Please note:  These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record of proceedings

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES FOR THE Council  MEETING HELD ON 22 April 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 3

2....... Attendance. 3

3....... Prayer. 3

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

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice. 4

Public Question Time. 4

5....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 4

Announcements by the Presiding Member. 4

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member. 4

6....... Application for Leave of Absence. 4

7....... Petitions and Presentations. 4

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

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

Previous Council Meetings. 5

9.1          Minutes of the Council  held on 8 April 2015. 5

9.2          Minutes of the Finance Committee held 2 April 2015. 5

Items Brought Forward and Adoption by Exception Resolution.. 7

10..... Reports of Committee. 8

10.1        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 28 FEBRUARY 2015. 8

10.2        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – FEBRUARY 2015. 15

10.3        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - MEELUP REGIONAL PARK 2014-15 BUDGET AMENDMENT  27

10.4        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT - BASIS OF RATING - PRESCRIBED AREAS. 17

10.5        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - BUSSELTON FOOTBALL AND SPORTSMAN’S CLUB INC. – REPAIRS AND ANCILLARY WORKS TO BOVELL PARK CLUBROOM FACILITY. 34

10.6        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - DRAFT SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE 2015/16 FINANCIAL YEAR. 79

11..... Planning and Development Services Report. 38

11.1        APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT FOR USE NOT LISTED (TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY), LOT 201, BALMORAL DRIVE, QUINDALUP. 119

11.2        MANAGEMENT OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES, INCLUDING BEACHES - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT PROPOSALS, FOLLOWING CONSULTATION.. 38

12..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 61

Nil

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 62

13.1        BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR THE GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE CAFE FIT OUT. 62

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 67

14.1        STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN FIRST BIENNIAL REVIEW... 67

14.2        FAWNA AND BUSSELTON COMMUNITY GARDENS LEASES. 74

14.3        BUSSELTON FOOTBALL AND SPORTSMANS CLUB LICENCE AGREEMENT. 22

15.             Chief Executive Officer's Report

15.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 25

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 126

Nil

17..... Confidential Reports. 127

17.1        DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE CAFE AND/OR KIOSK: EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST. 127

18..... Questions from Members. 128

19..... Public Question Time. 128

20..... Next Meeting Date. 128

21..... Closure. 129

 


Council                                                                                      3                                                                        22 April 2015

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 22 April 2015 AT 5.30pm .

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

The Presiding Member open the meeting at 5.30pm.

2.               Attendance

Presiding Member:

Members:

 

Cr Ian Stubbs           Mayor

Cr Grant Henley

Cr John McCallum

Cr Tom Tuffin

Cr Rob Bennett

Cr Coralie Tarbotton

Cr Jenny Green

Cr Terry Best

 

Officers:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Matthew Smith, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Mrs Katie Banks, Administration Officer, Governance

 

Apologies

 

Nil

 

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Councillor Gordon Bleechmore

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Times”

“Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

Public:

 

26

3.               Prayer

The prayer was delivered by Captain Claire Watson from Busselton Salvation Army.

 

Councillor Grant Henley also recited the Ode of Remembrance, in acknowledgement of ANZAC Day.

4.               Public Question Time

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Nil

Public Question Time

Nil

5.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

Councillor Stubbs regretfully announced the passing of Mrs Sylvia Sheedy, the wife of Honorary Freeman, Jack Sheedy.

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member

Nil

6.               Application for Leave of Absence

Leave of Absence

COUNCIL DECISION

C1504/089              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor R Bennett

 

That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Terry Best for the 8 July Council meeting.

CARRIED 8/0

7.               Petitions and Presentations

7.1          Presentations by Parties with and Interest

 

Ms Sally Wilkinson addressed Council in accordance with Section 6.1 of the Standing

Orders as a party with an interest in Item 11.2. Ms Wilkinson, a representative of the Busselton and Dunsborough Dog Beach Action Group was not in support of the Officer Recommendation.

 

Note:    Although Public Question Time had previously been announced, the Presiding Member allowed Mr Greg Watt to ask a question in relation to Item 11.2.

               

Mr Greg Watt asked how the management of dogs in public places would be policed given the area is such a wide expanse. Mr Watt also asked if signage will be placed at every path (with beach access) and questioned how it will be possible for beach users, including tourists, to know what section of beach they are using.

 

Response, Presiding Member:

 Councillor Stubbs advised that enforcement will be difficult and that the proposal is to provide signs at the beginning and end of specified areas. The signs will also inform beach users of the distance of the specified area.

 


 

Response, Director, Planning and Development Services:

In areas where there are controls in place, signage will be required to be placed at every entry point. Subject to the outcome of Council’s consideration of the Item this evening, it will be necessary for Officers to look at the entire resolution and scope the signage requirements for each area, for example, stencils potentially being placed on pathways as well. It is intended that signage will be implemented in a prioritised way, not just at beaches.

8.               Disclosure Of Interests

The Mayor noted that a declaration of impartiality interest had been received from:

 

·         Cr Tom Tuffin in relation to Agenda Item 11.1 - Application for Planning Consent for Use Not Listed (Telecommunications Facility), Lot 201, Balmoral Drive, Quindalup.

 

The Mayor advised that in accordance with the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 this declaration would be read out immediately before Item 11.1 was discussed.

 

9.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

9.1             Minutes of the Council  held on 8 April 2015

COUNCIL DECISION

C1504/090              Moved Councillor T Best, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 8 April 2015 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 8/0

 

Committee Meetings

9.2             Minutes of the Finance Committee held 2 April 2015

COUNCIL DECISION

C1504/091              Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor G Henley

 

1)         That the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 2 April  2015 be              received.

 

2)         That the Council notes the outcomes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 2            April 2015 being:

 

a)         The Committee noted the Information Bulletin – February 2015

 

b)         The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 28 February 2015 Item is           presented for Council  consideration at Item 10.1 of this agenda

 

c)         The List of Payments Made – February 2015 Item is presented for Council              consideration at Item 10.2 of this agenda

 

d)         The Meelup Regional Park 2014-15 Budget Amendment Item is presented for Council              consideration at Item 10.3 of this agenda

 

e)         The Proposed Amendment – Basis of Rating – Prescribed Areas Item is presented for        Council consideration at Item 10.4 of this agenda

 

f)          The Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club Inc – Repairs and Ancillary Works to              Bovell Park Clubroom Facility Item is presented for Council consideration at Item    10.5 of this agenda

 

g)         The Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges for the 2015/16 Financial Year Item is     presented for Council consideration at Item 10.6 of this agenda

CARRIED 8/0

 

 


 

Items Brought Forward and Adoption by Exception Resolution

At this juncture the Mayor advised the meeting that the below Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc.

En Bloc Motion

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C1504/092              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Committee and Officer Recommendations in relation to the following agenda items be carried en bloc:

10.1        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 28 FEBRUARY 2015

10.2        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – FEBRUARY 2015

10.4        Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT - BASIS OF RATING - PRESCRIBED AREAS

14.3        BUSSELTON FOOTBALL AND SPORTSMANS CLUB LICENCE AGREEMENT

15.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      9                                                                        22 April 2015

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 28 FEBRUARY 2015

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:

Manager, Finance and Information Technology - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 28 February 2015   

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 2 April 2015, 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 28 February 2015.

 

 

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 30 July 2014, the Council adopted (C1407/190) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2014/15 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 2014/15 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

 

Not applicable.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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 as required to further supplement the information comprised within the statutory financial reports.

 

COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 28 FEBRUARY 2015

   

Operating Activity

 

§  Operating Revenue

 

As at 28 February 2015, there is a variance of -0.4% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Other Revenue

-34%

-$138

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

-32%

-$1,163

Profit on Asset Disposals

+235%

+$22

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Other Revenue (-$138K)

This variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Fines and penalties revenue is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates by $69K, with the primary contributors being parking fines (-$35K) and bushfire related fines (-$31K)

§ Scrap metal and recycling sales are falling short of year to date budget estimates, primarily due to timing  differences (-$75K)

§ A scheduled transfer of bond monies for Birchfields landscape maintenance is falling short of year to date budget estimates (-$23K)

§ Unbudgeted registration fees associated with the Mayoral Prayer Breakfast ($11K) have been received, albeit this has been fully offset by related expenditure and the transfer of residual funds.    

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (-$1,163K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ The receipt of additional developer contributions over year to date budget estimates (+$500K)

§ The accounting recognition of donated assets, including fire tender from DFES (+$123K)

§ Timing differences associated with the receipt of capital grant funding including, but not limited to:

Road Construction grant funding (-$712K)

Airport terminal building and Airport related infrastructure works (-$645K)

Beach Restoration and Boat-ramp related grant funding (-$501K)

 

It should be noted that the developer contributions funding has no direct impact on the Net Current Position, as these funds are transferred to Equity upon receipt, via the ‘Transfers to Restricted Assets’ capital expenditure activity. Additionally, donated assets are accounted for in the City’s Balance Sheet, and do not impact on the Net Current Position.      

    

Profit on Asset Disposals (+$22K)

The current variance remains primarily attributable to book profits on the sale, through auction, of obsolete computer equipment and sundry plant items. In most cases, the items had a zero written down value, with any funds received representing a book profit on disposal. It should be noted that this is an accounting entry only, and has no direct impact on the Net Current Position.       

 

§   Operating Expenditure

 

As at 28 February 2015, there is a variance of -3.4% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Materials and Contracts

-24%

-$2,471

Utilities

-13%

-$188

Depreciation on Non-current Assets

+20%

+$1,321

Insurance Expenses

-11%

-$88

Allocations

-12%

-$156

Loss on Asset Disposals

+165%

+$68

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Materials and Contracts (-$2,471K)

Due to the nature of this expenditure category, variances are evident across a broad range of activities. However, the major variances, which are predominantly due to timing differences, include:

§ Collective contractor expenditure is presently $1,347K below year to date budget estimates and includes, amongst others, recycling contractors (-$341K), Busselton Jetty contractors (-$298K), coastal protection related contractors (-$203K), Vasse & Provence specified area rate contract maintenance works (-$272K) and also numerous building contractor related works (e.g. Nautical Lady Lighthouse demolition of $150K). Conversely, tree pruning and road maintenance contractor expenses are presently exceeding year to date budget estimates by $190K

§ Collective consultancy expenditure is presently $376K below year to date budget estimates

§ Building maintenance services (including contract cleaning and general maintenance) is presently $201K below year to date budget estimates

§ Collective Legal expenses are presently $115K below year to date budget estimates

The remainder of the variance is attributable to a variety of budget shortfalls in contractor expenditures, material purchases, maintenance of plant and equipment and non capital asset acquisitions. However, as previously mentioned, the current collective variance is primarily as a result of budget timing matters at this juncture.    

 

Utilities (-$188K)

This variance is primarily attributable to timing differences in the levying of utility invoices, including electricity charges (-$98K) and water consumption charges (-$63K). As a result of the repealing of the carbon tax, it is estimated is that the City’s electricity charges will reduce by up to $70K during 2014/15. Notwithstanding this, the actual extent of any savings will be dependent upon, amongst others, overall electricity usage during the financial year and the associated performance against budget estimates.           

 

 

Depreciation on Non-current Assets (+$1,321K)

This variance is primarily attributable to the Buildings fair value valuation (as at 30 June 2014), coupled with the significant value of donated assets brought to account as at last financial year end. The depreciation budget is developed reasonably early in the annual budget process, based on financial year end projections. Whilst generally accurate, this approach has this year been impacted by the aforementioned activities, the outcomes of which were not known until very late in the 2013/14 financial year. It should be noted however that depreciation expense is reversed as a non cash adjustment, and as such has no net effect on the Net Current Position.                       

 

Insurance Expenses (-$88K)

This variance is primarily attributable to property and plant insurance premiums, which continue to reflect variances of -$46K and -$48K respectively. Whilst an end of financial year saving is anticipated in this category, additional expenses will be incurred as additions and amendments are made to the City’s Insurance Schedule.                     

 

Allocations (-$156K)

This activity incorporates numerous internal accounting allocations. Whilst the majority of individual allocations are administration based (and clear each month), the 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). Due to its ‘accounting transaction’ nature, performance in this activity has no net impact on the Net Current Position.                 

 

Loss on Asset Disposals (+$68K)

This variance is due to book losses on the sale, through auction, of obsolete computer equipment, sundry plant items and a range of light vehicles. It should be noted that this is an accounting entry only, and has no direct impact on the Net Current Position.       

 

Capital Activity

 

§  Capital Revenue

 

As at 28 February 2015, there is a variance of -3.3% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Proceeds from Sale of Assets

-19%

-$114

Transfers from Restricted Assets

-25%

-$536

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Proceeds from Sale of Assets (-$114K)

This variance continues to be primarily attributable to timing differences in relation to plant acquisitions and changeovers, as evidenced by the current variance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure activity.   

 

Transfers from Restricted Assets (-$536K)     

Due to the nature of this activity, the annual budget is spread evenly (my month) across the financial year. The majority of transfers made so far this financial year relate to the return of bond monies, rather than equity transfers toward capital projects. As funded projects are completed, transfers from Restricted Assets will increase.       

 

 

§  Capital Expenditure

 

As at 28 February 2015, there is a variance of -22.7% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Land & Buildings

-32%

-$1,539

Plant and Equipment

-25%

-$631

Furniture and Office Equipment

-32%

-$115

Infrastructure

-59%

-$9,104

Advances to Community Groups

-100%

-$30

Transfers to Restricted Assets

+95%

+$656

 

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 Office Equipment

§   Infrastructure

 

A summary of the remaining variances is provided as follows:

 

Advances to Community Groups (-$30K)

This matter relates to the drawdown of the budgeted self-supporting loan of $30K in favour of the Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club; to carry out repairs to the Bovell Park football clubrooms. The Club will be seeking the drawdown of this facility in the near future.        

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets (+$656K)

The favourable variance is due to the receipt of developer contributions totalling approximately $1,103K, along with bond and deposit receipts totalling approximately $244K. It should be noted however that due to the nature of associated transactions, performance in this category has no direct impact on the City’s net current position.  

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

In considering the October 2014 Financial Activity Statements, the Council determined (C1412/338) to quarantine a number of windfall revenues and identified savings to the Infrastructure Development Reserve; summarised as follows:

 

Description

Amount

$

September 2013 Storm Damage Claim Reimbursement

99,092

Insurance Scheme Surplus Distribution

50,336

Loan Repayments – Civic and Administration Centre

83,919

TOTAL

233,347

 

CONCLUSION

 

The City’s financial performance to the end of February 2015 is considered satisfactory. Collective operating revenue reflects a nominal adverse variance -0.4% (or -$204K) on a year to date basis. Whilst impacted by timing differences in several categories (primarily non-operating grants, subsidies and contributions), rates revenue and fees and charges revenue are currently exceeding year to date budget estimates by approximately $870K. The Fees and Charges revenue does however include approximately $300K in additional waste related fees and charges, which will be quarantined at financial year end. There is presently nothing to indicate that the overall annual operating revenue budget will not be achieved by 30 June 2015.

 

Whilst collective operating expenditure continues to fall short of year to date budget estimates (-$1,258K), this figure is understated by depreciation expense, which is presently $1,322K in excess of year to date budget estimates. The majority of the current budget shortfall sits within the Materials and Contracts category (-$2,471K), and is currently due to a range of timing differences. A further critical review of performance in this area will however be undertaken as part of the impending Annual Budget Review.

 

From a capital perspective, capital revenue is generally tracking in line with year to date budget estimates, with Proceeds from the Sale of Assets being the principal area of difference. However, this is primarily as a result of timing differences associated with the Plant and Equipment replacement program, and should be resolved by financial year end. Conversely, overall capital expenditure is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates by approximately $10.7M, with the major contributor being Infrastructure expenditure (-$9.1M). However, as detailed in the December 2014 Financial Activity Statement Report, it has been projected that the majority of budgeted infrastructure expenditure will be incurred by financial year end.

 

Further clarification of potential (material) end of financial year variances will be identified and reported as part of the Annual Budget Review process, which will be completed based on the City’s financial performance to the end of March 2015.  

 

OPTIONS

 

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

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

COUNCIL DECISION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/093              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 28 February 2015, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      15                                                                      22 April 2015

10.2           Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – FEBRUARY 2015

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:

Manager, Finance and Information Technology - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   List of Payments Made - February 2015  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 2 April 2015, 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 February 2015, 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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/094              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council notes the payment of voucher numbers M110705 - M110851, EF038680 – EF039199, T007122 - T007128, and DD002387 - DD002409, together  totalling $14,612,639.08.

 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      17                                                                      22 April 2015

10.4           Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT - BASIS OF RATING - PRESCRIBED AREAS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Rating Operations

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Rates

REPORTING OFFICER:

Rates Coordinator - David Whitfield

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Locke Estate - Plan A

Attachment b    Vasse Townsite - Plan B

Attachment c    Yalyalup (Provence) - Plan C

Attachment d   Country Farm Estate - Plan D

Attachment e    Dunsborough Lakes - Plan E  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 2 April 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Each year Council reviews and updates the basis of rating for new subdivisions and/or developments within the City’s boundaries. This process identifies and ensures that the most appropriate valuation base e.g. Unimproved Valuations or Gross Rental Valuations is applied to ensure all properties are being rated on a “like for like” basis.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

For the purposes of rating a local government is required to use as its basis for rates either Unimproved Valuations (rural areas) or Gross Rental valuations (urban areas). Each of these types of valuations is designed to allow the effective comparison of ‘like’ properties for the purposes of levying annual rates and charges.

 

Developments considered for amendment in recent years have included the Provence Estate (Yalyalup), the Dawson Estate (Vasse), Old Broadwater Farm (Broadwater) and other smaller developments.

 

Developments included for consideration this year include further developments at Provence (Yalyalup), commercial development at the Vasse Town site, subdivisions at the Country Farm and Dunsborough Lakes Estates plus the inclusion of the campsite reserve known as the Locke Estate. These developments are details in the attached maps marked A, B, C, D & E.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

In accordance with Section 6.28 of the Local Government Act the Minister is to determine the method of valuation to be used by the local government as a basis for a rate. The Minister is to have regard to the general principle that the basis for a rate on any land is:

 

Where the land is used predominantly for rural purposes, the unimproved value of the land; and

Where the land is used predominantly for non-rural purposes, the gross rental value of the land.

 

Should the Council resolve to amend the basis of rating of the new developments as detailed in this report a request will be forwarded to the Minister for subsequent approval and gazettal.

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

This proposal is consistent with Council’s Rating Policy (236) which states, inter alia, that land used predominantly for non-rural purposes is to be rated on the basis of a gross rental valuation.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Subject to the Ministers approval, the proposed change in the method of valuation would bring the subject properties into the appropriate differential rating categories. Whilst most new vacant lots will attract a similar minimum rate once development occurs on the new lots amended rates will be levied on the basis of each development.

 

In terms of the 2014/2015 adopted budget a residential rate levy on a vacant property would typical be levied at a minimum rate of $1010 whilst the rates on an average improved residential property currently equate to $1435 representing an average increase of $425 per new residence.

 

Further and whilst valuations are not available for the new commercial centre proposed for the Vasse town site it is estimated that the rates could be conservatively estimated to be in excess of $30,000 per annum once fully developed.

 

Should Council, or subsequently the Minister, resolve to not support this proposal the additional revenue would be lost.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

By not implementing the proposed amendment to the basis of rating boundary the City will forgo an increase in revenue estimated at $100,000 or more per annum once these areas are fully developed. In addition the continuation of rural rating on these properties would create an inequitable rating situation within the rating property data-base in comparison to other residential/commercial areas within the City.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Local Government Departmental guidelines require that that when considering a change in the basis of rating that a local government consults with the ratepayers of the properties within the affected area, advising of the proposal, any financial impact and of the objection procedures that should be followed should a ratepayer wish to do so.

 

As each subdivision/development was reviewed for amendment to a gross rental valuation basis correspondence was issued to the applicable property owners seeking comments on the proposal. This process occurred over a period of several weeks throughout February 2015.

 

No submissions have been received with respect of the proposed amendments.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As discussed in this report, the identified properties within the new developments/subdivisions are principally zoned for the purposes of ‘urban’ developments. Currently the lots continue to be rated on the basis of ‘Unimproved Valuations’, which is no longer appropriate.

 

Likewise the levying of rates on the proposed Gross Rental Valuation Basis from 1 July 2015 will ensure that such developments are rated at the appropriate level at the time of completion rather than that of a future date where the projected increase in rates may no longer be anticipated by the owner.

 

Should these developments remain rated on an Unimproved Valuation basis the Council with forego rating revenue anticipated from both interim rating and future annual budgets that would normally occur if the properties were rated on a Gross Rental Valuation basis.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The identified areas are predominantly used for, or being developed as, residential, commercial and recreational uses. In terms of the Local Government Act and Councils rating policy these properties should be rated on a Gross Rental Valuation basis.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine not to seek subsequent Ministerial approval for an amendment in the basis of rating for the identified properties. These properties could remain on an unimproved valuation basis however this would allow for an anomaly within Councils rating to develop and create what could be considered to be an unequitable rating situation within the City.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Following Councils endorsement a submission will be made to the Department of Local Government seeking the Ministers approval for adoption of Gross Rental Valuations effective from the 1st July 2015.

 

COUNCIL DECSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/095              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Seek Ministerial approval to have the method of valuation for the properties identified in the table shown below and as depicted in Attachments A, B, C, D & E amended to a Gross Rental Valuation basis effective from 1 July 2015.

 

Property ID

Lot #

Plan Diagram

St #

Street Name

Depicted on Plan

Various

5303

220583

110-236

Caves Road

Plan A

100050053

9541

404730

0

Bussell Highway

Plan B

100050053

552

404730

0

Bussell Highway

Plan B

100044969

9005

57391

0

Bussell Highway

Plan B

100010229

2

84485

0

Bussell Highway

Plan B

100046069

9021

62834

45

Cable Sands Road

Plan C

100049922

501

402928

31

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049923

502

402928

37

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049924

503

402928

41

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049925

504

402928

47

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049926

505

402928

51

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049927

506

402928

53

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049928

507

402928

52

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049929

508

402928

48

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049930

509

402928

44

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049931

510

402928

38

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049932

511

402928

30

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049933

512

402928

26

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049934

513

402928

18

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049919

2000

402928

0

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049920

2001

402928

0

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049921

2002

402928

0

Drovers Court

Plan D

100049800

1182

402977

1

Bonnie Close

Plan E

100049801

1183

402977

3

Bonnie Close

Plan E

100049802

1184

402977

5

Bonnie Close

Plan E

100049803

1185

402977

7

Bonnie Close

Plan E

100049804

1186

402977

9

Bonnie Close

Plan E

100049805

1187

402977

11

Bonnie Close

Plan E

100049806

1191

402977

13

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049807

1192

402977

11

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049808

1193

402977

9

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049809

1194

402977

7

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049810

1195

402977

5

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049811

1196

402977

3

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049812

1197

402977

208

Dunsborough Lakes Drive

Plan E

100049813

1198

402977

206

Dunsborough Lakes Drive

Plan E

100049814

1199

402977

204

Dunsborough Lakes Drive

Plan E

100049815

1200

402977

202

Dunsborough Lakes Drive

Plan E

100049816

1201

402977

200

Dunsborough Lakes Drive

Plan E

100049817

1202

402977

33

Prestwick Road

Plan E

100049818

1203

402977

31

Prestwick Road

Plan E

100049819

1204

402977

29

Prestwick Road

Plan E

100049820

1205

402977

27

Prestwick Road

Plan E

100049821

1206

402977

25

Prestwick Road

Plan E

100049822

1207

402977

23

Prestwick Road

Plan E

100049823

1208

402977

21

Prestwick Road

Plan E

100049824

9501

402977

0

Dunsborough Lakes Drive

Plan E

100049826

1209

402978

2

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049827

1210

402978

4

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049828

1211

402978

6

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049829

1212

402978

8

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049830

1213

402978

10

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049831

1214

402978

12

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049832

1215

402978

14

Muirfield Road

Plan E

100049224

9048

400182

0

Dunsborough Lakes Drive

Plan E

 

 CARRIED 8/0

                                                                                                                                                                                En Bloc


Council                                                                                      23                                                                      22 April 2015

14.3           BUSSELTON FOOTBALL AND SPORTSMANS CLUB LICENCE AGREEMENT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Agreements/Contracts

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Property and Compliance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Coordinator - Ann Strang

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed License Area  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club Inc. (“the BFSC”) lease clubrooms and a gymnasium located on a part of Lot 20, Vasse Highway, Bovell.  The BFSC holds a Club Restricted Licence under the Liquor Control Act 1998 covering the clubrooms and associated under cover area. 

 

The BFSC are seeking to extend their Club Restricted Licence to cover the area between the clubrooms and the main oval fence and a small section of the bitumen area to the North of the clubrooms.  These areas are not currently included in their existing lease.  The BFSC needs some form of tenure in order to obtain a liquor licence from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (“the DRGL”). The purpose of this report is to recommend Council enter into a non-exclusive use (licence) agreement with the BFSC for the use of these additional areas in order to meet this requirement. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The BFSC have a lease of the clubrooms and the gymnasium.  The change rooms attached to the gymnasium are managed by the City. The BFSC constructed the clubrooms and have been in occupation of the clubrooms for many years.  Upon expiry of their previous lease in 2007, Council resolved to enter into a new lease agreement for a term of 10 years expiring on 30 June 2017, with a further 10 year option expiring on the 20 June 2027.

 

The clubrooms consist of a large function area, bar and kitchen facilities.  The BFSC currently hold a Club Restricted Licence issued under the Liquor Control Act 1988 for the clubrooms and the undercover area.  The BFSC have reported difficulties in managing the movement of patrons outside of the licenced area, with people often moving down toward the fence with their drink during game days.  As this is in contravention of their liquor licence the BFSC is seeking an appropriate way to manage this.  Additionally, the BFSC would like to extend seating down towards the fence line on the northern side of the building and seek to include this area under their Club Restricted Licence.

 

To effect both, the BFSC is proposing to make an application to the DRGL to extend their liquor licence to the areas as shown hatched in red on Attachment A.  The BFSC needs some form of tenure over these additional areas in order to obtain a liquor licence over from the DRGL.  As they are not included in their existing lease they are seeking agreement from the City to formalise their use of the areas.  Officers are recommending this be done by way of a non-exclusive licence agreement, as discussed further in the Officer Comment. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

             NIL

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NIL

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

It is proposed that the licence agreement for the additional area is provided in conjunction with the existing lease and that no additional fee is charged for the use of the licenced area.  This is similar to the arrangement in place where other community and sporting groups have both exclusive and non-exclusive agreements associated with adjoining parcels of land.

 

A condition would be included in the licence agreement stating that the BFSC is responsible for maintaining the area relative to their use for the term of the agreement.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

NIL

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The provision of a licence to the BFSC for the identified area is consistent with the following City of Busselton Strategic Key Goal Area and Community Objective:

 

Key Goal Area 2 - Well planned, vibrant and active places:

            

2.1          A city where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, and leisure facilities and services

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no identified risks of a medium or high level associated with the officer recommendation.  As the land owner the City does need to ensure the licenced area is appropriately managed however the officer recommendation does not create any significant additional risk to the City in this regard.    

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has been held with the BFSC regarding the proposal to provide them with non-exclusive use of the areas and the BFSC have indicated that they would be happy to proceed on this basis.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The area between the clubrooms and the main oval fence has not previously been included in the existing leased area, due to the need for it to be accessible by members of the public other than members of the BFSC.   It is therefore not appropriate for one user to have exclusive use of this area. The City could however enter into a licence agreement with the BFSC for this area, granting them a non-exclusive use right. The BFSC could then delineate the designated liquor licensed area during game days and special events. 

 

Additionally the BFSC would like to tidy up the entrance foyer and garden beds to the northern side of the building (which form part of their leased area), and on game days extend seating from here down towards the fence line.  The BFSC is also seeking to include this extended seating area, which is not part of their existing lease, into their liquor licence application.  As this area is utilised by other users outside of the football season, entering into a licence agreement is also the preferred approach to enable this.

It is proposed that the licence agreement detail obligations for the BFSC in relation to the cleaning and maintaining of the licenced areas during and / or after their use and that  the term be the same as that of the lease agreement dated 22 December2014 between the City and the BFSC. 

 

Whilst it is not guaranteed that the BFSC will be issued approval from the DRGL, the BFSC and the City would benefit from having a formalised arrangement in place for the utilisation of these areas.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In order for the BFSC to apply for an extension to their Club Restricted Licence over the area between the clubrooms and the main oval fence and a small section of the bitumen area to the North of the clubrooms they must have some form of tenure over the areas to the DRGL.  In order to support the BFSC’s application, given the nature and use of these areas, it is recommended that Council enter into a non-exclusive use (licence) agreement with the BFSC.  It is recommended that the licence agreement is provided in conjunction with and for the same term of their existing lease agreement and that no additional fee be charged for the use of the licenced area. 

 

OPTIONS

 

1.    Council can resolve not to enter into a licence agreement with the BFSC.

 

2.    Council can resolve to enter into a different term of licence with the BFSC.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

A licence agreement would be forwarded to the BFSC by 30 April 2015. It is anticipated that signing of the licence agreement would be on or before the 30 May 2015.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/096              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the Council:

 

Enter into a licence agreement with the Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club Inc for the non-exclusive use of portions of Lot 20 Diagram 47439, Volume 1390 Folio 368, Vasse Highway, Bovell as indicated in Attachment A for the same term as the lease dated 22 December 2014 between the City of Busselton and the Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club Inc.

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

  


Council                                                                                      25                                                                      22 April 2015

15.             Chief Executive Officer's Report

15.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Councillors' Information

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision-making.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Executive Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Executive Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Reporting Officers - Various .

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Planning Applications Received Between 16 and 31 March, 2014

Attachment b    Planning Applications Determined Between 16 and 31 March, 2015

Attachment c    State Administrative Tribunal Applications for Review as at 31 March, 2015

Attachment d   Summary of Actions Relating to the Management and Control of Dogs  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides an overview of a range of information that is considered appropriate to be formally presented to the Council for its receipt and noting.  The information is provided in order to ensure that each Councillor, and the Council, is being kept fully informed, while also acknowledging that these are matters that will also be of interest to the community.

 

Any matter that is raised in this report as a result of incoming correspondence is to be dealt with as normal business correspondence, but is presented in this bulletin for the information of the Council and the community.

 

 

INFORMATION BULLETIN

15.1.1    Planning & Development Services Statistics

 

Planning Applications

 

Attachment A is a report detailing all Planning Applications received by the City between 16 and 31 March, 2015.  Fifty four formal applications were received during this period.

 

Attachment B is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 16 and 31 March, 2015.  A total of seventeen applications (including subdivision referrals) were determined by the City during this period with all approved / supported.

15.1.2    State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals

 

Attachment C is a list showing the current status of State Administrative Tribunal Appeals involving the City of Busselton as at 31 March, 2015.

15.1.3    Dog Management and Control

 

Attachment D is a summary of Ranger and Emergency Services staff actions relating to the management and control of dogs in the community for the term 1 January, 2015 to 31 March, 2015.

 

During the term fifty seven (57) dogs were impounded of which thirty eight (38) dogs (66%) were reunited with their owner. A further 14 dogs were successfully rehomed through the community volunteer animal rescue groups Saving Animals from Euthanasia (SAFE) and K9 Rescue Group South West.

 

As of the last date in the reporting period, there were three (3) dogs in the animal care facility waiting to be claimed.  Also during this term, two (2) dogs that could not be rehomed were euthanized.

 

During this term there were no prosecutions instigated for dog attacks.

15.1.4    Bushfire Risk Management Planning

 

Correspondence has been received from Wayne Gregson, Commissioner, Department of Fire and Emergency Services:

 

Further to previous updates provided by the Department of Fire Emergency Services (DFES), I am writing to provide you with an update on the progress of the Bushfire Risk Management Planning (BRMP) program, with a particular focus on the next phase of implementation.

 

Previously DFES advised that the BRMP rollout to local government would not commence as had been planned in the first half of 2014/15. Recently, the Government announced some additional funding to support the resourcing of high-risk and low-capacity local governments with DFES regions supporting in the development of their BRMPs.

 

Based on an assessment of bushfire risk and capacity, the City of Busselton has not been identified as a priority local government in the first phase of implementation. However, your Shire will benefit from sharing personnel with a priority local government identified in your region. Once our own resourcing has been arranged we will be in contact to discuss your participation and the arrangements for the sharing of personnel, should your Shire be interested in participating in the BRMP rollout.

 

The BRMP Guidelines, handbook and training package and the DFES software support system are being finalised to coincide with the commencement of the new personnel. Importantly, these BRMP tools and training will be available to any local government wanting to produce their own BRMP.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/097              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor J McCallum

 

That the items from the Councillors’ Information Bulletin be noted:

·    15.1.1              Planning & Development Services Statistics

·    15.1.2              State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals

·    15.1.3              Dog Management and Control

·    15.1.4              Bushfire Risk Management Planning

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

  

 


 

ITEMS CONSIDERED BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION

 

At this juncture, in accordance with Clause 5.6 (3)(a) & (b) of the Standing Orders, those items requiring an Absolute Majority or in which Councillors had declared Financial, Proximity or Impartiality Interests were considered.

 

10.3           Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - MEELUP REGIONAL PARK 2014-15 BUDGET AMENDMENT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Environmental Management Plans, Impacts Studies and Reports

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Our natural environment is cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of the community and visitors.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Environmental Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Environmental Services  - Greg Simpson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 2 April 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The City has been successful in securing three (3) grants totaling $76,600, comprising a Coastwest Grant of $28,600 for the purpose of on-ground works, a Western Australian NRM Program grant of $23,000 for remediation and re-vegetation within management zone 6 and a National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) grant of $25,000 to assist the establishment of a whale viewing platform in Meelup Regional Park. This report recommends that Council amends the Meelup 2014/2015 Budget to receive these grant funds as revenue and to allocate corresponding expenditure for the works associated with these grants.

 

This report also recommends a review of the provision of $20,000 to Cape Mountain Bikers Inc under the 2013/14 Community Bids programme for the construction of mountain bike trails in Meelup Regional Park management zone 6, to enable the Cape Mountain Bikers Inc to use these funds to secure environmental and other approvals and to undertake detailed design towards the establishment of a mountain bike trail network in Meelup Regional Park zone 6.

 

BACKGROUND

 

In December 2013, Council endorsed (resolution C1312/324) a Coastal Nodes Master Plan as an informing strategy for Meelup Regional Park to conserve and improve the environment, protect visual amenity and to provide coastal facilities as appropriate for visitors to Meelup Regional Park. The Coastwest grant offer of $28,600, is for the purpose of implementing some of the works identified in the Coastal Nodes Master Plan to manage the impact of visitor use on the Meelup coastline. 

 

The concept for establishing a whale viewing platform at Point Picquet is also identified within the Coastal Nodes Master Plan. Following advice that the City has been listed as having suitable sites and eligible for funding under the Federal Governments National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan), an application to the National Landcare Programme resulting in the City receiving an offer of $25,000 towards the establishment of a whale viewing platform.

 

In May 2014, zone 6 Rehabilitation Plan (2014) was prepared for Meelup Regional Park to provide a detailed management framework for the rehabilitation of this area of the Park. Management zone 6 has a history of disturbance as a result of its past use for waste disposal and for gravel extraction, and is characterized by significant weed infestation and degraded native vegetation, amongst remnant and naturally regenerating native vegetation.

 

The City has been successful in securing funding of $23,000 from the State NRM Office, under the Western Australian NRM Program for the purpose of delivering some of the on-ground rehabilitation activities identified in the zone 6 Rehabilitation Plan (2014) including fencing, revegetation, feral animal control and weed control to help protect and restore these areas as much as possible to its original condition.

 

In August 2013 Council endorsed (resolution C1308/208) the provision of $20,000 funding under the 2013/14 Community Bids programme to the Cape Mountain Bikers for the construction of mountain bike trails within management zone 6 Meelup Regional Park. The conditions imposed on this grant are as follows:

 

Funding subject to the Busselton Local Government Property Local Law determination to permit mountain bike riding within Meelup Regional Park. This will be subject to an agreed management plan which will include maintenance obligations of the proposed trails.

 

The implication of this condition is that any future Council determination to permit the riding of  bikes in Meelup Regional Park is expected to be specific to certain areas and to certain trails rather than more broadly across the whole of the Meelup Regional Park. Until such time as a mountain bike trail network is identified and approvals granted by the relevant government agencies and stakeholders, Cape Mountain Bikers Inc are unable to access the 2013/14 Community Bids programme grant funds to commence construction of the trails.

 

In January 2014 Council resolved ( resolution C1401/013) to support in principle the establishment of a mountain bike trail network within Meelup Regional Park management zone 6, with the approach to the management of the network amongst other requirements, being that a working group is formed to complete detailed design, implementation plans and costing for the development of the first stage of a mountain bike trail network , including the ongoing maintenance and management of the network, identify and secure funding, secure necessary environmental approvals, and brief, inform or consult the Meelup Regional Park Management  Committee and Council regarding the outcomes of that work before the commencement of on ground works.

 

The January 2014 Council resolution, also requires that once City officers have formed a view that the Working Group has or is likely to be in a position to commence on ground works, the CEO shall commence the process of making a determination, including advertising for community consultation, to allow bicycle riding by the general public on the network once developed.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund not included in the annual budget.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Meelup Regional Park is managed by the City of Busselton in accordance with the Meelup Regional Park Management Plan (2010); approved by both the Council and the Minister for Lands.

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Plan (2010) does not specifically address coastal management. To address this anomaly the Meelup Regional Park Coastal Nodes Master Plan was developed and endorsed by Council as an informing strategy to guide the sensitive development of the Meelup Regional Park coastal nodes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City has received a total of  $76,600 in grant funding consisting of a Coastwest Grant of $28,600, a National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) grant of $25,000 and a Western Australian NRM Program grant of $23,000.

 

The Coastwest Grant offer to the City is $28,600 of which part of this grant $25,740, will be received prior to June 30 2015 (2014/15 Budget).  The balance $2,860, will be received during the 2015/16 financial year.

 

This report proposes to amend the 2014/15 Budget to receive $25,740 of the Coastwest grant as revenue and to allocate corresponding expenditure amount of $25,740, to carry out the works required by the  grant in the current financial year.  The balance of the Coastwest grant $2,860, will be received in November 2015 and a submission will be included in the 2015/16 Draft Budget to receive the $2,860 as revenue and to allocate equivalent expenditure to complete the Coast west project.

 

The National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) grant of $25,000 for the construction of a Whale viewing platform will also be received as revenue prior to June 30 2015, however, construction of the platform will not occur until late 2015. It is recommended that Council amend the 2014/15 Budget to receive the $25,000 National Landcare grant as revenue. These funds when received will be held in a Restricted Asset Account and carried forward to the 2015/16 Draft Budget, for construction of the Whale viewing platform around October /November 2015.

 

The Western Australian NRM Grant funding offer to the City of $23,000 is to assist the delivery of  on-ground rehabilitation activities within Meelup Regional Park zone 6 and this grant will also be received as revenue prior to June 30 2015. The zone 6 rehabilitation works have been  programmed for the 2015/16 financial year therefore it is recommended that Council amend the 2014/15 Budget to receive the $23,000 NRM Grant as revenue and that the $23,000 grant also be held in a  Restricted Asset Account and carried forward to the 2015/16 Draft Budget.

 

In order to maintain the integrity of Council’s financial reporting, this report recommends an amendment to Council’s 2014/2015 budget to include the operating and capital grant funding as revenue and corresponding expenditure as follows:

 

Description

Account String

2014/2015

Adopted Budget

2014/2015

Amended Budget (Proposed)

2014/2015

Variance

Revenue

 

Operating Grants & Subsidies – Other 

425-11170-1239-0000

(23,000)

(96,740)

(73,740)

Expenditure

 

Recreation Reserves Maintenance

425-11170-3186-0000

63,000

83,740

20,740

Consultancy

425-11170-3260- 0000

97,000

102,000

5,000

Net Exp/Rev

 

137,000

89,000

(48,000)

 

Following the January 2014 decision of Council to support in principle the establishment of a mountain bike trail network in Meelup Regional Park, a working group formed and this group have been working towards the delivery of a detailed design, implementation plans and costings for the development of the first stage of a mountain bike trail network and to secure funding and the necessary environmental approvals for the trail network.

 

Since January 2014, the working group have progressed the identification and mapping of mountain bike trail alignment and Cape Mountain Bikers Inc have been successful in securing Lottery west funding which is restricted solely for the purpose of trail construction. A further detailed report to outline the progress of the working group will be presented to Council in May 2015.

 

 This report recommends that Council supports the working group by extending the purpose of the grant funds ($20,000) allocated to the Cape Mountain Bikers Inc under Councils 2013/14 Community Bids programme to include preparation of detailed design, implementation plans and costings for the development of the first stage of a mountain bike trail network and for securing the necessary environmental approvals for the trail network.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The works to be funded by Grant allocation are considered as relating to Key Goal Area 5 – Cared for and Enhanced Environment and Community Objective 5.1 - Our natural environment is cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of the community and visitors.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implication of not implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment sought to identify ‘downside’ risks only rather than ‘upside’ risks and where the risk following implementation of controls has been identified is moderate or greater. No such risks were identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) grant of $25,000 provides for the construction of a Whale viewing platform. The Coastal Nodes Master Plan indicates that the feasibility of a whale view platform is to be investigated in consultation with Dunsborough Coast and Landcare group (D-CALC). This requirement has resulted in the formation of a small working group to progress a design for the whale viewing platform and this design will be presented to Council for endorsement in May 2015. The Whale viewing platform working group comprises:

·    One City Officer and Meelup Environment Officer

·    One Dunsborough Coast and Landcare  Group) representative

·    Two Meelup Regional Park Management Committee representatives

As required by the January 2014 Council decision, a Meelup Mountain Bike Trails Working Group formed and have met regularly throughout 2014 to progress the establishment of a mountain bike trail network within Meelup Regional Park management zone 6. The Working Group consist of the Meelup Regional Park Environment Officer, a City Officer and a nominee of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee all representing the City of Busselton, two representatives from Cape Mountain Bikers Incorporated, and a representative from the Dunsborough and Districts Country Club Inc, who incidentally has not been able to attend meetings on a regular basis but is kept informed of the working groups progress.

 

The Cape Mountain Bikers Inc representatives on the working group are keen to progress the development of the mountain bike trail network within Meelup Regional Park and to seek funding for the preparation of detailed design, implementation plans and costing for the development of the first stage of a mountain bike trail network and for securing the necessary environmental approvals for the trail network.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Coastwest Grant of $28,600, National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) grant of $25,000 and a Western Australian NRM Program grant of $23,000, all provide additional funding to compliment programmed works within Meelup Regional Park.

 

The purpose of the Coastwest grant of $28,600 is to help reduce the impacts associated with heavy visitor use, especially in peak periods, in Meelup Regional Park and will focus on three popular sites (Gannet Rock, Point Picquet and Baudin) and towards minimization of  litter along the Meelup coastline. This project has both a significant on-ground (weed control, re-vegetation, brushing, and access control measures) as well as education/awareness raising (signage, publications and beach clean-up) components and significant community volunteer involvement.

 

The purpose of the NRM Programme grant  $23,000 is to assist the rehabilitation of selected priority areas identified in the zone 6  Rehabilitation Plan (2014), recently completed to guide and prioritise rehabilitation of the area. This grant will help protect and restore these areas as much as possible to original condition in conjunction with the establishment of a mountain bike trail network.

 

The National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) grant of $25,000 is proposed to fund the construction of a low key aesthetically pleasing whale viewing platform at Point Picquet.  It is proposed that Council accept the National Landcare Programme grant with a further report to be presented to Council May 2015 on the design of the whale viewing platform.

 

The mountain bike trail working group have progressed an initial survey of zone 6 to identify and map the proposed mountain bike trail alignments and have been successful in securing Lottery west funding which is restricted solely for the purpose of trail construction. The next stage of the development of mountain bike trail network within zone 6 will require the preparation of the various applications for submission and consultation with the relevant government agencies and for the preparation of trail design.

 

The funding provided to Cape Mountain Bikers under Council’s 2013/14 Community Bid funding programme is for the purpose of constructing mountain bike trails in zone 6, and subject to a City of Busselton Local Government Property Local Law determination and preparation of a management plan. As a result, Cape Mountain Bikers Inc will not be eligible to receive the 2013/14 Community Bid funding until the mountain bike trail development reaches a stage where the design has been finalised with all necessary approval and Council determination on bike riding are in place. The proposed Officer Recommendation to amend the purpose of Council’s 2013/14 Community Bid funding if supported by Council will assist the further development of the mountain bike trail network.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Coastwest, National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) and Western Australian NRM Program funding totalling $76,600 that has been offered to the City will provide additional resource for the implementation of improvements within Meelup Regional Park and it is recommended that Council’s 2014/2015 budget be amended to reflect this grant revenue and corresponding expenditure.

 

The realignment of the 2013/14 Community Bid funding allocated to the Cape Mountain Bikers will  assist the process of designing a mountain bike trail network and securing the necessary approvals to enable construction of the mountain bike trail network within Meelup Regional Park.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine to not endorse the proposed amendment to the 2014/2015 budget and proposed realignment of the 2013/14 Community Bid funding allocated to the Cape Mountain Bikers.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the Officer Recommendation be endorsed by Council, an amendment to the 2014/2015 adopted budget will be processed by the 30 April 2015. Realignment of the 2013/14 Community Bid funding will be implemented prior to 30 April 2015.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

That the Council:

 

1.    Accepts the Coastwest, National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) and Western Australian NRM Program funding and endorses an amendment to the 2014/2015 adopted budget on the following basis:

 

Description

Account String

2014/2015

Adopted Budget

2014/2015

Amended Budget (Proposed)

2014/2015

Variance

Revenue

 

Operating Grants & Subsidies – Other 

425-11170-1239-0000

(23,000)

(96,740)

(73,740)

Expenditure

 

Recreation Reserves Maintenance

425-11170-3186-0000

63,000

83,740

20,740

Consultancy

425-11170-3260- 0000

97,000

102,000

5,000

Net Exp/Rev

 

137,000

89,000

(48,000)

 

2.    Amends the conditions of the 2013/14 Community Bids programme funding of $20,000 to the Cape Mountain Bikers for the purpose of preparing the various applications for submission and consultation with the relevant government agencies, to obtain the necessary approvals and for the preparation of trail design and management plans for the mountain bike trail network in Meelup Regional Park management zone 6.

 

Note:                 During the meeting, an error was identified in the table of the Officer Recommendation. The error has been corrected with the addition of a line - Restricted Asset Account  showing the  variance of “0”.

 

Officers also put forward an alternative recommendation for part 2  for the Committee to consider in order for City officers to expeditiously ensure further progress on obtaining relevant environmental approvals associated with the mountain bike trials project.

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND REVISED OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/098              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

That the Council:

 

1.    Accepts the Coastwest, National Landcare Programme (Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan) and Western Australian NRM Program funding and endorses an amendment to the 2014/2015 adopted budget on the following basis:

 

Description

 

Account String

2014/2015

Adopted Budget

2014/2015

Amended Budget (Proposed)

2014/2015

Variance

Revenue

 

Operating Grants & Subsidies – Other 

425-11170-1239-0000

(23,000)

(96,740)

(73,740)

Expenditure

 

Recreation Reserves Maintenance

425-11170-3186-0000

63,000

83,740

20,740

Consultancy

425-11170-3260- 0000

97,000

102,000

5,000

Restricted Asset Account.

 

0

48,000

48,000

Net Exp/Rev

 

137,000

137,000

0

 

2.    Revokes the 2013/14 Community Bids programme funding provision of $20,000 to the Cape Mountain Bikers for the purpose of constructing mountain bike trails in zone 6 and reallocates these funds for the purpose of preparing the various applications for submission and consultation with the relevant government agencies, to obtain the necessary approvals and for the preparation of trail design and management plans for the mountain bike trail network in Meelup Regional Park management zone 6 and endorses an amendment to the 2014/2015 adopted budget on the following basis:

 

Description

Account String

2014/2015

Adopted Budget

2014/2015

Amended Budget (Proposed)

2014/2015

Variance

Expenditure

 

Community Services Administration

Donations Contributions and Subsidies – Cape Mountain Bikers

330-10530-3640-0000

546,553

526,553

(20,000)

Meelup

Consultancy

425-11170-3260- 0000

102,000

122,000

20,000

Net Exp/Rev

 

 

 

0

              CARRIED 8/0

                    by absolute majority


Council                                                                                      35                                                                      22 April 2015

10.5           Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - BUSSELTON FOOTBALL AND SPORTSMAN’S CLUB INC. – REPAIRS AND ANCILLARY WORKS TO BOVELL PARK CLUBROOM FACILITY 

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance

REPORTING OFFICER:

Financial Accountant - Ehab Gowegati

Property Coordinator - Ann Strang

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 2 April 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

At its meeting of 26 March 2014, the Council approved (C01403/071) a self-supporting loan of $30K in favour of the Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club Inc. (the ‘Club’), to undertake roof replacement and ancillary renovations and improvements to the Sir Stewart Bovell Park clubroom facility (the ‘clubroom’), which is leased by the Club.

 

The loan facility was not drawn during 2013/14, and was subsequently incorporated within the Council’s 2014/15 adopted budget. However, the insurance settlement monies remain in the Restricted Assets account which requires transferring to municipal funds prior to distribution to the Club.

 

With roof replacement and supplementary works proposed to commence imminently, this report seeks the Council’s approval to transfer the insurance monies to the Club.            

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

During June 2012, and again in November 2012, the clubroom roof sustained damage as a result of severe storms. As part of the subsequent insurance claim process, several structural engineers were contracted to inspect and report on the roof damage. The engineers’ reports all concluded that the roof required full replacement in the short term, albeit remedial works were required immediately. The remedial works were undertaken by the Club as required, to the satisfaction of City engaged engineers.

 

Based on a quotation to replace the roof structure ($49.5K exc. GST) and in consideration of several other factors, the City’s insurer settled an insurance claim in October 2013, in the amount of $24,773 (actual); representing 50% of the GST exclusive value of the repair quotation. Upon receipt these funds were quarantined (to restricted assets) for the purpose of contributing to the required roof replacement costs.

 

Based on the roof repair quotation ($49.5K), and deducting the insurance settlement monies ($24.8K), a funding shortfall of $24.7K remained. The Club’s application for a self-supporting loan of $30K was initially to cover the roof repair shortfall, whilst also providing approximately $5.3K to carry out other minor repair works to the clubroom.  However, subject to obtaining alternative quotations to undertake the roof replacement, a higher level of funding towards renovations and improvements became available. The Club’s proposed expenditure model is discussed in the Officer Comment section of this report. 

Notwithstanding the above, a condition of the Council’s approval of the self-supporting loan facility was that loan funds would be made available to fund roof replacement works in the first instance, with any balance of loan funding being provided only upon confirmation that the roof replacement works have been completed to the City’s satisfaction.  

 

The Club is fully aware of this stipulation, and the proposed scope of works reflects this requirement. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act, a local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose, except under certain circumstances. In respect of the subject of this report, the expenditure must be authorised in advance by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Council does not have a policy specifically relating to self-supporting loan facilities; however Council Policy 048 (Loans) is of relevance. The purpose of the proposed borrowing is generally in line with the Policy guidelines as to the nature of activities that could potentially be considered for funding via borrowings. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no net financial implications for the City in relation to this matter. Repayments on the proposed borrowing will be fully reimbursed by the Club. Additionally, the insurance settlement monies were quarantined upon receipt in October 2013, and form part of the City’s restricted funds. These funds will be utilised to refund the Club once the roof replacement has been completed to the City’s satisfaction.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with the following Strategic Community objectives:

 

§  2.1 - A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, and leisure facilities and services, and;

 

§  6.3 - An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. Risks are only identified where the residual risk, once controls have been identified, is classified as ‘medium’ or greater. No such risks have been identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Regular and ongoing consultation has occurred with the Club in the progression of this matter.  

 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

During June 2012, and again in November 2012, the clubroom roof sustained damage as a result of severe storms. Based on a quotation to replace the roof structure ($49.5K exc. GST) and in consideration of several other factors, the City’s insurer settled an insurance claim in October 2013, in the amount of $24,773 (actual); representing 50% of the GST exclusive value of the repair quotation. Upon receipt by the City, these funds were quarantined (to restricted assets) for the purpose of contributing to the required roof replacement costs.

 

Council, at its meeting of 26 March 2014 approved (C01403/071) a self-supporting loan of $30K in favour of the Club to undertake roof replacement and ancillary renovations and improvements to the clubroom.  This was subsequently incorporated within Council’s 2014/15 adopted budget.

 

Prior to the formalisation of the loan facility the Club were required to execute a lease agreement with the City in respect to the clubroom, pursuant to Council Resolution C0905/146.  The lease agreement was finalised on the 22 December 2014. 

 

That loan funds will be made available to fund roof replacement works in the first instance, with any balance of loan funding being provided only upon confirmation that the roof replacement works have been completed to the City's satisfaction.

 

The Club were issued with a building permit on 9 March 2015 for the roof replacement and at the time of writing this report the works had commenced. It is likely that these works are now complete, which would mean the builders and suppliers will be seeking payment as soon as practical. 

 

It is necessary to transfer the insurance settlement monies of $24,773 from Restricted Assets to municipal funds, so that the Club can be reimbursed for such expenses.   It is proposed these funds would be released to the Club, subject to the works being completed to the satisfaction of the City and sufficient evidence of expenditure is supplied for the same.

 

The Club advised that they secured sponsorship of some of the materials for the roof.  This has aided in reducing the overall cost of the roof replacement from the quoted $49,500 to approximately $42,000.  After deducting the insurance settlement monies there is a shortfall of $17,227.  The balance of the cost associated with the roof replacement is to be paid from the self-supporting loan. 

 

As indicated in the Council Report of 26 March 2014, the Club are proposing to utilise the remaining loan funds, approximately $12,500 on improvements.  For example, they have recently invested $3,000 in Point of Sale equipment.  The Club anticipate that this will assist them in managing and controlling their finances in the future.    Additionally the Club have had to refurbish their cool room which has cost in vicinity of $9K.  These works have been necessary so that they can operate the bar during the football season which is fast approaching.  The income generated from the bar is one of the Clubs main sources of funding.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In submitting its borrowing application, the Club was able to demonstrate its financial capacity to service the proposed loan repayments. Additionally, it is important to note that the repairs to the clubroom roof must be attended to. With this in mind, this report recommends that, subject to the Club complying with the conditions set by the Council at which time the self-supporting loan was approved and that the works are completed to the satisfaction of the funds, that the Council supports the transfer of funds from the Restricted Assets as proposed.          

 

 

OPTIONS

 

There are no identified options, as the insurance settlement funds must be applied to the roof replacement.   

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Subject to compliance with conditions of the Council Resolution, the transfer of funds will be implemented within 4 weeks of the date of that Council Resolution.

 

COUNCIL DECISION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/099              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council:

 

1.            supports the transfer of the insurance settlement funds from the Restricted Assets into municipal funds as shown below to be applied to the roof replacement on the Sir Stewart Bovell Park clubroom facility and that the Council’s 2014/15 budget be amended to reflect the associated expenditure and funding source, as follows:   

 

Description

Account Number

2014/15

Adopted

Budget

$

2014/15 Amended Budget

$

Busselton Football Club Exp.

338.B1351.3640.0000

0

24,773

Transfer from Restricted Assets (LGIS Insurance Settlement)

Equity Transfer (Restricted Funds)

0

-24,773

TOTAL

 

0

0

 

2.           Supports the payment of the insurance settlement funds of $24,773 to the Busselton Football Sportsman’s Club Inc., subject to the works being completed to the satisfaction of the City and sufficient evidence of expenditure being supplied to the City by the Club.   

 

CARRIED 8/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 


Council                                                                                      39                                                                      22 April 2015

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

11.2           MANAGEMENT OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES, INCLUDING BEACHES - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT PROPOSALS, FOLLOWING CONSULTATION

SUBJECT INDEX:

Animal Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A Council that engages broadly and proactively with the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Development Services; Environmental Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Rangers and Emergency Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

Manager, Environmental Services  - Greg Simpson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposal for Management of Dogs on Beaches

Attachment b    Governor's Order  

Attachment c    Dogs Consultation Hardcopy Questionnaire

Attachment d   List of Submitters Names

Attachment e    Results Summary

Attachment f    All Responses Provided for Questionnaire

Attachment g   Submissions in Other Forms

Attachment h   Community Sporting Group Submissions

Attachment i     Revised Proposals (with track changes relative to advertised proposals)

Attachment j     Proposed Changes to Beach Designations

Attachment k    Dogs Research  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

Following the completion of consultation, the Council is asked to consider draft proposals related to management of dogs in public places, including beaches. The proposals were adopted for consultation purposes by the Council in late 2014, with the consultation period running from 30 January to 9 March 2015. In total, over 1,200 submissions were received.

 

Some changes to the advertised proposals are recommended by officers, reflecting officer analysis of the issues raised in the submissions. Some of the changes recommended by officers are relatively minor in nature, and it is considered that final decisions can be made at this time, without there being a need for further consultation. Some of the recommended changes are more significant, however, and it is recommended that further consultation occur before final decisions are made in relation to these more significant recommended changes.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The proposals, which consist in significant part of a proposed determination pursuant to the Dog Act 1976, are as follows –

a.         Dogs to be prohibited/managed as per existing controls in cemeteries, the Busselton Regional Airport and the Busselton Jetty (as per the Cemeteries Local Law, Busselton Regional Airport Local Law and Jetties Local Law);

b.         Dogs to be prohibited in public buildings (i.e. ‘buildings’ as defined in the City’s Property Local Law);

c.          Dogs to be prohibited at all times within all childrens’ playgrounds (i.e. ‘childrens’ playground’ defined as; “an area set aside for use by children and noted by the presence of dedicated childrens’ playground equipment and the presence of either sand or other form of soft fall surface”);

d.         Dogs to be prohibited from City depot and waste management sites;

e.          Dogs to be prohibited in the whole of Meelup Regional Park, other than a small portion of beach within the Park and adjacent to part of Eagle Bay townsite (see point (h) below)

f.          Dogs to be permitted, but only on a leash, within Mitchell Park, the Busselton Foreshore between Marine Terrace, the coast, Scout Road and Gale Street (except for Signal Park), the Dugalup Brook reserves (to the immediate north of Dunsborough Town Centre, from Cape Naturaliste Road to Gifford Road – Reserves 42673, 35758, 22613 and 26513), Lions Park, Seymour Park, and on the Dunsborough Foreshore between Gifford Road and the Centennial Park car park, other than when organised events, approved by the City are taking place, wherein dogs will be prohibited, unless specifically permitted by the City;

g.         Beach areas, including the beach only (i.e. from the limit of ephemeral vegetation or the toe of a seawall to the high water mark only, and not including vegetated foreshore areas, beach access paths or car parks) to be categorised as ‘Prohibited’, ‘Exercise’, ‘Seasonal’ or ‘Modified Seasonal’, with those areas being defined as follows –

‘Prohibited’ is as per s31(2B)(a) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are prohibited at all times (except assistance dogs and other dogs exempted by State and Commonwealth law);

‘Exercise’ is as per s31(2) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times, except when approved, organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited, unless specifically permitted by the City (except assistance dogs and other dogs exempted by State and Commonwealth law);

‘Seasonal’  means that dogs are permitted as per ‘Exercise Areas’, except between 9am and 5pm during the period 1 December to 28 February inclusive, when they are prohibited as per ‘Prohibited Areas’; and

‘Modified Seasonal’ means that dogs are permitted as per ‘Exercise Areas’, except during the period 1 August to 30 April inclusive, when they are permitted at all times, but only a leash as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976.

h.         Beach areas under the care, control or management of the City (therefore excluding privately owned land, land in National Park and Unallocated Crown Land), extending along the coast from the Shire of Capel boundary to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River boundary, to be categorised according to the categories described at (g) above and as follows (note that the, in some cases, non-sequential numbering is intentional) –

Segment

Description

Proposed category

1.

Municipal boundary (with Shire of Capel) to Port Geographe Marina eastern groyne

Exercise

2.

Port Geographe Marina eastern groyne to Port Geographe Marina western groyne

Seasonal

3.

Port Geographe Marina western groyne to access path from Groyne Road car park

Exercise

4.

Beach access path from Groyne Road car park to beach access path from car park east of Russell Street

Seasonal

5.

Beach access path from car park east of Russell Street to beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection

Exercise

6.

Beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection to a point parallel with a seaward extension of Brown Street

Seasonal

7.

A point parallel with a seaward extension of Brown Street to the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets

Prohibited

9.

Westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets to the beach access stairs on the eastern side of the King Street car park

Exercise

10.

Beach access stairs on the eastern side of the King Street car park to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park

Seasonal

11.

Beach access from the Margaret Street car park to the east of the groyne between Craig Street and Bower Road (i.e. either side of Vasse Diversion Drain)

Exercise

12.

Beach access just to the east of the groyne between Craig Street and Bower Road to beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park

Seasonal

13.

Beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park to beach access path at end of Alan Street

Exercise

14.

Beach access path at end of Alan Street to beach access path at end of Harnett Street

Seasonal

15.

Beach access path at end of Harnett Street to eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp

Exercise

16A.

Eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp to Buayanyup Drain

Seasonal

16B.

Buayanyup Drain to Locke Drain (adjacent Locke Estate)

Prohibited

17.

Locke Drain to Siesta Park Groyne

Exercise

18.

Siesta Park Groyne to western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park

Seasonal

19.

Western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park to eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp

Exercise

22.

Eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp to 1.1km to western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp

Seasonal

23.

Western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp to beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road

Exercise

24.

Beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road to beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA

Seasonal

25.

Beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA to beach access path just to beach access west of Tulloh Street (adjacent Elmore Lagoon)

Prohibited

26.

Beach access path just to beach access west of Tulloh Street to beach access from Centennial Park car park

Exercise

27.

Beach access from Centennial Park car park to Gifford Road beach access path

Prohibited

28.

Gifford Road beach access path to beach access path just to the north west of Burt Court

Exercise

29.

Beach access path just to the north-west of Burt Court to the southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park (just to the north of Hurford Street)

Seasonal

30.

Southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park to Eagle Bay Baudins Memorial beach access path

Prohibited

31.

Eagle Bay Baudins Memorial beach access path to Jingarmup Brook (and within Meelup Regional Park)

Seasonal

32.

From Jingarmup Brook 450 metres to the north (and within Meelup Regional Park)

Modified Seasonal (dogs allowed on leash from 1 August to 30 April, allowed to be exercised off leash the rest of the year)

33.

From 450 metres north of Jingarmup Brook to northern end of Bunker Bay where Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park begins (and other than small areas where private land extends to the high water mark, within Meelup Regional Park)

Prohibited

 

i.           Notwithstanding point (h) above, dogs are prohibited when organised events approved by the City are taking place on a given section of beach;

j.           Dogs to be permitted to be exercised off-leash on the grassed areas of all other local government property (including Signal Park), subject to the following limitations and conditions-

A.         Dogs are prohibited from the active playing surface(s) at sporting events (including training) approved by the City;

B.         Dogs are prohibited when organised events approved by the City are taking place (such as weddings, concerts or sporting events not generally open to the public without charge, but excluding markets or the area surrounding the active playing surface(s) at sporting events [including training] generally open to the public without charge);

C.         Dogs are permitted, but only on a leash (or otherwise restrained as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976) on areas surrounding active playing surface(s), at sporting events [including training] approved by the City and generally open to the public without charge, and at markets approved by the City; and

D.         Dogs are permitted, but only on a leash (or otherwise restrained as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976), on any paths and within any parking area (i.e. ‘parking area’ as defined in the City’s Parking Local Law).

k.          Dogs to otherwise be regulated in public places as per the Dog Act 1976 (which generally allows dogs to be in public places, provided they are on a leash);

l.           The approach is to be reviewed 12 months after finalisation and implementation, including through a further public consultation period; and

m.        Refinements to and/or modifications to the approach to be considered for particular places on an as needs basis, but only after the overall approach has been established and settled;

n.         In relation to Yallingup, indicate its intention to identify the beach from Slippery Rocks to a point just to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as a ‘Seasonal Area’ once that land is transferred to the City’s management, and also to seek Department of Parks and Wildlife formal consideration of identifying an area of beach to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as an ‘Exercise Area’ (but which will remain in National Park for at least the foreseeable future); and

o.         Authorises the CEO to seek an Order of the Governor under section 9 of the Dog Act 1976 to declare that the Act shall apply beyond the boundaries of the City of Busselton into the Indian Ocean to a distance 100 metres seawards from the high water mark, including clarification that such an Order would provide for the City to declare areas to be exercise and/or prohibited areas where those areas are on the seaward side of the high water mark.

 

A plan, illustrating the proposals related to management of dogs on beaches, is included as Attachment A.

 

With respect to point (o) above, the Governor has made an Order as requested. Based on Department of Local Government advice, that Order means that the Council can now identify land on the seaward side of the high water mark as exercise and/or prohibited areas, provided that the land is not managed by another body (so, for instance, where such land is included in National Park, the City is not empowered to identify such land as being an exercise area – note, though, that in one particular area, it is proposed that the Department of Parks and Wildlife use its powers under other legislation to allow dogs in a portion of Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park, adjacent to Yallingup Townsite). That, amongst other things, would allow the City to identify Crown Land at Smiths Beach as being a prohibited and/or exercise area (noting that, in the absence of a determination to that effect, dogs are allowed, but only on a leash). A copy of the Governor’s Order is included as Attachment B.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The most important statutory environment is set out in the Dog Act 1976 (‘the Act’) and the subsidiary Regulations, with s31 of the Act being most relevant to the issues addressed in this report. The key elements of s31 are set out below. Councillors may particularly want to note the bold text below, which sets out issues on which the officer understanding of the statutory/legal environment, based upon the receipt of additional advice and information, has changed since this matter was last considered by the Council.

 

S31(1) of the Act sets out that –

A dog shall not be in a public place unless it is — 

(a)        held by a person who is capable of controlling the dog; or

(b)        securely tethered for a temporary purpose,

             by means of a chain, cord, leash or harness of sufficient strength and not exceeding the prescribed length.

 

S31(2), though, sets out that -

                A dog is exempt from the requirements of subsection (1) if …it is in a dog exercise area…

 

S31(2B) of the Act then sets out that -

A local government may, by absolute majority…specify a public place, or a class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a place where dogs are prohibited —

(a)           at all times; or

(b)           at specified times.

 

S31(3A) of the Act also sets out that –

A local government may, by absolute majority…specify a public place, or a class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a dog exercise area.

 

S31(3C) of the Act then establishes notice requirements for specifying prohibited and/or exercise areas -

At least 28 days before specifying a place to be —

(a)        a place where dogs are prohibited at all times or at a time specified … or

(b)        a dog exercise area…

…a local government must give local public notice of its intention to so specify.

 

Officers have been interpreting the requirement as primarily being a requirement to consult before a decision is made, but would nevertheless always recommend that notice of any final decisions also be published, as it would be a reasonable expectation that occur. Based on further consideration and receipt of advice from the Department of Local Government, however, the officer understanding is now, in fact, that the requirement is a notification requirement, and not a consultation requirement.

 

The officer recommendation does propose a number of changes to the proposals adopted for consultation. In some cases, where these changes are considered relatively minor, it is recommended changes be made without further consultation, but there are other changes proposed where it is recommended further consultation occur before any final decisions are made. Those recommendations are based on a qualitative understanding of the nature of the changes proposed, and how they may be perceived and understood by the broader community, rather than being based on an understanding of the statutory/legal context.

 

S31(5) of the Act also sets out that –

A local government must specify…such dog exercise areas as are, in the opinion of the local government, sufficient in number, and suitable, for the exercising of dogs in the district.

 

Note that ‘public place’ is defined in the Act as ‘any place to which the public may lawfully have access’. Note, though, that a local government can only establish dog prohibited and/or dog exercise areas on public places ‘under the care, control or management’ of the local government. This includes Crown Land over which the City has a management order or freehold land owned by the City.

 

Since these matters were previously considered by the Council, further advice has been received from the Department of Local Government, which indicates that the City does, in fact, also have the ability to identify Unallocated Crown Land (UCL) or unmanaged reserves (i.e. Crown Land that has a designated purpose, but no management body) as either exercise or prohibited areas.

Dogs and other domestic animals are prohibited and/or restricted from entering conservation estate, including National Parks, by virtue of other State laws, and as a result this report does not generally address management of dogs in those areas. It is nevertheless proposed that the Department of Parks and Wildlife use its powers under other legislation to allow dogs in a portion of Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park, adjacent to Yallingup Townsite.

 

Dogs and other animals are also controlled to some degree by the City’s Busselton Regional Airport Local Law, Jetties Local Law and Property Local Law, and those controls are noted in other parts of this report where necessary.

 

Of particular note is the definition of ‘local government property’ in the Property Local Law, which is defined as; “anything except a thoroughfare – (a) which belongs to the (City) or in which the (City) has an interest; (b) of which the (City) is the management body…; or (c) which is an ‘otherwise unvested facility’…”

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Plan and several foreshore and reserve management plans are relevant to consideration of this issue. Those plans have been considered in developing the recommendations of this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The financial implications associated with implementing the recommendations of this report include the provision and maintenance of necessary signage, new dog bag dispensers and waste disposal bins. This is generally intended to be undertaken within the annual budget allocation for replacement and maintenance of such facilities, although a larger than normal budget for signage will be required and proposed as part of the draft 2015/16 financial year budget, as had been already been included in the 2014/15 budget, although to date there has not been any ability or need to actually use that budget.

 

The assessment of the suitability of public places for the exercising of dogs has considered matters such as parking and access paths. Parkland areas are unfenced and readily accessible, and some form of access is available through the provision of existing infrastructure at most beach locations proposed to be dog exercise areas. The future upgrading of beach access will be considered as part of the ongoing improvement of the City’s foreshore areas.

 

Enforcement of dog management controls will utilise current Ranger staff resources, however, there will be competing demands for Ranger resources especially during the summer months, such as bushfire prevention and response, which can often limit Ranger availability to conduct on beach patrols at times when they are most needed for dog control enforcement. Future resource requirements will be reviewed regularly and considered as part of the City’s workforce planning to ensure appropriate service levels. Any significant increase in the extent and nature of controls on when and where dogs are permitted relative to what is proposed in the officer recommendation may, however, be beyond the capacity of existing resources available for consistent implementation.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

There are no direct Long-term Financial Implications of the recommendations of this report.

 


 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Strategic Community Objective 6.1 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan, which is “A Council that engages broadly and proactively with the community”.

 

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 where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is ‘medium’ or greater.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Reputational risk associated with adoption of dog management controls that are not supported by significant elements of the community. Given the divergence of views and level of interest within the community, the risk is very difficult to avoid.

Adopt balanced proposals, and implement in a positive, consistent fashion. Once proposals have been implemented for a reasonable period, undertake a review and adjust if considered necessary.

Minor

Likely

Medium

 

CONSULTATION

 

The draft proposals adopted by the Council in late 2014 were subject of community consultation, with the consultation period commencing on 30 January and closing on 9 March 2015 – note though that some submissions were received and accepted after this date, and have been collated and analysed together with the submissions received during the advertised consultation period, provided they were received in time for the preparation of this report.

 

The consultation programme involved –

·        A media release prior to the commencement of the formal advertising period, which resulted in coverage in local newspapers and on local radio;

·        Publication of formal advertisements in the Council for Community pages in the Busselton Dunsborough Times on 30 January, 6 February, 13 February and 27 February;

·        Publication of a further explanatory notice on 18 February in the Busselton Dunsborough Mail;

·        Publication of information as part of the City’s March Bay to Bay community information bulletin;

·        Publication of information on the City’s website;

·        Static displays for the duration of the consultation period in the foyer of the City’s administration centre, as well as at both the Busselton and Dunsborough libraries;

·        Distribution by email of correspondence direct to representative community bodies (such as residents’ associations and chambers of commerce) and sporting bodies;

·        Two community information sessions, one in Busselton and one in Dunsborough, both of which were attended by around 50 people; and

·        Development of a questionnaire to assist with the making, collation and analyzing of submissions, available in both online and hard copy formats – and a copy of the hard copy questionnaire, which has exactly the same questions as the online format questionnaire, is included as Attachment C.

 

It should be noted that where hard copy questionnaires were received, City staff have entered the questionnaire responses into the online questionnaire - to facilitate the collation and analysis of both the online and hard copy responses in a consistent manner.

 

A total of 1,257 submissions in the form of the questionnaires were received, as well as 11 submissions in other forms, where the submitter did not also provide a submission in the form of the questionnaire.

 

Attachment D provides a list of names of all submitters, including whether they made a submission in the form of the questionnaire or not. Attachment E sets out the overall results of all of the quantitative/multiple choice type questions in the questionnaire. Attachment F sets out all of the written comments provided, but does not provide the names, addresses or contact details of the submitters that made particular comments. Copies of all of the submissions received, including names and other personal details provided, can be provided to Councillors on request. It may also be possible to provide further breakdown and analysis of the submissions received, if that is required. Responses provided to the questionnaire are outlined in Attachment G.

 

A consistent message provided throughout the consultation process was that submissions must be in the form of the questionnaire, either online or hard copy. Where submissions in other forms were received, the submitters were advised of the need to make their submission in the form of the questionnaire, and in most cases the submitters have done so. Where submitters have provided a submission in a different form and have not also or subsequently completed the questionnaire, those submitters’ submissions have been collated separately, and are reported on separately as Attachment H.

 

Where submissions have been received from representative community bodies or sporting bodies (such as residents’ associations and chambers of commerce – but also the informal, but organized and active Busselton Dunsborough Dog Beach Action Group), their submissions have also been collated separately, and are also reported on separately as Attachment I.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Overview/summary

The consultation process and outcomes indicate there is both a very high level of interest in this issue, in particular in relation to the management of dogs on beaches, as well as there being a great diversity of views. As has been noted in earlier reports to the Council on this matter, it will be very difficult, probably impossible, to achieve complete community consensus around this issue. There are three key reasons for that.

 

The first reason is just because of the great diversity of views, many of which are simply irreconcilable. The second reason is because, in addition to the great diversity of views, many of the views that are held are very strongly held, and the issue is very important to a significant proportion of the community.

 

The third reason is because it is not possible for a given section of beach to be more than one ‘thing’ at any one time - so it must be either an exercise area or a prohibited areas, or some other designation. Unfortunately, however, for most of our coast, there are people with different views as to what ‘thing’ that section of the coast should be. Given that, a decision that pleases one segment of the community will usually displease some other segment.

There are few decisions that the City has to make that are less amenable to ‘win-win’ outcomes, or are so close to being ‘zero sum games’. Given that, City officers are of the view that the overarching consideration should be finding a balanced, fair outcome, which balances a broad range of often competing interests and values, with everyone being able to feel they have got some of what they want, but unfortunately no one getting all of the things they want.

 

What then, are the interests and values that need to be balanced? Recognising that the consultation responses on specific elements of the proposals might not produce clear or consistent messages (which has largely proven to be the case), the questionnaire included a ‘values’ question (Question 6). Examination of the responses to the values question might then assist in determining what interests and values need to be balanced, and how to best strike that balance. The values question asked submitters the following question -

In terms of dogs on beaches, which of the following things is MOST important to you? (Please rate from 1 to 5, with 1 being most important, to 5 being least important) –

·        The safety of me, my family and (if applicable) my dog.

·        Having a beach area close to home where I can exercise my dog (off lead).

·        Having a beach area close to home I can go where dogs are not allowed.

·        Having clean beaches, free of dog excrement.

·        Being able to socialize at the beach with other people and our dogs.

 

The weighted average response of these five values/objectives from all responding submitters (with a ranking of 1 being given a value of 5, and a ranking of 5 given a value of 1, so that the maximum possible score is 5 and the lowest is 1, and the higher the score the more important the value/objective) was as follows –

·        The safety of me, my family and (if applicable) my dog – 3.59

·        Having a beach area close to home where I can exercise my dog (off lead) – 3.71

·        Having a beach area close to home I can go where dogs are not allowed – 1.95

·        Having clean beaches, free of dog excrement – 2.94

·        Being able to socialize at the beach with other people and our dogs – 3.27

 

Of those responding submitters that identified themselves as living in households that have a dog, the weighted average response was as follows -

·        The safety of me, my family and (if applicable) my dog – 3.52

·        Having a beach area close to home where I can exercise my dog (off lead) – 4.15

·        Having a beach area close to home I can go where dogs are not allowed – 1.48

·        Having clean beaches, free of dog excrement – 2.67

·        Being able to socialize at the beach with other people and our dogs – 3.57

 

Of those responding submitters that identified themselves as living in households that do not have a dog, the weighted average response was as follows -

·        The safety of me, my family and (if applicable) my dog – 3.84

·        Having a beach area close to home where I can exercise my dog (off lead) – 2.05

·        Having a beach area close to home I can go where dogs are not allowed – 3.46

·        Having clean beaches, free of dog excrement – 3.76

·        Being able to socialize at the beach with other people and our dogs – 2.13

 

What the above indicates is that, on average, having beach areas close to home where dogs can be exercised off lead is more important to those in households with a dog, than having beach areas close to home where dogs are not allowed is to those in households without a dog. Having reviewed the comments made by submitters, and discussed the issues internally and with a number of external stakeholders, there also appears to generally be greater resistance amongst those in households with a dog to travelling by car to access exercise areas, than there is amongst those in households without a dog to travelling by car to access areas where dogs are not allowed.

 

Further, those in households with a dog strongly emphasise the value they place on exercise areas being fairly large, to facilitate extended walks with their dog; whereas for those in households without a dog, the emphasis is more on having areas where dogs are not allowed, where they can swim and recreate on the beach without dogs being present, but there does not appear to be such a need for those areas to be particularly extensive to meet their needs. Given that, and assuming that the basic approach to dividing beach areas into three categories (Exercise, Prohibited and Seasonal) is proposed to be retained, it is considered that an appropriate response would be to retain, but reduce in size, some of the proposed Seasonal areas, increase the size of a number of the proposed Exercise areas, and introduce some additional Prohibited areas.

 

In particular and partly because of that fundamental rationale outlined above, but also because of consideration of more site/area specific considerations, it is proposed that –

·    An additional Prohibited area be introduced at Yallingup;

·    Additional Prohibited and Exercise areas be introduced at Old Dunsborough;

·    The Seasonal areas in Busselton be retained, but several reduced in size, with adjoining Exercise areas being increased in size.

 

Other changes to the management of dogs on beaches are also proposed, the rationale for which are almost entirely based on site/area specific considerations -

·    Identification of the main section of beach at Smiths Beach as a Seasonal area (noting that, for jurisdictional reasons, which have now been addressed, Smiths Beach was not addressed in previous reports or resolutions);

·    An additional Exercise area be introduced at the very north end of Bunker Bay; and

·    An additional Exercise area be introduced at Eagle Bay, the Prohibited area be extended, and the Seasonal (and Modified Seasonal) areas be removed.

 

Only two changes are proposed to the approach away from beach areas. The first is to identify the main foreshore park area at Yallingup as a dog on lead area, in common with the park areas in or near the Busselton City Centre, Dunsborough Town Centre, and the main foreshore precincts adjoining those two areas. The proposals adopted for consultation would instead have allowed dogs to be off-lead on the grassed areas of the main foreshore park area at Yallingup. The second is to extend the central Busselton Foreshore area, in which dogs are generally allowed, but only on a lead, further east, to Geographe Bay Road (the ‘Brown Street extension’), rather than stopping at Scout Road. That reflects the fact that, with the completion of the ‘Brown Street extension’ and other planned upgrade works, that area is becoming and will increasingly become, part of the central Busselton Foreshore area.

 

In the case of the proposed changes to the approach to beaches at Smiths Beach, Eagle Bay and Old Dunsborough, it is recommended that further consultation be undertaken before they are adopted in final form. In the case of the proposed changes to the approach to beaches at Yallingup, Bunker Bay and Busselton, however, because they either do not involve identification of new Prohibited, Exercise or Seasonal areas, but rather the shifting of boundaries between Exercise and Seasonal areas, and/or so clearly respond to the outcomes of the consultation process, it is recommended those changes be made without their being a need for further consultation.

 

Due to the resolution of jurisdictional issues, further changes to the advertised proposals are also proposed to include land on the seaward side of the high water mark, through to the low water mark. Because those changes are of a technical nature only, and do not further change the spirit or intent of the advertised proposals, there is not seen to be a need for further consultation in that respect.

 

The proposed approach to further consultation would also allow implementation planning and actual implementation of the proposals (i.e. scoping, design, fabrication and installation of signage or similar, as well as development and rollout of education and information initiatives) in Yallingup, Bunker Bay and Busselton, as well as other areas where no changes are proposed, to proceed without need for further consultation and/or Council consideration, ensuring that City officers will be able to implement the proposals in those areas prior to next summer. Assuming that the further consultation and subsequent Council consideration of the revised proposals for other beaches in the western part of the City can also be completed in an efficient fashion, City officers should also be able to implement the proposals for beaches in those areas before next summer.

 

The proposed changes and other issues it is felt should be considered are outlined and discussed in more detail under appropriate sub-headings below. A complete copy of the advertised proposals, with the proposed changes identified in tracked changes, is included as Attachment J. Plans illustrating the proposed changes in relation to beaches are provided as Attachment K.

 

Seasonal designation and potential ‘on-lead’ areas on beaches

Questions 14, 15 and 16 of the questionnaire specifically sought submitters’ views on the proposed ‘Seasonal’ designation, and also sought views on whether any beach areas should be identified as areas where dogs should be allowed, but only on a lead. Both the Seasonal designation and dog on lead areas are potential compromises or mid-way points between Prohibited and Exercise area designations, helping to balance out the competing values and interests that need to be considered. Officers have also undertaken some further research into the approach to management of dogs on beaches in other, comparable, coastal areas around Australia. That research reveals that –

·    Seasonal designations are very common and appear to be successful in other places, especially in the Eastern States;

·    Dog on lead areas are less common; and

·    The advertised proposals would result in more access to more beach areas, more of the time and with fewer restrictions, for those wanting to take their dogs to the beach than appears to be the case in any identified and comparable areas, and that is, in general, proposed to be further extended with the changes now proposed by officers (and even in the proposed Seasonal areas, they would, in actual fact, be Exercise areas for 91% of the time, and over 80% of daylight hours, averaged across the year).

 

Attachment L is a summary of the research undertaken (and note that, in all cases, City officers did not rely on website information alone - officers of the relevant local government area were contacted to confirm the accuracy and currency of the information).

 

Both the questionnaire responses and the additional research undertaken have informed officer consideration of the issue as to whether a ‘seasonal’ designation and/or a ‘dog-on-lead’ designation is necessary or appropriate to effectively balance the competing values and interests. The responses to the quantitative questions relating to these issues would appear to indicate that there is a low level of support for the ‘seasonal’ designation, and a moderate level of support for a ‘dog-on-lead’ designation. Having reviewed and categorized the written comments that submitters have made, however, it becomes clear that –

·    Most of those who oppose the seasonal designation do so because they either - (a) think that dogs should be allowed off lead at all times in the proposed seasonal areas, or at least on more of the beach, more of the time than the proposals would allow; or (b) think that dogs should be prohibited at all times in the proposed seasonal areas, or at least on more of the beach, more of the time than the proposals would allow; and

·    Most of those who support dog-on-lead areas on beaches do so because they either – (a) think that dogs being allowed, but only on a lead, is preferable to dogs being prohibited; or (b) think that dogs being allowed, but only on a lead, is preferable to dogs being allowed off lead – only slightly over 10% of all comments made were categorized as ‘Support on lead per se’, i.e. there was clear support for on-lead areas as such, not merely support for on-lead areas as being a less bad outcome than an alternative.

 

What the above indicates is that the vast majority of submitters, (and given the scale of the response, the submitters provide a reasonable guide to the views of the community as a whole), either want beach areas where dogs are allowed off lead, or beach areas where dogs are not allowed at all - and in many cases, they in fact want both of those things, at different times and/or in different places. Any area where dogs are allowed, but only on a lead, is therefore an area where the vast majority of the community is not actually getting what they desire.

 

In addition, unless there were a series of dog-on-lead areas along the coast, it would not even satisfy the desires of those who ‘support on lead per se’, as such an area in Busselton is not of significant value to someone living in Dunsborough, or vice versa, and in fact most of those who want such areas to take their dogs, appear to want them close to home, within walking distance if they live close to the coast. If that was to be done, it would result in either – (a) the further fragmentation of the coast; or (b) a decrease in areas where dogs are allowed off lead, or not allowed at all. As such, whilst ‘dog-on-lead’ areas may appear to be a compromise or ‘mid-way’ point, it actually creates, in many respects, a ‘lose-lose’ situation, that essentially pleases nobody.

 

Further, in an overall sense, the proposals provide a very large number of areas where dogs can be taken, but only on a lead – in fact, that is the case in most public places – and there appears to be a high degree of community support for doing so, unlike the case with respect to dogs on beaches. Officers are also very concerned about the practical enforceability of ‘dog-on-lead’ areas on beaches, and a significant number of submitters raise similar concerns.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the ‘seasonal’ designation is a better way of balancing the competing interests and values because it –

·    Provides what the vast majority of people want – areas where dogs are allowed off lead, or areas where dogs are not allowed at all;

·    It provides areas where dogs are not allowed at all only at the times when people are most likely to want them, i.e. during the daytime in summer, but allows dogs off lead the rest of the time; and

·    Has been successfully used elsewhere.

 

It needs to be noted that submitters were responding to a proposal in which there was no proposal to allow dogs on any section of beach, but only on a lead. The overall response would probably have been different had that kind of approach actually been proposed, and it would be very strongly recommended that such an approach not be implemented, even if Councillors wish to do so, without further consultation. That would necessarily further delay resolution of the overall direction.

 

Assuming that seasonal designations are to be retained, there is a further question as to whether the length of the proposed prohibited period is appropriate, both in terms of dates (1 December to 28 February) and in terms of times (9am-5pm). Submitters express essentially the full range of possible views, but analysis of the submissions does not provide much in the way of clear outcomes or direction. City officers are of the view that the proposed dates and times are both ‘about right’ in terms of best balancing the competing values and interests.

 

Whilst officers are proposing that the seasonal designations be retained, as has been noted earlier, officers are also recommending that some of the proposed seasonal areas be made somewhat smaller. It is considered that will further assist in effectively balancing the competing interests and values, because it is seen as more likely that there will, in fact, be no dogs present during the period when dogs are proposed to be prohibited. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, there will be more areas where dogs are permitted, so therefore the ‘temptation’ for dog owners to take their dogs into areas where dogs are not permitted will be less. Secondly, if the seasonal areas are smaller, the City will be more able to consistently enforce the controls, as there will be less beach area to police.

 

Jurisdictional issues

The Dog Act gives a local government the power to identify exercise or prohibited areas on land that is; “under the care, control or management of the local government”. That clearly includes land which is owned by the local government, or Crown Land over which the local government has a management order, or otherwise has formal management responsibilities over – such as a local road reserve or public right of way. It also clearly does not include land that is private land, or is Crown Land managed by another body, such as National Park, which is managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. It is not immediately clear, however, whether or not it also includes Crown Land over which no body, including the local government, has a management order – i.e. Unallocated Crown Land (UCL) or unmanaged reserves (i.e. Crown Land that has a designated purpose, but does not have a designated management body pursuant to the Land Administration Act).

 

Significant areas of land that the City may wish to identify as being either exercise or prohibited areas (or seasonal areas – which are a combination of the two), however, are either UCL (in particular, beach areas on the seaward side of the high water mark), or unmanaged reserves (in particular, a number of park areas in, mostly, newer urban areas, where parks have been created, land ceded to the Crown, but the City has not yet obtained a management order – note that is an issue that officers intend to address as part of the Strategic Land Review project). City officers have sought advice from the Department of Local Government (which is the State Government agency responsible for the Dog Act) as to whether a local government, for the purposes of the Dog Act, has ‘care, control or management’ over UCL and/or unmanaged reserves within the local government district. The Department has advised that a local government does have ‘care, control or management’ over such land, provided that the land is not managed by another body, under another law – e.g. it is a railway reserve, or certain public school sites (the West Busselton Primary School site, for instance, is an unmanaged reserve pursuant to the Land Administration Act, but is managed by the Department of Education pursuant to other legislation).

 

The City has also sought and obtained an Order of the Governor seeking powers to implement the Dog Act outside the local government district, for a distance of 100 metres beyond the high water mark. The Department of Local Government (DLG) has also confirmed that the Order allows the City to identify UCL beyond the high water mark as an exercise or prohibited area – and given that, in most instances, much or most of the beach is beyond the high water mark, this is clearly a very important matter to have resolved.

 

Because these jurisdictional issues had not been resolved when the proposals were considered by the Council in late 2014, the proposals involved identification of exercise, prohibited or seasonal areas on beaches to the high water mark only. Given there is now an ability to determine areas beyond the high water mark to be exercise, prohibited or seasonal areas, it is recommended that identification of beach areas to the identified categories be to the low water mark. Given there is no change to the intent, further consultation regarding that change is not proposed.

 

There are further jurisdictional issues that are also addressed in the officer recommendation, and relate specifically to Smiths Beach and to Yallingup, and are addressed under those sub-headings below.

 

Smiths Beach

When the advertised proposals were considered by the Council, it was considered that the City would not have the power to identify exercise, prohibited or seasonal areas on land on the seaward side of the high water mark, and/or land this is Unallocated Crown Land. As the whole of the beach and foreshore reserve at Smiths Beach consists of such land, Smiths Beach was not included in the proposals – and, as such, dogs would be allowed, but only on a lead, throughout the year.

 

The resolution of those issues via advice provided by the Department of Local Government, however, means that there is a capacity to identify exercise, prohibited or seasonal controls at Smiths Beach. What is proposed is that the portion of the beach that, it is envisaged, is vested with the City once Native Title issues are resolved, be identified as a ‘Seasonal’ area. The relevant portion of the beach extends from Gunyulgup Brook to the rocks at the western end of the beach. Because that is a wholly new proposal, it is considered that further consultation should take place before a final decision is made.

 

It is envisaged that the rest of the coast in this area will ultimately be included in the Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park. As such, no recommendation is made with respect to those portions of the beach.

 

Yallingup

On the beach adjacent to Yallingup Townsite there is currently a thin, but continuous, strip of National Park. In addition, land to the north and south of the Townsite, is wholly within National Park. There are community expectations, however, both that the City will manage dogs on the beach adjacent the Townsite, and also that there will be an area reasonably close to the Townsite where dogs will be allowed to be exercised off-lead. As such, the advertised proposals included the following -

 

In relation to Yallingup, indicate its intention to identify the beach from Slippery Rocks to a point just to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as a ‘Seasonal Area’ once that land is transferred to the City’s management, and also to seek Department of Parks and Wildlife formal consideration of identifying an area of beach to the north of the Dawson Drive car park beach access as an ‘Exercise Area’ (but which will remain in National Park for at least the foreseeable future).

 

The consultation outcomes indicate a very strong desire of many in the community to see the beach adjacent to the Yallingup Lagoon identified as a ‘Prohibited’ area. That is actually one of the strongest and most consistent messages that came out of the consultation process. Because of that, it is recommended that the change be made without further consultation. It is important for the Council, and the Yallingup community to note, however, that the City does not have the capacity to rigorously enforce dog prohibited controls at Yallingup Beach throughout the year, and enforcing dog prohibited controls at Yallingup Beach where there is little pressure on or use of the beach during winter is not likely to be a priority for scarce Ranger resources.

 

It is also proposed to identify the main foreshore park area at Yallingup as a dog on lead area, in common with the park areas in or near the Busselton City Centre, Dunsborough Town Centre, and the main foreshore precincts adjoining those two areas. It is proposed that, relatively minor, change also be made without further consultation.

 

What is also proposed in relation to beach areas at Yallingup is that the Council formally resolve to seek the Department of Parks and Wildlife’s consideration of –

·        Appointment of City Rangers as ‘honorary rangers’ for the portion of Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park on the beach between Slippery Rocks and the access point to the beach from the Rabbits Hill car park; and

·        Identification of the beach between the access point to the beach from the Dawson Drive car park and the Rabbits Hill car park as a ‘dog area’.

 

Bunker Bay

As the beach and foreshore areas at Bunker Bay are either private land to the high water mark (in the case of the beach adjacent to the ‘Farmbreak’ or ‘Cape Farm’ site) or are part of Meelup Regional Park, the proposed approach at Bunker Bay had been to identify land on the landward side of the high water mark as ‘Prohibited’ area, in common with the vast majority of the coast within Meelup Regional Park. The resolution of jurisdictional issues, however, does allow identification of the beach in front of the Farmbreak site, which is proposed is to be identified as a ‘Prohibited’ area. In response to submissions received from a number of owners of land to the north of the main beach access point just to the east of the Bunker Bay Café, however, it is proposed that a short section of beach be identified as an ‘Exercise’ area. Because these changes either do not alter the intent of the advertised proposals or are clearly responding to submissions, further consultation is not proposed.

 

Eagle Bay

At Eagle Bay, the advertised proposals essentially divided the beach areas adjacent the Townsite into two areas –

·        A ‘Seasonal’ area from the Baudins Memorial access track to the Jingarmup Brook; and

·        A ‘Modified Seasonal’ area, which is an exercise area, except from 1 August to 30 April, when dogs would only be allowed on a leash, from Jingarmup Brook for a distance of 450 metres to the north – which is more or less parallel with the northern extent of the Townsite.

 

A significant number of submissions were received requesting that consideration be given to identifying an all year round ‘Exercise’ area at Eagle Bay, including from the Residents of Eagle Bay Association (REBA). What REBA has indicated it would like to see is the identification of an ‘Exercise’ area in the proposed ‘Modified Seasonal’ area, plus a further eastward extension into the proposed ‘Seasonal’ area, to the eastern edge of the Townsite, with a ‘Prohibited’ area beyond that point. The beach areas in question are in the Meelup Regional Park, and the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee has a different view, preferring retention of the ‘Modified Seasonal’ designation.

 

Having considered the issues, officers are of the view that the REBA position is more workable and balanced, but think that further consultation should take place before a final decision is made by the Council.

 

Old Dunsborough

Whilst there are a broad range if views expressed about the proposals as they relate to Quindalup and eastern Dunsborough, officers are of the view that the advertised proposals do strike the appropriate balance in that area. Having considered the submissions and issues, however, officers are of the view that the proposals do not strike the most appropriate balance in Old Dunsborough/northern Dunsborough, essentially the area north of Dunn Bay Road. In that area, the advertised proposals provided for –

·        A ‘Prohibited’ area at the main Town Foreshore area, the northern boundary of which is the Gifford Road beach access path;

·        A relatively short ‘Exercise’ area from the Gifford Road beach access path to the Burt Court Beach access path; and

·        A ‘Seasonal’ area from north of the Burt Court beach access path to the southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park.

 

What is proposed is that the proposed ‘Seasonal’ area be reduced in extent, with identification of a ‘Prohibited’ area around the Old Dunsborough Boat Ramp and adjacent the Dunsborough beach enclosure (the area officially known as ‘Curtis Bay’), with the identification of an additional ‘Exercise’ area in the northern part of the bay immediately to the south (the northern part of the area officially known as ‘Dunn Bay’). This is seen as providing a better overall balancing of the competing values and interests and, in particular, provides a dog prohibited beach in a very popular swimming area (especially in summer, when the beach enclosure is in place), whilst also providing for a more northerly dog exercise area for residents of Old Dunsborough.

 

As this is a more significant departure from the advertised proposals, it is considered that further consultation should occur before any final decisions are made.

 

Busselton

Overall, it is considered that the advertised proposals strike a reasonably sound balance between the competing interests and values in Busselton. It is, however, considered that a better balance could be struck if some of the proposed ‘Seasonal’ areas were made somewhat smaller. Specifically, the following is proposed –

·        A reduction in the size of proposed (Seasonal) Area 4, with the eastern boundary being moved west from Groyne Road to Guerin Street, and the western boundary being moved east from Russell Street to Morgan Street;

·        A reduction in the size of proposed (Seasonal) Area 12, with the eastern boundary being moved westward from near Craig Street to Dolphin Road; and

·        A reduction in the size of proposed (Seasonal) Area 14, with the eastern boundary being moved westward from Alan Street to Holgate Road.

 

It is considered that, as these changes are being made in response to outcomes of the consultation process and involve the shifting of proposed boundaries, rather than new designations, final decisions can be made without further consultation.

 

Further consultation

The recommendation proposes that the further consultation be limited only to those areas where final decisions have not been made – i.e. the identification of a ‘Seasonal’ area at Smiths Beach, the identification of an ‘Exercise’ area at Eagle Bay, and the identification of an additional ‘Prohibited’ area and an additional ‘Exercise’ area at Old Dunsborough. It is envisaged that a questionnaire would again be developed, with questions limited to those areas only. It is not envisaged that there would be any further information sessions, but there would be newspaper notices, static displays at the City administration centre and Dunsborough library, as well as correspondence direct to community groups with a particular focus on the areas in question. Once the consultation process is complete, a further report to the Council would follow, seeking final decisions.

 

Implementation

Implementation of the proposals will be a complex task, and will need to be undertaken in carefully planned fashion. Officers will develop a detailed brief for signage and other aspects of the Implementation process (including consideration of the location of bins and bag dispensers, as well as education programmes/efforts, in addition to signage), and will consult informally with Councillors as part of that process. The key aim is to have the most important elements in place before next summer.

 

Future review

When adopting the advertised proposals, the Council resolved to undertake a review after 12 months. It is seen as appropriate to clarify what that might entail and, given the time that has elapsed since that was first proposed by officers, extend the period for the review until after two summers of implementation has occurred (so, a review after essentially 18 months, rather than 12 months). What is now envisaged is that during the second quarter of 2017, officers would present a report to the Council that sets out a review of the proposals that have been implemented, including the making of a recommendation as to whether any changes should be considered. If, however, significant issues arise prior to that time, then of course the Council does have the ability to make changes earlier than that.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The recommended approach is seen as providing for the appropriate balancing of the broad range of values and interests that need to be considered, and to provide a positive path forward.

 

OPTIONS

 

There is clearly any number of options that the Council could consider in relation to this issue. It is considered that the key issues and options have been identified and analysed in the report. Should Councillors want any assistance in the drafting of an alternative recommendation, however, officers are obviously available to assist in accordance with normal practice.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

If the Council makes a recommendation consistent with the officer recommendation, is envisaged that implementation would occur in accordance with the following timelines –

·        Correspondence would be sent to the Department of Parks and Wildlife in relation to Yallingup Beach within one month;

·        Advertising of proposed changes that it is considered require further consultation would commence within six weeks; and

·        More detailed proposals relating to the implementation of those matters that the Council has made final decisions on would be informally reported to the Council within two months.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/100              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council –

1.      Pursuant to section 31 of the Dog Act 1976 (other than where the context does not require the powers contained within s31), and subject to any other written law and any law of the Commonwealth about assistance animals as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth) section 9(2), resolve to adopt for final approval, and implement following publication of appropriate notification, a proposed approach to dog management areas as follows (other than those proposals marked with an asterisk in point (h) below, which are adopted for consultation purposes only) –

a.         Dogs to be prohibited/managed as per existing controls in cemeteries, the Busselton Regional Airport and the Busselton Jetty (as per the Cemeteries Local Law, Busselton Regional Airport Local Law and Jetties Local Law);

b.         Dogs to be prohibited in public buildings (i.e. ‘buildings’ as defined in the City’s Property Local Law);

c.         Dogs to be prohibited at all times within all childrens’ playgrounds (i.e. ‘childrens’ playground’ defined as; “an area set aside for use by children and noted by the presence of dedicated childrens’ playground equipment and the presence of either sand or other form of soft fall surface”);

d.         Dogs to be prohibited from City depot and waste management sites;

e.         Dogs to be prohibited in the whole of Meelup Regional Park, other than a small portion of beach within the Park and adjacent to part of Eagle Bay townsite (see point (h) below)

f.          Dogs to be permitted, but only on a leash, within Mitchell Park, the Busselton Foreshore between Marine Terrace, the coast, Geographe Bay Road (and the beach access path that aligns with the eastern boundary of the Busselton Foreshore Development Zone) and Gale Street (except for Signal Park), the Dugalup Brook reserves (to the immediate north of Dunsborough Town Centre, from Cape Naturaliste Road to Gifford Road – Reserves 42673, 35758, 22613 and 26513), Lions Park, Seymour Park, on the Dunsborough Foreshore between Gifford Road and the Centennial Park car park, and on the grassed areas of Reserves 31917 and 27064, between the coast, Yallingup Beach Road, Valley Road, private land, Dawson Drive and the Dawson Drive beach access path, other than when organised events, approved by the City are taking place, wherein dogs will be prohibited, unless specifically permitted by the City;

g.         Beach areas, including the beach only (i.e. from the limit of ephemeral vegetation or the toe of a seawall to the low water mark only, and not including vegetated foreshore areas, beach access paths or car parks) to be categorised as ‘Prohibited’, ‘Exercise’, ‘Seasonal’ or ‘Modified Seasonal’, with those areas being defined as follows –

‘Prohibited’ is as per s31(2B)(a) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are prohibited at all times (except assistance dogs and other dogs exempted by State and Commonwealth law);

‘Exercise’ is as per s31(2) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times, except when approved, organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited, unless specifically permitted by the City (except assistance dogs and other dogs exempted by State and Commonwealth law); and

‘Seasonal’  means that dogs are permitted as per ‘Exercise Areas’, except between 9am and 5pm during the period 1 December to 28 February inclusive, when they are prohibited as per ‘Prohibited Areas’.

h.         Beach areas under the care, control or management of the City (therefore excluding privately owned land and land in National Park), extending along the coast from the Shire of Capel boundary to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River boundary, to be categorised according to the categories described at (g) above and as follows

(note that the, in some cases, non-sequential numbering is intentional) –

Segment

Description

Proposed category

1.

Municipal boundary (with Shire of Capel) to Port Geographe Marina eastern groyne

Exercise

2.

Port Geographe Marina eastern groyne to Port Geographe Marina western groyne

Seasonal

3.

Port Geographe Marina western groyne to access path from Guerin Street car park

Exercise

4.

Beach access path from Guerin Street car park to beach access path from car park opposite Morgan Street

Seasonal

5.

Beach access path from car park opposite Morgan Street to beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection

Exercise

6.

Beach access path from car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection to a point parallel with a seaward extension of Brown Street

Seasonal

7.

A point parallel with a seaward extension of Brown Street to the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets

Prohibited

9.

Westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets to the beach access stairs on the eastern side of the King Street car park

Exercise

10.

Beach access stairs on the eastern side of the King Street car park to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park

Seasonal

11.

Beach access from the Margaret Street car park to Dolphin Road (i.e. either side of Vasse Diversion Drain)

Exercise

12.

Dolphin Road to beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park

Seasonal

13.

Beach access from car park opposite Mandalay Holiday Park to beach access path at end of Holgate Road

Exercise

14.

Beach access path at end of Holgate Road to beach access path at end of Harnett Street

Seasonal

15.

Beach access path at end of Harnett Street to eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp

Exercise

16A.

Eastern side of car park associated with Abbey Boat ramp to Buayanyup Drain

Seasonal

16B.

Buayanyup Drain to Locke Drain (adjacent Locke Estate)

Prohibited

17.

Locke Drain to Siesta Park Groyne

Exercise

18.

Siesta Park Groyne to western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park

Seasonal

19.

Western boundary of Siesta Park Holiday Park to eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp

Exercise

22.

Eastern side of Quindalup Boat Ramp to 1.1km to western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp

Seasonal

23.

Western side of ‘Fisherman’s Boat Ramp to beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road

Exercise

24.

Beach access to the east of Lot 30 (237) Geographe Bay Road to beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA

Seasonal

25.

Beach access from car park to the west of Dunsborough YHA to beach access path just to beach access west of Tulloh Street (adjacent Elmore Lagoon)

Prohibited

26.

Beach access path just to beach access west of Tulloh Street to beach access from Centennial Park car park

Exercise

27.

Beach access from Centennial Park car park to Gifford Road beach access path

Prohibited

28.

Gifford Road beach access path to beach access path just to the north west of Burt Court

Exercise

29A.

Beach access path just to the north-west of Burt Court to a point parallel with the end of Vincent Street

Seasonal

29B.*

A point parallel with the end of Vincent Street to a point parallel with the end of Bay View Crescent

Exercise

29C.*

A point parallel with the end of Bay View Crescent to a point 50 metres to the north-east of the Old Dunsborough Boat Ramp

Prohibited

29D.

A point 50 metres to the north-east of the Old Dunsborough Boat Ramp to the southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park (just to the north of Hurford Street)

Seasonal

30.

Southern boundary of Meelup Regional Park to access path to the beach from car park immediately to the east of the Eagle Bay urban area

Prohibited

32.*

Access path to the beach from car park immediately to the east of the Eagle Bay urban area, extending toJingarmup Brook and then 450 metres to the north

Exercise

33A.* 

From 450 metres north of Jingarmup Brook to beach access path adjacent Bunker Bay Cafe

Prohibited

33B.*

Beach access path adjacent Bunker Bay Café to northern end of Bunker Bay where Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park begins

Exercise

34.

Beach access path from Dawson Drive car park to Slippery Rocks (Yallingup).

Prohibited

35.*

Gunyulgup Brook to rocks at western end of beach (Smiths Beach).

Seasonal

 

i.          Notwithstanding point (h) above, dogs are prohibited when organised events approved by the City are taking place on a given section of beach;

j.          Dogs to be permitted to be exercised off-leash on the grassed areas of all other local government property (including Signal Park), subject to the following limitations and conditions-

A.        Dogs are prohibited from the active playing surface(s) at sporting events (including training) approved by the City;

B.         Dogs are prohibited when organised events approved by the City are taking place (such as weddings, concerts or sporting events not generally open to the public without charge, but excluding markets or the area surrounding the active playing surface(s) at sporting events [including training] generally open to the public without charge);

C.         Dogs are permitted, but only on a leash (or otherwise restrained as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976) on areas surrounding active playing surface(s), at sporting events [including training] approved by the City and generally open to the public without charge, and at markets approved by the City; and

D.        Dogs are permitted, but only on a leash (or otherwise restrained as per s31(1) of the Dog Act 1976), on any paths and within any parking area (i.e. ‘parking area’ as defined in the City’s Parking Local Law).k. Dogs to otherwise be regulated in public places as per the Dog Act 1976 (which generally allows dogs to be in public places, provided they are on a leash).

2.      Undertake further consultation as required (i.e. those proposals marked with an asterisk in point (h) above), and proceed with implementation of those aspects where further consultation is not required.

3.      Request that the Department of Parks and Wildlife consider–

a.         Appointment of City Rangers as ‘honorary rangers’ for the portion of Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park on the beach between Slippery Rocks and the access point to the beach from the Rabbits Hill car park; and

b.         Identification of the beach between the access point to the beach from the Dawson Drive car park and the Rabbits Hill car park as a ‘dog area’.

CARRIED 8/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 

 

  


Council                                                                                      61                                                                      22 April 2015

12.             Engineering and Work Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      61                                                                      22 April 2015

13.             Community and Commercial Services Report

13.1           BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR THE GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE CAFE FIT OUT

SUBJECT INDEX:

Geographe Leisure Centre

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Community Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Geographe Leisure Centre

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Community Services - Maxine Palmer

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to seek approval to amend the 2014-2015 adopted budget through the transfer of $41,529 (excl. GST) from various Geographe Leisure Centre (GLC) budgets to the GLC Extensions Contractors budget (126-B9554-3280-000) to provide a capital works budget (including contingency) to undertake the works required for the fit out of the new café, in line with Council resolution (C1504/088).

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 8 April 2015, Council resolved (C1504/088) to “enter into a lease with Patricia Schreuder and Allan Schreuder for the purposes of a cafe business within the Geographe Leisure Centre on a portion of Lot 300 in Reserve 29933. The terms and conditions of the lease to be in accordance with standard commercial lease terms and in particular:

 

 

a)            The term of the Lease will be five (5) years with a further two (2) five (5) year options and commences on 18 May 2015

b)            The rent to commence at $34,891.92 per annum inclusive of GST and outgoings to be paid  monthly in advance and increased annually by Consumer Price Index (CPI)

c)            The provision of a rent free period of two (2) months from commencement of the lease.

 

As outlined in the report to Council on 8 April, the rent free period, based on capital works required to fit out the commercial kitchen in the café, was negotiated down from a period of eighteen months to two (2) months on the basis that the City would undertake the fit out as time and cost efficiencies could be sought rather than the proponent undertaking the works..  Quotations received at the time indicated a fit out budget of circa $30,000, which could be funded from the GLC’s operational budget.  The works consist of:

 

1.    Electrical works

2.    One (1) fixed bench top

3.    Tiling of wall surfaces

4.    Plumbing works including sinks and a grease trap

5.    Pool deck servery

6.    Other works necessary to obtain Environmental Health approval.

 

In order to facilitate the lease requirements as endorsed by Council (C1504/088), approval is now sought to amend the 2014/15 adopted budget.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. In the context of this report, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorized in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The further development of the Cafe/Kiosk area is in line with the GLC Master Plan and Council endorsed (C1404/108) GLC Business Plan 2014/15-2018/19.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The table below shows the cost breakdown associated with the café fit out based on quotations received. Some elements of these works may not be required and therefore this represents a ‘worst case scenario’, for example the $2,913 for vinyl will only be required if the existing vinyl cannot be lifted and re-laid.

 

Description

Quoted cost ($)

Electrical works

6,800

Plumbing works

15,435

Work bench with 300mm sink

1,815

Stainless double sink

1,435

Hand basin

160

Food prep sink and basin

1,670

Vinyl

2,913

Tiling

4,658

Serving hatch

4,000

TOTAL

38,886

 

The GLC has the following budgets available that could be used for these works:

 

Natural Account Description

2014/15 remaining budget ($)

Building Maintenance Services (336-10591-3110-0000)

10,088

GLC Contractors(522-10591-3280-0000)

6,214

Furniture and Office Equipment Non Capital Assets (336-10591-3301-0000)

9,489

Expense Offset Account – Furniture and Equipment(336-10591-7743-0000)

9,329

Lease of Equipment (336-10591-3381-0000)

20,000

TOTAL

55,120

 

The GLC has an annual budget of $60,123 for the Leasing of Equipment (336-10591-3381-0000).  Due to the delays in the building program for the new gym, crèche, health suites, cycle room and offices, equipment planned for purchase in August/September 2014 was not purchased until February/March 2015. This will result in a budget underspend this financial year of approximately $20,000.This report proposes $10,000 of this budget saving is reallocated to the GLC café fit out.

In order to facilitate the lease agreement endorsed by Council (C1504/088), the following budget amendment is recommended, noting this results in a net neutral outcome to Council.

 

Description

 Account String

2014/15 Adopted Budget  $

 2014/15 Amended Budget (PROPOSED)  $

Variance $

GLC Building Maintenance Services

336-10591-3110-0000

17,111

8,611

-8,500

GLC Contractors

552-10591-3280-0000

39,375

33,175

-6,200

GLC Furniture and Office Equipment Non Capital Assets

336-10591-3301-0000

24,946

17,446

-7,500

GLC Expense Offset Account – Furniture and Equipment

336-10591-7743-0000

40,420

31,091

-9,329

GLC  Lease of Equipment

336-10591-3381-0000

60,123

50,123

-10,000

GLC  Extensions Contractors

126-B9554-3280-0000

907,500

949,029

41,529

Net Variance

 

1,089,475

1,089,475

0

 

Long Term Financial Plan Implications

 

The capital costs required for the café fit out this financial year, proposed to be transferred from existing budget line items, will establish a leased commercial café at the GLC which will generate revenues of over $34,000 a year.  This will add value to a City owned asset, increase future leasing opportunities,  and is key to achieving the revenues  forecast in the Council endorsed (C1404/108) GLC Business Plan.  

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Provision of a café  at the GLC is consistent with the following City of Busselton Community Strategic Plan objectives:

 

2.1          A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, and 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.

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendations has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. The officer recommendation is considered to be “low” risk

 

CONSULTATION

 

Nil

 


 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The GLC budget has funds available which can be used to resource the fit out of the new leased café area. It is proposed that a total of $41,529 be transferred from various budgets to the GLC Extensions Contractor budget for the fit out works. This includes an approximate 6.8% contingency to the total project cost of $38,886.  This is also a ‘worst case scenario’ estimate of $38,886 as the entire budget may not all be required if the works come under budget.

 

This proposed budget amendment follows a report to Council on 8 April 2015 which outlined that a subsequent report would be required to facilitate the budget amendment.  This also supports the implementation of the lease terms endorsed (C1504/088) by Council, in order to facilitate the lease agreement with Patricia Schreuder and Allan Schreuder to establish and operate a café business at the GLC.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Officer’s recommend that the 2014/15 adopted budget be amended through the transfer of $41,529 from the budgets listed in the Officer recommendations of this report to the GLC Extensions Contractor budget (126-B9554-3280-0000) to allow the café fit out works to be completed.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may determine not to support a budget amendment, however Council has previously endorsed (C1504/088) entering into a lease agreement for the operations of the café, which requires the City to undertake the fit out works.  

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the officer recommendation be endorsed, budget amendments will occur in April 2015.


 

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/101              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council approves an amendment to the 2014/15 budget on the following basis:

 

 

Description

 Account String

2014/15 Adopted Budget  $

 2014/15 Amended Budget (PROPOSED)  $

Variance $

 

GLC Building Maintenance Services

336-10591-3110-0000

17,111

8,611

-8,500

 

GLC Contractors

552-10591-3280-0000

39,375

33,175

-6,200

 

GLC Furniture and Office Equipment Non Capital Assets

336-10591-3301-0000

24,946

17,446

-7,500

 

GLC Expense Offset Account – Furniture and Equipment

336-10591-7743-0000

40,420

31,091

-9,329

 

GLC  Lease of Equipment

336-10591-3381-0000

60,123

50,123

-10,000

 

GLC  Extensions Contractors

126-B9554-3280-000

907,500

949,029

41,529

 

Net Variance

 

1,089,475

1,089,475

0

                                                                                                                                                                            

 CARRIED 8/0

        BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY


 

14.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

14.1           STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN FIRST BIENNIAL REVIEW

SUBJECT INDEX:

Strategic Community Plan

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision-making.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Organisational Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015)  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report outlines the results of the first biennial review of the Strategic Community Plan 2013, conducted between 16 January and 27 February, and presents the attached City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) (Attachment A) for Council adoption.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Strategic Community Plan 2013 (the Plan) was adopted by Council in February 2013.  The plan has a 10 year focus based on six (6) community key goal areas and eighteen (18) community objectives.  Regulation 19(C) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires the Council of a local government to comprehensively review its Strategic Community Plan every four (4) years.  Additionally, the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework Advisory Standard developed by the Department of Local Government and Community supports the completion of a desktop review every two (2) years.

 

The City of Busselton conducted a desktop review of the Plan between 16 January 2015 and 27 February 2015.  As part of this review Council sought the input of community members via:

 

(i)  a public questionnaire, available on the City’s website and in hard copy format;

(ii) a half day workshop with 25 of the community’s stakeholders; and

(iii) a half day workshop with staff who expressed an interest in assisting with the review.

 

In addition, officers conducted an administrative review including  reviewing the plan’s measures of success. 

 

The outcomes from the consultation process were presented to Council at a workshop on the 25th March 2015.

 

Consultation

 

The questionnaire was released on 16 January 2015 and closed on 13 February 2015, attracting 245 responses.  Containing 25 questions, it sought information regarding the community’s ongoing level of support for each community objective; community views about the progress of achieving each objective, and comment regarding some of the Council’s strategies, services and facilities.

 

Of the 245 responses, 48.9% provided a Busselton postcode, with 38.5% providing a Dunsborough post code and 8.6% a Yallingup postcode.  This indicated a relatively high response rate from Dunsborough – Yallingup population.  Period of residency was equally spread (31% each) between 4-9 years and 10-19 years.  44.9% of respondents were aged between 36-45 years with 19.3% aged 55 years or over. 

The workshop with key stakeholders was held on the morning of Tuesday 3 February at the Busselton Community Resource Centre.  It was attended by 23 members of the Busselton community, including representatives from the business sector, tourism bodies, industry, and key community groups.  Councillors Coralie Tarbotton and John McCallum also attended.   Those who attended reflected on and discussed the Plan’s stated community vision and the progress made within each key goal area.  Stakeholders then identified what they perceived as gaps in the Plan’s strategies and offered suggestions for refinements and improvements to the Plan. 

 

The workshop with staff involved 17 Officers who provided their views on the success of the strategies listed in each Key Goal Area of the Plan.  They identified the strategies they thought were “on track” and those that could benefit from more work.

 

In summary no significant objections were raised during the review regarding the vision or the objectives of the Plan.  The vision and objectives of the Plan remain relevant with members of the Stakeholder Reference Group agreeing that the Plan’s vision mostly “hit the spot”.  Fifty two percent of questionnaire respondents indicated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the progress made by Council toward achieving the Plan objectives.  This is seen as a positive response noting that the Plan is only two years old and that this was the first review undertaken. 

 

Overall, the consultation demonstrated support for the 18 community objectives contained in the Plan, noting some suggestions for further refining and clarifying the wording and intent of the objectives.  Support was also indicated for the strategies adopted by Council to address the objectives of the Plan, with the feedback helping to identify areas that the community thinks need more focus (or where more information to the community is required). 

 

The key themes emerging from the review were –

 

1.    A desire for improved community access to information about Council decisions and direction and for more regular and frequent two way communication. 

 

2.    The need for increasing community facilities and infrastructure to match population growth, with sporting / leisure infrastructure and services rating highly as a perceived need, particularly in the Dunsborough area.  Improved health services were also noted along with the need for a performing arts centre to strengthen arts and culture initiatives.  

 

3.    A desire to strengthen the economy in ways other than through events and tourism.  Advocacy for attracting a variety of businesses and industries to improve employment prospects for qualified people and the youth received strong support. 

 

4.    The quality of internet and mobile telephone coverage was raised as an important issue for business and the community, especially for residents in rural areas. 

 

5.    Improved cycle ways that truly link destinations across the district were noted as a need in all consultation forums.  Local public transport was also seen as an issue in some areas.

 

6.    Key Goal Area 5 (Cared for and Enhanced Environment) continues to be an important objective for the community, particularly in relation to understanding and managing climate change risks. 

 

7.    Key Goal Area 3 (Robust local economy) was judged to have made the most significant progress, largely due to the strength of the City’s events strategy in progressing objective 3.2 - A City recognised for its high quality events and year round tourist offerings.    

8.    Key Goal Area 2 (Well planned, vibrant and active places), was judged to have made the second highest levels of progress with work on redeveloping the City’s foreshore largely perceived as positive.  The review did also note however a desire for improved maintenance of parks and reserves in other less high profile areas.   

 

9.    With respect to Key Goal Area 1 (Caring and inclusive community) when asked for an assessment of their sense of belonging in the community, 83.5% of questionnaire respondents answered good / very good.  Responses to questions around local area safety and the City’s responsiveness to public emergency and bushfire were also positive.  Such results support positive progression of objective 1.1 - A community where people feel safe, empowered, included and enjoy a sense of good health and wellbeing.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to Plan for the Future, ensuring that plans made are in accordance with any regulations made about planning for the future of the district. 

 

Regulation 19(C) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires the Council of a local government to comprehensively review its Strategic Community Plan every four (4) years.  Additionally, the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework Advisory Standard developed by the Department of Local Government and Community supports the completion of a desktop review every two (2) years.

 

Regulation 19(C) requires that electors and ratepayers of its district are consulted when preparing modifications of a strategic community plan and that any modifications are adopted by an absolute majority of Council.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Corporate Business Plan

 

The Corporate Business Plan is the City’s medium term (four year) plan.  It advances the strategies and priorities of the Strategic Community Plan through identification of the priority actions for the period along with the services and facilities Council is responsible for providing.

 

Long Term Financial Plan, Workforce Plan and Asset Management Plans

 

The Long Term Financial Plan, the Workforce Plan and various asset management plans together are the City’s points of reference for resourcing the Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plans. This resourcing strategy aims to ensure the required level of funds and staffing are available to meet Council’s asset and service delivery obligations in addition to funding strategies and initiatives designed to meet the community objectives.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Adoption of the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) will require the document to be re-printed along with the printing of a new summary document.  The approximate cost of this printing is $2,000 with funds being available within the 2014/2015 budget for this.  Council will also be required to give local public notice of adoption of the modified plan; funds exist for this within the 2014/2015 budget.  

 


 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

The Strategic Community Plan both informs and is informed by the Long Term Financial Plan.  There are financial implications over the life of the plan in delivering the services, actions and projects to meet or contribute to achievement of the community objectives and these are captured in the City’s Long Term Financial Plan. 

 

Given the minor nature of the changes proposed in the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) its adoption will not have any significant impact on the Long Term Financial Plan.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The strategic community plan provides the overall strategic direction for the community, Council and other key partners who deliver services and play a part in the City’s growth and development.  As such the plan is of significant strategic importance. 

 

The first biennial review process and the adoption of the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) is consistent with the objectives of Key Goal Area 6 - Open and collaborative leadership:

 

6.1  A Council that engages broadly and proactively with the community.

6.2  Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision making.

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

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework.  Potential financial reputational, opportunity, financial and environmental risks were considered.  Given the minor nature of the changes proposed in the Strategic Community Plan 2014 (Review 2015) no risks were found where the residual risk, once controls have been identified, were considered to be ‘medium’ or greater.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation with the community about the Plan and progress towards achieving its objectives formed a significant part of this first review process.   Advanced notice of the review was advertised on the City’s public website from 12 December 2014 and in the Council for Community page published in Busselton-Dunsborough Times on 12 December 2015 and 9 January 2015.

 

The public questionnaire was available on the City’s website from 16 January 2015 to 13 February 2015.  Access to the site for the duration of the questionnaire period was facilitated through the installation of dedicated tablets at the Busselton and Dunsborough libraries.  Hard copies of the questionnaire were also available on request.

 

Various stakeholder groups along with identified people active in the community received a written invitation from the Mayor to assist with the review of the Plan by attending an independently facilitated Stakeholder Reference Group workshop.   The participants were asked to provide their insights into the validity of the vision, aspirations and objectives in the Plan based on their experiences, with the workshop providing valuable feedback. 

 

A workshop with interested staff members was also held to look at how the plan’s objectives and strategies are being implemented at an organisational level. 

It is recommended that feedback in the form of a written report be published on the City’s website and also provided to those who attended the Stakeholder Reference Group Workshop.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The consultation undertaken as part of this review provided valuable feedback identifying which areas are viewed as being most progressed and strategies that it may be appropriate for Council to focus additional attention on.  A summary of these are listed by key goal area in the table below.

 

KGA

Areas of Success

Strategies for additional attention

Key Goal

Area 1

 

·    Community safety, inclusion, and an empowered and a healthy community

 

·    Strategies that address the needs of youth and younger parents

·    More specialist health services

 

Key Goal

Area 2

 

·    Redevelopment of Busselton and Dunsborough foreshores

 

·    Focus on recreation and leisure facilities and services

·    Focus on arts and culture including a performing arts venue

·    Infrastructure and asset maintenance

 

Key Goal

Area 3

 

·    Event hosting and attraction

 

·    Diversifying the economy

·    Support for local business

·    Improved employment options

 

Key Goal

Area 4

 

·    Creation of linked networks of cycle ways and pedestrian paths

·    Internet and mobile phone connectivity

·    Improving cycle way links with destinations

·    Local public transport options

 

Key Goal

Area 5

 

·    Caring for and enhancing the environment

 

·    Addressing climate change risks and impacts

·    Focusing on the health of our waterways

·    Improved recycling strategies

 

Key Goal

Area 6

 

·    Council engagement with the community

 

·    More regular and frequent communication and engagement with the community.

 

 

Overall the desktop review confirmed the ongoing relevance of the Plan’s goals, objectives and strategies, all of which Council aims to deliver upon within its available resourcing as per its resourcing strategy.  As such there are no changes recommended at this juncture to the key goal areas or the community objectives within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015). 

 

It is acknowledged that the key goal areas and community objectives could be further refined to provide more clarity as to their intent and to simplify wording however it is recommended that this be done as part of the four (4) year review of the plan.  This review will be much more comprehensive in terms of its level of engagement with the community and its timeframes and hence will produce more qualitative data on which to substantiate any proposed changes.  

 

In reviewing the Council Strategies listed in the Plan Officers again felt that all of the strategies remained relevant.  Funding provisions have been made where appropriate for the strategies within the Long Term Financial Plan, further supporting their relevance.   

Minor wording changes have been made however to some of the Council strategies to update their currency and to better reflect their intent in response to community feedback.  These include:

·    in various strategies the reference to lobbying has been replaced with the term advocate to better reflect the nature of the action undertaken by Council;

·    the strategy in key goal area 2 ‘ensure our recreational facilities meet the needs of our growing community’ has been amended to read ‘ensure our sporting and recreational …’;

·    the strategy in relation to a performing arts centre (also in key goal area 2) has been amended to reflect that a business case is being prepared to further investigate its establishment;

·    additional key partners have been added to the plan in key goal area’s 2 and 3;

·    the Busselton Jetty has been added as a referenced facility in key goal area 2;

·    the strategy in key goal area 5 relating to a waste management strategy has been amended to reference a focus on recycling;

·    the strategy in relation to Port Geographe has been updated to reflect progress; and

·    various other minor wording changes have been made to simplify and clarify intent

 

In many cases the feedback received through the review relates more to the implementation of priority actions and services at the Corporate Business Plan level as opposed to the Strategic Community, noting that the Strategic Community Plan is designed to be a high level document.  Additionally, whilst all strategies are being progressed through various actions and initiatives, the extent of work being undertaken is dependent upon the funding allocated within the Long Term Financial Plan.   As such it is recommended that Council note the key themes and matters raised by the community during the course of the review and further consider the feedback in the course of reviewing and adopting its Corporate Business Plan and associated Long Term Financial Plan over the next two years.   

 

The quality and usefulness of the measures of success contained within the Plan was discussed as part of the Stakeholder Reference Group with officers acknowledging this as an area that requires further work with the measures included as part of the Plan’s establishment not being well developed or benchmarked.  The scope of this review has not allowed for that work however Officers will work with relevant Stakeholders in advance of the 4 year review in late 2016 / early 2017 to further assess the current measures and develop more robust ones. 

 

In saying this one measure has been removed from the measures of success in key goal area 5 – ‘reserves with management plans’ on the basis that there are already 4 measures in that area and initial reviews have shown it is not a readily quantified measure.

 

The changes identified above, along with other administrative changes (for instance to the Council page to update Councillors, the Who We Are page to update demographic information, and the Related Council Plans page to update associated plans) are presented in the attached Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) for adoption.  Given the level of consultation undertaken as part of the review and the minor nature of the changes, Officers are not recommending a further period of public advertising prior to adoption.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The first biennial review of Council’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 involved an administrative review of the Plan and the seeking of community feedback about the Plan via:

(i)  a public questionnaire, available on the City’s website and in hard copy format;

(ii) a half day workshop with community stakeholders; and

(iii) a half day workshop with staff.

 

The review confirmed the ongoing relevance of the Plan’s goals, objectives and strategies and identified minor wording changes to the Council Strategies which aim to support achievement of the objectives.  In updating the Plan changes have also been made where appropriate to other pages such as the Council and Who We Are pages.

 

The attached Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) is now presented for adoption in accordance with section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.    Council may decide not to adopt the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015).  In this case the Strategic Community Plan 2013 will remain in place as the Council’s adopted Strategic Community Plan. 

 

2.    Council may decide to adopt the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) with amendments. 

 

3.    Council may decide to advertise the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) for a further period of public consultation.  In the event that this option is chosen Officers recommend a period of 14 days as appropriate.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Upon adoption of the Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) a local public notice will be given in relation to the adoption of modifications to the Plan.  This will occur by the 31 May 2015.  The Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) will also be published for distribution in both hard copy format and as an E-book on the City’s website.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/102              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council That the Council adopt the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013 (Review 2015) in the form attached to this report as its Plan for the Future as required by Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995.

CARRIED 8/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 


Council                                                                                      73                                                                      22 April 2015

14.2           FAWNA AND BUSSELTON COMMUNITY GARDENS LEASES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Agreements and Contracts

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance and Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Coordinator - Ann Strang

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Leased areas and access ways  

  

PRÉCIS

 

On the 23 July 2014, the Council resolved to enter into leases with both the Busselton Community Gardens Inc. (“BCG”) and FAWNA Inc. (“FAWNA”) for specific portions of land located on Lot 22 Roe Terrace, Busselton.  Council also resolved to enter into a licence with both parties to formalise use of the shared access to the leased premises. 

 

At this stage, no construction has commenced on Lot 22. FAWNA wish to construct their storage shed in a different area and have agreed on an alternative location with BCG.  This purpose of this report is to request revocation of the previous council resolution and seek resolutions to enter into leases with FAWNA and BCG and amend the lease of the adjoining land with BESS Home & Community Care (“BESS”) to reflect the areas the parties now wish to lease and the access arrangements for FAWNA.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In July 2014, the Council resolved (1407/183) to enter into agreements with both the BCG and FAWNA for their future occupation of Reserve 24540, Lot 22, Roe Terrace, Busselton as follows:

 

“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                        2019with 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.”

 

FAWNA and BCG submitted their respective development applications during 2014 but to date no construction work has commenced.  Whilst FAWNA were aware that their proposal would require infill material to compact the site prior to construction of their shed, further investigations found that substantially more infill material would be required for the access way to the shed than previously envisaged.  FAWNA were also advised that such infill material was highly likely to cause drainage problems on the adjoining land.

 

FAWNA have since submitted an amendment to their development application in which they seek to relocate the shed to an alternative location on the same Lot.  If supported, the area currently proposed to be leased to FAWNA will need to change, which in turn will mean that the area proposed to be leased to BCG will also differ.  The detail surrounding the recommendation as to the most practical way to implement the proposed changes is set out in the Officer Comment section of this report.

 

Because of the potential drainage problems that would be caused by infill material needed for access to the shed, FAWNA have agreed with BESS, the lessees of the adjoining land, to access their shed via their car park and driveway area once constructed.   The new proposed access is shown hatched blue on the plan attached (Attachment A).

 

The adjoining land is Lot 555, Roe Terrace, Busselton which is Crown land vested to the City.  The City leases this land to BESS, which in conjunction with the Geographe Bay Rotary Club of Busselton have constructed two sheds for the Men in Sheds project. The group has yet to construct their car park and driveways.

 

The proposal will impact on the areas Council previously resolved to be leased to BCG and FAWNA as the area FAWNA now wish to lease forms part of BCG’s original leased premises.  The effect will essentially be a quid pro quo however as the area originally identified to be leased to FAWNA now forms part of the area recommended to be included in BCG’s lease and vice versa.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations require that at least one third of the total number of Council Members, in the City’s case 3 Councillors, indicate their support to consider a motion to revoke a Council decision.   The decision to revoke must then be made by an absolute majority of Council.

 

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, Part 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.  

The adjoining land Lot 555, Roe Terrace, Busselton on Deposited Plan 72420, Volume      LR3162 Folio 970, Reserve  50671 is crown land vested to the City for the designate purpose of “ Community Centre”.   Any amendment to the existing lease with BESS will require approval of the Minister for Lands.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Nil

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

If Council adopt the officer recommendation, there will be no financial implications for the City. There is a potential cost saving for FAWNA in developing the alternative site in the reduced amount of infill material required for construction.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

Nil

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The request for the Lease 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

 

There are no identified risks associated with the officer recommendation, with the recommendation serving to mitigate the risks associated with FAWNA constructing their shed on the current approved leased area.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The board members of BCG met with FAWNA on the 5 February 2015 and agreed to the alternative site for the FAWNA shed.  The chairperson of BCG has provided City officers with written confirmation that they are supportive of the proposal.   

 

Consultation has been undertaken with BESS as to the feasibility of FAWNA accessing their shed via their car park.  BESS have confirmed their support of the proposal in writing to City officers.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The initial plans submitted with the development application for both FAWNA and BCG, meant that access to the FAWNA shed would be required through the BCG proposed car park area.  The report to Council relating to the tenure of the land addressed this by recommending that the City grant a lease of the areas that FAWNA and BCG will have exclusive use over and a licence for the shared use areas.

 

If Council support the proposed alternative site for the FAWNA shed as shown hatched red on the plan attached (Attachment A) the licence over the proposed car park to be constructed by BCG will not be necessary. 

 

The proposed new leased areas to be granted to BCG and FAWNA are shown on the Plan attached. Other than this and the absence of a need to grant a licence to access the FAWNA shed over BCG’s leased area, the terms and conditions will remain the same as previously agreed. 

 

If this recommendation is supported by Council the original resolution in respect of the proposed areas to be leased to FAWNA and BCG will need to be revoked and a new resolution sought.

 

BESS are supportive of FAWNA accessing their shed via the Men’s Shed car park. As work has yet to be commenced on the car park, the groups can design this to ensure suitable access is available to all sheds.   As BESS have exclusive use over this land, it is proposed to alter their lease to reflect the access to the shed through the car park by FAWNA.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

FAWNA have advised that the cost to develop this alternative site is substantially less than that of the initial proposed site.  BCG are in agreement as the site originally proposed  for FAWNA is more suited to garden beds and other infrastructure associated with the community gardens. 

 

As all parties involved are in favour of the alternative site it is recommended that the City take the necessary steps to formalise this arrangement by entering into leases for the new sites as shown on Attachment A with FAWNA and BCG respectively and amending the lease between the City and BESS to allow FAWNA access over the car park in their leased area.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.            Council can resolve not to endorse the new leases for both FAWNA and BCG and implement         the existing council resolution. This is not recommended due to the costs associated with       developing these areas.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The leases and the deed of amendment will be forwarded to the Minister for Lands seeking in-principle approval prior to executing the documents.  It is anticipated that the leases and the deed of amendment would be executed by all parties by 1 July 2015.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/103              Moved Councillor J Green, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUCNIL REQUIRED

That the Council:

 

1.            Revoke the resolution of Council dated 23 July 2014 (C1407/183).

 

2.            Enter into a lease with FAWNA Incorporated for of a portion of Reserve 24540 Lot 22,      Deposited Plan 82131, LR3147 Folio 436, Roe Terrace, Busselton, as shown hatched red on           Attachment A  on the following terms;

 

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

                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;

                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.

 

Ente   3.            Enter into a lease with the Busselton Community Garden Incorporated for a portion of    Reserve 24540 Lot 22, Deposited Plan 82131, LR3147 Folio 436, Roe Terrace, Busselton, as shown hatched yellow in Attachment A on the following terms;

 

a.             The lease 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      December 2019;

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.

 

 

4.            Amend the lease dated 21 May 2014 between the City of Busselton and BESS Home &     Community Care Inc. to grant unrestricted access to the   FAWNA Incorporated over the area          shown hatched blue on Attachment A through Reserve 50671, Lot 555, Deposited Plan   72420, Volume LR3162 Folio 970.

CARRIED 8/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 


Council                                                                                      79                                                                      22 April 2015

10.6           Finance Committee - 2/04/2015 - DRAFT SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE 2015/16 FINANCIAL YEAR

SUBJECT INDEX:

Finance and IT Services

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and IT Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Financial Operations

REPORTING OFFICER:

Financial Compliance Officer - Jeffrey Corker

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 2 April 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

In accordance with Regulation 5(2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, a local government is to undertake a review of its fees and charges regularly; and not less than once in every financial year. This report provides the Finance Committee with a recommended Schedule of Fees and Charges to apply for the financial year commencing on 01 July 2015, for its consideration and consequent recommendation to the Council.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act (the “Act”) states that a local government may impose and recover a fee or charge for any goods or services it provides or proposes to provide, other than a service for which a service charge is imposed.

 

Section 6.17 of the Act further states that in determining the amount of a fee or charge for goods and services, a local government is to take in to consideration the following factors:

a)            The cost to the local government of providing the service or goods;

b)            The importance of the service or goods to the community; and

c)            The price at which the service or goods could be provided by an alternative provider.

 

Section 6.18 of the Act clarifies that if the amount of any fee or charge is determined under another written law, then a local government may not charge a fee that is inconsistent with that law.

 

The above matters have been considered as part of the annual fees and charges review.

 

Finally, whilst Section 6.16(3) of the Act states that a schedule of fees and charges is to be adopted by the Council when adopting the annual budget, fees and charges may also be imposed during a financial year. In order for the 2015/16 schedule of fees and charges to be effective from the commencement of the new financial year, the Council is required to adopt its schedule in advance of 30 June 2015, such that any statutory public notice periods (including gazettals where required) can be complied with.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Sections 6.16 – 6.19 of the Act refer to the imposition, setting the level of, and associated administrative matters pertaining to fees and charges. The requirement to review fees and charges on an annual basis is detailed within Regulation 5 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Council’s endorsed Long Term Financial Plan reflects an annual increase in Fees and Charges revenue of 4.2% (the 10 year average Local Government Cost Index). This matter has been considered as part of the review process.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Whilst fees and charges revenue includes items that the Council has no authority to amend, it is important that, where possible, controllable fees and charges are appropriately indexed on an annual basis, to assist in offsetting the increasing costs of providing associated services.    This may include increases beyond normal indexation in particular cases in line with Section 6.17 of the Act.

 

Long-term Financial Plan Implications

 

In terms of the Council’s currently adopted budget, revenue from fees and charges (excluding waste collection charges) equates to approximately 22% of budgeted rates revenue and 14% of total operating revenue (excluding non-operating grants). As such, fees and charges form an integral component of the City’s overall revenue base in relation to the Long-term Financial Plan.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The schedule of fees and charges adopted by the Council encompasses 'whole of organisation' activities. As such, all Key Goal Areas within the Council’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 are in some way impacted. More specifically however, this matter aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and particularly Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are several risks that the Council needs to be mindful of when reviewing its schedule of fees and charges. Firstly, in an effort to assist in recovering costs associated with the provision of services, it is important that, where applicable, fees and charges are increased on an annual basis in line with relevant economic indicators. Should this not occur the provision of services is required to be increasingly subsidised by other funding sources. Conversely however, a balance is also required to ensure that fees and charges are maintained at levels so as not to adversely impact on the financial ability for ratepayers to utilise those services, which may otherwise result in a net reduction in revenue.               

 

CONSULTATION

 

Business Unit Managers are responsible for reviewing fees and charges associated with activities under their control. As part of the review process, consultation may occur with other local government authorities, in addition to a review of prices offered by alternate service providers (pursuant to Section 6.17 of the Act).       

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The 2015/16 draft Schedule of Fees and Charges has been guided by a general escalation of 4.2% over currently adopted fees and charges, which represents the average of the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) over the past 10 years. This methodology is consistent with the Fees and Charges revenue extrapolation as comprised within the Council’s currently endorsed Long Term Financial Plan. Notwithstanding this however, in numerous instances this principle is not appropriate, with other factors also requiring consideration. The following provides an overview, by Directorate, of noteworthy instances where an LGCI extrapolation has not been utilised, whilst also discussing, where relevant, newly proposed fees and charges.              

 

Executive Services

 

Major Projects

The Major Projects Consultancy rates applicable to the work being undertaken in Carnarvon have not been increased as they are provided under an existing contract.  Should staff be required to do work for another local government they would be charged out at the rates as detailed in the second section, which have been appropriately increased.

 

Planning and Development Services

 

Environmental Health

Fees relating to Stallholders, Traders, Outdoor Eating Facilities and Street Entertainers have been included subsequent to the adoption of the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2015.

 

Amendments to the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 have resulted in a discretionary clause allowing variation by the CEO when implementing the statutory fee relating to Regulation 18 noise approvals.  These new fees provide for that discretion to be exercised through the approving of different types of events requiring this type of approval.

 

The increase in the Noise Monitoring Fee is calculated based on a true fee for service when Environmental Health Officers are required to work after hours and on weekends in the performance of their noise monitoring duties.

 

Ranger & Fire Services - Miscellaneous

Two new Rangers fees have been added as follows:

 

•             Fees for portable sign approval - $200

The recently Gazetted Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2015 allows for the approval of portable signs (‘A-frame’ signs or similar) on verges. Previously, there has essentially been no power to approve such signs. City officers are developing a policy that, once it has been reviewed and endorsed by Council, would guide the City in implementing the new power. The proposed fee would establish an appropriate fee, reflecting the anticipated costs to the City, of assessing such applications.

 

•             Fees for permit under Thoroughfares Local Law where not otherwise set - $300

The recently Gazetted Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2015 allows certain activities to be undertaken, subject to the granting of a permit by the City. In most cases, specific fees have been identified for each of the activities that require a permit, but there are some where it is not appropriate or practicable to identify a fee for that particular kind of activity. It is nevertheless seen as appropriate that what is effectively a ‘miscellaneous’ fee be identified, otherwise applications for permits for some activities would not attract any fee at all. The proposed fee would establish an appropriate fee, reflecting the anticipated costs to the City, of assessing such applications.

 

Engineering and Works Services

 

Waste Disposal and Sanitation Fees and Charges

Generally fees for waste disposal at the Busselton and Dunsborough Waste facilities have either not been increased, or have been increased at the LGCI rate (allowing for rounding). The descriptors of a number of categories have been expanded or altered to provide clarity as to their classification. New fees or those that have altered significantly include:

 

Domestic Waste (Busselton and Dunsborough)

General Domestic Waste (Sorted and Separated)

•                The rate per bin will remain the same while all other charges will be increased significantly because of a number of reasons: 1) bulk waste in the back of cars, utes, vans, wagons, trailers, etc. is becoming more and more of an issue/challenge (and is discouraged), as the new transfer station will operate in a completely different arrangement (with waste being tipped directly on to hook bins), 2) higher charges are proposed for larger/bulk quantities because the desire to recoup the additional costs of temporarily relocating the tipping area at Dunsborough Waste Facility (for better traffic management purposes while  building the new landfill cell).

•                Car Trailers with Sides - New charge proposed under WARR Act. This is to allow City to charge appropriately for larger capacity trailers, given the additional quantities to be disposed of and corresponding costs.

 

Clean Green Domestic Waste

•                Increase of car/sedans is related to the fact that the original rate was justified because cars have reduced volume carrying capacity. However, people are now lowering their backseats to increase their vehicle capacity, which gets it closer to that of utes and vans. Thus the substantial increase proposed for cars is really an adjustment, in line with the actual volume capacity.

•                For larger quantities it is very hard to make sure that green waste is clean (devoid of contamination). When inspected at the gate, larger quantities can and do conceal underneath mixed waste. In fact a major problem at both sites is that green waste pile has a lot of contamination, which requires the City to hire contractors to remove that contamination on a regular basis, at a cost. This adjustment reflects that additional cost.

 

Miscellaneous Domestic Waste

•                Bicycle/Motorcycle tyres - per tyre - New charge proposed WARR Act. Currently no charge applies to these tyres, whereas charges apply to all other tyre types. This is to allow City to charge appropriately, given applicable recycling costs.

•                Animals - Consolidated categories of small, medium & large animals into one single category in order to simplify this waste type.

•                Mattresses - New charge proposed WARR Act. This is to allow City to charge appropriately, given applicable processing costs now that the City has initiated tip face recycling of mattresses.

 

Busselton Commercial

Green Waste (Clean)

•                Clippings and wheelie bin fees do not justify changing. The increase for car/sedans is related to the fact that the original rate was justified because cars have reduced volume carrying capacity. However, people are now lowering their backseats to increase their vehicle capacity, which gets it closer to that of utes and vans. Thus the substantial increase proposed for cars is really an adjustment, in line with the actual volume capacity. For larger quantities it is very hard to make sure that green waste is clean (devoid of contamination). When inspected at the gate, larger quantities can and do conceal underneath mixed waste. In fact a major problem at both sites is that green waste pile has a lot of contamination, which requires the City to hire contractors to remove that contamination on a regular basis, at a cost. This adjustment reflects that additional cost.

 

Dunsborough Commercial

Commercial Waste with Weighbridge

•                Construction and Demolition Waste – per 100kgs - New waste category of Construction & Demolition Waste. This has the same rate as the pre-existing ‘building waste’, but will allow the differentiation between concrete and bricks rubble produced during construction works (which is what staff want to sort and will be classified as C&D proper) and works site clean-up (which has no valuable materials) and will be classified as building waste and landfilled.

•                This is commercial waste and different streams already carry a high enough price (e.g. asbestos). It is proposed to keep some fees unchanged to further promote appropriate disposal or recycling. The minimum weighbridge charge has been the same for a number of years (approximately 5 years). It has been proposed to increase it to $25 as an adjustment rather than a CPI increase.

 

Commercial Waste (Weighbridge Unavailable)

General Waste, Building and Construction unseparated Waste

•                The fee for a trailer over 6x4 has been increased in line with the Minimum Weighbridge Charge (also $25.00), to increase consistency; in order to eliminate arguments about whether commercial vehicles should be charged one fee or the other. This charge has been fixed for the last couple of years, so it is reasonable to amend according to this proposal. The fee for 6x4 trailers has been increased accordingly so that it is approximately 50% of that for larger trailers. Fees applicable to truckloads, articulated vehicles and compactor vehicles are proposed to be adjusted significantly in order to yield equivalent revenues that the City would accrue for equivalent transactions if the weighbridge was operational.

 

Green Waste (Clean)

•                The rationale for the increases to the fees applicable to cars and commercial trailers justified as above, i.e. higher quantities of green waste make it very hard to make sure that green waste is clean (devoid of contamination), which in turn determine additional clean-up costs.

 

Bricks and Concrete (uncontaminated) - Dunsborough only

•                Fees deemed to yield equivalent fee revenues that the City would accrue for equivalent transactions if the weighbridge was operational.

 

Other Commercial Waste - Dunsborough Only

•                These proposed changes are fee adjustments. In the case of liquid waste, to recoup costs of newly lined septage ponds. In the case of asbestos/special burials to better reflect the cost of burying those items, as they require special/dedicated burial (mobilising plant and operative) and in effect take up a lot more airspace than the regular waste.

 

Bin Hire Charges

•             The bin price has been adjusted to reflect updated actual market values.

 

Finance and Corporate Services

 

Annual Lease Fee (Peppercorn)

There has historically been a fee and charge ‘annual lease fee (peppercorn)’ included in the fees and charges.  This is not however a fee or charge, it is a rent amount charged to community groups for the leasing of City property.  As opposed to being a set fee or charge the rent amount for the leasing of City property should be determined through the Council report authorising the leasing of the property, taking into account the circumstances of the leasing arrangement, and / or through the leasing policy which is currently in its final draft and will be presented to the Policy and Legislation Committee by 30 June 2015.  The inclusion has therefore been deleted.

 

Loan Raising Fee

Two previous separate fees have been consolidated into one has there was no basis for the separation.

 

Cemetery Fees and Charges

Included in the 2015 – 2016 Fees and Charges is a new charge for the retention of 15% of the purchase price against any refund of cemetery fees and charges. The Cemeteries Act 1986 Part VII(1)(o) allows for this fee.

 

Refunds for cemetery purchases are rare.  In most cases, the refund will be for a pre-paid service such as a plot reservation, usually due to changing circumstances of the purchaser.  As the reserved item is held in both the electronic database and on hardcopy maps there is an administrative overhead associated with the creation of plot reservation.  Therefore it is felt that an administration charge should apply. This will also provide for processing the refunded item back into the system.

 

Community and Commercial Services

 

Property Usage Fees & Charges: One Off Events – Bonds & Cancellations All indoor Facilities

The charge for the Key Bond has been increased so to bring it in line with the CRC which charge $100 for the swipe card. This way regardless of which facility they hire it is on an even keel. In addition from a process perspective the hire staff are not trying to work out which facility it is; they are all the same. It is proposed to come into effect for new users as they come on board. Existing users with a ‘holding over’ bond will not be affected.

 

Events & Casual Ground Hire

A new Jetty Closure Fee has been introduced for closure of the Jetty for less than six hours. Enquiries have been received relating to holding evening or lunchtime events on the Jetty that would require closure of the Jetty for short period of time. This fee would contribute towards the staff costs incurred in the Jetty closure only. This fee does not extend to staff hours allocated in the setup of events on the Jetty which should be negotiated through the event application.

 

Events – Equipment Hire & Signage

New fees have been introduced for the removal and installation of the Stinger nets and beach matting located at the Busselton Foreshore. These fees have been introduced to cover the staff costs associated with the removal and installation from the Busselton foreshore for water and beach based events.

 

Naturaliste Community Centre (NCC)

The NCC is proposing to increase the majority of fees by approximately the designated percentage (subject to rounding) except for the Group Fitness Membership fees which will be bought into line with those at the GLC. Please refer to the GLC section for discussion on the increases to the GLC fees of a similar nature.

 

Geographe Leisure Centre (GLC)

The GLC is proposing that the following new Fees & Charges be included within the 2014/15 Draft Schedule. 

o             Fees have been included for Learn to Swim, Inflatables/Bouncy Castle Hire, Vacation Care Program Daily rate sand Direct Debit (Fortnightly deduction). The fees are not new to the GLC but have not been included on the schedule in previous years.

o             Fees included for the hire of the Health Suites, Meeting Room and Fitness Room are listed as new, but have been recently adopted by Council and duly advertised.

 

All other alterations are in line with a 4.2% increase (with rounding up) other than:

 

 

Personal / Group Training

Specialist Personal Training session have been increased beyond 4.2% to better reflect the cost of providing the Personal Training program.

 

Crèche/Activity Room

The Crèche/ Activity room was part of the recent building works.  The crèche is a totally new room twice the size of the old crèche with additional facilities; the Fees and Charges have been adjusted to reflect this.

 

Gym: [per person per annum]

An investigation has been completed and pricing compared to South West Sports Centre Bunbury (SWSC), Margaret River (MR), Leschenault Leisure Centre (LLC) Eaton Recreation Centre (ERC) Craigie (C) and Manjimup (M). Our membership pricing (except Aquatics) was found to be well below average pricing.  With the GLC upgrade to the Gym and Group Exercise areas complete it is proposed to increase our pricing in line with like facilities.  No new membership options have been introduced.  NOTE: Concessions still receive a $100 discount off normal prices as in the past; all other facilities investigated only offer a 10% discount off normal prices.  Double (two people joining together) still receive a $50 per person discount off normal membership. Fees are charged by the below facilities for a Gym only membership:

•             SWSC - $680

•             Craigie - $730

•             Margaret River $ - 630

 

Group Fitness Classes only: [per person per annum]

Fees are charged by the below facilities for a Group Fitness only membership

•             SWSC - $580

•             Craigie - $770

 

Gym/Swim/Spa/Sauna: [per person per annum]

Fees are charged by the below facilities for a Full Membership

•             SWSC - $880

•             Craigie  - $970

•             Margaret River $ - 780

•             Manjimup - $752

•             Eaton - $747

 

Corporate and City of Busselton memberships increase in line with all membership increase, but still offer considerable discounts on normal prices.

 

Kookaburra Caravan Park

Most fees and charges for the Kookaburra Caravan Park have been increased by LGCI. Other alterations are as following:

•                Current fees and charges include a single person rate which is applied in the off peak season. A new fee has been introduced for a peak season single person rate clarifying the single person rate (currently only a two person rate is listed). 

•                A new fee has been introduced to apply to clubs where 15 vans or more visit the park during off peak season. This fee has been introduced to encourage clubs during the off peak season to visit by discounting the rates. This fee applies to the overnight and weekly rates.

•                No CPI increases have been applied to a number of fees. The reason being that these fees are generally in line with the market and an increase is not justified at this time.

•                No CPI increase has been applied to all rates (o/n and weekly) for Park home number 6 (ensuite) - up to maximum 4 people. This is because a budget item has been added to the 2015/16 Annual Budget to replace park home 6 and if approved a report with amended fees will need to be presented to the Council prior to removal of the old park home and installation of a new cabin.

•                The Semi-Permanent annual fee has been increased by 5%, this is due to the amount of administration being applied to monitor and manage the semi-permanent patrons at the park.

•                The Miscellaneous Group Booking Fee has been removed as a Clubs fee (peak & Off peak season) has been introduced.

 

ArtGeo Cultural Complex

Following consultation with City events staff it is proposed to delete the Hourly traffic control including road closure fee of $105.00 per hour for the Cultural Precinct. This hourly fee is just one component of a traffic management plan for an event. Road closures for events are calculated based on the needs of each individual event and consider all requirements including road closures.

 

Busselton Regional Airport

Two Annual fees have been increased greater than 4.2%. This is due to the significant increase in number of landing per year occurring by the operators using this fee.

•                An annual landing fee (optional to per landing fee) for commercial operators (including flight training and touch and goes) for City of Busselton residents and/or hangar lessees only, for aircraft 0 - 1,500kg MTOW.

•                An annual landing fee (optional to per landing fee) for commercial operators for City of Busselton residents and/or hangar lessees only, for aircraft 1,500 - 2,000kg MTOW.

 

In the past twelve to eighteen months there has been an increase in requests to use or operate on City of Busselton land (other than using the designated pavement areas) at the Airport which have or will require a license to operate. Hence a new Fee has been added to cover the application processing for any potential new license fees being issued.

•                Application fee for any commercial or private activity that requires a City approved permit or license. 

 

Airport staff are often required to escort non ASIC holders airside for refueling, accessing private aircraft or works that are not City related. This fee is being implemented to recoup staff costs. This fee does not include ARO attendance for any emergency or standby activities.

•                Airport Reporting Officer airside escort, rate per hour for ARO time > 30 minutes (not including Local Standby, Full Emergency, Crash on Airport with ARO in attendance).

 

Library Charges

Library charges remain unchanged in 2015/16. This is primarily due to ‘rounding’ issues in applying LGCI increases to nominal amounts.

 

CONCLUSION

 

As part of the annual fees and charges review, the currently adopted fees and charges have been reviewed in line with the requirements of the Local Government Act and other relevant legislation as applicable. Where considered relevant, fees and charges have been increased by, or above, LGCI estimates in recognition of increased costs associated with the provision of services. In other instances, the prevailing fees and charges are considered adequate (and as such, no changes are recommended). Furthermore, a number of new fees and charges have been proposed, or amendments to existing fees structures recommended. Consequently, it is recommended that the Finance Committee endorses the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2015/16 as recommended, for subsequent consideration by the Council.

 

 

OPTIONS

 

The Finance Committee may determine to recommend amendments to the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges as it deems appropriate.    

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Consequent to adoption by the Council, the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2015/16 will become effective from and including 01 July 2015. 

 

Note: As a result of discussion at the Finance Committee meeting relating to fees for the disposal of

animals, Officers provided a revised recommendation that provides for a fee structure for small,

medium and large animals and an exemption for native animals.

 

Note: Officers put forward and Alternative Recommendation for Council consideration, recommending that three fees be updated for varying reasons. Officers recommended that the noise monitoring fee – per hour be lowered from $200 to $120 to be more reflective of actual costs incurred by the City.

For clarification, the words ‘per hour charge’ were included below a building related fee and a miscellaneous planning consent application fee was amended to show correct GST coding.

 

Note: The abovementioned amendments are highlighted in the below schedule of fees and charges.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND AMENDED OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1504/104              Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor G Henley

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council:

 

1.                Endorses the Fees and Charges as detailed in the “Draft Fee 2015/16 (exc. GST)” column of the following Schedule of Fees and Charges, effective from and including 01 July 2015:

 

 

DESCRIPTION

ADOPTED FEE 2014/15                    (Exc GST)

DRAFT FEE 2015/16                    (Exc GST)

DRAFT FEE 2015/16                    (Inc GST)

 

 

 

 

A concession of 50% of the adopted fee or charge may apply (upon application) in relation to those fees and charges shaded and marked with an asterisk (*). The concession is only available to incorporated not for profit organisations and groups where profits raised from the associated activity are to be donated to a local cause or charity.       

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SALE OF DOCUMENTS

 

 

 

Council Minutes

 

 

 

Subscription on a per annum basis

450.00

470.00

470.00

Single Copy - Agenda

30.00

30.00

30.00

Single Copy - Minutes

20.00

20.00

20.00

 

 

 

 

Electoral Rolls

 

 

 

Per copy

60.00

62.50

62.50

 

 

 

 

Publications

 

 

 

Cape of Contrasts Book

20.00

20.00

22.00

 

 

 

 

CITY OF BUSSELTON LICENCE PLATES

 

 

 

(Not applicable to plates sold at Auction )

 

 

 

City of Busselton plates (aluminium)

509.09

509.09

560.00

Dunsborough plates (polycarbonate)

509.09

509.09

560.00

Yallingup plates (polycarbonate)

509.09

509.09

560.00

 

 

 

 

Major Projects

 

 

 

Consultancy charge out rates subject to Contract negotiation where applicable

 

 

 

Project Manager Advisor

150.00

150.00

165.00

Chief Executive Officer

220.00

220.00

242.00

Cultural Planner

75.00

75.00

82.50

Strategic Planner

75.00

75.00

82.50

Finance Officer

65.00

65.00

71.50

Administration Officer

65.00

65.00

71.50

 

 

 

 

Charge-out rates: City staff undertaking consultancy/ contract work for other local government authorities    

 

 

 

- Manager Level

150.00

154.55

170.00

- Co-ordinator Level

113.64

118.18

130.00

- Technical Officer Level

100.00

104.55

115.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUILDING RELATED FEES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fees for building services listed in Schedule 2, Building Regulations 2012

As per the maximum fee listed in Schedule 2, Building Regulations 2012

As per the maximum fee listed in Schedule 2, Building Regulations 2012

As per the maximum fee listed in Schedule 2, Building Regulations 2012

 

 

 

 

R-Codes Assessment

 

 

 

Rcodes variation applications

Planning application fee as per Schedule 2

Planning application fee as per Schedule 2

Planning application fee as per Schedule 2

Planning application consultation (R Code variations)

110.00

114.00

114.00

 

 

 

 

Demolition License

 

 

 

Performance Bond - site clean-up and verge bond

375.00

392.00

392.00

 

 

 

 

Building Plan Searches and Research Fee

 

 

 

Building under construction

69.00

72.00

72.00

Old Archive (Stored at Depot) - under 15 years

104.00

108.00

108.00

Old Archive (Stored at Depot) - over 15 years

136.00

142.00

142.00

Provide copy of Housing Indemnity Insurance Policy

69.00

72.00

72.00

Site Plans

54.00

56.00

56.00

The above fees include the cost of copying up to ten A4 or A3 sheets or equivalent. Any further copies which be charged in accord with the adopted photocopy charges as detailed in this Schedule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provision of Hard Copy of Approved Plans

 

 

 

A4 Photocopy

12.00

13.00

13.00

A3 Photocopy

15.00

16.00

16.00

Computer Plotting (full colour) per sheet

 

 

 

A4 Sheet

26.00

27.00

27.00

A3 Sheet

30.00

32.00

32.00

A2 Sheet

39.00

42.00

42.00

A1 Sheet

62.00

65.00

65.00

 

 

 

 

Building Inspection and Reports

 

 

 

Building inspection and report preparation (relocated dwelling or similar)

438.18

457.27

503.00

Strata inspection fee - First inspection free.  Fee applies to subsequent inspections.

136.36

142.73

157.00

Property Inspection and Report Preparation

409.09

427.27

470.00

Building Call Out Fee.  Fee applies where work for which an inspection is requested, was not ready for inspection.

136.36

142.73

157.00

Weekend Call Out Fee - per hour (calculated as a minimum of one hour)

113.64

118.18

130.00

Pool inspection fee on sale of property (if more than 1 year from scheduled inspection)

136.36

142.73

157.00

Building and Pool re-inspection fee for non-compliance.

136.36

142.73

157.00

 

 

 

 

Subscription for Building Lists

 

 

 

Annual (supplied monthly) - per annum fee

250.00

262.00

262.00

One Monthly Subscription only - per month fee

42.00

44.00

44.00

 

 

 

 

Building certificates and written advice (Building Act 2011)

 

 

 

Certificate of design compliance for class 2-9 buildings construction value up to $2M

0.09% of the GST inclusive estimated value of works, with a minimum of $220; plus GST.

0.09% of the GST inclusive estimated value of works, with a minimum of $262; plus GST.

0.09% of the GST inclusive estimated value of works, with a minimum of $262; plus GST.

Certificate of design compliance for class 2-9 buildings construction value more than $2M

 $1,800, plus 0.07% of the GST inclusive estimated value of works for every $ over $2M; plus GST.

 $1,800, plus 0.07% of the GST inclusive estimated value of works for every $ over $2M; plus GST.

 $1,800, plus 0.07% of the GST inclusive estimated value of works for every $ over $2M; plus GST.

Certificate of Construction/ Building Compliance

Hourly fee of $120, minimum of $250 plus GST

Hourly fee of $125, minimum of $262 plus GST

Hourly fee of $125, minimum of $262 plus GST

Provision of written advice confirming compliance with town planning and/or environmental health matters, and/or advising of town planning and environmental health requirements, prior to submissions of an application for issue of a building permit (per hour charge)

159.09

66.36

73.00

 

 

 

 

HEALTH RELATED FEES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Premises Fees

 

 

 

Application for Registration/ Notification of Food Premises

58.00

60.00

60.00

Review of Registration/Notification of Food Premises

56.00

58.00

58.00

Transfer of Registration Fee

58.00

60.00

60.00

Inspection fee - Low Risk

85.00

89.00

89.00

Inspection fee - Medium Risk

182.00

190.00

190.00

Inspection fee - High Risk

182.00

190.00

190.00

Inspection fee - School Canteens

Exempt

Exempt

Exempt

Plans Assessment fee - small - residential

72.00

75.00

75.00

Plans Assessment fee

144.00

150.00

150.00

Plans Assessment fee - supermarkets or premises > 2 separate food outlets

220.00

229.00

229.00

Inspection of premises on request

160.00

167.00

167.00

Request for copy of condemnation certificate

75.00

78.00

78.00

Copy of Food Sampling Results Certificate

25.00

26.00

26.00

Application for Temporary Food Stall

32.00

33.00

33.00

 

 

 

 

Stallholders

 

 

 

Application for Stallholders Permit Fee/Renewal of Stallholder's Permit Fee/ Transfer of Stallholders Permit

 

 

 

per occasion

New

30.00

30.00

Up to 3 months

New

40.00

40.00

6 months

New

60.00

60.00

12 months

New

120.00

120.00

per occasion (Food stall)

New

35.00

35.00

Up to 3 months (Food stall)

New

60.00

60.00

6 months (Food stall)

New

80.00

80.00

12 months (Food stall)