COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

14 November 2018

 

 

 

 

 


ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

city@busselton.wa.gov.au

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 14 November 2018

 

 

 

TO:                  THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council will be held in the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton on Wednesday, 14 November 2018, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

DISCLAIMER

Statements or decisions made at Council meetings or briefings should not be relied on (or acted upon) by an applicant or any other person or entity until subsequent written notification has been given by or received from the City of Busselton. Without derogating from the generality of the above, approval of planning applications and building permits and acceptance of tenders and quotations will only become effective once written notice to that effect has been given to relevant parties. The City of Busselton expressly disclaims any liability for any loss arising from any person or body relying on any statement or decision made during a Council meeting or briefing.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

5 November 2018


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council MEETING TO BE HELD ON 14 November 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

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

2....... Attendance. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

4....... Application for Leave of Absence. 5

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

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

7....... Question Time For Public. 5

8....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 5

Previous Council Meetings. 5

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 October 2018. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

8.2          Minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 18 October 2018. 5

8.3          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee meeting held on 23 October 2018. 5

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 6

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 6

11..... Items brought forward for the convenience of those in the public gallery. 6

12..... Reports of Committee. 7

12.1        Policy and Legislation Committee - 23/10/2018 - REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED DELEGATIONS. 7

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 23/10/2018 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 241 - BRANDS AND STYLE GUIDE. 24

12.3        Finance Committee - 18/10/2018 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2018. 31

12.4        Finance Committee - 18/10/2018 - BUSSELTON CROQUET CLUB INC. - SELF-SUPPORTING LOAN REQUEST. 62

12.5        Finance Committee - 18/10/2018 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW... 69

13..... Planning and Development Services Report. 75

14..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 76

14.1        BUSSELTON ROAD NETWORK UPGRADE – REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS. 76

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 210

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 211

16.1        LEASE FOR TELECOMMUNICTIONS MAST AT DUNSBOROUGH OVAL. 211

16.2        CITY OF BUSSELTON ANNUAL REPORT 2017-2018. 217

17..... Chief Executive Officers Report. 263

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 263

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 279

19..... urgent business. 279

20..... Confidential Matters. 279

20.1        PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - FAMILY RESTAURANT / MICROBREWERY / FUNCTION CENTRE

21..... Closure. 279

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                            14 November 2018

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Cr Ross Paine

3.               Prayer

4.               Application for Leave of Absence  

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

7.               Question Time For Public

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Public Question Time For Public

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 October 2018

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 October 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 18 October 2018

RECOMMENDATION

 

                That the Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 18 October 2018 be noted.

 

8.3             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee meeting held on 23 October 2018

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 23 October 2018 be noted.

 

 

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

Presentations

Deputations

10.             QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

11.             Items brought forward for the convenience of those in the public gallery


Council                                                                                      7                                                            14 November 2018

12.             Reports of Committee

12.1           Policy and Legislation Committee - 23/10/2018 - REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED DELEGATIONS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Authorised Delegation of Power / Authority

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Planning and Development Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Planning and Development Support

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Council Delegation PDR1

Attachment b    Council Delegation MVA1

Attachment c    Council Delegation LCA1

Attachment d   Council Policy 043 Coal Mining Applications

Attachment e    Council Delegation PDR1 tracked changes  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 23 October 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is asked to consider changes to some planning and related delegations. Two delegations are proposed to be rescinded and a relatively minor change to a third is proposed.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Local Government Act 1995 (‘LGA’) provides for the establishment of local governments and confers a range of powers and duties on them.  There are also other Acts of Parliament that confer powers and duties on local governments. 

 

A local government is established as a body corporate, and must therefore necessarily act through its officers, employees and agents.  Each local government has an elected Council as a governing body.  The LGA also intends that the local government will have employees, being the CEO and the staff employed by the CEO, to carry out certain functions.

 

Within this framework, the LGA makes express provision for certain ‘delegations’ of powers or duties.  At the same time, it expressly intends that there will also be certain situations where a power may be exercised or a duty discharged on the basis of ‘acting through another person’ (see Section 5.45(2) of the LGA).  The question in any particular case is one of statutory construction to determine whether the Parliament intended that a power given to a local government might be exercised by another individual or body on behalf of the local government, or whether it is intended that the power be exercised by the Council or (where possible) its duly appointed delegate.

 

The Council’s power of delegation under Section 5.42 of the LGA applies to powers and duties under the LGA and also to certain sections under the Planning and Development Act 2005. Council’s power of delegation is subject to the limitations in Section 5.43 of the LGA.  Other legislation that confers powers and duties on a local government may or may not contain a power of delegation. Other legislation also contains related but different powers of ‘authorisation’.

 

The Council has recently reviewed the delegations it has made under the LGA, in accordance with an annual review required under Section 5.45(2) of the LGA. 


This report is directed at a review of certain powers and duties under legislation other than the LGA, and considers the exercise of powers under legislation relating to -

·        Planning and development;

·        Firearms;

·        Prostitution;

·        Classified publications;

·        Motor vehicle sales and repairs;

·        Gaming and wagering;

·        Liquor; and

·        Mining; and

·        Petroleum.

 

Two existing delegations relating to motor vehicle repairs and liquor are considered unnecessary and are recommended to be rescinded, and a relatively minor change to the existing planning delegation is also recommended.

 

Note that an internal review of powers and duties in relation to legislation impacting on the delivery of ranger and environmental services is currently underway and a further report in relation to associated delegations is expected to be presented to the committee by the end of the year.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The key statutory environment relevant to this report is outlined below -

·        With respect to the power of delegation under Acts other than the LGA, regard is to be given to any power of delegation under those Acts.

·        With respect to the concept of ‘acting through’ (which is different to delegation) under Acts other than the LGA, the term ‘local government’ is defined in the Interpretation Act 1984 to mean a local government under the LGA.  This is not confined to ‘Council’, but is a reference to a local government being a body corporate acting through its officers, employees and agents.  Each provision of legislation must then be interpreted in its context to determine whether a contrary intention appears.  In doing this, regard will generally be had to the purpose of the legislation and whether there can be seen to be some purpose served by restricting the interpretation to mean ‘Council’ in a particular case.

·        Clause 82 of Schedule 2 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (‘the deemed provisions’) sets out that the Council may delegate powers under the City’s town planning scheme to the CEO. Clause 83 then sets out that the CEO may sub-delegate those powers. There is a current delegation relating to these powers – Delegation PDR1 (Attachment A).

·        Relevant legislation has been reviewed, and there are currently no functions for local governments in legislation relating to firearms, prostitution or classified publications. As such, there is no need to consider whether any of those powers can only be exercised by City officers with a delegation first being established, and there are also no current delegations that require amending or rescinding.

·        There are also currently no functions for local governments in legislation relating to motor vehicle sales or repairs. There were previously functions for local governments in both the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 1973 and Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003, but the provisions setting out those functions have now been repealed.


As such, delegation MVA1 (Attachment B), which relates to the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003 is now clearly redundant and can be rescinded – and was unnecessary anyway, as the function that local governments previously had were clearly ones that involved provision of information, rather than discretionary decision-making.

·        Section 55 (3) of the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987 sets out functions for local governments in providing reports setting out whether gaming and wagering premises comply with health or planning requirements. Those functions, however, are clearly functions that involve provision of information, rather than discretionary decision-making. As such, there is no need for a delegation, and as no delegation has been established, there are no current delegations that require amending or rescinding.

·        Sections 39 and 40 of the Liquor Control Act 1988 identify functions for local governments in advising whether proposed licensed premises comply with relevant health/building and planning requirements – these functions involve providing what are generally known as ‘Section 39 certificates’ and ‘Section 40 certificates’. The decisions regarding whether to issue such certificates are not discretionary decisions. They are statements of fact about whether approval is required and/or if relevant approvals have already been obtained. Given the context and the drafting of the provisions, these are considered functions that can be exercised by the local government without requiring a delegation. As such, no delegation is considered necessary and, accordingly, Delegation LCA1 (Attachment C), which relates to Section 40 certificates, can be rescinded (there is no current delegation for Section 39 certificates).

·        There are various provisions in the Mining Act 1978 which enable a local government to be consulted with and/or express views on matters subject of the Act. It is considered those functions can reasonably be exercised by the local government ‘acting through’. The Council has adopted a policy setting out its approach to responding to applications where the target mineral may be coal (Attachment D), which would guide officers in their exercise of those functions. Note that this Policy will require review as part of the City’s overall review of its Council policies, having regard to the recommendations of the Governance System Review carried out by Mr John Woodhouse in 2017.

·        Relevant legislation has been reviewed, and there are currently no functions for local governments in legislation relating to petroleum, other than a reference to local governments being notified about applications for a pipeline licence pursuant to the Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969, and there is not seen to be a need for a delegation to allow the CEO or other City officers to determine the course of action that should be taken with respect to such notification. The City also occasionally has a broader advocacy or communication role with respect to petroleum extraction proposals, and those functions can be exercised by the local government ‘acting through’ where necessary.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are no relevant plans or policies requiring consideration.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications of the recommendations of this report.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no long-term financial plan implications of the recommendations of this report.

 


 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This statutory delegation review aligns with and supports the Council’s Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.1 – ‘Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no significant risks associated with the officer recommendation.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation was not considered necessary in the preparation of this report.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Following the review, rescinding of two delegations is recommended – i.e. MVA1 and LCA1. The reasons for that have been explained in the statutory environment section of this report, and there is not considered to be a need to discuss those changes further here.

 

A relatively minor change to the existing planning delegation is also recommended, which is to modify the second paragraph of part 6 of Delegation PDR1, which currently sets out that, in relation to ‘briefing and reporting’ –

 

As part of the agenda for each ordinary Council meeting (‘OCM’), a summary of applications received and determined between the closing date of the previous summary and a date as close as possible to the publication date of the agenda, shall be presented to Councillors as part of ‘Councillors’ Information Bulletin’ (‘CIB’).

 

Note that there are no statutory requirements for the provision of this information to Councillors, either in a Council agenda or in any other form, it is a requirement which arises because of the delegation.

 

The effect of the approach identified above is that it can be as long as 29 days, and regularly as long as 22 days, after an application has been received or determined before Councillors are provided with a summary listing an application. The time gap for some applications would be even longer during the mid-year break, or the longer break between the December and January meetings – the gap between meetings during that period can be as long as 8 weeks, meaning that it can be nearly ten weeks between the receipt or determination of an application and its listing in the CIB.

 

As an example, for Council’s 24 October OCM, the draft report for the CIB (for the draft agenda) would be produced on 5 October and published as part of the agenda on 12 October. That report would be expected to list applications received or determined up to 4 October. The Council’s next OCM is then scheduled for 14 November. The earliest applications to be listed in the CIB for that meeting’s agenda would therefore have been received or determined on 5 October and the agenda would be published on 2 November. That would mean that the earliest applications listed might have been received 29 days before publication, with the associated agenda briefing session then being a further five days hence.

 

A change to the above is proposed which would result in both Councillors and members of the public being able to access information about applications received and determined in a more timely fashion. What is proposed is that a list of applications received in the preceding week (Friday to Thursday) is listed on the City’s website each Friday.


 

Protocols could be agreed and varied over time to ensure that Councillors have an appropriate prompt to review the published lists, and could then forward requests for information to the appropriate officer (ordinarily the responsible Director). In the case of Fridays which are public holidays, publication may need to occur on the next working day. In all other cases, however, this would mean that the earliest applications listed would have been received or determined eight days prior to publication.

 

The following new wording for the second paragraph of part 6 of Delegation PDR1 is proposed -

 

Each Friday, or in the case of Fridays which are public holidays, the next working day, a summary of applications received and determined in the preceding period (usually the preceding Friday to Thursday) shall be published on the City’s website.

 

A tracked changes version of Delegation PDR1, illustrating the proposed change, is provided as Attachment E.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The recommended changes to delegations will rescind redundant delegations and improve the efficiency of reporting to the Council on development applications.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could not amend the delegations, or make additional or different changes.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The changes to delegations proposed would be implemented through amending the information published on the City’s website within one month of a Council decision consistent with the officer recommendation, and with the proposed changes to Delegation PDR1 being implemented prior to the end of November 2018. That would include informal agreement on the best form of prompt to advise Councillors of the publication of each week’s summary of applications.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council resolve to –

 

1.            Rescind Delegation MVA1;

2.            Rescind Delegation LCA1; and

3.            Amend Delegation PDR 1 by replacing the second paragraph of part 6 with the following –

 

Each Friday, or in the case of Fridays which are public holidays, the next working day, a summary of applications received and determined in the preceding period (usually the preceding Friday to Thursday) shall be published on the City’s website.

 

 


Council

12

14 November 2018

12.1

Attachment b

Council Delegation MVA1

 


 


 


 

 


 


 


Council

17

14 November 2018

12.1

Attachment c

Council Delegation LCA1

 


 


 


Council

19

14 November 2018

12.1

Attachment d

Council Policy 043 Coal Mining Applications

 


 


Council

21

14 November 2018

12.1

Attachment e

Council Delegation PDR1 tracked changes

 


 


 


Council                                                                                      24                                                          14 November 2018

12.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 23/10/2018 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY 241 - BRANDS AND STYLE GUIDE

SUBJECT INDEX:

Council Policies

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Council engages broadly and proactively with the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Council Policy - City Branding Policy

Attachment b    Current Council Policy - Brands and Style Guide  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 23 October 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to present a revised Brands and Style Guide Policy (Attachment B), with the current policy having been amended as part of the City’s overall review of its Council policies, having regard to the recommendations of the Governance System Review (GSR) carried out by Mr John Woodhouse in 2017. The new Policy is focused more broadly on, and entitled, City Branding (Attachment A) (the Policy).

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council last considered a revision of this policy on 17 April 2018 as part of the process of updating policies to the new policy template and to incorporate changes that have occurred over recent years.

 

At its meeting of the 17 April 2018 the Committee resolved to defer the policy for consideration pending review and presentation of the City’s Style Guide, a referenced and related document, back to the Policy and Legislation Committee, with the Committee noting that the Style Guide may require further revision prior to consideration of the overarching policy.

 

While Officers agree that a review of the City’s Style Guide is required, it is the view of Officers that the Style Guide is administrative in nature and is a document which requires continuous refinement and review.  Further commentary in relation to the proposed direction of the Policy is provided in the Officer Comment section of this report.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

In accordance with Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 it is the role of the Council to determine the local governments policies. The Council does this on recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with Section 5.8 of that Act.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

In August 2017 the CEO commissioned a high level independent review of the City’s governance systems - the GSR.   Included in the scope of the review was the City’s policy and procedure framework with the following recommendations made:

 

1.    There should be a review of the Council Policies with the intent that a Council Policy:

a.    Should deal with higher level objectives and strategies;

b.    Should not deal with operational matters, employee matters, or other matters which are the responsibility if the CEO; and

c.     Should, where appropriate provide sufficient direction to the CEO to develop OPPs which deal with the implementation of the Council Policy or other detailed matters.

2.    As part of that review, any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO.

3.    Consideration should be given to developing a new Council Policy which sets out the ‘framework’ for Council Policies, OPPs and other procedures.  The new Policy would explain the role to be played by each level of document.  It could, for example, be called a Policy Framework Policy.

 

In response a Policy Framework has been developed and endorsed by Council, setting out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Staff Management Practices and operational procedures, and a Council policy template developed. 

 

This report recommends replacing the Brands and Style Guide Policy with a higher level, more strategic policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Adoption of the Policy has no additional financial implications.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

Adoption of the Policy has no long term financial plan implications.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The Policy aligns with and supports the Council’s Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically, Community Objective 6.2 ‘Council engages broadly and proactively with the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no risks identified of a medium or greater level associated with the Officers recommendation, with the Policy reiterating and maintaining Council’s direction in relation to City Branding.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No external consultation is required in relation to this policy review. The City will ensure its communication materials are consistent with the Policy.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Policy has been revised for the purposes of clarifying the development and application of the City’s branding, taken to mean the City of Busselton Brand, associated Brands, logos and emblems (City Branding).

 

The Policy replaces the Brands and Style Guide Policy with the Style Guide considered an administrative document; its purposes being to guide staff in the development and application of the City’s Branding. In accordance with the recommendations of the GSR, the Policy seeks to provide strategic direction with respect to key aspects of the City’s Branding.

 

Officers agree a review of the City’s Style Guide is required and acknowledge this is likely to be an on-going and somewhat incremental process.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Policy is a reflection of Councils direction to refine current policies; updated to ensure the relevance of the Policy continues; and seeks to make clear the differentiation between Council policy and administrative documents and guidelines.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could choose not to endorse the new Policy, or make additional changes to the Policy.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The revised Policy would be effective immediately upon endorsement by Council.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council adopts the revised City Branding Policy as per Attachment A, to replace the Brands and Style Guide Policy (Attachment B)

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council adopts the revised City Branding Policy as per Attachment A, with an amendment to 5.6 to read “Any changes to the City’s Branding are subject to Council approval on recommendation by the Chief Executive Officer” to replace the Brands and Style Guide Policy (Attachment B).

 


Council

27

14 November 2018

12.2

Attachment a

Proposed Council Policy - City Branding Policy

 


 


Council

29

14 November 2018

12.2

Attachment b

Current Council Policy - Brands and Style Guide

 


 


Council                                                                                      31                                                          14 November 2018

12.3           Finance Committee - 18/10/2018 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2018

SUBJECT INDEX:

Budget Planning and Reporting

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Financial Services - Kim Dolzadelli

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Statement of Financial Activity - Period Ending 30 September 2018

Attachment b    Investment Report - Period Ending 30 September 2018  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 18 October 2018, 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 30 September 2018.

 

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 25 July 2018, the Council adopted (C1807/138) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2018/19 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 2018/19 financial year as follows:

 

·    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; and

·    Reporting of variances only applies for amounts greater than $25,000.”

 

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.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.1 - ‘Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’.

 

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 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 full year basis, the following financial reports are attached here to:

 

§   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 full year basis, and reconciles with the net current position as per the Statement of Financial Activity.

 

 

§   Capital Acquisition Report

This report provides full year 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 full year basis.

 

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 30 SEPTEMBER 2019

 

The Statement of Financial Activity for the period ending 30 September 2018 shows a better than expected Net Current Position “Surplus” of $40.67M being $6.09M higher than year to date budget (YTD budget).

 

The following summarises the major variances in accordance with Council’s adopted material variance reporting threshold that collectively make up the above difference:

 

Description

2018/2019
Actual

2018/2019
Amended
Budget YTD

2018/2019
Amended
Budget

2018/19
YTD Bud Variance

2018/19
YTD Bud Variance

 

$

$

$

%

$

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

(17,719,783)

(19,457,637)

(75,222,770)

8.93%

1,737,854

 

 

 

 

 

 

Borrowings Cost Expense - Interest Expenses

(232,039)

(287,008)

(1,374,387)

19.15%

54,969

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

(552,228)

4,380,103

30,347,185

-112.61%

(4,932,331)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adjustments for Non-cash Revenue & Expenditure

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation

5,555,662

4,853,652

19,070,922

 

702,010

Deposit & Bonds Movements (cash backed NC)

74,433

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Revenue & (Expenditure)

 

 

 

 

 

Land & Buildings

(216,636)

(3,899,049)

(17,618,620)

94.44%

3,682,413

Plant & Equipment

(661,422)

(1,620,500)

(5,363,500)

59.18%

959,078

Furniture & Equipment

(91,360)

(217,873)

(883,640)

58.07%

126,513

Infrastructure

(3,780,762)

(8,772,781)

(36,804,070)

56.90%

4,992,019

Proceeds from Sale of Assets

87,490

401,850

1,045,950

-78.23%

(314,360)

Transfer to Restricted Assets

(402,581)

(136,998)

(551,000)

-193.86%

(265,583)

Transfer from Restricted Assets

3,399,616

2,392,590

14,423,922

42.09%

1,007,026

Transfer to Reserves

(6,024,886)

(3,987,556)

(19,269,123)

-51.09%

(2,037,330)

 

Operating Expenditure:

 

Expenditure from ordinary activities, excluding depreciation, is $2.44M less than expected when compared to YTD budget with the following items meeting the material variance reporting threshold set by Council for the 2018/2019 Financial Year.

 

Description

2018/2019
Actual

2018/2019
Amended
Budget YTD

2018/2019
Amended
Budget

2018/19
YTD Bud
Variance

2018/19
YTD Bud
Variance

 

$

$

$

%

$

Materials & Contracts

(3,030,050)

(4,636,098)

(18,621,467)

34.64%

1,606,048

Utilities (Gas, Electricity, Water etc.)

(512,617)

(642,148)

(2,569,240)

20.17%

129,531

Depreciation on non-current assets

(5,555,662)

(4,853,652)

(19,070,922)

-14.46%

(702,010)

Insurance Expenses

(423,061)

(312,088)

(698,808)

-35.56%

(110,973)

Other Expenditure

(579,570)

(1,128,996)

(4,770,041)

48.67%

549,426

Allocations

267,645

419,311

1,723,162

36.17%

(151,666)

 

Materials and Contracts:

The main items affected are listed below:

 

Cost Code

Cost Code Description / GL Activity

Variance
YTD

Finance and Corporate Services 

 

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services

184,242

10251

Business Systems

49,612

10500

Legal and Compliance Services

25,637

 

 

 

Community and Commercial Services 

 

10591

Geographe Leisure Centre

38,739

10600

Busselton Jetty Tourist Park

50,162

10980

Other Law, Order & Public Safety

36,243

11151

Airport Operations

30,004

 

 

 

Planning and Development Services 

 

10830

Environmental Management Administration

26,725

10925

Preventative Services - CLAG

32,754

11170

Meelup Regional Park

38,389

 

 

 

Engineering and Works Services 

 

11101

Engineering Services Administration

64,405

11160

Busselton Jetty

195,907

11300

Sanitation Waste Services  Administration

25,099

11301

Regional Waste Management Administration

30,000

12620

Rural-Tree Pruning

(62,775)

B1000

Administration Building- 2-16 Southern Drive

26,401

G0010

Domestic Recycling Collections

46,348

G0034

External Waste Disposal

53,459

G0042

BTS External Restoration Works

(65,964)

R0004

Bsn Foreshore Precinct (not including Skate Park)

55,843

5280

Transport - Fleet Management

111,374

Utilities:

There is an overall variance in utility charges of $129,531 this variance is spread over 364 individual line items with an average variance of only $364 per item.

 

Depreciation:

There is an overall variance in depreciation of $702K, it should be noted that this is a non-cash item and does not impact on the City’s surplus position.  The variance can be attributed to the fact that Fair Valuation of infrastructure assets was completed post budget adoption and the increase in valuation was unable to be included in the 2018/2018 budget.

 

Insurance:

There is a YTD variance in insurance costs of $111K, this is of a timing issue only.

 

Other Expenditure:

There is a YTD variance in other costs of $549K, this is considered a timing issue only, and the main items affected are listed below:

 

Cost Code

Cost Code Description / GL Activity

Variance
YTD

Finance and Corporate Services 

 

10000

Members of Council

56,768

10700

Public Relations

29,148

 

 

 

Community and Commercial Services 

 

10530

Community Services Administration

35,785

10567

Cinefest Oz

(71,249)

11156

Airport Development Operations - Marketing and Incentives

375,000

 

 

 

Planning and Development Services 

 

10942

Bushfire Risk Management Planning - DFES

(39,283)

 

 

 

Engineering and Works Services 

 

B1223

Micro Brewery - Public Ablution

30,000

G0042

BTS External Restoration Works

(38,169)

 

 

Allocations:

Allocations are running $151k under YTD budget; these items are an internal allocation of administrative costs from the Finance and Corporate Services division.

 

Borrowing Costs – Interest Expenses:

Interest expenses are $55k less than YTD budget, no new loans have been taken at this point in time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions:

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions are less than YTD budget by $4.93M with the main item impacting on the above result being the timing of the receipt of “Airport Development - Project Grant” with a current negative result of -$4.7M.

 

Capital Expenditure

As at 30 June 2018, there is a variance of -67.26% or -$9.76M in total capital expenditure with YTD actual at -$4.75M against a YTD budget of -$14.51M. The airport development makes up for $4.43M, Plant and Equipment Purchases, $959K, Busselton Tennis Club – Infrastructure $922K, Eastern Link - Busselton Traffic Study $698K, Council Roads Initiative projects $649K, Main Roads projects $498K , Sanitation Infrastructure $461K, Parks Gardens and Reserves $347K.  These items of under expenditure also assists in explaining the above current YTD shortfall in Non-Operating Grants.

 

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

 

Investment Report

 

Pursuant to the Council’s Investment Policy, a report is to be provided to the Council on a monthly basis, detailing the investment portfolio in terms of performance and counterparty percentage exposure of total portfolio. The report is also to provide details of investment income earned against budget, whilst confirming compliance of the portfolio with legislative and policy limits.

 

As at 30th September 2018 the value of the City’s invested funds totalled $80.8M, up from $67.4M as at 31st August. The increase is due to the inflow of funding associated with the annual rates first instalment period.

 

During the month of September four term deposits held with two different institutions totalling $12.0M matured. All were renewed for a further 166 days at 2.67 per cent (on average).

 

The inflow of rate funding culminated in the annual opening of new term deposits. A call for rates was put out to eight banks and as a result six new deposits were opened totalling $16m. The term of these deposits are between seven and nine months, and rates are between 2.70 per cent and 2.76 per cent.

 

The balance of the 11am account (an intermediary account which offers immediate access to the funds compared to the term deposits and a higher rate of return compared to the cheque account) decreased by $2.5M with the funds being converted to fixed term deposits returning a higher interest rate.

 

The balance of the Airport Development ANZ cash account remained steady this month.

 

The RBA left official rates on hold during September and October. Future movements remain uncertain at this point, although the next movement is likely to be up but not in the immediate future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chief Executive Officer – Corporate Credit Card

Details of monthly (August to September) transactions made on the Chief Executive Officer’s corporate credit card are provided below to ensure there is appropriate oversight and awareness of credit card transactions made.

 

Date

Amount

Payee

Description

25-Aug-18

$29.00

Equinox Café

Coffee With Minister Templeman

30-Aug-18

$230.51

Westin Perth FDS Perth

Accommodation - Mike Archer (Cancelled)

03-Sep-18

$74.95

Map World Australia

Laminated World Map For Citizenship Ceremonies

03-Sep-18

$531.00

LG Professionals

2018-2019 Membership Subscription

04-Sep-18

$25.86

Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

Membership Fees - Two (2) Years 2017 & 2018

04-Sep-18

$25.86

Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

Membership Fees - Two (2) Years 2017 & 2018

05-Sep-18

$68.68

City Of Perth - Airport Parking

Airport Security Parking Perth

07-Sep-18

$27.27

City Of Perth - Airport Parking

Airport Security Parking Perth

07-Sep-18

$9.09

City Of Perth - Airport Parking

Airport Security Parking Perth

10-Sep-18

$29.00

Empire Karratha

Meals

13-Sep-18

$1,218.00

ICTC Society Inc. - Tweed Heads

Conference Payment For Cr Ross Payne

 

*Funds debited against CEO Annual Professional Development Allowance as per employment Contract Agreement

 

+ Allocated against CEO Hospitality Expenses Allowance

 

CONCLUSION

 

As at 30 September 2018, the City’s financial performance is considered satisfactory. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 30 September 2018, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations

.


Council

38

14 November 2018

12.3

Attachment a

Statement of Financial Activity - Period Ending 30 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

60

14 November 2018

12.3

Attachment a

Statement of Financial Activity - Period Ending 30 September 2018

 


Council

61

14 November 2018

12.3

Attachment b

Investment Report - Period Ending 30 September 2018

 


Council                                                                                      62                                                          14 November 2018

12.4           Finance Committee - 18/10/2018 - BUSSELTON CROQUET CLUB INC. - SELF-SUPPORTING LOAN REQUEST

SUBJECT INDEX:

 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

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

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

 

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Financial Services - Kim Dolzadelli

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   BCCI Application  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 18 October 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Busselton Croquet Club Inc. (BCC) has requested that the City of Busselton provide a Self-Supporting Loan for $30,000, for a term of 10 years, to be used to support the club in its plan to rebuild two greens and add an additional (third) croquet green located at Churchill Park, Portion of Lot 410, corner Brown Street and Kent Street, Busselton.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The BCC is currently struggling to meet the playing needs of all members so an additional green will alleviate the pressure on space and provide a much improved playing surface which should also enable the club to generate some additional income by running State tournaments.

 

The BCC is located on Council property at Churchill Park, Portion of Lot 410, corner Brown Street and Kent Street, Busselton and currently has a lease in place for 11 years and 9 months expiring on 21 August 2029.  Further to this Council passed the following resolution at its meeting of the 22 August 2018 which allows for a renegotiation of lease terms and also the extension of lease period expiring  on 21 August 2029 with an option to renew for a further 10 years.

“AMENDED ALTERNATIVE MOTION

C1808/171 Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor R Paine That the Council:

1.    Enter into a deed of surrender of the current lease between the City of Busselton and the Busselton Bowling Club Inc., conditional on the Busselton Croquet Club Inc. obtaining sufficient grant funding to redevelop three croquet greens and a new lease being entered into in accordance with conditions stated in part (2).

 

2.    Subject to part (1), enter into a lease, subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands, with the Busselton Bowling Club Inc. for a portion of Lot 410, Deposited Plan 216960, Volume 1850, Folio 572, 78 Adelaide Street Busselton, as shown outlined green on Attachment B, on the following terms:

 

a)    The term of the lease will commence on the surrender of the existing lease and expire on 21 August 2029 with an option to renew for a further 10 years;

b)   The rent to commence at $220.00 inclusive of GST per annum and increased annually by $5.00 inclusive of GST;

c)    The permitted use will allow the Tenant to hire the Premises to other sporting and community groups, with hire to be incidental to the primary purpose of the lease.

Additionally the Bowling Club are to ensure that their insurance covers such use; and

d)    Other terms to be consistent with the City's standard community group lease.

e)    A condition apply during the term of the option that the usage of the leased premises and land for the leased purposes be actively maintained at or above a reasonable minimal level.

 

3.    Subject to part (1) accept the surrender of the current lease between the City of Busselton and the Busselton Croquet Club Inc, subject to a new lease being entered into in accordance with part (4).

 

4.    Subject to part (1), enter into a lease, subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands, with the Busselton Croquet Club Inc. for a portion of Lot 410, Deposited Plan 216960, Volume 1850, Folio 572, 78 Adelaide Street Busselton, as shown outlined red on Attachment B, on the following terms:

 

a)    The term of the lease will commence on the surrender of the existing lease and expire on 21 August 2029 with an option to renew for a further 10 years;

b)    The rent to commence at $220.00 inclusive of GST per annum and increased annually by $5.00 inclusive of GST; and

c)    Other terms to be consistent with the City's standard community group lease.

d)    A condition apply during the term of the option that the usage of the leased premises and land for the leased purposes be actively maintained at or above a reasonable minimal level.

CARRIED 9/0”

 

Croquet is useful for all ages and backgrounds as it is very inclusive, welcoming and friendly, and supports both mental and physical health as well as social connectedness, but is especially helpful for the more mature members of the community as they are not disadvantaged by low fitness levels and can still feel challenged by the activity and part of a growing community.

 

The BCC has a growing membership base, currently standing at 65 (up from 57 in November) and with three more waiting to join in the new financial year. The club is now the third largest in the state and the biggest outside of the metropolitan area.

 

The development of a third croquet green project has a total cost of $132,272 (ex GST). This includes $22,000 for the old clubroom/shed demolition. The City’s contribution towards this project is a third of the total project cost, i.e. $44,091. The City has allocated funds in the 2018/19 budget towards this project. The Club would be required to contribute one third of the cost which would include in-kind labour.

 

The Club will utilise the self supporting loan funds as part of its contribution of $44,090 to the project.

 

 

 

Contribution towards Project

Cost ex GST

 

Applicant Cash

44,090

 

City - Busselton Croquet Club – 3rd green budget allocation

44,091

 

CSRFF grant application

44,091

 

Total Project Cost

132,272

Council considered the merits of the project at its meeting held 22 August 2018 where the following resolution was made:

 

“COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C1808/168 Moved Councillor C Tarbotton, seconded Councillor R Reekie

 

That the Council resolves to support the submission of an application for the Busselton Croquet Club

- Development of third croquet green - to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund, and rates the application as a priority ‘B’ project, rank number 1.

CARRIED 9/0”

EN BLOC

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 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 authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2017.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Council made a provision of $150,000 in the 2018/19 Annual Budget Self Supporting loans, however the amount was a general allocation not specific to BCC. The fact that the proposed borrowing will be established as a self-supporting loan, with regular payments by the BCC there will be no net effect on Council’s position.

 

In addition the loan will not affect Council’s ability to borrow as self-supporting loans are not included in the debt ratio calculation.

 

The BCC have provided a copy of their financial statements to allow Council Officers to establish whether the Club has the ability to service the loan repayments.   An inspection of the financial statements indicates that the Club is well placed to service the loan repayments over a ten year period.

 

Given the low amount of the loan being requested Officers are proposing that the loan be internally funded through the City’s Municipal fund which would require a Budget amendment as follows:

 

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

Self-Supporting Loan Busselton Croquet Club Inc.

Loan Funding

0

30,000

30,000

100-10001-3680-0000

Budget Contingency Holding Account

73,968

(30,000)

43,968

Net Total

73,968

0

0

 

The loan would be granted on the basis of the prevailing Western Australian Treasury Corporation lending rate including Government Guarantee Fee at the time of actual Funding of the loan.

All interest and principal repayments would be formally agreed to prior to release of any funding.

 

Aside from the above it is the intention of Officers to present options to Council in the coming months with respect to the formation of a “Loan Borrowing Capacity Reserve” with the intent of reviewing other City held Reserve funds and more specifically the “Long Service Leave Reserve” to ascertain the appropriate level of cash backing and potential reduction of said Reserve in order to allow for future internal borrowing options.  This methodology removes the need to actually borrow the funds from the WA Treasury Corporation and the associated administrative processes.

 

It also reduces the risk to the Busselton Croquet Club Inc. that in the event the State Government increases the Government Guarantee Fee percentage that is applied by the WA Treasury Corporation which would be passed onto the Club.

 

It is envisaged that other City Reserves will also be reviewed to establish if internal borrowings whereby funds are repaid inclusive of interest to the specific reserve can be achieved.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

As above.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Key Goal Area 2:

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 1 – Community of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2017 and specifically community objective 1.3: A community with access to a range of cultural and art, social and recreational facilities and experiences.  It also aligns to the supporting Council strategy – ‘Create sport and recreation hubs to service local and regional communities’ 

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The Clubs financial statements indicate that they have capacity to meet the repayments on the proposed loan, furthermore their membership is increasing which will further improve their existing sound financial position.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The BCC has consulted with their membership with respect to this proposal.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The BCC has a strong and growing membership and is the third largest in the State and the largest outside of the metropolitan area.  The Club also, through its financial statements, shows that they have capacity to meet the required level of loan repayments.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Due to the fact that the costs associated with the internal funding of the loan are offset by the income to be received from the BCC as per a Loan Repayment Agreement, officers recommend that the request be approved.

 

 

 

OPTIONS

 

Should Council not approve the request from BCC, they may consider the following options:

 

1.    Reduce the scope of works,

2.    Look at other fund or loan options, or

3.    Not proceed with the upgrade to facilities.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the request be approved, action will be taken immediately to implement the recommendations of the Council.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Approve a self supporting loan, to be internally funded, to the Busselton Croquet Club Inc., for the amount of $30,000 for a term of up to ten (10) years for the purposes of rebuilding two existing greens and establishing an additional (third) croquet green on Churchill Park, Portion of Lot 410, corner Brown Street and Kent Street, Busselton;

 

2.    Advise the Busselton Croquet Club Inc. that it must obtain all relevant development and building approvals from the City prior to any loan funds being disbursed,

 

3.    Enters into a Loan Repayment Agreement with the Busselton Croquet Club Inc where,

 

i.      The club acknowledges it is responsible for reimbursement to the City of Busselton of full costs associated with the loan, and

ii.     The Loan repayment calculations are on the basis of the prevailing Western Australian Treasury Corporation lending rate including Government Guarantee Fee at the time of actual funding of the loan.

 

4.    Amends the 2018/2019 Municipal Budget to recognise the relevant income, expenditure and any associated loan movements; noting that there will be no net impact on Councils projected Surplus position, and

 

5.    Approves the following Budget Amendment to allow internal funding of the loan amount:

 

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

Self-Supporting Loan Busselton Croquet Club Inc.

Loan Funding

0

30,000

30,000

100-10001-3680-0000

Budget Contingency Holding Account

73,968

(30,000)

43,968

Net Total

73,968

0

0

 


Council

67

14 November 2018

12.4

Attachment a

BCCI Application

 


 


Council                                                                                      69                                                          14 November 2018

12.5           Finance Committee - 18/10/2018 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW

SUBJECT INDEX:

Budget Planning and Reporting

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance and Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager Financial Services - Kim Dolzadelli

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

 

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 18 October 2018, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report seeks recommendation of the Finance Committee to Council for the approval of budget amendments as detailed in this report.  Adoption of the Officers recommendation will result in no change to the City’s current amended budgeted surplus position of $0.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council adopted its 2018/2019 municipal budget on Wednesday, 25 July 2018 with a balanced budget position.

 

Since this time Council has been advised of certain funding changes that have positively impacted the original budget and Council is now being asked to consider budget amendments for the following key areas/projects:

 

1.    Beach Emergency Numbers (BEN) Sign Program

2.    Legal Costs - Reimbursement,

3.    Toddler’s Playground, and

4.    Lighting at Bovell Park.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 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 authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

There are multiple plans and policies that support the proposed budget amendments.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Budget amendments being sought will result in no change to Council’s budget surplus position of $0. 

 

LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no Long Term Financial Plan implications in relation to this item.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.1 - ‘Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There is a risk to the City, as there is with all projects undertaken, that the final cost could exceed budget. If this looks to be the case Council will be notified so a suitable offset / project scope back can be identified.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation has occurred with the appropriate Council officers.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The Officer recommends the following requested budget amendments to the Finance Committee for consideration and recommendation to Council.

 

1.    “Beach Emergency Numbers (BEN) Sign Program

 

The Beach Emergency Numbers (BEN) Sign Program is a coding system designed to improve emergency response times by installing signs with unique numbers at beach access points. These signs provide specific location information which is vital when emergency services are deployed in the event of a shark attack or other beach emergencies.

 

In December 2017, the State Government launched a grants program to provide financial assistance to local government authorities to introduce BEN signs along beach access points in their district.

 

Planned Expenditure Items

Supply only of 89 BEN signs including posts, post caps and brackets.

 

Officers propose that the 2018/2019 adopted budget be amended to reflect the following funding charges, shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1:

 

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Revenue

 

 

 

 

BEN Program Grant Funding

Grant funding for the supply only of 89 BEN signs

0

(24,250.50)

(24,250.50)

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

441-10980-3213-0000

BEN Program Signage

0

24,250.50

24,250.50

Net Total

0

0

0

 

Proposed Outcome

The proposed amendment will enable signs to provide specific location information which is vital when emergency services are deployed in the event of a shark attack or other beach emergencies.

 

 

 

2.    “Legal Costs - Reimbursement”

 

As Council will be aware, the owners of Busselton Central Shopping Centre (Australia Unity Property Ltd) applied for judicial review by the Supreme Court of the decisions by Council to approve a Kmart discount department store development and an Aldi supermarket development at Lot 17, West Street. On 18 August 2017 the primary judge dismissed that application for judicial review. AUP unsuccessfully appealed that decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and on 23 March 2018 the appeal was dismissed. As a result AUP was ordered to pay legal costs incurred by the City’s.  Those costs have now been determined and paid by AUP to the City.

 

Planned Expenditure Items

The amendments shown below in Table 2 will reflect the receipt of payment of money for legal costs as income and a corresponding transfer to the Legal Expenses Reserve.

 

Table 2:

 

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Income

 

 

 

 

300-10500-1529-0000

Reimbursement - Legal Fees (GST)

(13,400)

(61,364)

(74,764)

 Equity Transfer

 

 

 

 

Reserve

Transfer to Legal Expenses Reserve

       10,464

       61,364

         71,828

Net Total

(2,936)

                 -  

(2,936)

 

Proposed Outcome

The proposed budget amendment will ensure recognition of additional income that was unbudgeted at the commencement of the 2018/2019 financial year.

 

3.    “Toddler’s Playground”

 

Due to reallocation of interest accrued on Royalties for Regions grant funds in accordance with State Government requirements, the budget for the Toddler’s Playground project has decreased. The resulting budget will be overspent if Major Projects constructs the project to the approved design and expected standard of works.

 

It has been identified that there is $101,801 of funds held in POS 52 that are approved to spend exclusively on the Toddler’s Playground project; only $61,010 of these funds have been allocated to the project in the current budget. Officers are seeking to amend the budget for the project to incorporate all the remaining funds held of $40,791 to the project.

 

Planned Expenditure Items

Completion of the Toddler’s Playground project to the approved design and expected standard of works.

 

The amendments shown in Table 3 are sought for approval.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3:

 

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

120-C3150-3280-0000

Toddler Playground

133,510

40,791

174,301

Equity Transfer

Public Open Space Reserve # 52

(61,010)

(40,791)

(101,801)

Net Total

72,500

0

72,500

 

Proposed Outcome

The proposed amendment will bring efficiency to filed work undertaken by the Engineering Works and Services team.

 

 

4.    “Lighting at Bovell Park”

 

As a result of the strong winds and bad weather during the night of the 4th June 2018, one of the light poles at Bovell Park servicing the training ground used by the Geographe Bay Football Club and situated between the turf hockey pitch and Vasse Highway came down.

 

On inspection, it was discovered that the base of the pole was severely affected by rust and the second pole also showed clear signs of major deterioration at the base. The poles are believed to be approximately 40 years old and the contractor was instructed to remove the second pole as a safety precaution.

 

The cost of purchase and installation of two new lights is estimated at $79,000 for which there is no budget provision. Whilst there is an expected insurance payout for one of the lights, this is not expected to exceed $19,000 – and could be less. The new football season commences in April 2019 and it is suggested that funds be provided by way of a budget adjustment so that the lights can be installed before the 2019 season commences. A budget adjustment of $60,000 is therefore sought.

 

Planned Expenditure Items

The amendments shown in Table 4 are sought for approval.

 

Table 4:

 

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Revenue

 

 

 

 

Equity Transfer

Community Facilities – Busselton Reserve

(20,000)

(60,000)

(80,000)

211-10200-1509-0000

Reimbursements - Insurance

(68,000)

(19,000)

(87,000)

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

New

Bovell Park Lighting

0

79,000

79,000

Net Total

(88,000)

0

(88,000)

 

 

Proposed Outcome

Installation of two new lights at Bovell Park.

 


 

CONCLUSION

 

Council’s approval is sought to amend the budget as per the details contained in this report. Upon approval the proposed works will be planned, organised and completed.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could decide not to go ahead with any or all of the proposed budget amendment requests.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the Officer Recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendment will be processed within a month of being approved.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That Council endorse the requested budget amendments outlined in tables 1 to 4 below, resulting in no change to an amended budgeted surplus position of $0.

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Revenue

 

 

 

 

BEN Program Grant Funding

Grant funding for the supply only of 89 BEN signs

0

(24,250.50)

(24,250.50)

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

441-10980-3213-0000

BEN Program Signage

0

24,250.50

24,250.50

Net Total

0

0

0

 

Table 2:

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Income

 

 

 

 

300-10500-1529-0000

Reimbursement - Legal Fees (GST)

(13,400)

(61,364)

(74,764)

 Equity Transfer

 

 

 

 

Reserve

Transfer to Legal Expenses Reserve

    10,464

       61,364

         71,828

Net Total

(2,936)

                 -  

(2,936)

 

Table 3:

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

120-C3150-3280-0000

Toddler Playground

133,510

40,791

174,301

Equity Transfer

Public Open Space Reserve # 52

(61,010)

(40,791)

(101,801)

Net Total

72,500

0

72,500

 

Table 4:

Cost Code

Description

Current Budget

Change

Proposed Amended Budget

Revenue

 

 

 

 

Equity Transfer

Community Facilities – Busselton Reserve

(20,000)

(60,000)

(80,000)

211-10200-1509-0000

Reimbursements - Insurance

(68,000)

(19,000)

(87,000)

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

New

Bovell Park Lighting

0

79,000

79,000

Net Total

(88,000)

0

(88,000)

  


Council                                                                                      75                                                          14 November 2018

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      76                                                          14 November 2018

14.             Engineering and Work Services Report

14.1           BUSSELTON ROAD NETWORK UPGRADE – REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Busselton Road Network Upgrade – Review and Implementation Options

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Road networks that provide for a growing population and the safe movement of all users through the District.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Works Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

 Engineering

REPORTING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Transport Modelling Report of Causeway rd CCEL and Ford rd Scenarios

Attachment b    Riley Consulting Traffic Modelling Peer Review

Attachment c    Busselton Local Roads Upgrades Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication

Attachment d   Busselton Local Roads Upgrades Strelly Barlee West Street

Attachment e    Albert and West Street Preliminary Design Stage 2A

Attachment f    Albert and West Street Preliminary Design Stage 2B

Attachment g   Busselton Local Roads Upgrades - City Centre Eastern Link

Attachment h   Busselton Local Roads Upgrades Ford Road

Attachment i     City Centre Road Network Community Survey Report (Catalyse)

Attachment j     Catalyse Council Presentation

Attachment k    Option 2C (Cardno Report)

Attachment l    Option 5 - Combined Approach  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to review and consider the outcomes of further investigation undertaken in relation to progressing road upgrade options identified through studies undertaken over an approximate five year period. The report addresses the resolutions passed by Council at its meeting 14 April 2018 (C1804-071) and draws on the outcomes of an independent traffic modelling report and an independent peer review undertaken subsequent to.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Busselton Traffic Study process identified a series of road upgrade options suitable for staged implementation over an approximate 20 year timeframe. This suite of modifications aims to address road congestion issues in and around the Busselton City Centre and has been informed by independent traffic modelling undertaken Cardno (See Attachment A) and peer review (See Attachment B) and environmental, planning, financial and engineering advice.

 

As part of that process, in June 2016 Council resolved:

 

That the Council, with respect to the Busselton Traffic Study -

 

1.     Adopt the following strategic direction for the progressive upgrade of the local road network in the Busselton-Vasse urban area –

 

Initiative 1 - Immediate/near term actions

(i) - Environmental approvals, most likely submitted as three separate packages -

I. Initiatives 2, 3 and 4

II. Ford Road ‘existing reserve, low-level option’

III. Ford Road ‘Transport Corridor’ option

(ii) – Upgrading of Intersections – Queen Street/Albert Street and Bussell Highway/West Street

(iii) - Upgrade Signage – Alternative Entrance Busselton CBD

(iv) - Interim works on Strelly / Barlee / West Street – Design and service relocations of the Strelly/Barlee Street Intersection

 

 

Initiative 2 – Causeway Corridor

(i) – Victoria Square Roundabout

(ii) – Causeway Bridge Duplication

(iii) – Eastern Link

(iv) – Causeway Road Duplication (first stage – Causeway Bridge to approx. Strelly Street)

 

 

Initiative 3 – West Street Corridor

(i) - West Street-Albert Street-Old Bussell Highway intersection upgrade

(ii) - Strelly-Barlee-West Street route

(iii) - Gale Street Roundabout and Albert Street / Old Bussell Highway Commercial Strip Traffic Management

 

 

Initiative 4 – Distributor Road Duplications/Traffic Management

(i) - Causeway Road Duplication (further stages – approx. Strelly Street to Bussell Highway / Busselton Bypass)

(ii) - Strelly-Barlee-West Street Duplication

(iii) - Fairway Drive Duplication

(iv) - Old Bussell Highway Traffic Management

 

 

Initiative 5 – Ford Road

(Note: one or other of the options would be developed, not both)

(i) – Ford Road ‘Transport Corridor’ option

(ii) - Ford Road ‘existing reserve, low-level’ option

 

2.     Undertake a community and stakeholder engagement process in relation to the strategic direction; and

3.     Confirm support for the commencement of implementation of Initiative 1 actions as soon as possible.

 

Post this decision the City relayed information relating to this suite of road modifications to the public via the City of Busselton website and the Your Say Busselton consultation portal.  Public information sessions and community access sessions were held, along with individual meetings with affected landowners or on request by members of the public.

 

On the basis of subsequent stakeholder feedback received, Council requested further communication and consultation be undertaken to ascertain community views regarding the progression of major road upgrade options. At its 14 April 2018 meeting, Council resolved the following:

 


 

(C1804/071):

That the Council, with respect to the ‘Eastern Link’ project and other potential options for improving road access into and out of the Busselton City Centre, other than with respect to relatively minor intersection or other upgrades, not make a final decision to commence construction until the following has occurred –

 

1.    Further public consultation (through public forums, online surveys or other methods identified as appropriate);

2.    Further feasibility and cost investigation of Eastern Link options and other options, including those that may be identified in the public consultation;

3.    Environmental advice or approval from the State Environmental Protection Authority for the Eastern Link has been received, and the implications of that approval or advice have been considered; and

4.    The outcomes of 1, 2 and 3 above have been presented to and formally considered by the Council.

 

Noting the above, this report provides:

·    information on the outcomes of further community consultation undertaken by Catalyse Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Busselton (refer to the Consultation section of this report);

·    information relating to further cost investigations of City Centre Eastern Link and other options identified in the Busselton Traffic Study (refer to the Financial Implications section of this report);

·    an update on the environmental approval status of major upgrade options and suggested strategies for Council consideration; and

·    presentation of recommendations for Council consideration.

This report does not address parts iii and iv of the 2016 Council resolution that relate to Fairway Drive Duplication and Old Bussell Highway Traffic Management.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

With the exception of Strelly / Barlee / West Street Upgrade (Stage 1), all road modification options are still pending environmental approval. Note that approval requirements can relate to either the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC ACT) or (State) Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act).  The following information provides an update on the environmental approval status of individual projects.

 

Strelly / Barlee / West Street Upgrade

 

No environmental approval is required for the intersection upgrades associated with Stage 1 and 2 of these works. However, State and Commonwealth approval is expected to be required for the widening of West Street through the wetland areas (Stage 3).

 

Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication

 

Commonwealth environmental approval is required to progress this project.  On advice from the City’s environmental consultants, a referral was submitted under the Commonwealth but not State legislation.  The decision not to refer the project to the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the EP Act was on the basis that the EPA did not assess the City Centre Eastern Link and is therefore unlikely to do so for Causeway Road. The appeals against the EPA’s decision to not assess Eastern Link were dismissed and an EPA referral would take 3-5 months to process before a clearing permit can be submitted.   

 

Referral under the EPBC Act 1999 has been submitted to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) who will take about 3-4 months to decide whether Causeway Road requires approval i.e is a ‘controlled action’ (which is the case for City Eastern Link) or not a ‘non-controlled action’.  Based on preliminary discussions with DEE it is expected it will be a non-controlled action, so no approval will be required.

 

Clearing permits have been submitted to the State Government but no decisions have been made as yet.

 

City Centre Eastern Link 

 

On 27 August 2018, the City received advice from the State Government that the appeals against the decision of the EPA not to assess the City Centre Eastern link project had been dismissed. Clearing permits are still required, have been submitted and remain pending. Commonwealth environmental approval also remains pending. The time frame for the decision is expected to be approximately 4-5 months.

 

The EPBC Act requires an assessment and approval of all major road modification option as a ‘controlled action’ due to potential significant impacts on Western Ringtail Possum and Carters Freshwater Mussel.  The Commonwealth is assessing the project through ‘assessment of preliminary information’ and the City has provided all requested information to the Commonwealth.

 

The 1986 EP Act requires a clearing permit to clear native vegetation other than where exemptions apply and they don’t in this case.  Clearing permits have been submitted to the State but no decisions have been made as yet.

 

In addition, State Wildlife Conservation Regulations requires a Regulation 15 licence to be obtained to translocate Carters Freshwater Mussel.  To this end an application was submitted to the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) (formerly Parks and Wildlife) in conjunction with a management plan to guide the translocation. A Western Ringtail Possum Management Plan has been submitted as part of the EP Act requirement and will be a condition of clearing.

 

State Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 may require a Section 5C licence to abstract groundwater inflow to the coffer dams during bridge construction. 

 

Ford Road

 

To date only one decision has been made by the Minister for Environment in relation to Ford Road and that was a 2010 decision that Ford Road was not considered environmentally acceptable for implementation.  An Appeals Committee did at one stage indicate that it would recommend approval to the Minister, subject to conditions.  At the time the Minister would have been bound by an Appeals Committee recommendation. The then Shire of Busselton, however, advised that the conditions were not acceptable. A subsequent and differently constituted Appeals Committee recommended refusal and that was reflected in the ultimate decision of the Minister. By 2010, Commonwealth approval would in any case also have been required.  The EPA has also provided formal advice to the Minister on two occasions, on each occasion advising that Ford Road was not environmentally acceptable.

 

On 14 August 2018, correspondence was received from the Minister for the Environment the Hon. Stephen Dawson MLC, in response to a written request for further clarity on issues relating to the potential development of Ford Road. In his response the Minister noted:

 

“In accordance with section 38(5j) a proposal cannot be referred to the EPA under section 38 of the EP Act more than once. As such the Ford Road proposal, as previously considered by the EPA, and that the then Minister for Environment determined may not be implemented, is unable to be reconsidered.”

 

Given the above, the Minister further recommended that should the City of Busselton wish to formulate a new proposal which addresses the environmental issues raised in EPA Bulletin 975 (which was referenced in the Minister’s 2010 decision), a new and different proposal would need to be lodged under the EP Act.

 

 The City has been progressing environmental studies that will inform any future environmental approval application. The City has also engaged environmental consultants who are / will undertake the following activities:

 

1.       water bird monitoring program scheduled for a period of 12 months commencing spring 2018;

2.       support for hydrological modelling and storm water management. Work has commenced on this and should be completed by April 2019;

3.       detailed flora and vegetation survey scheduled for October/November 2018;

4.       review of new designs taking onboard recommendations of the water bird monitoring, hydrological modelling and flora and vegetation survey; and

5.       ongoing agency consultation.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

This report, in itself, is about determining the future planning direction of the Busselton road network.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Further investigation of costs associated with individual projects has been undertaken in order to make comparative assessments. It should be noted that costs provided here have been made publically available and are the most accurate costs available at this point in time. In some instances assumptions have been made in relation to costs associated with service relocation and land acquisition; in others, as indicated, costs remain unknown and will need to be factored in.  Where environmental approval remains pending additional costs may need to be factored in for environmental offsets or conditions.

 

1.            Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication (See Attachment C)

 

Stage 1 $6.8 million

Key elements include:

·    upgrade of existing roundabout at Peel Terrace and slip lane - $800,000;

·    new bridge - $2.5 million (note project costs detailed below are based on the premise that Main Roads WA will allow the City to develop the new bridge to the same height and same approximate length as the existing bridge);

·    duplication of Causeway Road from Peel Terrace to Molloy Street - $1.3 million;

·    dual lane roundabout at Causeway Road and Strelly Street - $1 million;

·    relocation of services associated with modification to the intersection at Albert Street and Peel Terrace - $1.2 million (estimated); and

·    environmental offsets – to be determined (costings not included).

 

Stage 2 - $900,000

Key elements include:

·    new single lane roundabout at the intersection of Albert Street and Queen Street -  $900,000;

·    environmental offsets – to be determined (costings not included);

·    should stage 1 not proceed the associated costs for service relocation from stage 1 would be applied to this project. ($1.2 million); and

·    possible land purchases the costs of these are currently unknown.

 

2.            Strelly / Barlee / West Street Upgrade including intersection at West and Albert Street (See Attachment D)

 

Stage 1 - $450,000 (costs remaining)

Key elements include:

·    Roundabout installation at the Strelly / Barlee intersection. Due for completion in March 2019.

 

Stage 2A - $450,000 plus (See Attachment E)

Key elements include:

·    adding dedicated left turn merge lanes along Bussell Highway, from West Street, heading west;

·    adding additional dedicated right turn lanes on both north and southbound lanes;

·    adding a right turn filter on traffic turning right heading north;

·    land acquisition on both the north eastern and south western corners of the intersection. (costing not included);

·    overhead type traffic lights (costing not included); and

·    relocation of services and other agency approvals (costings not included).

 

Stage 2B: $1million plus (see Attachment F)

Key elements include:

·    replacing the existing traffic lights with a dual lane roundabout; and

·    costs associated with land acquisition, service relocation and agency approvals (not included).

 

Stage 3 – Upgrade road infrastructure to dual lanes along Strelly / Barlee and West Street (currently un-costed)

 

The intersections at Barlee/Strelly Street and West/Albert Street is one of the causes of current traffic congestion into and around the City Centre. Prioritising the upgrade of these intersections as part of Stage 1 and 2 will provide significant benefit.

 

At this point in time, these roads have sufficient capacity to provide adequate traffic flow. However, in the longer-term, the dualling of these road will be required and will form Stage 3 works.  Costings for these works have not been provided as design work has not commenced. Significant land purchases and environmental approvals will be required.

 


 

 

3.            City Centre Eastern Link (See Attachment G)

Stage 1 - $4.15 million

Key elements include:

·    new roundabout at the intersection of  Causeway Road / Rosemary Drive / City Centre Eastern Link - $750,000;

·    new bridge over Vasse River linking City Centre Eastern Link and Cammilleri Street -  $2.5 million;

·    new road linking Rosemary Drive and the new bridge - $300,000;

·    new roundabout at Cammilleri Street / Peel Terrace / City Centre Eastern Link - $500,000;

·    new shared path along City Centre Eastern Link - $100,000; and

·    environmental offsets – to be determined (costings not included).

 

Stage 2 - $2.2 million

Key elements include:

·    dual lane roundabout at Causeway Road and Strelly Street - $1 million;

·    duplication of Causeway Road from Rosemary Drive to Molloy Street - $1 million;

·    relocation of services adjacent to the new Strelly Street / Causeway Road roundabout and new dual lanes - $200,000 (estimated); and

·    environmental offsets – to be determined (costings not included).

 

4.            Ford Road (See Attachment H)

 

$21 to $25 million plus (estimated)

The costs associated with developing a 130m span bridge across the Vasse Estuary have been included in this breakdown. This is considered a likely cost based on feedback from relevant environmental agencies in response to previous unsuccessful applications lodged by the City. Should the option be open to the City, the cost of using culverts rather than a bridge has also been estimated.

 

The total project cost is estimated to be in the vicinity of $25 million plus (bridge) or the vicinity of $21 million plus (culvert). This is based on current construction costs that have provided by an independent civil contractor in accordance with Australian Standards:

 

·    contractor’s estimated construction costs (incorporating Ford Road,  new bridge / culvert across wetlands, new roundabout at Peel Terrace / Layman Road / Ford Road and new roundabout at Ford Road / Bussell Highway / Vasse Highway) - $21.8 million (bridge) $18 million (culvert);

·    design - $400,000 (estimated);

·    10% contingency – $2.25 million;

·    land acquisition – to be determined (costings not included); and

·    environmental offsets and approvals – to be determined (costings not included).

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

Some or part of the projects recommended by officers for progression as per the Officer Recommendation are currently included in the Long-term Financial Plan, noting some aspects are pending successful grant submissions. Once Council has determined its preferred way forward this will need to be reflected in the Long-term Financial Plan.

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The recommendations of this report reflect Key Goal Area 5 – Transport (smart, connective, accessible) of the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2017, and specifically Community Objective 5.2: road networks that provide for a growing population and the safe movement of all users through the District.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The key and overarching risk is that the City is unable to effectively implement the appropriate upgrades to the local road system to meet demands over time. While this will lead to increasing congestion as the population and visitor numbers increase, the level of risk varies according to the timeframe considered. 

 

Based on the traffic modelling report and peer review, the City has approximately five years before significant congestion is experienced on the current major entry into Busselton. The officer’s recommendation mitigates this risk by proposing a course of action to address this potential.

 

Regardless of the direction Council chooses to take there are reputational risks associated.  Major road upgrades such as those being considered naturally impact (to varying degrees) on amenity and the commuting patterns and behaviours of community members.  It is also clear that there are some strong views in the community about the merits or otherwise of the options available. There are therefore reputational risks associated with the officer recommendation, as there are with the alternate options presented within this report.  

 

CONSULTATION

 

Communication and consultation initiatives undertaken since the April 2018 resolution include print advertising, electronic communications, an independently run survey and two open-house community forums incorporating formal and informal Q&A sessions and displays.  Information was also relayed via the City’s Your Say Platform, on display at the Customer Service centre and through a series of hard copy handouts on each of the road options (See Attachments C, G and H).

 

The City Centre Road Network Community Survey was undertaken by Catalyse Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Busselton. The survey was open from 16 August 2018 – 12 September 2018 (See Attachment I for the final Catalyse report and Attachment J for consultant’s presentation to Council).

 

Four thousand electronic surveys were distributed randomly by Catalyse utilising email contacts contained in the City’s resident and ratepayer database and contacts within the Your Say database. People were also invited to opt-in to the survey; this was advertised broadly via traditional and social media. In total 687 responses were received - 430 random and 257 opt-in. This provided statistical validation and an accuracy rating of +-3.7%. 

 

When viewing the sample profile (both random and opt-in) the difference between male and female respondents was minimal; the difference between ratepayer and residents was also minimal. Fewer responses were received from business owners. Significantly more responses were received from respondents aged 35 years and over. The highest number of respondents (both random and opt-in) were from participants in West Busselton; Geographe; Busselton, Yalyalup and Broadwater. The response rate from localities further from the Busselton City Centre was relatively low.

 


 

Variations between the responses received from random respondents and those received from opt-in responses are noted. The following summary points provide high-level observations;

 

Key observations from the Catalyse survey as revealed in the report include: 

 

·    random respondents generally support the staged implementation of a suite of road upgrades options (net support 41%). However, support was considerably lower among the opt-in respondents (net support opt-in 13%);

·    the City can confidently progress with the Strelly / Barley / West Street intersection upgrades knowing that this option is most strongly preferred (net support random  78%; net support opt-in 61%);

·    the City can confidently continue to pursue the necessary environmental approval to progress Ford Road knowing this is the second most preferred option (net support random 67%; net support opt-in 68%);

·    Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication is the third most preferred option.  Causeway Road and Bridge duplication is more supported than the City Centre Eastern Link by both random and opt-in respondents. It is worth noting, however, that the difference in the level of support for the two projects is relatively small when considering random responses - net support for Causeway Road 34% while net support for City Centre Eastern Link is 27%. The difference was significantly greater and the outcome different when considering the opt-in responses (net support Causeway Road 2% versus net support for City Centre Eastern link -19%);

·    City Centre Eastern Link was the least preferred option, but again when considering the random results, the difference in the levels of net support between this project and the Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication project was not significant (as noted above);

 

·    importantly, the level of support for undertaking either City Centre Eastern Link or Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication is considerably higher than not proceeding with either option –respondents want to see action taken to address congestion. 29% of random respondents preferred Causeway Road be progressed first, 23% of random respondents preferred City Centre Eastern Link proceed first and 23% of random respondents had no preference for which project is commenced first. Only 19% of random respondents did not support the progression of either project;

·    the most commonly provided reasons for opposing City Centre Eastern Link was a belief that it will not fix congestion in the City Centre and that Ford Road is preferable;

 

·    the most commonly provided reasons for opposing Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication was a belief that it will not reduce congestion in the City Centre and that Ford Road is preferable; 

·    among the relatively small group of respondents who opposed Ford Road (total 96 responses) there was significant opposition based on environmental concern (43% random; 71% opt in) and cost factors (30% random; 52% opt in).  This was a point specifically raised by the Catalyse consultant in her brief to Council. The consultant suggested that should Ford Road progress, Council may face very strong (and potentially growing) community opposition that extends beyond City of Busselton - not dissimilar to the opposition faced by the former State Government in relation to the Roe 8 project;

·    other road modification suggestions identified for Council consideration included (but were not limited to): proceeding with Ford Road; promoting a more pedestrian friendly CBD and improving signage. Better directional signage diverting traffic into the City Centre via Tuart Drive was raised multiple times at both community open forums; and

·    based on the results of the survey and feedback from the Catalyse consultant, it is evident that the level of opposition to both the City Centre Eastern Link and the Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication directly correlates with the level of support for Ford Road. This is evident when analysing both random and opt-in responses but is particularly evident when considering opt-in responses.  

 

The outcomes of the Catalyse survey as detailed above should be considered by Council alongside other key factors, as outlined below in the Officer Comment section. 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Prior to the development of this report, extensive independent traffic modelling was undertaken by Cardno.  An independent peer review of the final Cardno report has been undertaken by Riley Consulting. It is important to remember that traffic modelling, like any modelling, is not an exact science. Traffic modelling provides a relatively accurate understanding of current trends, influencers and outcomes over a 10 – 15 year time frame. After this point more modelling and further review is necessary as demographic, lifestyles and technological factors change and the built infrastructure around us also changes. A staged implementation approach provides Council with the opportunity to undertake additional traffic modelling and review current and projected road use patters over time noting that adjustments to future projects may well be necessary.

 

Not-withstanding the above both Cardno and Riley Consulting are well-established in the fields of traffic modelling and road network planning. The peer review assessed the outcomes presented in the Cardno report for validity and reliability.  Feedback from Cardno and the peer review have informed the development of various scenarios presented in this report for Council consideration. It should be noted that recommendations made in both the Cardno report and the peer review are based solely on technical information and project costs.

 

In determining how and which road modification options to progress Council has five key issues to consider:

1.    traffic congestion outcomes

2.    impact on amenity;

3.    environmental approval;

4.    financial implications; and

5.    community feedback.

Table 1 below summarises these matters with respect to each of the four proposed road modification options that were advertised as part of the community consultation process.

 

Table 1

Project

Community Feedback (survey preference ranking)

Total Estimated Project Cost

Funding

Source

Impact on Amenity

Environmental Approval

Traffic Modelling

Outcomes (immediate to medium term)

Stage 1

Strelly / Barlee Intersection Upgrade

 

1 (71%)

$450,000

Provision the 2018/2019 budget.

Low - based on locality in the Light Industrial Area (LIA).

Not required

Positive

Stage 2A

West / Albert Intersection Upgrade

$450,000 excluding land purchases and service relocation and new traffic signals.

Municipal funding and potential Regional Road Group Funding.

Low - no impact on residential or public open space.

Not required

Positive

Stage 2B

West / Albert Intersection Upgrade (replace lights with roundabout)

 

$1 million excluding land purchases and service relocation

Municipal funding and potential Regional Road Group Funding.

Low - no impact on residential or public open space.

Not required

Positive

Stage 3

Dualling Strelly / Barlee and West Street

Un-costed

Municipal funding and potential Regional Road Group Funding.

Low to Medium - significant portion based in LIA, some works border wetlands.

Approval needed

Positive

Ford Road

2 (50%)

$25 M (bridge)

$21 M (culvert)

Municipal funding and/ or loan. External funding would be explored.

Medium - currently a greenfield site.

Unapproved

Minimal

Causeway Rd Duplication

Stage 1

Molloy Street to Peel Terrace

3 (34%)

$6.8 million

Funding received through the Australian Government’s Bridges Renewal Program may be transferable. Municipal funding will be required.

Low / medium - based on current footprint at City entrance; loss of 12 mature peppermint trees and requires 17 poplar trees to be relocated and; loss of public reserve and recreational space particularly at
Rotary Park.

Pending

Positive

 

Stage 2

Albert / Queen Street Roundabout

 

$900,000

Municipal funding. External funding opportunities would be explored.

City Centre Eastern Link

Stage 1

Rosemary Drive to Peel Terrace

4 (27%)

$4.15 million

50% of the bridge element has been funded via external grants. Provision for remaining costs in the 2018/2019 budget.

Low - based on loss of 7 mature peppermint trees and 24 poplar trees to be relocated; loss of public reserve.

Pending

Positive

Stage 2

Rosemary Drive to Molloy Street

 

$2.2 million

Municipal funding and potential Regional Road Group Funding

 

*% is based on net support from random responses in the 2018 Catalyse Survey (order of preference is the same for opt-in sample).

*Costs provided are based on known and estimated.

 

After considering all of the information to hand including feedback from the independent peer review, officers believe there are five options available to Council moving forward.  Commentary on the relative merits of each is provided with officers recommending that Council pursue Option 5 – which involves a combined approach.

 

Option 1 – Defer Ground Works in Relation to City Centre Eastern Link and Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication Pending Environmental Approval. 

 

Based on the Cardno Report and peer Review, traffic modeling and growth projections indicate that the City could feasibly defer major work associated with the Busselton Traffic Study for up to five years without significant economic or social impact. In effect this will mean that road users must simply “put up with” seasonal and peak-time congestion.  

 

Modelling indicates that doing nothing is likely to result in significant road failure by the year 2024 and commuters could feasibly expect to see increasing travel times and increasingly longer wait times at intersections as we progress towards that point. Doing nothing would result in the City forfeiting $1.25 million secured through the Australian Government’s Bridges Renewal Program. Doing nothing may also have public relations implications for Council given the fact that traffic management has been identified as a priority in the Catalyse survey and was listed as one of the top five priorities in the 2017 Community Survey outcomes.

 


 

Conversely, doing nothing in the short term would provide time to confirm the environmental approval status for both the City Centre Eastern Link, and the Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge, noting that the outcome of these approval processes may well determine Council’s decision in relation to either option.  While awaiting the outcomes of the environmental approval process Council could finalise design and tender on both projects to provide more certainty with final costings, while continuing to progress with Strelly / Barlee Street intersection upgrade and improved signage. 

 

A decision whether to proceed with City Centre Eastern Link or the Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge could then be made by Council sometime between January 2019 and June 2019.

 

Assessment

 

Table 3 provides a snap shot of how Option 1 relates to other options in terms of cost, and effective lifespan based on undertaking each project in isolation from 2019.

 

Traffic modelling and peer review indicates that there is an approximate five year window before works are critically required. Given this officers maintain that deferring ground works associated with City Centre Eastern Link or Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication, is a viable short-term option and one Council may consider. However, in short this is simply delaying the decision making and community feedback indicates a strong desire to see remedial action taken as a matter of priority. There is also no guarantee that the grant for the bridge would be available in the longer-term. 

 

Option 2 – Abandon / Delay Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication and City Centre Eastern Link and Pursue Ford Road

 

Respondents to the Catalyse survey favoured construction of Ford Road more than the City Centre Eastern Link or Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge. Ford Road is also an option identified through the Busselton Traffic Study as suitable for implementation in the longer-term.  Traffic modelling, verified by peer review, indicates that Ford Road would only improve traffic congestion for a small percentage of the population, most notably residents travelling to and from eastern Busselton and Geographe to Bussell Highway / Busselton Bypass and the Yalyalup/Provence area. There would be no significant reduction in traffic along Causeway Road and into the City Centre.

 

As noted in section 3.12 and 4.1 of the Cardno Report, October 2018:

 

“..in both the 2026 AM and PM scenarios, the intersection performances are shown to gain minimal benefit as a result of this scenario. This is due to Ford Road only being used by a relatively small amount of traffic as it does not provide a direct or convenient route in to the Busselton City Centre area, which is the destination for the majority of traffic on Causeway Road (and the cause of the network congestion issues at the intersections of Queen Street / Albert Street and Queen Street / Peel Terrace.”

 

“The model result shows the Ford Road is only used by a small amount of traffic as it does not provide a short route choice to City Centre. Therefore, the Ford Road results are similar to the Existing network results and the City Centre intersections will not operate satisfactorily after 2024.”

 

Notwithstanding this independent recommendation, a vigorous and proactive approach to the approvals associated with the development of Ford Road can be undertaken.  Securing environmental approval, if at all possible may however take years. In effect, pursuance of this option to the exclusion of all others equates to doing nothing in the immediate to short- term, potentially longer.

 

Efforts have been made over the past twenty years to gain approval to construct Ford Road, with environmental approval not given. In correspondence to the City dated 14 August 2018 Minister for Environment, Hon Stephen Dawson MLC made it quite clear that, in accordance with section 38(5j) of the EPA, if the City was to go back to the EPA with a proposal identical to one previously submitted, it would not be considered, and that any new submission would need to address the issues raised in the EPA Bulletin 975.

 

The Catalyse survey indicated that net support for Ford Road was highest among Geographe residents. These residents, who also rated high in terms of CBD trip frequency, indicated that the reason they most frequently came into the City Centre was to shop – commuting to another destination, accessing the LIA and school drop-offs rated considerably lower. Construction of Ford Road will not provide Geographe residents with more direct access to shops and services in the City Centre which, is the main reason they are travelling to or through the City Centre (refer pages 10 & 11 of the 2018 Catalyse Report).

 

Should Ford Road progress, construction costs are estimated to be $21 to $25 million plus (current day value) making it a significantly more expensive option than others. Assuming environmental approval could be achieved, the City of Busselton could potentially divert funding from other projects in part or full. It should be noted, however, that the City’s current annual expenditure on road construction across the municipality is approximately $6 million per year including road grants.  Diverting these funds to Ford Road would impact significantly on other road networks for a period of four to five years and would arguably be unequitable. 

 

Alternatively, the City may agree to take out a loan to finance the project. This approach would involve a rate increase to finance the borrowing. The cost to ratepayers would be dependent on the term of the loan and the prevailing interest rate at the time. If Council was prepared to take this approach, the City would explore external funding opportunities to assist in offsetting this cost. However, based on past discussion with successive State Governments, it is unlikely that external funding could be secured that would significantly reduce the cost to ratepayers.

 

Assessment

 

Table 3 provides a snap shot of how the Option 2 relates to other options in terms of cost, and effective lifespan based on undertaking each project in isolation from 2019.

 

Given the length of time and costs associated with the approval process and the outcomes of traffic modelling undertaken by Cardno (and supported by the peer review), officers agree with their findings that Ford Road as a stand-alone option will not improve existing and future congestion in and around the Busselton City Centre; it should instead be pursued in conjunction with other major modification option(s) as a medium to longer-term strategy. 

 

To this end, the City could continue to progress environmental approvals for Ford Road making it very clear to the community that:

·    the project is depended upon environmental approval;

·    the project is dependent on further financial consideration; and

·    that if no other option is pursued in the meantime, road users will simply have to put up with seasonal and peak-time congestion for a number of years and very likely beyond 2024 when traffic modeling indicates that this section of the Busselton road network will likely fail.

 

Option 3 - Prioritise Construction Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication (Stage 1 and 2)

 

Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication was the third most popularly supported option in the Catalyse survey – ahead of City Centre Eastern Link by 7% (random responses).

 

The Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication project involves two main elements - construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Queen Street and Albert Street with a dedicated left slip lane onto Albert Street from the south; and construction of dual carriageway and bridge from Peel Terrace to Molloy Street.  It is important to bear in mind that the project costs associated with this project are based on the premise that Main Roads WA will allow the City to develop the new parallel bridge to the same height and same approximate length as the existing bridge. The City is currently in discussion with Main Roads to ascertain whether this is would be approved.

 

Officers agree with the information provided in the traffic modelling report and peer review which indicates that Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge will provide effective traffic flow until 2028. After 2028, without the establishment of an alternative entry point into the City Centre, the City Centre can expect to see critical congestion particularly around the intersections of Peel Terrace and Albert Street. The modelling also shows that although failure does not occur until 2028, the overall level of service is progressively worse with this scenario than for the City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1 and 2). By 2028 construction of the City Centre Eastern Link, or a similar north-south link will be required.

 

Environmental conditions associated with this project are unknown at this stage.  However, officers expect that, if approved, conditions will be similar to those which have been applied to the City Centre Eastern Link - particularly in relation to the removal of Peppermint Trees, facilitating the movement of Western Ring Tail Possum and relocation of Carters Freshwater Mussel. 

 

While amenity can be a subjective judgment, this option will increase the amount of road infrastructure around the city entrance and, depending on the final design, have some impact on recreational and open space – particularly Victoria Square, Rotary Park, Breeden Park and the car parking at St Mary’s Parish. There will also be a requirement to remove trees in this area.

 

Details of the costs are provided in the financial section of this report. Should the Council determine to proceed with the Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge, officers will seek to have funding secured through the Australian Government’s Bridges Renewal Program transferred to this project. Officers have made enquires to this end and while there is no guarantee this would be approved, it could be achieved.

 

Assessment 

 

Table 3 provides a snap shot of how Option 3 relates to other options in terms of cost, and effective lifespan based on undertaking each project in isolation from 2019.

 

Based on the traffic modelling and independent peer review, officers are in agreement that undertaken as a standalone measure, the Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge (Stage 1 and 2) will provide effective traffic congestion relief up until 2028 after which another major modification will be required.

 

There will also be significant impact on amenity and the reduction of high value green space including in Rotary Park with this option requiring more trees to be removed than any other project being considered as part of the current suite of modifications. This project is also more expensive than the City Centre Eastern Link.

 

Option 4 Prioritise Construction of City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1 and 2)

 

Results of the Catalyse survey note City Centre Eastern Link as the least popularly supported option. However, as detailed above when compared to the Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge project the difference was not significant when considering random responses (7%).


 

Interestingly the data also showed more support for City Centre Eastern Link than Causeway Road among residents in eastern Busselton and Geographe which may indicate some level of perceived benefit among those who may use the City Centre Eastern Link on a regular basis.

 

Stage 1 of this project involves provision of new roundabouts at the intersection of Peel Terrace and Cammilleri Street and the intersection of Rosemary Drive and Causeway Road, and a new link road connecting the two roundabouts. Stage 2 involves dualling Causeway Road from Rosemary Drive to Molloy Street, including a new dual lane roundabout at Causeway Road and Strelly Street.

 

Officers agree with the traffic modelling and independent peer review which indicates that Stage 1 will provide effective traffic relief until 2028 without the need for any additional modification works or the commencement of Stage 2. This would be at a cost of $4.15 million. As indicated in the table below, this is the equivalent effective lifespan as for Causeway Road Stage 1 and 2 at a cost of $7.7 million. This modelling indicates that Stage 1 and 2 City Centre Eastern Link will provide effective traffic relief until 2031 without the need for any additional modification works. The modelling also indicates that although failure occurs in 2031 (similar to option 3), the overall level of service is initially better with this scenario than for the Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication (Stage 1 and 2).

 

Based on the modelling, officers support construction of City Centre Eastern Link above Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication. This is outlined in more detail in Option 5 which incorporates Stage 1 of this project as a key element.

 

EPA approval for the City Centre Eastern Link has been received with conditions associated with the movement of Western Ring Tail Possum and relocation of Carters Freshwater Mussels. Commonwealth Government approval and tree clearing permits remain pending.

 

City Centre Eastern Link will have less impact on amenity than the Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge, as much of the road network will be built on the existing disused rail corridor. Additionally, City Centre Eastern Link does not require the construction of four lanes between Rosemary Drive and Peel Terrace at the City entrance, noting that this is a feature of the Causeway Road project and one that may serve to detract from the overall appeal of the City’s entrance. 

 

Assessment

 

Table 3 provides a snap shot of how Option 4 relates to other options in terms of cost, and effective lifespan based on undertaking each project in isolation from 2019.

 

The cost difference City Centre Eastern Link and the Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication project is not as significant as the difference of either project when compared to Ford Road. However, based on the modelling, when considering the longevity and level of service of each project, City Centre Eastern Link presents as the most beneficial option. There is greater cost benefit associated with building the City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1 and 2) than completing the Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication project (Stage 1 and 2). City Centre Eastern Link provides effective traffic flow until 2031 at a cost of $6.35 million with a longer estimated lifespan, Causeway Road (Stage 1 and 2) only provides effective traffic flow until 2028 at a cost of $7.7 million.

 

Taking these points into consideration, and based on the outcomes of traffic modelling and the independent peer review, officers agree that the City Centre Eastern link will provide the best traffic congestion relief for the longest time before any other major modification(s) are required. In addition this option represents the best value money.

 


 

Option 5 – A Combination Approach

 

Since Council’s endorsement of the outcomes of the Busselton Traffic Study in 2016, more detailed traffic modelling has been undertaken. In reviewing the various traffic modification options identified in the study, Cardno has suggested that a hybrid approach be considered. The results of the independent review of traffic modelling further supported this combined approach. The City has also undertaken further cost analysis on each option and obtained feedback from the community through the Catalyse survey which identified priority areas. One of these priority areas, the intersection at Albert Street and West Street, is addressed in this option. More detailed analysis has shown that there are significant benefits associated with a more flexible approach which combines various scenarios from the individual options initially proposed.

 

The combined approach consists of elements specifically recommended in the latest traffic modelling report plus additional considerations that address known congestion points of high community concern.  These are as follows:

 

·    City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1);

·    Upgrade the intersection of Albert and Queen Street from lights to a roundabout including a dedicated left turn slip lane travelling west;

·    upgrade the Albert and West Street intersection (Strelly / Barlee / West Street  Upgrade Stage 2); and

·    upgrade the intersection at Strelly Street and Causeway Road. This may involve development of median-style treatment at this intersection.

 

The Cardno report and peer review recommends  that Stage 1 City Centre Eastern Link combined with the upgrade of the intersection at Albert and Queen Street (Option 2C in the Cardno Report See Attachment K) provide a road network that lasts to 2033 without need for other modifications at the Causeway Road entry.

 

Stage 1 of City Centre Eastern Link, is included in the Combined Approach, because traffic modelling indicates that it offers the following benefits:

 

·    improved access in and out of the City Centre for those travelling to eastern Busselton and Geographe;

·    reduced traffic heading down Queen Street (whereas the duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge will continue to direct drivers to Queen Street); and

·    more direct access to major car parks and supermarkets.

In addition to these positive impacts on the road network, City Centre Eastern Link will have less impact on amenity than other major options.  It will require relatively little disruption to road users during construction as Causeway Road will remain operational during works.  Importantly, as has been raised by the community, City Centre Eastern Link will provide an alternative access point in the case of an emergency and more direct access for emergency service vehicles. Environmental approval for this project is pending.

 

Traffic modelling indicates that upgrading the intersection at Albert Street and Queen Street from lights to a roundabout with a dedicated continuous left hand slip lane (directing traffic to the west) will improve traffic flow, reduce intersection delay and vehicle queuing.  When combined with the City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1), this combination will provide an effective road network for approximately 15 years.  These two projects can be completed at an estimated cost of $7.05 million which is less than Causeway Road Duplication Stage 1 and 2 ($7.7 million) but more expensive than City Centre Eastern Link Stage 1 and 2 ($6.35 million). 


 

However, most importantly these two elements combined provide a longer effective level of service than either Causeway Road Duplication (Stage 1 and 2) or City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1 and 2).

 

In addition to these elements outlined above, there is also benefit in upgrading the intersection Albert Street and West Street. Stakeholders have raised concerns regarding this intersection and traffic modelling supports this concern. The intersection, if it remains in its current form, will become an increasing point of traffic congestion. It is therefore recommended within this option that detailed design works for the upgrade of the Albert Street and West Street intersection be prioritised.  Preliminary designs have been completed encompassing two design stages.

The first stage would involve the construction of dedicated turning pockets and lanes as depicted in the drawing at Attachment K. Stage 2 works at the intersection are considered major and involve construction of a two-lane roundabout, see drawing at Attachment L. Both stages will require significant planning, service relocation and land purchases and these elements will determine when the project can be delivered. Officers recommend that the design work for this staged upgrade should progress as a matter of priority and be re-evaluated in the Long-term Financial Plan. 

 

Option 5 does not currently require the dualling of Causeway Road. However, officers still consider that the intersection at Strelly Street and Causeway Road will require an upgrade to improve ease of access and traffic flow in particular for vehicles turning right onto Causeway Road or turning right from Causeway Road into Strelly Street.  This intersection upgrade will require further investigation to determine the most appropriate treatment option. This could be a gull-style intersection or a roundabout.

 

In addition to these elements detailed above, there is benefit in continuing to pursue necessary approvals and potential funding sources to construct Ford Road, noting this option has broad community support and has already been identified by Council for potential implementation in the longer-term.

 

A summary of this option is provided in Table 2 below:

 

Table 2

Option 5 - Program

Project

Description

Estimated Budget

Funding Sources

Ford Road

Continue studies and environmental approvals.

 

$300,000 (funded pending budget approval for 2019/2020 onwards.

 

Municipal

Albert / Queen / Peel Street  Intersection Upgrades

Removal of traffic lights (subject to MRWA approval) and  construction of a single lane roundabout at the intersection of Queen and Albert Street with a dedicated continuous left turn lane from the south onto Albert Street.

 

$1.7 million plus an estimated $1.2 million for services relocation.

The cost of land purchase is not included.

Currently unbudgeted, funding will need to be re-evaluated through the Long-term Financial Plan.

Municipal and Potential Regional Road Group funding


 

West / Albert  Street (Stage 2 of Strelly / Barlee / West Upgrade)

Re-alignment and widening of the intersection with dedicated left turn pockets and lanes. Requires new traffic lights and land purchase.

 

$450,000 plus additional costs associated with service relocation, land purchase and overhead traffic lights. Currently unbudgeted, funding will need to be re-evaluated through the Long-term Financial Plan.

 

Municipal and potential Regional Road Group Funding

Eastern Link Stage 1

Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Cammilleri Street / Peel Terrace, a roundabout at the intersection of Rosemary Drive / Causeway Road. Construction of a link road connecting the two roundabouts including a new bridge crossing Vasse River.

 

$4.15 million

Currently funded in the 2018/2019 budget.

Municipal funding and external funding through the Australian Government’s Bridges Renewal Program.

Strelly / Causeway Road Intersection Upgrade.

Construction of an appropriate treatment at the intersection of Causeway Road / Strelly Street to improve right turn movements into and out of Strelly Street onto Causeway Road. 

 

$600,000 (estimated).Currently unbudgeted, funding will need to be re-evaluated through the Long-term Financial Plan.

 

Municipal and potential Regional Road Group funding

 

Overall works associated with Option 5 are shown in the preliminary drawing below and at
Attachment L.

 

Assessment

 

Table 3 provides a snap shot of how the City Centre Eastern Link (Stage1) combined with an upgrade to the intersection of Albert and Queen Street (two main elements of Option 5); relates to other options in terms of cost, and effective lifespan. This comparison is based on undertaking each project in isolation from 2019.

 

Table 3

Project

Estimated Cost

Estimated Effective Lifespan

Option 1 - Defer Ground Works in Relation to City Centre Eastern Link and Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication Pending Environmental Approval. 

$50,000 (design / tender preparation)

5 years - 2024

Option 2 – Abandon / Delay Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication and City Centre Eastern Link and Pursue Ford Road

$21 - $25 million plus

5 years - 2024

Causeway Road (Stage 1)

$6.8 million

5 years - 2024

Option 3 - Causeway Road (Stage 1 and 2)

$7.7 million

10 years - 2028

City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1)

$4.15 million

10 years - 2028

Option 4 - City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1 and 2)

$6.35 million

13 years - 2031

Option 2C - City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1 Combined with Albert and Queen Street Upgrade (Cardno Report)

$7.05 million

15 years - 2033

Option 5 - Combined Approach, encompassing Cardno Option 2C and other elements

$8.4 million (excludes land purchase and service relocation)

15 years plus - 2033 plus

 

City officers agree with traffic modelling which indicates that City Centre Eastern Link combined with the intersection upgrade at Albert Street and Queen Street (Cardno Option 2C) provides the best outcome when considering costs and effective lifespan, in comparison to other options highlighted in the table above and detailed in the report.

Option 5 also seeks to remedy other critical intersections and is not solely focused on traffic traveling to the City Centre along Causeway Road.

 

 Option 5 combines the 2C Option recommended by Cardno with further projects that have been identified as a priority through traffic modelling and community feedback. These further elements include an upgrade the Albert and West Street intersection and an upgrade to the intersection at Strelly Street and Causeway Road.


This approach improves a number of elements within the City Centre Road network. In particular access along Causeway Road and to eastern Busselton and Geographe; access and egress along Strelly / Barlee / West Street;   improved access along Albert Street and the old Bussell Highway; and improved access from the Light Industrial Area on to Causeway Road.

 

Traffic modelling indicates that this combined approach will provide effective traffic flow until 2033 plus. This will allow adequate time to undertake further modelling and ascertain the best modification option moving beyond this date taking into consideration changing demographics, technical advances and community trends.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The City has always maintained that no single project executed in isolation will work on its own. The approach was, and remains, based on undertaking a suite of projects over time. While still supporting a staged approach, officers agree with the outcomes of the traffic modeling and peer review and are of the opinion that combining various scenarios presents the best way forward. The technical assessment indicates that the City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1) combined with an upgrade to the intersection of Albert and Queen Street is considered the best strategy. Taking community feedback onboard, Officers believe that additional benefit can be achieved by also undertaking upgrades at the intersection of Albert and West Street and Strelly Street and Causeway Road.

 

OPTIONS

 

Should Council not agree with the Officer Recommendation, Council may opt to:

 

1.    await environmental approval in the immediate to short-term. Defer ground works but pursue financial costings through a tender process for both City Centre Eastern Link and the Duplication of Causeway Road and Bridge (as per Option 1);

2.    abandon / delay Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication and City Centre Eastern Link and pursue Ford Road (as per option 2):

3.    prioritize construction of Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication Stage 1 and 2 (as per option 3); or

4.    prioritize construction of City Centre Eastern Link Stage 1 and 2 (as per option 4).

 

 


 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The timeline for all works outlined in this report remain dependent on the securement of environmental approval and funding availability.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives the City Centre Road Network Community Survey Report provided by Catalyse Pty Ltd as an informing document.

 

2.    Subject to environmental approval and municipal funding resources being available in the City’s annual budget and Long-term Financial Plan; progress with Option 5. This involves:

 

a.    construct City Centre Eastern Link (Stage 1);

b.    upgrade the intersection of Albert and Queen Street from lights to a roundabout;

c.     upgrade the Albert and West Street intersection; and

d.    upgrade the intersection at Strelly Street and Causeway Road.

 

3.    Subject to ongoing municipal funding, continues to progress environmental approval for the future development of Ford Road noting that this will require a new and different application to be lodged with the EPA (as per Ministerial advice 14 August 2018).

 

4.    Continue to lobby Main Roads WA for improved directional signage on Busselton Bypass.

 


Council

98

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment a

Transport Modelling Report of Causeway rd CCEL and Ford rd Scenarios

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

138

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment b

Riley Consulting Traffic Modelling Peer Review

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

148

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment c

Busselton Local Roads Upgrades Causeway Road and Bridge Duplication

 


 


Council

150

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment d

Busselton Local Roads Upgrades Strelly Barlee West Street

 


 


Council

152

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment e

Albert and West Street Preliminary Design Stage 2A

 

 

 



Council

153

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment f

Albert and West Street Preliminary Design Stage 2B

 

 

 



Council

154

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment g

Busselton Local Roads Upgrades - City Centre Eastern Link

 


 


Council

156

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment h

Busselton Local Roads Upgrades Ford Road

 


 


Council

158

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment i

City Centre Road Network Community Survey Report (Catalyse)

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

195

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment j

Catalyse Council Presentation

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

210

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment k

Option 2C (Cardno Report)

 

 

 



Council

211

14 November 2018

14.1

Attachment l

Option 5 - Combined Approach

 

 

 


 


Council                                                                                      212                                                       14 November 2018

15.             Community and Commercial Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      213                                                       14 November 2018

16.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

16.1           LEASE FOR TELECOMMUNICTIONS MAST AT DUNSBOROUGH OVAL

SUBJECT INDEX:

Agreements/Contracts

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An innovative and diversified economy that provides a variety of business and employment opportunities as well as consumer choice.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Property Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Property Management Coordinator - Sharon Woodford-Jones

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Proposed Lease Plan

Attachment b    Confidential Valuation  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The City has been approached by Optus Mobile Pty Ltd (Optus) with a request to lease a strategic site in Dunsborough for the purpose of installing and operating a telecommunications facility.  Optus are keen to improve coverage in the area. After investigating a number of options and negotiating headline terms, City officers have reached the point at which a recommendation can be made to Council enter into a lease with Optus on the terms outlined in this report.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The area Optus wish to lease is a part of Lot 3003 (7 Dunsborough Lakes Drive) Dunsborough, the approximate location of which is shown on the plan attached marked Attachment A, measuring approximately 25m².  The plan also shows the area over which a licence will need to be granted for connection to the nearest power supply.  Lot 3003 comprises just under 15 hectares of freehold land and houses a number of community facilities including ovals, clubhouses used by soccer and cricket and the Dunsborough Greenfield site shared by three user groups. The subject land is owned freehold by the City and zoned reserve for recreation.

 

Optus originally enquired about a prospective site in Dunsborough in 2016.  Following an internal evaluation it was suggested that a site close to the Naturaliste Community Centre (NCC) be appropriate.    The NCC is on Crown Reserve managed by the City with power to lease or licence.  This location became unviable when the Department of Lands withdrew support for the proposal and insisted on excising the site from the reserve and entering into the lease with Optus direct.

 

Following an extensive assessment of potentially suitable sites Optus returned to an idea tabled at the outset to swap out a light pole serving the Dunsborough oval and install a telecommunication mast and new oval lights in its place.

 

Concurrent with the negotiations in relation to the lease, Optus have applied for a Development Application for a telecommunication facility that will comprise a 35m mono pole and infrastructure together with a replacement light. Optus will remove the existing light pole and its foundations and make good the area following installation of the new structure.

 

The lease will need to include the grant of a non-exclusive licence over nominated portions of Lot 3003 for the purpose of access to the site and the provision of an independent power supply.  Optus will be required to ensure that access is exercised in a manner that causes as little disruption to the surface and users of the oval as possible.  Rights will also be reserved for City officers to access the mast for the purpose of maintaining the new light during the term of the lease.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) relates to the disposal of property by a local government, with disposal defined to include leasing.  Section 3.58 requires the publishing of the proposed disposition with the publication to describe the property concerned, give details of the proposal and invite submissions to be made before a specified date.

 

Section 3.58(4) of the LGA requires that the disposition includes either a valuation not more than six months old or a declaration that a valuation older than 6 months is considered a true indication of the value at the time of the disposition.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The proposal fits within a number of strategies outlined in the Economic Development Strategy adopted by Council on 9 November 2016.  In particular, communication is a key driver of facilitating business and tourism growth and industry development.  The Strategy also recognises the opportunities arising from better connectivity within communities and commits to advocating for public and private investment to improve infrastructure necessary to achieve this.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Optus initially offered an annual gross rent of $8000 for the site inclusive of outgoings and subject to annual rent increases of 2.5%.  This was based on a valuation obtained by a licenced valuer commissioned by Optus.  Their valuation was reviewed by the in-house valuation resource currently available to the City and compared with the market conditions and demand for similar sites in the area. Council is requested to acknowledge the  confidential valuation advice provided as attachment B to this report.Following negotiation, Optus agreed to pay an annual rent of $11,000 subject to annual increases of 2.5% and periodical market rent reviews. Whilst this is less than the rental considered reasonable as a starting point by our valuer, the rent reviews, the negotiated ability to rate the site and annual fixed increases make up for it to a certain extent.  

 

Optus’ preference was to negotiate a gross rent. It was ultimately agreed that this would be charged on a net basis.  This preserves the ability of the City to levy rates on the premises in the future  - the approximate minimum rate currently being $1400 per annum.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

This income has not previously been factored into LTFP calculations and could present an opportunity as a source of revenue to assist with costs of the Dunsborough Recreation Precinct into the future.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

The recommendation in this report reflects the objectives of Key Goal Areas 2 and 4, specifically Community Objectives 2.1 and 4.1 of the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2017:

 

2.1: “Planning strategies that foster the development of healthy neighbourhoods that meet our needs as we grow”

 

4.1: “An innovative and diversified economy that provides a variety of business and employment opportunities as well as consumer choice”

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are not considered to be any medium or greater level risks associated with the lease.  The lease terms address a number of potential risks associated with the location and access to the proposed facility which are discussed in more detail in the Officer Comment section.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Following the identification of this site as a potential location for Optus, City officers met with sporting groups using the grounds in the immediate vicinity to notify them of the proposal.  All indicated their support for the location noting that its proposed position between two buildings on land not otherwise used would be acceptable.

 

A Development Application proposing a 35 metre monopole was advertised in the local newspaper, on the City website and to approximately 80 surrounding landowners for a period of 21 days. At the conclusion of the advertising period no submissions were received from members of the public.  Council have previously been advised of the application and a conditional approval has been issued under delegated authority.

 

The disposition will be advertised locally in accordance with statutory requirements detailing the names of the lessee, the proposed rent and the term of the lease.   Any submissions received as a result of statutory advertising will be reported to Council with alternative recommendations in relation to the terms of the lease if considered necessary.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The proposed lease negotiated between the parties is, to the extent that it is relevant, based on a format recently approved by Council in relation to a lease of land for a similar purpose but in favour of a competitor operator.

 

Rent and additional payment

As mentioned in the financial section of this report the rent will commence at $11,000 per annum and be increased by 2.5% each year.  In addition, it is proposed that there will be periodical market rent reviews at frequencies of 5,10 and 15 years.  Subject to the outcome of ongoing negotiations, the potential also exists for additional rental income in the event of a sublease or licence to another communications provider.

 

Term of the proposed Lease

The proposed maximum term of the lease is 20 years.  The lessee has the option to give notice to break the lease after the expiry of 5, 10 or 15 years after the commencement date. An additional right of termination is also available up to the second anniversary of the commencement date but without the entitlement to the refund of any prepaid rent.

 

The lessee may remain in occupation of the premises following expiry of the term on a periodical tenancy basis, with an option for either party to terminate on the provision of six months’ notice.

 

Insurance and electricity services

The lessee is responsible for public liability insurance of no less than $20 million and other insurances appropriate for use of the site as a telecommunications tower.  The lessee must obtain an independent supply of electricity and maintain responsibility for the same.

 


 

Removal of apparatus

The lessee is required to remove all above ground equipment within 6 months of the expiry of the lease and leave the site in a clean and tidy condition replicating the condition of the site at the commencement of the lease. 

 

Subletting and assignment

The lessee may assign the lease to a subsidiary body or holding company of their corporation provided the assignee is an incorporated entity.  Prior written consent must be obtained from the City before the lessee can assign the lease to an unrelated entity and the City cannot unreasonably withhold consent to such an assignment.

 

The lessee must obtain the prior written consent of the City should they wish to sublet or licence all or part of the premises to another service provider.

 

Replacement Light and City access to the pole

Optus will be removing the existing light pole to a site of our choosing (for reuse if possible) and making good the area.  The positioning and technical specifications for the replacement light will be subject to prior approval by City officers.   The lease will provide that access be granted to City Officers during the term of the lease for the purpose of maintaining or repositioning the light.  If necessary additional provisions will be negotiated requiring Optus to power down the monopole if required by contractors working on the lights.

 

Other terms and conditions

The proposed lease contains other standard terms and conditions normally found in leases of this type as well as conditions and obligations specific to the purpose such as compliance with relevant legislation.

 

Negotiations are being finalised and as such the officer recommendation includes a proposed delegation.  Given this an absolute majority decision is required.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The availability of reliable and consistent mobile telephone coverage is of benefit to the residential and business community in the vicinity and the City has in the past made sites available in other parts of the district for the purpose of NBN telecommunication masts as well as competitor telecommunication providers.

 

The location of this tower has been assessed as being the best in terms of the limited impact on the user groups of the grounds.  Use of a relatively small part of Lot 3003 should not adversely impact on the future proposals for the site.  The grant of a lease will also generate an income stream that could be used for the purpose of further enhancements to the site to facilitate future development proposals.

 

OPTIONS

 

1. Council may choose not to enter into a lease with this operator.

 

2. Council may direct officers to enter into a lease on alternative terms and conditions.

 


 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Advertising of the proposed disposition will take place as soon as possible for a 14 day period.  In the event that there are adverse submissions, a further report will be presented to Council detailing the submissions and any subsequent recommended changes to the proposed lease arrangements.  If no submissions are received it is anticipated that a lease will be entered into by the beginning of December 2018.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

                                                                                ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

1.       Advertises the proposed disposition of land to Optus Mobile Pty Limited in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 for the term and conditions outlined in this report; and

2.       Delegates to the CEO, subject to there being no adverse objections resulting from resolution 1, to negotiate and enter into a lease with Optus Mobile Pty Limited for a portion of Lot 3003, Plan 19111, as shown on Attachment A on the following terms and conditions:

 

(i)         the annual rent will commence at $11,000 per annum subject to annual rent                                        increases of 2.5% and periodical market rent reviews.

(ii)        the term of the lease will be twenty years with break clauses every 5 years (and a                              one off ability to break the term within the first two years at Optus’ request).

(iii)     a right for the lessee to assign the lease to a related entity and to sublet or licence the                      premises to a similarly related entity without the requirement to pay additional rent

(iv)      a right for the City to access the leased premises for the purpose of future                                             maintenance of the light.

(v)       the lessee to be granted an access license over necessary parts of Lot 3003 to access                        the leased premises and provide a power supply in such a manner as to cause as                        little disruption or interference with the remainder of Lot 3003.

(vi)      other terms and conditions consistent with the construction of a telecommunication                        facility   in this locality.

 

 


Council

218

14 November 2018

16.1

Attachment a

Proposed Lease Plan

 


Council                                                                                      219                                                       14 November 2018

16.2           CITY OF BUSSELTON ANNUAL REPORT 2017-2018

SUBJECT INDEX:

Corporate Reporting

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Goverance

REPORTING OFFICER:

Corporate Planning Officer - Cathy Burton

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director Finance and Corporate Services  - Tony Nottle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Annual Report 2017-2018  

  

PRÉCIS

 

The Local Government Act 1995 requires Council to accept an annual report for the financial year.  This report seeks Council’s acceptance of the printed City of Busselton Annual Report 2017-2018 (Report) and endorsement of the proposed dates for the annual general Electors’ meeting.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City produces an annual report at the end of each financial year.  The draft Report (exclusive of full financials) was provided to Councillors on 24 October 2018, with feedback to be provided to officers by 30 October 2018.  Councillors’ feedback and corrections were incorporated into the final production of the report.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Sections 5.53, 5.54, 5.55, 5.55A and 5.27 of the Local Government Act 1995 apply. It is a statutory requirement that an Annual Report is accepted by an absolute majority of Council before December 31 of each year.  The annual general Electors’ Meeting must be held within 56 days of that acceptance.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Report provides information about the City’s performance in relation to the six key goal areas of the Strategic Community Plan 2017 and more specifically achievement of priorities identified in the City’s Corporate Business Plan over the course of the financial year.  The Report also records the City’s compliance with the City’s Record Keeping Plan and achievements connected with the City’s Disability Access and Inclusion Plan.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications associated with the Officers recommendation, with the cost of publishing the Report factored into the City’s 2018-2019 annual budget.

 

LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no long term financial plan implications associated with the Officers recommendation.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – Leadership of the City’s Strategic Community Plan and specifically community objective 6.1:  Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are no risks identified of a medium or greater level associated with the Officer’s recommendation, noting that acceptance must be achieved before 31 December 2018 to ensure compliance with the Local Government Act 1995.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation (of an external nature) was undertaken in preparing the Report.  The annual general Electors’ meeting provides a forum for consultation with the community in relation to the Report.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Fifty full colour copies of the Report have been printed and, once endorsed by Council, the Report will be delivered to key stakeholders and an electronic version posted on the City of Busselton website.  Availability of the Report will also be promoted on the City’s Your Say Busselton website and Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts.

 

The Report has been prepared such that annual general Electors’ meeting can be held before the end of the 2018 calendar year with the date of Monday 3 December 2018 proposed; to be held in the Council Chambers at 2 Southern Drive Busselton.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The City of Busselton Annual Report 2017-2018 requires Council endorsement before being released for public distribution, with Council also requested to endorse the proposed date for the annual general Electors’ meeting.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may choose to select another preferred date for the annual general Electors’ meeting.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Upon adoption of the Officer’s recommendation a two week statutory advertising period of the annual general Electors’ meeting will be run from 16 November to 30 November 2018.  The annual general Electors’ meeting 2018 will be held on Monday 3 December 2018. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council:

 

1.    Accepts the City of Busselton Annual Report 2017-2018 as at Attachment A;

2.    Endorses public notification regarding the availability of the Annual Report 2017-2018; and

3.    Sets Monday 3 December 2018 for the annual general Electors’ Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers at 2 Southern Drive Busselton.

 

 


Council

221

14 November 2018

16.2

Attachment a

Annual Report 2017-2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      265                                                       14 November 2018

17.             Chief Executive Officers Report

17.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Councillors' Information

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Governance Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Administration Officer - Governance - Kate Dudley

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Planning Applications received by the City between 1 October, 2018 and 15 October, 2018

Attachment b    Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 October, 2018 and 15 October, 2018

Attachment c    State Administrative Tribunal Review Proceedings

Attachment d   Meelup Regional Park Management Committee  

  

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

17.1.1    Planning & Development Services Statistics

 

Planning Applications

 

Attachment A is a report detailing all Planning Applications received by the City between 1 October, 2018 and 15 October, 2018. A total of 30 formal applications were received during this period.

 

Attachment B is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 October, 2018 and 15 October, 2018. A total of 38 applications (including subdivision referrals) were determined by the City during this period with 38 approved / supported and 0 refused / not supported.

17.1.2    State Administrative Tribunal Review Proceedings

 

Attachment C is a list showing the current status of State Administrative Tribunal Reviews involving the City of Busselton as at 25 October, 2018.

17.1.3    Meelup Regional Park Management Committee

 

Attachment D shows the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee informal minutes.

 

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

·    17.1.1              Planning & Development Services Statistics

·    17.1.2              State Administrative Tribunal Review Proceedings

·    17.1.3              Meelup Regional Park Management Committee

 

 

 


Council

267

14 November 2018

17.1

Attachment a

Planning Applications received by the City between 1 October, 2018 and 15 October, 2018

 


 


 


Council

271

14 November 2018

17.1

Attachment b

Planning Applications determined by the City between 1 October, 2018 and 15 October, 2018

 


 


 


 


Council

276

14 November 2018

17.1

Attachment c

State Administrative Tribunal Review Proceedings

 


 


Council

279

14 November 2018

17.1

Attachment d

Meelup Regional Park Management Committee

 


 


 


Council

282

14 November 2018

17.1

Attachment d

Meelup Regional Park Management Committee

 


 

 


Council                                                                                      285                                                       14 November 2018

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil  

19.             urgent business

20.             Confidential Matters

 

The reports listed below are of a confidential nature, in accordance with section 5/23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995. These reports have been provided to Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer and Directors only.

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the meeting is closed to members of the public to discuss the following items which are confidential for the reasons as shown.

20.1           PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - FAMILY RESTAURANT / MICROBREWERY / FUNCTION CENTRE

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

 

21.             Closure