from my perspective anyway) if this impacts on future improvements.

Andrew Howard

No

Think present site is the best option BUT THE COST TO RATEPAYERS too High
with the proposed rebuild
.

No

DO WE NEED THIS !!!
Call this place a city, we will soon not have a resident SURGEON AT OUR HOSPITAL put the money into something useful!!!!

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

The quoted $28 million could be spent  on better things in the shire and like most public money spends the costs would rise as would the cost to RATE PAYER
It would be good to see the Shire & Council cut back on its spending as an example to rate payers, but know all we see is rising costs (rates)

Martin and Christine Watkins

Geographe 

No preference

A redeveloped or new facility probably is required. However since no indication of a completion date is given and with the council’s record of continually changing project plans with the resultant delays and your inability to finish projects to a satisfactory standard, I doubt that you are the people to drive this project.

No

The cities residents have been indicating the need for an entertainment centre for several years. A space for a performing arts centre is a joke. A carrot to get your admin centre. We need a purpose built facility sufficient to cater for International or national performances for at least another 12-15 years and that can be enlarged as the need arises at that time. As for your landscaped decks and gardens (presumably for weddings and functions) overlooking the Vasse river? It’s the filthiest river in the south west.

Agree

Neither

Neither

As stated before there probably is a need to improve on the existing facility and obviously rates would increase to pay for such improvements. However I would not support your plans to incorporate a space as you put it for a Performing arts centre. Such a plan is an insult to ratepayers and yet another second rate facility conjured up by the council. As stated above any entertainment facility must be stand alone and in an area where the facility can be enlarged as needed. If we cannot afford such a facility then maybe we just wait but to spend 8 million dollars on a white elephant NO. I believe one councillor called it a bargain, I would point out that something you don't want is never a bargain regardless of how cheap it is.

Jeni Jones

Busselton

Yes

Need more room for all the people that work there.

No

Not enough seating for entertainment as is.  When wives and husbands together it will nearly double and 300 seats may not be enough for the future, just alone with all the office workers will maybe just make it.

Agree

Strongly agree

Neither

I do agree of the need for a multi-function civic centre, but not as you have it now as not enough seating.  I know it will cost more if made more seating will be more comfortable in the long run for everyone.
Stage 1 theatre has 810 on two levels Bunbury.
The Crude Theatre has 242 seats, can convert into Cabaret.  Bunbury.
These have a choice.
What about your workers at the Shire depot.  They work hard and do a great job and should also be counted for.

Lindsay Colless

Quedjinup

No

.

No

.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

This project is totally unnecessary.  The City should wait until it can afford such an opulent extravagance.

Neil Delroy

Busselton

No

Rate increases have exceeded CPI for a number of years.  We cannot afford these continual increases. The Council/City needs to make other savings to proceed.  It needs to live within its means.

No

As above.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Rate increases have exceeded CPI for a number of years.  I think that on average over the past decade rates on a house have gone up on average 350% of CPI.  This cannot continue.
The City needs to cut its spending by getting rid of unnecessary services or charging for services that many ratepayers do not use and by becoming more efficient.  No business (commercial) would survive with the culture and work ethic we see from the City of Busselton.
Once costs are under control then offices and other facilities could be looked at.
Rate increases should not exceed CPI and in fact need to reduce to make up for the excesses of the past decade.

JR and VI Bell

Dalyellup

Yes

.

No

Multi-functional Civic Centre with Performing Arts space needs to be developed on Busselton Foreshore area.

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree

Development of upgraded administration facilities on the existing site makes sense but a Multi-functional Civic facility on the same site would cramp the site and inhibit further expansion of the administration facility as the City grows.
Not only cramping of the site, but parking for the future must be considered in probably 15-18 years.
Provision for expansion of the administration's natural growth on the site must be considered now, not let it get to a situation where a larger site is required at a high cost to ratepayers.
The development of the Multi-functional Civic Centre with Performing Arts Space needs to be built on the foreshore area.  It won't cost anymore and will provide impetus to get the foreshore development moving.  There is adequate area available for parking possibly with use as a dual purpose asset.
The foreshore is an area where the City must lead the way in a practical way.

Steve Reynolds

Dunsborough

Yes

.

No

.

Agree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

.

Sally Shaw-Urbanavicius

Vasse

No

Money better spent extending current services to all areas of the Shire, like sporting and library facilities in Vasse and improved gym facilities in Dunsborough.  Not all ratepayers live in Busselton.  A 1.25% increase is a sizeable increase on top of CPI and planned road renewal increases.  People are struggling.  Look to spend money to support the disadvantaged groups, money for local shelters / homeless / mental health / disabled.

No

A nice building looks good but stands empty a lot of the time.  I work in WA Government and my office is small and in need of repair, but it's not about me, it's about the people we work for, in your case the ratepayer! Not everyone / ratepayer likes sport or culture! Money could be better spent.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

See previous.

Adrian Blackwell

Vasse

No

.

No

.

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

As my rates are already in excess of $2000 pa I feel that any increase in rates would dissuade any growth in the region and also push already financially stressed homeowners to the brink.
I'm also concerned with the way the City of Busselton has poured ratepayers money into futile projects in the past, such as the foreshore that washed away.
Other ratepayers I have spoken with are of the same opinion.  We understand the need for progress but feel that it is an over burden on the ratepayer.
I do not agree with any more rate increases!

Joshua Foley

West Busselton

No

It's just a building, it doesn't mean your job will be made easier or you will be better at it.

No

We have so many beautiful open spaces that are perfect for performing arts.  So many of our other spaces are already so underutilised.

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Before the Shire decides to increase our rates please consider.......
Bussell Highway is the most dangerous road in the South West for our children and elderly to try and cross.  Every day on our walks to the beach I fear for the safety of my family
.
My concerns have fallen on deaf ears previously, including a meeting last year with our Minister Troy Buswell.  He stood with me on the side of the road and agreed with everything I was concerned about.  Nothing was done and I was given no feedback at all in relation to our meeting.
A new building to keep up appearances....
OR
Well designed safe crossovers on Bussell Highway.
I know where my money will be better spent.
I am willing to provide consultation in relation to my concerns.

Glenn McKenzie

Busselton

No

Busselton does not need a two-storey building anywhere around Busselton.

No

Busselton has no need for a performing arts.  It's not  for everyone.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

What I don't like (ugly, not needed Shire buildings).
Busselton needs better roads particularly out at West Busselton and at traffic lights.  Traffic lights, mainly West Street need guided arrows to reduce crashes and near misses.
I think you should put money into the town in the interests of the children, particularly holiday time there is nothing for children to do or play on.  (A) Yoganup Park is run down and is dangerous for children.  Many children have been hurt.  (B) The skate park is too small and over crowds. (C) If children want things to do they have to go to Bunbury or Dunsborough.  Bunbury has 10 pin bowling, Dolphin Discovery Centre and many more.  Dunsborough has a water park, Yallingup Maze and wildlife parks.
Above all, if you are going to spend $28 million how about put it into the town interest the everyday person not the snob.  Also the petition that was going around for a proposed BMX track, it would keep children off the streets. It should be built.
I have been in the mining for 8 years and lived in Busselton my entire life and there is nothing for the future generation in this "city" (town).  

Alan Jones

Bovell

No

.

No

.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Both are unaffordable for the ratepayer and the City.

AM Armstrong

Busselton

No

Eventually, but when rate rises can be kept to a minimum.

No

I see a definite need, but something bigger when affordable, or maybe something that can be added to as time goes on.

Neither

Neither

Disagree

I do think Busselton needs a Civic Centre and performing arts centre when it can be done without rate increases above CPI.  The previous civic centre when in use was often used and very popular.
1. Rise in rates of nearly 20% in 4 years is unfair and may cause financial difficulty.  My farm land Lot 9000, 82 and 712 is rated at (in 2013) $3976.86 for a return of about $8000 and Lot 12 Carter Road $1978.73 for a return of $3400.  (Rates are half return or more).
2. As a self-funded retiree interest rates have dropped, while costs rise.
3. Beachfront erosion will continue to cost as bandaid measures are not working and money is wasted eg Norman Road, West of Jetty, Port Geographe.
4. Waste management expensive.  Once again ratepayers footing the bill even if not using the facilities.
5. Will the cost remain at $28 million, but it escalates!!
6. Old information centre vacant.

Abigail Cox

Yalyalup

No

.

No

.

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Our rates should not be paying for these facilities.  Our local rates are high enough for what we are being provided by the BCC.
New administration buildings will make no difference to any procedures done in the current building.
This building is overpriced for the few local ratepayers that would use the facilities.

C Burton

Yallingup Siding

Yes

.

No

The development should be standalone entity and on a separate site to the administration building. Ideally, it should be part of the cultural precinct of Busselton. The limited seating capacity will not provide for the kind of events that the general public expressed a desire for during the Strategic community plan consultation process.

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree

The proposal is a short term solution to a long standing issue. Council appears to be trying to do too much with too little. 
Including a MFCC will increase human and vehicular traffic in and around the immediate area of the construction, thereby placing increasing pressure on the already stressed riparian zone of the adjoining Vasse River.  I envisage some road works will be necessary to provide for extra vehicle activity too. How will this be handled a two lane causeway that is already struggling to cope with "non-holiday" traffic?
Noise from events is likely to be an issue for City staff if the proposal goes ahead, along with the security of the administration complex.
If a performing arts centre is really what the Council wants to give the community, a standalone structure may have a better chance of attracting sponsorship and funding from both local sources and from organisations that have an interest in staging events in the district.

Kylee Wardle

Busselton

No

.

No

.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Much like everything the city looks at developing, it is never in the interests of the Busselton residents. The community is continuously vocal on its objections on the decisions of the City and yet these fall on deaf ears. Council needs to focus more on Busselton being a great place to live and less on it being a great place to visit.

Peter Chandler

Dunsborough

No

We want rates reduced not increased, no more unnecessary spending. Council learn to live within your means!   

No

No not needed.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Leave things as they are, no more rate increases, if the private sector wants to fund an art centre let them do so. Make better use of the buildings and land you already have.
Let some of these developers sponsor any new City office buildings the City needs in the future with better planning at the Vasse development site. It looks to be the new hub so don't be caught asleep again-the boom has been going on for over ten years.
Our rates should be coming down with the greatest rate of growth in the area that other cities could only dream of. We need better use of our community groups and services to grow what we have here in the south so put your heads together and stop grabbing at our pockets.     

Julie Lee

Busselton

No

The foreshore should be completed before committing ratepayers to increases.

No

As above

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Complete the foreshore before making large commitments.

Kathryn Dudley

Dunsborough

No

.

No

.

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

.

Kylie Astbury

West Busselton

Yes

I agree that the current administration building does require upgrading and expansion to accommodate the future requirements of the City.

No

I do not feel at this time, taking into consideration the costs, that a dedicated Civic Centre is required.  The City should look to better utilise current assets and buildings within the precinct for this purpose.

Agree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

As mentioned above, I agree with upgraded administration facilities for the City. But as a single income ratepayer and resident of Busselton I do not agree with increased rates to cover the cost of the project. There are increases annually across all utilities (water, power, gas, etc) and these with the annual CPI on shire rates adds a significant strain on the household budget. Maybe the City should consider investing the funds accrued from previous years in a high interest deposit or secure investment fund, and hold the administration project over until further funds are sourced, rather than increasing the rates. 
In addition, in 2010 when my residential development application was being considered by the City (then Shire) I had to pay a fee of approximately $2,300 to the Community Facilities Contribution Fund.  I ask where these funds are being spent, and if the administration building is considered Community Facilities then surely these monies being collected by people developing in the City would already be contributing to the project. I feel therefore that the City would be "double dipping" to those ratepayers who have been charged this significant fee.
I definitely do not agree with the multi-functional civic centre at this time.  I believe there are enough facilities within the City of Busselton to cater for conferences and performing art events.

Brian McCully

Busselton

Yes

.

No

.

Agree

Neither

Disagree

.

James Felvus

West Busselton

No

I think money spent on a flash building would be better spent on the continued development of the foreshore.

No

See above

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

.

Rachael Crosby

Busselton

No

The cost is enormous and maybe putting monies into low income housing would be a better council interest.

No

.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Disagree

.

John & Pauline Becker

Busselton

No

I think we need a decent shopping centre now that we are supposedly a "City". Also finish what you start - ie the beachfront needs to be completed and I think something could be done at Rotary Park not to mention roads coming into town (which are well overdue) one way in and one way out is not functional any more with all the heavy vehicles coming to town (caravans, motorhomes etc.)

No

This in our opinion is only a way of getting new Shire offices that councillors have been trying to pass for several years now. We pay our rates to improve the town not your offices that we feel are quite adequate. There has to be a place in Busselton for a performing arts centre. Also I feel it could become a white elephant if built in the Shire offices. I believe that the High school has an auditorium. The resorts also have function rooms that can accommodate a lot of the things mentioned. There is so much more that Busselton needs before this. Also Causeway Road would not cope with the traffic and parking.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Rates in Busselton are getting out of control there are plenty of other things that need doing before this. We had an investment property until recently and the rising rates forced us to sell. It doesn't encourage investors and so rental properties are becoming harder to find.
We need dual carriageways from Capel to Busselton before you waste our money on this!!!!!

G Randall

Busselton

No

Building on (additions) to the current facilities is a more cost effective option.

No

The high cost of the proposed centre far outweighs the low percentage of the residential, rate-paying population that would regularly use the facility. 

Neither

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

I object to being levied a fee via the proposed increase of rate payments for the construction of an unnecessary building which in my view is essentially a glorified council office
Performing Arts and the like appeal to a certain percentage of the rate paying public.  In reality, probably a small percentage.  The concept is akin to a council office with additional facilities for a particular club or sporting activity.

JA Paul

Busselton

No

Council has for most years in the past decade increased rates at above the   rate of inflation and seems to view ratepayers as an everlasting resource to be soaked. Council seems to have significant waste in spending currently and to totally lack spending discipline.

No

Multi-function proposal is purely a blind to suck the unsuspecting into allowing Council to waste money. Exercise some discipline and adjust spending and wish list to reality of the populace.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

As above. I exercise spending discipline in daily life and wish you would do the same.

Dorothy Hughes

West Busselton

No

Not at this stage - more important community issues need to be attended to.

No

These should be separate from the Admin.

Should be positioned near present cultural centre
- some of the foreshore should be utilised for this purpose and not for private enterprise - i.e.high rise and other accommodation.

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Neither

With ref. to item c.
- does this question refer to item a.?  - the Administration facility?
In which case my answer would be to strongly disagree to rate increase.
or does is ref to item b.? - the Multi-functional Civic Centre?
In which case my answer would be strongly agree.
I would not be happy to pay increased rates for Admin. Fac. at this stage.
I would be happy to pay increased rates to support a Multi-Functional C.Centre.
And further -
Consideration should be seriously given to opening up Ford Road to take traffic away from City Centre - at weekends and holiday times the traffic on Causeway Rd has been known to bank up back to the By-Pass - this causes blocked roundabout and further bank up on the short continuation to the 1st set of lights at Albert St - a domino effect for the rest of Queen Street where all traffic/caravans etc. l must now traverse to reach the Information Centre now stupidly positioned near the Jetty! and not the place for more congestion to enter a large Admin/Cultural Centre. A totally ridiculous situation that needs priority attention yet seems to fall on the deaf ears of the City Council!!

David Barnsley

Ambergate

No

move into the building that was just built near the shopping centre which is mostly empty

No

the community does not need such a building if they do attach it to an existing rec centre $8.5 million is ridiculous to basically build a stage with toilets 

Strongly disagree

Neither

Strongly disagree

there are much more pressing things that the community needs before the council needs a new office one would be a diversion road to take the bottle neck out of the town centre (ford rd ) if you were to build a civic centre it needs to be somewhere where you can have sufficient parking  I don't see that in your plan. I just don't get how an office building costs 20 million is it made of gold maybe we could have something that is not so extravagant and maybe only a 5 million dollar price tag might be more in the realms of reality    

Helen Johnson

Busselton

No

.

No

.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I think the council should be spending its money on much better issues.  This seems like an absolute waste of ratepayers’ money at this stage.

Ishbel Casselton

Busselton

No

I think the City of Busselton needs an enquiry into staffing numbers as too much of our rates are going to their salaries instead of improving rural roads etc

No

The site is too small for a decent sized Performing Arts Centre.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

The history of Entertainment Centres in country WA have proved to be financial disasters . It is just a ploy to get new Offices for the City. We have other priorities such as the Foreshore and Airport to think about at present.

G Spencer

Busselton

No

The impact on current and future ratepayers is too great. We should all learn to live within our budget.

No

This is far too expensive and is not required in the current economic climate of restraint.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

As stated previously this proposal is unfunded and is far too expensive in the current economic climate.
The impact is not only on the current ratepayers but also on future generations - totally unacceptable. The council needs to restrain spending and start living (and working) within its budget.

Laurie Delahunty

Port Geographe

No

The money should be used to part fund the foreshore re-development which will be used by residents and visitors all year round.  I think Troy Buswell’s comments sum up in many ways my feelings on this subject.

No

As Above

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

As per my comments above

Caroline Rainsford

Geographe

No

There may be alternatives to improvements other than a complete new build?

No

.

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Are the other projects (eg foreshore)  that the City is undertaking completed and paid for in full?  If so that would change my views....

Julia Harwood

Busselton

Yes

Yes I realize they will need to extend their current premises, but I think that should be all. The resource centre we had to have is still at least 1/2 empty.

No

We have weld theatre and the art galleries. I think if a performing Arts space was to be built it should be built in this precinct, wasn't that the whole point of making the precinct in the first place?

Strongly agree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

I think that there are roads that need repairing, crossing lights installed on Bussell Hwy, it is now so busy especially during peak times that older people and people with young children are not using the beach as it is too dangerous to get there. Meetings have been had with Troy Buswell and nothing transpired.
The beachfront east of the foreshore needs to be finished. It was a whole foreshore project and the use of the west foreshore shows that it is needed and utilized, unlike the resource centre.
I actually live in West Busselton so the east side doesn't affect me as such, but I think from a tourist perspective it is important and if cruise ships are going to be frequenting the area, isn't that more important? If these issues were addressed and fixed then and only then would I consider an increase in rates for a new Civic Admin building.
We still have a river that is a disgrace and no access for people east of town to the bypass. Surely the money could be used to put Ford Rd through, if there were bridges put over any protected areas of wetland surely this would be possible. There is an aged care/lifestyle village being put down that end and still no exit in an emergency.
This would also help deal with the congestion on the Causeway.
We have also been promised an alternative road to Dunsborough instead of Caves Rd for as long as I can remember, come on guys, time to get your act together and do the things that need doing NOW, then maybe people will approve a civic centre.

Celia Clare

 

No

I think this building should be upgraded only, not redeveloped.

No

The proposed performing arts space should not be part of the civic administration buildings.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

The Performing art space should be built in the Cultural Complex in Queen St. It is a ridiculous proposal to create a multi-functional civic centre, combining these two projects is a badly disguised plan to rehash a similar project which the ratepayers of Busselton rejected several years ago. A proposed building which only provides 300 seats will be completely undersized for our rapidly growing community. The Cultural Complex desperately needs a facility like this within the area of the complex, this is what the CALM building was going to be used for. Planning to redevelop the current building with ratepayers’ money, thereby providing a brand new space for staff and councillors to enjoy, absolutely smacks of nepotism. Going ahead with this plan is a poor choice, poorly planned with no thought for what is best for the ratepayers, our community and those who come here to enjoy Busselton and spend money. I guarantee that project will be voted down by nearly all of Busselton's ratepayers and is therefore another complete waste of our money by the City planners and those involved. We need better facilities around the cultural complex hub, with development of this heritage area. I also note that the CRC building is not being properly used with a brand new empty reception area totally devoid of any staff. Another waste of ratepayers’ money.

Teresa Jeffries

Busselton

No

I think the current building should be renovated at a reasonable cost. As a ratepayer I would rather the money go directly into community facilities or into the foreshore redevelopment not into admin facilities. 

No

Performing arts should be separate from the Civic centre.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

I appreciate the current office needs updating but not at such a cost that the ratepayers cannot afford.

Helena Nicholson

Abbey

No

.

No

A 300 seat venue is not sufficient for our Community needs. The PAC proposed for Queen street is a better long term option. Buildings should have a specific function. Admin is the COB Business. This scenario reminds me of the original 'Project Splashdown' in the 80's where a "Pool" became a 'half pool' and a leisure centre combined and the pool is not suitable for short course or competitive swimming.

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

The first priority for the community should be the completion of the long term Foreshore Project which has whole  community and tourism impact. This project is designed, consulted at length and ready for completion with funding.
The second priority should be provision of purpose built Performing Arts Facilities to cater for the wide range of cultural events including, theatre, concerts, dance, Eisteddfod etc.
The third priority should be renovation and extension of the Shire Offices (apologies to staff!!)  Temporary housing of staff could occur in the white elephant next to the Library.
I don't like anything about this proposal. I think it is a waste of rate payers’ money. I agree that the Admin at COB may need upgrading but it can't be the principal priority.

John Lang

 

Yes

.

No

This is something the Community cannot afford and probably doesn't need. If there is a significant, demonstrated need within the community, private enterprise should fill that need.

Agree

Strongly disagree

Agree

Please see above.

Brian Nichols

Busselton

Yes

.

No

This centre will only benefit a small proportion of the residents.  Many other projects / improvements to the town would benefit from this funding.

Agree

Disagree

Neither

.

W Franssen

Dunsborough

Yes

See 3

No

See 3

Agree

Strongly disagree

Disagree

My feeling is that extension and modification to the present site per the purpose of Council administration is needed.  The rest of the proposal, I do not agree with as the additional car and pedestrian traffic adjacent to Causeway Road (future 4 lanes) is unacceptableThe present site of Parks and Wildlife is located in an area that in future should be a pedestrian precinct and a performing arts centre will be well located in these surroundings.

Mr Basil P McCarthy

Broadwater

Yes

I hope the design and size will ultimately be sufficient to cater to expected growth and possible amalgamation of districts.

No

I dislike attaching items to issues (sugarcoat) to get approval.  If your plan is business reasons, then stick to business.  Get rid of the teddy bear factor.

Agree

Disagree

Agree

Busselton is probably the fastest developing region outside of the established Mandurah and Bunbury districts.  However, it is without doubt, this is beginning to groan and creek at the very limited traffic flows being imposed on the main thoroughfare ie Bussell Highway from the town centre to the Vasse turn off.
It appears people are using the highway instead of the bypass when travelling to and from Dunsborough and Margaret River during peak periods of the day and others such as long weekends etc.
In my case, it is getting not only difficult to get across, it is becoming very dangerous. This can be seen at most intersections along the highway and needs urgent attention.
As of the recent Easter weekend with the driver education and warnings by the police, there is some extraordinarily bad attitudes driving cars and I think your task in future will be to design this problem around the idiots who use our roads.

G and S Duke

Abbey

No

We are of the opinion that space is not fully utilised in the present premises and perhaps major renovations is a more realistic matter.

No

There are many existing amenities not being used to their capacity in Busselton and surrounding areas.

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

The City of Busselton has had many years of thinking and planning time and should have provided financial considerations and put moneys aside.  We don't trust the Council to stick fast to the financial imposition that you are asking ratepayers to accept.  Costs will blow out regardless of what you say, therefore we strongly disagree with your plan.

Duncan Gardner

Dunsborough

No preference

I cannot say if the building is really required. I would rather money is put aside from existing revenue for a few years, and a building developed later, if that is possible.

No

I don't think there is a pressing need for this.

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Disagree

I cannot say if the building is really required. I would rather money is put aside from existing revenue for a few years, and a building developed later, if that is possible. Perhaps office space could be rented in the interim. Could some staff be located elsewhere, in other council facilities - the nearby depot? Would a cheaper alternative be extensions to the current building, which could deal with the issue for ten years or more.
I acknowledge that a new building may be the most cost-efficient approach over the long term, but would like to be sure all alternatives have been considered.
The design of the new building does not seem to be in keeping with COB vision - to preserve our heritage. It is big and rectangular, and especially imposing on the main approach into Busso. Something more inconspicuous and organic would be preferable. Let's make it clear to visitors and residents that we are a country, tourist town. Not at all like Perth. Another location may be more suitable, and would have the advantage of less disruption to staff during any build.

Larry Lydon

Dunsborough

No

As ratepayers we cannot afford the cost.  A one off rate rise again! It won't come in on budget and then what.  Another rate rise!

No

There are too many unfinished projects already.  This will be another.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

City of Busselton what a laugh.  We don't have the people or the businesses to support a City but a Council hell bent on borrowing money for something not needed and we can't afford.  There are too many unfinished projects, why start another. 20 years in Debt.
Unfinished projects. 
Pre-Council election promises of no new rate rises.
Council constraint, spending checks.
Rate rises will be minimal.  Keep costs in budget and lots more promises were made by our Mayor and Councillors but once the election is over all promises are forgotten.
Where are the Councillors who said they would rein in Council costs and rates? Don't borrow money, save for it it's a lot cheaper in the long run.  Build it when you can afford it, not on borrowed money.

Douglas Jones

Quindalup

No

cost

No

cost

Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Surely something less expensive and unnecessarily extravagant would suffice!

Valerie Schonell

Quindalup

Yes

But I feel the plan for the multi-functional civic centre with performing arts is too small. Civic administration may be better place on the bypass in Vasse

No

Performing Arts Centre should stand alone. Ideally situated where Council is suggesting on the Vasse River

Agree

Strongly agree

Agree

I have made my suggestions on previous pages. I do think much more parking is essential. A big problem in Busselton and Dunsborough is not enough parking.
The City and Shire of Busselton is growing at such a rapid pace we need to be thinking 15-20 years ahead.

D.K Henderson

No preference

If and when necessary

No

Not appropriate at a time of rate increases, a rising burden of debt and while other projects are incomplete

Neither

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

It is not acceptable to have annual rate increases which exceed CPI especially when working people are expected to show restraint with wage demands and sometimes take cuts in wages.
This site is unsuitable for an entertainment centre because of traffic and parking considerations and the fact that it is close to a residential area. There are already conference facilities at the Community Resource Centre which are not fully utilised.
If new administration facilities are built, they should be utilitarian in design and should not have the extravagant features.

Imperia Scott

Busselton

No

Haven't you learnt from past mistakes. You have already mucked up by millions of dollars on other projects.  From what I believe your people can’t even read or create maps. Great mistake in Dunsborough with the old people home the park is actually a house.

No

Arts space is a waste of money. We need to get these homeless people off our streets, to better protected areas. You have a lot of other issues in our City to deal with thankyou. Gosh oh gee even Buswell is against it.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Busselton needs more affordable low rent houses, to help these people that are living in cars in parks around our city.
We do not need monuments to make our CEOs look big.
Wake up Councillors, Mayor and all ratepayers, who is going to win in the stupid idea, none of us, we need roads fixed and more rentals.

J S Wilson

Busselton

No

.

No

.

Disagree

Neither

Strongly disagree

NO!
A $28 million way over the top for administration building.
A civic facility would be great but needs to be considered as separate issues to administration building.
Hiding the cost of an administration facility into a "multi-functional" facility is deceiving and sneaky way to pass the building plans.
There are 2 separate issues and should be treated as such.
We have a brand new facility in the library/community centre that could be used for meetings and elected members.

Warren Tyson

Busselton

No

.

No

.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

It's not necessary. There is space available all over town for offices. Spend money on ratepayers needs such as footpaths on streets that are busy with learner drivers and buses and flooding. Council wastes money on projects such as digging up Barnard Park just to relay for grabs.

Glen Ewen

Dunsborough

No

For a shire bursting at the seams and whom can't even provide new ratepayers a wheelie bin ( after paying full rates for 12 months during the build)....no way should this amount of money be spent....you say its spread over 20 years but will increase our rates three times over the next three years...how is that equitable....with so many facilities in need of repair and new ones required.....I agree with Troy Buswell

No

Build a community centre and performing arts venue standalone....your offices are fine

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

See above comments
Our rates are high enough and how is your equitable plan looking at increasing them 3 times in 3 years....you can't even provide a wheelie bin...what a joke

Jenny Taylor

Busselton

Yes

I think the expenditure of $20 million is ridiculous. New offices are definitely warranted but I feel there should be further investigation as to where costs could be cut to achieve a new building. All new buildings of this size blow out budgets, having been involved in the building industry for many years.

No

I feel that one project, ie: the foreshore re-development should be completed before a performing arts building is constructed. I also feel that if the city is to create a performing arts centre, it should be more forward in its thinking and look at a much larger venue that would accommodate major attractions to the area. The Bunbury entertainment centre is not large enough to attract anyone major, nor has the accommodation facilities to cope with people coming from outside the region, whereas Busselton does, as proved by the sporting events we hold here. The performing arts centre as proposed, is only wanted by a small section of the community. If the city were to propose a much larger venue in the future, it would have greater support.

Agree

Strongly disagree

Disagree

I have already made plain my comments in (1) and (2).
It would be wise to heed the words of both the mayor and of Troy Buswell, who have always had this town welfare at heart. Now is not the time to be spending "borrowed" money. Even statistically, half the population of Australia is now only spending its own money and not increasing their debt by using their credit cards. The next few years are going to be tough on all our pockets both federally and state.  It’s time to keep curb on spending and borrowing.

Helena Fergusson

Abbey

Yes

I agree with the need of a new Civic administration building, but I do not agree with some aspects of the plan. Would like more information on materials costing to be given to ratepayers including its overall solar rating.

No

I feel this would be an excessive use of our hard earned money in rates. Perhaps leave the model in planning stage until the need becomes more of a genuine need.

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

I am not privy to the details of building materials for the proposed build, but would like to see the Busselton Council consider building a solar passive design. This in turn would reduce its need to be reliant on more rate rises over the years to sustain its heavy carbon footprint.
I feel that the cost of the Civic Administration building is excessive to the needs.
The plan itself is flawed due to the use of massive glass sliding doors and windows floor to ceiling in parts of the building tracking the sun west, north, north-west and increasing the need for other expensive heating & cooling methods such as air conditioning, glazing or solar tinting, all of which are very expensive. The building shows small regard to the future solar passivity requirements and has what also seems a rather large carbon footprint.  Any suggestion of the use of solar panels to offset the huge power requirement, why not swap some of those massive glazed windows for solar panels. Pretty face ideals on print are not always practical in reality.
Each year it gets more expensive to live in Busselton in utilities, rates, fuel and travel, but our income remains the same or fluctuates as the big business moves into towns and puts the smaller operators - like our own - in jeopardy or out of business. Would prefer if the council could hold back on the rate increases for at least 5 years until the uncertain times may be more clear.

Stuart Smith

Provence

No

See below;

No

As with the previous question, there are a multitude of other programmes where spare funding can be spent without more rate increases , which should be kept to inflation, or below percentages. Money is hard to find when your working life has finished.

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

It would be nice if the council would think of the residents and NOT just about the visitors to Busselton ;we are here 52 weeks of the year and basic items are needed for us; traffic snarl ups at the Peel Tce roundabout which are not good in winter are terrible in summer; we in Provence have little normal facilities , with no bus service , no local shops , and no post boxes just to mention three and we pay the2nd highest rate in Busselton ; the single carriage ways if made dual would help locals and in the summer the visitors ; another road to enter Busselton would be very useful ,more so than a new 28 million facility; give us more of the playground/foreshore upgrade , more car parks, and try to keep the rates DOWN ; As the country is now to feel the pain of cuts , it is time for the council to stand up and trim its budget.

Graham John Carter

Marybrook

No

Having inspected the Administration Building with Cr Terry Best and noted the cramped conditions the logical answer is to dismiss half the White house staff - they only generate paper and to what end!

No

The idea of a performing arts space as shown in the present plan looks shoddy and cheap and is too small. A performing arts centre should seat 1000 people minimum and requires much better designed back stage facilities for performers and stage hands.

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Strongly disagree

As I wrote before, Council has done nothing about reducing administration staff, half only soak up ratepayer rates to what end - nothing.
Speaking of the Marybrook District, your engineering department maintains the gravel roads in lousy to drive on condition. The south section of Marybrook road should be sealed immediately and the north section requires more gravel etc in the weak spots.
Vasse Yallingup road between Vasse and Chain Avenue requires a lot of bitumen on each edge of the said road, to make the road safer to drive on, like using the full length of Chain avenue.
So when Councillors, Lord Mayor and Town Clerk start paying more attention to the rural areas of the City, I may get slightly more interested in building 'the City' a new Administration office.
I also note that the proposed new building is 3 storeys high and it managed to give staff a look down Queen street, I trust this doesn’t mean that in due time, say, noon each day, we of the great unworked won’t be required to salute our dear leader!

Therese Sayers

Dunsborough

No

I feel the priority should be completion of the foreshore work in Busselton and the Dunsborough region (ie Meelup) and funding efforts to begin for a proper well sized entertainment/performing arts centre

No

The Performing Arts space is too small. Busselton is a City and should have a proper PA Centre/Entertainment Centre.

Disagree

Neither

Disagree

I don’t feel this proposal should be a priority at this time.

Steve Dalton

Dunsborough

No

Upgrade and repair current building, if need be lease additional space - minimum cost

No

Not sure why Council needs to get involved in the wedding/function business

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly disagree

Processing 20% increase in rates over 4 years, the inflation is less than 5% year?
Where will staff go during the build and what is the cost involved?
Not sure why we need a multi-functional civic centre when I am like Council still really want a performing arts centre as were - not money well spent.
Build it up by half metres! If this is a selling point re future floods, it’s pretty sad for the other Busselton rate payer, who will be under water.
Surely we can upgrade the current building for less than $20 million

Marjory Tomlinson

Yes

The current admin building doesn't appear to be adequate with the demountable out the back.

No

I think the two buildings should be entirely separate, with the performing arts space being located in the cultural precinct at the bottom of Queen St/foreshore redevelopment.

Strongly agree

Strongly agree

Strongly agree

I would have liked two or three designs to compare.
I think the third floor, most of which will only be used for fortnightly council meetings is too extravagant, especially when most people are having to tighten our belts. Also the existing building that will remain houses the council chamber and could continue to do so.
I like the idea of a performing arts space, but not on the same site as the admin building.

Polly Jackson

Dunsborough

No

.

No

I believe already existing community space could be used, the Community centre in Dunsborough is more deserving of an upgrade. Very well utilised - however a fitness centre would be excellent as already exists at the GLC.

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

I strongly support community development, however believe the distribution of resources needs to be equitable across the City. The Community facilities at Dunsborough are extremely well utilised but I believe needs upgrading to reflect the growing needs of the community outside of Busselton central.
The money being spent on an additional performing arts centre in Busselton could be better utilised (and more equitably so) by adding to the community facilities provided in Dunsborough.

K Scholehoff

Yes

.

No

A dedicated and tiered performing arts centre and not multi-purpose presently and adequate selecting of facilities for weddings and indoor sport but not for performing arts.

Strongly agree

Strongly disagree

Agree

* The City is in dire need of a performing arts centre
*  Retractable seating is costly and cumbersome
*  Several indoor sports facilities available
* Wedding facilities is not the function of the City
* With the numerous schools and church halls in the area there is adequate facilities for holiday classes.
We need a dedicated performing arts centre.

D.M. Mas

Busselton

No

.

No

.

Neither

Agree

Agree

As I believe Busselton needs a multi-functional centre I think that the grant that the State Government gave was to do the development on the beach front and should be finished. I can’t see us getting more money from the State government now that Troy is out of the Treasury, he has been a great help to this area. Even though this is not a concern with this paper can someone please bite the bullet and do the Ford road development.

Sarah Fleay

Dunsborough

No

Is it really necessary?

No

I do not think it is of importance to the community to have this type of facility at all.

Neither

Disagree

Strongly agree

I like that the City of Busselton is proactive about making improvements/additions to the area.
However, the cost for the new proposed facility is ridiculous and there are other things that could be built that would benefit local people more.
If it was to happen it should be a more cost effective facility and should not affect ratepayers as many would not get any use out of it.

B M Butler

Broadwater

No

.

No

.

Agree

Agree

Neither

The building housing admin would be more aesthetic if it was the same design as the cultural centre.
Your current design is very 70's/80's, time to move forward.
Try Zorsi SW architects for suggestions.

Brian Smith

Yalyalup

No

See comments below

No

see comments below

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I would like to remind Council of their moral obligation to keep their promise not to increase our rates above CPI. We should therefore work within this financial constraint, and not go the easy way and just hit the ratepayers with increases above the CPI. If we can still proceed and keep within the CPI increase I would support the project. Over the past few years we have under sufferance, endured the hardship of the rate increases above CPI to cover the cost of Leisure Centre upgrade and other "specified Projects" and more recently studies into a new rubbish disposal site and traffic movements within the City. Both of which will require significant capital investment in the near future. In addition we have the ongoing burden to upgrade the foreshore and airport. I would be happy to forego the airport upgrade, which I have already indicated in previous correspondence.
When we consider the above list of major projects, one quickly comes to the conclusion that we cannot afford the new buildings, which will only service staff and a few of the City ratepayers.
Promises seem to get forgotten even in State and Federal parliaments. Let Council set an example to all that they can keep theirs, and as mentioned above keep our rate increases at CPI. Your rating scenarios suggest that within 4 years the population will increase to a number that we will not need the extra increases, I suggest we wait until then.
NOTE - Vasse MLA Troy Buswell has suggested that the new buildings are not reflective of the priority of the local community and I agree.

Beryl Anderson

No

.

No

.

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Think about it, hospital built in Busselton, should have been in Vasse to service the whole region not just the important people to Buswell!!
Dunsborough can't even get a beach cafe and the Old Dunsborough Boat ramp is totally inept. Just try putting a larger boat in with the waves coming in the back. Disaster.
Don't spend my ratepayers’ money on a massive building that is not necessary.

Ulrich Setzinger

Busselton

No

.