COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

24 February 2021

 

 

 

 

 


ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

city@busselton.wa.gov.au

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 24 February 2021

 

 

 

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, 24 February 2021, 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

 

12 February 2021


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council MEETING TO BE HELD ON 24 February 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 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 10 February 2021. 5

Committee Meetings. 6

8.2          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 3 February 2021. 6

8.3          Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 10 February 2021. 6

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        Finance Committee - 10/2/2021 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - DECEMBER 2020. 7

12.2        Finance Committee - 10/2/2021 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2020. 17

13..... Planning and Development Services Report. 53

13.1        COASTAL HAZARD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTATION PLAN - PROPOSED ADOPTION AS DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION.. 53

14..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 475

14.1        AWARD OF TENDER RFT 08/20 WEST BUSSELTON SEAWALL UPGRADE. 475

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 483

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 483

16.1        NEW REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2021. 483

16.2        CITY MANAGED AUTOMATIC WEATHER STATIONS. 483

17..... Chief Executive Officers Report. 483

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 483

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 483

19..... urgent business. 483

20..... Confidential Matters. 483

21..... Closure. 483

 


Council                                                                                      4                                                                24 February 2021

1.               Declaration of Opening, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY and Announcement of Visitors

 

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

 

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

 

3.               Prayer

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence

An application for Leave of Absence for the Ordinary Council Meeting on 10 March 2021 has been received from Cr Kate Cox.

 

An application for Leave of Absence for the Ordinary Council Meeting on 9 June 2021 has been received from Cr Sue Riccelli.

 

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 10 February 2021

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 10 February 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 3 February 2021

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 3 February 2021 be noted.

 

8.3             Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 10 February 2021

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 10 February 2021 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                                                                                      8                                                                24 February 2021

12.             Reports of Committee

12.1           Finance Committee - 10/2/2021 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - DECEMBER 2020

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Financial Operations

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   List of Payments December 2020

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 10/2/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council notes payment of voucher numbers M118429 – M118512, EF076011 – EF076678, T7538 – T7540, DD004349 – DD004366, together totalling $8,476,900.45.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of December 2020, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

 

BACKGROUND

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) requires that, when the Council has delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the City’s bank accounts, a list of payments made is prepared each month for presentation to, and noting by, the Council.

OFFICER COMMENT

In accordance with regular custom, the list of payments made for the month of December 2020 is presented for information. 

Statutory Environment

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and more specifically Regulation 13 of the Regulations refer to the requirement for a listing of payments made each month to be presented to the Council.

Relevant Plans and Policies

There are no relevant plans or policies to consider in relation to this matter.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.


 

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

The list of payments made for the month of December 2020 is presented for information.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.


Council

16

24 February 2021

12.1

Attachment a

List of Payments December 2020

 









Council                                                                                      20                                                             24 February 2021

12.2           Finance Committee - 10/2/2021 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2020

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Financial Services

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

Executive: substantial direction setting, including adopting budgets, strategies, plans and policies (excluding local planning policies); funding, donations and sponsorships; reviewing committee recommendations

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Investment Report - December 2020

Attachment b    Financial Activity Statement - December 2020

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 10/2/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 December 2020, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) and Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations), a local government is to prepare, on a monthly basis, a statement of financial activity that reports on the City’s financial performance in relation to its adopted / amended budget.

 

This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis for the period ending 31 December 2020.

 

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 on 27 July 2020, the Council adopted (C2007/071) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2020/21 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 2020/21 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 only if not to do so would present an incomplete picture of the financial performance for a particular period; and

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

OFFICER COMMENT

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

Statement of Financial Activity

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

Net Current Position

This report provides details of the composition of the net current asset position on a 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 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 31 December 2020

The Statement of Financial Activity (FAS) for the year to date (YTD) as at 31 December 2020 shows an overall Net Current Position of $26.4M as opposed to the budget of $22.7M. This represents a positive variance of $3.7M YTD.  This variance fell by $8M from $11.7M at the end of November.  

 

The following table summarises the major YTD variances that appear on the face of the FAS, which, in accordance with Council’s adopted material variance reporting threshold, collectively make up the above difference. Each numbered item in this lead table is explained further in the report.

 

Description

2020/21
Actual YTD

$

2020/21
Amended
Budget YTD

$

2020/21
Amended
Budget

$

2020/21
YTD Bud Variance

%

2020/21
YTD Bud Variance

$

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Revenue from Ordinary Activities

 

1.32%

879,400

636,389

1.    Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

2,756,809

1,964,051

4,782,445

40.36%

792,758

565,377

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

 

8.97%

3,713,867

295,483

2.    Materials & Contracts

(7,151,732)

(9,226,677)

(18,710,746)

22.49%

2,074,945

224,669

3.    Utilities

(1,180,961)

(1,390,836)

(2,770,956)

15.09%

209,875

62,531

4.    Other Expenditure

(1,219,913)

(2,294,119)

(5,236,779)

46.82%

1,074,206

147,075

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.    Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

3,744,448

7,557,231

34,437,199

(50.45%)

(3,812,783)

(2,991,712)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Revenue & (Expenditure)

 

2.78%

614,321

(5,457,909)

6.    Land & Buildings

(2,502,565)

(3,201,852)

(17,454,059)

21.84%

699,287

199,115

Plant & Equipment

(693,830)

(1,222,172)

(2,510,340)

43.23%

528,342

98,062

Furniture & Equipment

(200,289)

(323,310)

(461,088)

38.05%

123,022

114,180

Infrastructure

(7,880,369)

(17,007,033)

(40,004,996)

53.66%

9,126,664

1,242,448

7.    Proceeds from Sale of Assets

121,925

433,500

581,500

(71.87%)

(311,575)

(34,000)

8.    Proceeds from New Loans

0

7,500,000

7,700,000

(100.00%)

(7,500,000)

(7,500,000)

9.    Repayment of Capital Lease

(319,152)

(260,950)

(521,900)

(22.30%)

(58,202)

(80,829)

10.  Transfer to Restricted Assets

(2,638,608)

(27,504)

(62,750)

(9493.54%)

(2,611,104)

(35,241)

11.  Transfer from Restricted Assets

664,123

0

2,807,074

100.00%

664,123

532,143

 

 


 

Revenue from Ordinary Activities

In total, revenue from Ordinary Activities is $636K, or 1.32%, ahead of budget YTD.  The only material variance item contributing to this is:

 

1.      Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

Ahead of YTD budget by $793K, or 40.36%, mainly due to the items listed in the table below:

Revenue Code

Revenue Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Finance and Corporate Services

952,706

930,106

22,601

2.37%

73,207

10200

Financial Services – Reimbursements

122,543

103,810

18,733

15.29%

58,315

The second instalment of the LGIS Contributions Assistance Package was due to be received in November, but instead a credit note received from LGIS was offset against scheme policies that were due for payment in early December, at their instruction.

Community and Commercial Services

186,082

160,994

25,088

13.48%

(11,324)

10530

Community Services Administration – State Government Grants

50,000

25,002

24,998

50.00%

(4,167)

The Rio Tinto COVID Relief & Recovery Grant was invoiced in total in August, however the budget was spread evenly over 12 months.

Planning and Development Services

710,930

754,343

(43,413)

(6.11%)

(75,265)

10820

Strategic Planning – State Government Grants

 -

37,500

(37,500)

(100.00%)

(37,500)

The variation from Strategic Planning budget (Grant $37,500) is due to the total grant ($75,000) being acquitted in two instalments: a 50% payment was received some time ago on achievement of certain project milestones to that stage in the preparation of the ‘Coastal Adaptation Strategy’ or CHRMAP, ‘Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan’. The final 50% is due to be paid to the City upon Government endorsement of the final CHRMAP. Preparation of this complicated and comprehensive document has been set back several times over the past 2 years due to project requirements concerning financial modelling and Government Working Group reviews et al. As such, the City has received approval to extend the anticipated completion date for the project (this has occurred several times) until September 2021 (and it may require even longer). At the moment, it is expected to report on the draft CHRMAP to OCM 24 February, then, if approved, put out for public information/comment for 2-3 months. Then will need to be finalised etc. The $37,500 final grant payment will therefore not be paid until FY 21/22.

10830

Environmental Management Administration – State Government Grants

18,780

 -

18,780

100.00%

10,000

Grant received in two lots in September and December, however it was budgeted to be received in June.

10925

Preventative Services – CLAG – State Government Grants

26,418

32,600

(6,182)

(23.40%)

(32,600)

The Department of Health contribution to the mosquito program was less than expected.

10940

Fire Prevention DFES – Contributions

21,203

39,944

(18,741)

(88.39%)

 -

The $21K received relates to the last quarter of the 19/20 year. The half yearly reconciliation (for quarters 1 & 2 of the 20/21 year) of the CESM role with DFES remains outstanding and is in progress. 

 


 

Engineering and Works Services

907,091

118,506

788,585

86.94%

578,862

W0267

Road Safety Signage Infrastructure – Federal government Grants

50,000

 -

50,000

100.00%

 -

The $98K budget for year 1 of the $194K grant from the Road Safety Innovation Fund was amended to be received in January. However, $50K relating to milestone 1 was received in November.

11301

Regional Waste Management Administration – Reimbursements

47,958

10,998

36,960

77.07%

(1,833)

The contributions to the 2020/21 Southwest Regional Waste Group Project were received from 10 participating local governments in November, totalling $48K. Only $22K was budgeted for the year, and this was spread over 12 months.

11501

Operations Services Works – Reimbursements

123,206

30,600

92,606

75.16%

20,938

Workers compensation claims totalling $122K have been received YTD. This is by nature very difficult to predict. $61K was budgeted for the year, spread evenly over 12 months.

B1401 & B9610

Old Butter Factory – Insurance Reimbursements

149,415

 -

149,415

100.00%

133,278

Conservation and fire damage works now completed.  Insurance claim has now been approved and paid.  Not budgeted as additional works were required for structural and fire compliance that had not been scoped at commencement of the works.  Not unusual for conservation projects of this nature.  Net impact after insurance claims is estimated at approximately ($30K).

 

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

Expenditure from ordinary activities is $3.7M, or 8.97%, less than expected when compared to the budget YTD as at December. The following individual expense line items on the face of the financial statement have YTD variances that meet the material reporting thresholds:

 

2.      Materials and Contracts

Better than budget by $2.07M or 22.49%. The table below lists the main variance items that meet the reporting thresholds:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Finance and Corporate Services

1,075,484

1,203,488

128,004

10.6%

16,139

10000

Members of Council

63,326

96,868

33,542

34.6%

63,971

The variance is primarily related to the audit fee for the 19/20 financial year, which as at YTD December had not been received.

10151

Rates Administration

129,178

150,703

21,525

14.3%

18,797

The variance is predominantly due to the underspend in consultancy. This budget was for the Rating Strategy Project, funded by reserves. The project has been delayed due to resourcing issues in the Rates Team, plus pending communications with the Minister regarding Rates reviews that could have significant impact on the scope of the project.

 


 

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services

680,099

666,212

(13,887)

(2.1%)

(77,415)

·        Software licences – Our licences are on track to go over budget this year with the addition of some unplanned software; this should be balanced elsewhere. The payment curve for this is not smooth and we have recently paid some large invoices including T1.

·        Photocopying – As mentioned in Customer Service below, the printer costs are routing through this account hence the budget overspend.

·        GIS costs – We had planned to use a new image provider at a reduced cost, unfortunately they could not provide what was agreed upon and we had to stick with using Landgate, this will be adjusted for next budget.

10360

Customer Services

12,233

24,016

11,783

49.1%

2,465

·        Photocopying – The Finance team going paperless has had a significant impact on our paper spend, especially for coloured paper. In addition, an arrangement has been made with the Executive Assistants for auditing of the stationery supplies in their departments, so ordering has more closely aligned to needs rather than maintaining large stores.

·        Computer Consumables – Historically printer cartridges etc came from this bucket. With the adoption of more printers using a full supply contract this account is not being utilised. We still do order some cartridges manually but the number is heavily reduced. This will be reviewed during the upcoming budget considerations for 21/22 to get a better idea of actual spend.

10500

Legal & Compliance Services

49,617

30,690

(18,927)

(61.7%)

(21,459)

Greater than expected spend of external legal representation (largely due to increase in prosecutions/compliance action plus a Supreme Court matter). It was acknowledged when the legal budget was set last year that a transfer from the legal reserve may be required.

10521

Human Resources & Payroll

19,524

37,678

18,154

48.2%

3,113

The variance is timing related, with consultancy funds related to the organisational staff survey yet to be expended. Procurement is currently in progress with expenses expected to be incurred by April 2021.

10616

Winderlup Villas Aged Housing

16,578

37,926

21,348

56.3%

3,872

Lower than expected maintenance costs to the end of December. Less reactive maintenance for FY to date.

Community and Commercial Services

624,330

1,065,400

441,070

41.4%

55,122

10380

Busselton Library

24,226

62,309

38,083

61.1%

8,792

·        Furniture & Office Equipment - The purchase of new furniture and office equipment (under the capitalisation threshold) has been held up due to the new renovations and subsequent requirement for furniture and fit-out of the new children’s area. Increased expenditure will occur over the next few months in line with budget.

·        Library Resources - Spending on Library Resources was delayed whilst tenders were sought for a new “buy local” initiative. A significant number of purchase orders have been raised since November, with items due to be received over the next few months.

·        Entity Specific Consumables – Coffee machine has been disposed of which means that there will be no expenditure, and no offset income.

·        Photocopying – Currently investigating zero expenditure. It appears Photocopy Paper isn’t being correctly costed to the library budget before being issued from central stores – will be rectified in consultation with Customer Service Team.

10381

Dunsborough Library

10,147

20,719

10,572

51.0%

(967)

·        Contractors – Carpet cleaning has been rescheduled to occur in March/April 2021.

·        Other Computer costs - $1800 Networking costs no longer required.

·        Photocopying – see Busselton explanation.

·        Library Resources – see Busselton explanation.

 

10540

Recreation Administration

8,973

27,458

18,485

67.3%

2,907

The City is still awaiting the outcome of the 2021/22 Every Club grant application. It is envisaged that this will be successful, and as such this budget will be spent by years end.

10541

Recreation Planning

1,030

61,832

60,802

98.3%

16,667

Timing of expenditure is largely due in Q2 & Q3 awaiting the outcomes of external grant applications.  As of 31 Dec, grant deeds have now been finalised. The expected expenditure is now Q3 and Q4.

10590

Naturaliste Community Centre

24,791

60,087

35,296

58.7%

627

The Naturaliste Community Centre was closed due to COVID and upon reopening, was subject to phased restrictions which limited the attendance numbers and therefore expenditure associated with our programs and services throughout the first two quarters. To date, we are still limited by Phase 4 restrictions and have limited numbers in some activities affecting a slow return to business as usual and therefore planned expenditure. Business is now picking up and we are likely to see increased expenditure over the next few months in line with budget.

10591

Geographe Leisure Centre

143,453

192,829

49,376

25.6%

3,347

This is the same as the factors listed above for the NCC.

10600

Busselton Jetty Tourist Park

213,945

290,508

76,563

26.4%

6,139

The majority of this variance cost is the monthly management contract fee ($41,125) for the caravan park which has resulted due to a timing issue with presentation and payment of the invoice. Other expenses falling within Materials & Contracts are related to maintenance, which will occur throughout the year.

10630

Property and Business Development

11,841

42,787

30,946

72.3%

5,836

The budget is made up of numerous line items that have been spread throughout the year. The actual timing for these things are inherently difficult to predict, as more often than not they depend on interactions with outside third parties for development opportunities and collaborations. For example, we budget for advertising and marketing, but need to wait for relevant opportunities to arise throughout the year that may not necessarily align with budget timing.

10900

Cultural Planning

46,487

34,448

(12,039)

(34.9%)

5,020

The overspend in YTD budget for Cultural Planning is due to the earlier than planned completion of the Slippery Rocks Sculpture.

11151

Airport Operations

79,512

197,715

118,203

59.8%

3,671

The budget variance YTD includes the key allocations of:

·        security screening of $45K not spent;

·        contractors - $42K for tree clearing not completed/expended; and

·        smaller variances in other areas not yet expended.

B1361

YCAB (Youth Precinct Foreshore)

13,401

28,434

15,033

52.9%

2,180

Operating grants forecast were not available as planned and therefore associated expenses did not occur. Alternative funding was sourced to run a program in Dunsborough which commences February when expenses to deliver will start to be seen.

Planning and Development Services

538,785

1,044,461

505,676

48.4%

118,454

10810

Statutory Planning

5,374

17,022

11,648

68.4%

2,436

Invoices for design peer review work expected to be paid in January.  This budget is expended in an ad hoc, as required basis.

10830

Environmental Management Administration

167,471

300,310

132,839

44.2%

95,360

Expenditure variance due to timing of Barnard Park East upgrade works contract due April 2021.

10920

Environmental Health Services Administration

523

15,383

14,860

96.6%

382

YTD budget includes error of $5,000 extra within 3280 (Contractors), Contractor allocation of $5,000 to implement audit outcomes now completed in house. Traditional pre summer assessment of sound level meters revealed little to no faults requiring repair due to 2020 COVID event cancellations.

 


 

10931

Protective Burning & Firebreaks –Reserves

20,954

271,944

250,990

92.3%

36,049

Mitigation work is heavily weather reliant. Grant funding is provided by State government in a lump sum payment and is not reflective of timing on mitigation expenditure. Tender currently in development for the implementation of mechanical and chemical program across the approved grant application treatments. Outstanding payments of $16,000 for traffic management not reflected in current YTD. Additionally payments to Brigades for burning completed in spring has not been made to reflect in YTD, payments will be processed as soon as practicable during summer operations.

11170

Meelup Regional Park

33,948

91,345

57,397

62.8%

22,502

Expenditure variance due to timing of awarding cultural heritage assessment contract as part of the Meelup Regional Park Management Plan review. This was budgeted to occur in November, but is now planned for mid-February 2021.

B1010-B1028

Bushfire Brigades – Various

52,968

76,284

23,316

30.6%

(330)

Emergency operations dependant. YTD will vary according to operational requirements.

Engineering and Works Services

4,911,708

5,908,898

997,190

16.9%

34,549

11160-11162

Busselton Jetty

31,519

16,248

(15,271)

(94.0%)

1,040

An incorrect posting of $17K of capital expenditure will be corrected in January.

12600

Street & Drain Cleaning

138,762

218,868

80,106

36.6%

(6,786)

Expenditure timing - The rate of expenditure for street sweeping has increased as we move through into the summer months with servicing of the town centres and surrounds increasing with the extra visitors to town.  There has been delays in receiving invoicing from contractors. The majority of drain abduction works will commence prior to the rainy season in the last quarter of the financial year to ensure drains are free of debris to mitigate against flooding. This budget will be fully expended come June 30.

12620 & 12621

Rural & Urban Tree Pruning

78,341

189,000

110,659

58.5%

5,110

Expenditure timing and reduced expenditure to potentially offset May 2020 storm damage subject to DRFAWA claims.

Various

Bridges

9,265

90,606

81,341

89.8%

14,399

Expenditure timing and reduced expenditure to potentially offset May 2020 storm damage subject to DRFAWA claims.

Various

Buildings

667,130

710,538

43,408

6.1%

(49,602)

The majority of scheduled maintenance activities to Buildings occur primarily in the second half of the financial year and costs associated with the busy tourist season also increase costs from December through to Easter; hence the year to date variance to budget (which is spread evenly).

Various

Other Infrastructure Maintenance

504,098

917,683

413,585

45.1%

30,012

This broad category encompasses the consolidation of 84 separate and unique services delivered across the City, this includes things like Event support; Boat Ramp maintenance; Cemetery maintenance; maintenance at the Libraries and GLC; Caravan Park maintenance, Street Lighting installation; the Foreshores; the CBD’s; Cycleway,  Footpaths Maintenance etc. Expenditure variance for November is attributable to timing with the budget having been evenly spread across the financial year. Material & Contractor costs associated with the majority of these areas will gradually increase as we move into the busy summer months of the year.

 


 

Various

Waste services

998,985

1,334,104

335,120

25.1%

108,262

The pandemic resulted with more people remaining at home for extended periods, generating more household waste. This, coupled with the two major storm events, requiring more time to process the increased volumes and therefore delays in payment of invoices, has contributed to the larger variances.  

Other significant contributing factors include:

·        The City has suspended the FOGO service (i.e. no collection and no processing costs) for the remainder of the financial year.  Furthermore, there were also delays in receiving invoices from various aspects of the recycling contractor as well.

·        The planned restoration works associated with the decontamination of the Busselton Transfer Station and its surrounds have not as yet commenced.

·        When works at either waste facility have occurred, they were done internally using casual labour and the City’s Plant and Equipment, instead of external contractors.

Various

Roads Maintenance

936,967

433,404

(503,563)

(116.2%)

(50,026)

Higher than normal costs are largely associated with DRFCA WA storm damage claims from the May 2020 storm events. Four claims have been submitted to DFES totalling $789K, with $150K of these associated with costs incurred in the previous financial year. The State Government has received advice from the Federal Government in relation to debris removal from road verges and the evidence requirements in support of these types of claims. The State Government is scheduled to commence their detailed review in early February.

Various

Reserve Maintenance

744,597

987,486

242,889

24.6%

(52,354)

Costs associated with Public Open Spaces are historically lower in the first half of the financial year with an increase in costs beginning as we move into the busier summer period. Monthly costs in December continued to rise accordingly.  

5280

Transport - Fleet Management

802,044

1,010,961

208,917

20.7%

34,494

Fuel was underspent by $112,999 YTD due to lower fuel cost and lower plant and vehicle utilisation. Tyre purchase was underspent by $15,634 YTD, replacement parts/tooling/contractor costs were underspent by $80,284 YTD. Budget is spread evenly across the year, however spending is generally more cyclical in nature and peaks in the busier spring/summer/autumn months.

 

3.    Utilities

Costs are $210K, or 15.1%, under budget as at December YTD.  Contributing factors include:

·        At year ended 30 June 2020, the June street lighting account was booked in June, rather than in the following month when received per normal practice. Accruals are not done on a monthly basis, so this has the effect of causing actuals to appear to be on average $75K behind budget in relation to street lighting (until the following June, when actuals will catch up to budget).

·        There have been delays in receiving the accounts for parks and reserves from Synergy, due to system issues at their end (along with a number of other electricity accounts). With no accruals on a monthly basis, this also causes what appears to be an under-spend against the budget.  As at December, system issues at Synergy are still ongoing. Pending resolution of this and a catch up in billing, this should largely rectify itself in coming months as the billing cycles re-align.

·        Apart from the Synergy system issues, the invoices that were in fact emailed from Synergy were quarantined at the City end due to the new cyber security practices. The quarantined messages are not visible to Accounts staff, however processes are being developed to ensure they are made aware in a timely fashion to avoid supplier payment delays.


 

4.    Other Expenditure

$1.07M, or 46.8%, under the budget YTD. The main contributing items are listed below:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Executive Services

48,189

61,482

13,293

21.6%

4,943

10001

Office of the CEO

48,189

61,482

13,293

21.6%

4,943

Just under $10,000 is related to there being no expenditure of the CEO’s discretionary account. The balance are timing differences.

Finance and Corporate Services

408,376

497,628

89,252

17.9%

10,252

10000

Members of Council

224,113

275,420

51,307

18.6%

10,324

Timing variances exist in relation to the payment of elected member allowances and reimbursements.  As per previous commentary, some of this is related to sitting fees being paid in arrears with a double payment in June. $7,500 is related to there being no expenditure against the Council holding account, and the balance relates to timing variances for expense reimbursements which are difficult to predict when budgeting.

10700

Public Relations

37,455

58,112

20,657

35.5%

989

The underspend variance is related to a reduced payment to BASSCA this year given COVID-19 and no school exchanges, the cancelling of the Mayoral Breakfast and a reduced spend associated with functions such as the launch of Jetstar flights.

Community and Commercial Services

601,743

1,456,616

854,873

58.7%

117,322

10530

Community Services Administration

265,809

405,538

139,729

34.5%

117,889

Invoices from Royal Lifesaving have not yet been received for services rendered YTD.

10532

BPACC Operations

11,668

25,000

13,332

53.3%

5,000

Low cost marketing materials have been developed to date and until construction is secured under the tender no large investments in event attraction are likely to be made.

10536

School Chaplaincy Programs

41,400

 -

(41,400)

(100.0%)

 -

Historically, Youthcare invoices the City in the 2nd half of the year, but this year invoiced earlier than budgeted.

10546

Jetty Swim

 -

20,600

20,600

100.0%

20,600

Per the Jetty Swim agreement, they have been paid their first milestone of $17,500 of the total $35,000 that they are contracted to receive for the 2021 event. The PO for this was incorrectly raised against 333.10530.3645.0000 Events Sponsorship (Diff rates). A journal transfer will be processed in February to correct this.

10547

Iron Man

 -

200,000

200,000

100.0%

 -

Ironman has been cancelled for this year and hence the funds will not be expended. Council have resolved (C2012/159 – 9 December 2020) to utilise the remaining budget towards an electronic billboard, however this will not likely be completed until closer to the end of the financial year.

10567

CinefestOZ

80,000

120,000

40,000

33.3%

(80,000)

YTD variance is due to the sponsorship contract being varied due to a change in format as a result of COVID (C2009/110) - $80k paid in 2020/21 with the balance ($38k) carried over to be paid in addition to 2021/22 Market Yield Adjustment.

10625

Art Geo Administration

1,628

15,132

13,504

89.2%

1,546

Underspend is offset by additional wages due to in house production of marketing, promotional and interpretation work.

 


 

10630

Economic and Business Development Administration

2,010

17,127

15,117

88.3%

1,899

The budget is made up of numerous line items that have been spread throughout the year. The actual timing for these things are inherently difficult to predict, including valuations as more often than not they depend on interactions with outside third parties for development opportunities and collaborations. For example, we budget for marketing and promotions, but need to wait for relevant opportunities to arise throughout the year that may not necessarily align with budget timing. It should be noted that a large portion of the total annual budget ($55K) relates to cruise ship visitor servicing ($38K), which due to the effects of COVID is unlikely to be spent by the end of the financial year.

11151

Airport Operations

76

413,981

413,905

100.0%

52

Relates to marketing activities for RPT services which have not commenced due to COVID.

Planning and Development Services

63,517

110,635

47,118

42.6%

11,628

10805

Planning Administration

8,523

30,000

21,477

71.6%

5,000

The subsidy for the façade refurbishment at the old Hobson’s site was delayed. This will be paid in January.

10830

Environmental Management Administration

119

18,301

18,182

99.3%

773

YTD variance due to timing of Biodiversity Incentive Rebate Scheme payment due May 2021.

Engineering and Works Services

98,088

167,758

69,670

41.5%

2,931

B1223

Micro Brewery - Public Ablution

60,000

120,000

60,000

50.0%

 -

The City’s fund contribution to the construction of these ablutions is due to be paid upon receipt of invoice from the company.

 

5.    Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

The negative variance of $3.8M is mainly due to the items in the table below. It should be noted that apart from the first two items in the table (Locke Estate contributions due to COVID hardship relief), any negative variance in this area will approximately correlate to an offsetting variance in a capital project tied to these funding sources. This can be seen in the section below that outlines the capital expenditure variances. The positive variances generally relate to budget timing, i.e. the funds are usually brought to account during the end of financial year reconciliation process, so hence are budgeted in June.

Revenue Code

Revenue Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Finance and Corporate Services

 -

52,000

(52,000)

(100.0%)

(48,000)

R0288

Locke Estate –

Leaseholder Contributions

 -

52,000

(52,000)

(100.0%)

(48,000)

Planning and Development Services

10,592

 -

10,592

100.0%

 -

B1025

Yallingup Coastal Bushfire Brigade – Donated Assets

10,592

 -

10,592

100.0%

 -

Engineering and Works Services

3,733,856

7,505,231

(3,771,375)

(50.2%)

(2,943,712)

A0025

Tuart Drive Bridge 0238 – Federal Capital Grant

 -

170,330

(170,330)

(100.0%)

(170,330)

B9407

Busselton Senior Citizens – Developer Cont. Utilised

595,306

162,479

432,827

266.4%

 -

B9591

Performing Arts Convention Centre – Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

3,000,000

(3,000,000)

(100.0%)

(2,000,000)

C0059

Dunsborough Yacht Club Carpark – Developer Cont.

60,000

 -

60,000

100.0%

 -

C3116

Dawson Park (McIntyre St POS) – Developer Cont.

 -

77,467

(77,467)

(100.0%)

 -

F1002

Dual Use Path - Dunsborough to Busselton – State Capital Grant

64,000

 -

64,000

100.0%

 -

F1022

Buayanyup Drain Shared Path – State Capital Grant

 -

160,002

(160,002)

(100.0%)

(26,667)

S0005

Ludlow Hithergreen Road - Second Coat Seal –

Main Roads Capital Grant

180,000

225,000

(45,000)

(20.0%)

(37,500)

S0048

Bussell Highway – Developer Cont. Utilised

200,000

250,002

(50,002)

(20.0%)

(41,667)

S0070

Peel & Queen Street Roundabout Service Relocation –

Developer Cont. Utilised

120,000

240,000

(120,000)

(50.0%)

 -

S0073

Gale Road Rural Reconstruction –

Federal Capital Grant

515,811

686,244

(170,433)

(24.8%)

(114,374)

S0074

Causeway Road Duplication – Developer Cont. Utilised

500,000

300,000

200,000

66.7%

 -

S0075

Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program –

Federal Capital Grant

480,935

525,483

(44,548)

(8.5%)

(285,015)

T0020

Capel Tutunup Road –

RTR Capital Grant

 -

713,364

(713,364)

(100.0%)

(118,894)

W0067

Ford Road Reconstruct and Asphalt Overlay – Main Roads Direct Grant

10,875

 -

10,875

100.0%

 -

W0121

Geographe Bay Road Quindalup –

Developer Cont. Utilised

12,000

 -

12,000

100.0%

 -

 


 

6.    Capital Expenditure

As at 31 December 2020, there is an underspend variance of 48.2%, or $10.5M, in total capital expenditure, with YTD actual at $11.3M against the YTD amended budget of $21.8M. A portion of this positive underspend variance is offset by the negative variance in Non-Operating Grants, Contributions & Subsidies discussed above, with the remainder offset by the negative variances in Transfers From Reserves related to funds held aside for these projects. The attachments to this report include detailed listings of all capital expenditure (project) items, however the main areas of YTD variance are summarised as follows:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Land

 -

50,000

50,000

100.0%

37,100

10610

Property Services Administration

 -

50,000

50,000

100.0%

37,100

The budget represents funds allocated for costs associated with potential strategic land purchases in the City of Busselton. To date, there have been no expenses incurred, as potential transactions have not progressed beyond informal discussions.

Buildings

2,502,565

3,151,852

649,287

20.6%

162,015

B9516

Busselton Library Upgrade

582,177

603,000

20,823

3.5%

(17,214)

Library works completed. Balance of funds to be directed to fit-out items.

B9300

Aged Housing Capital Improvements – Winderlup

 -

39,600

39,600

100.0%

6,600

Works proposed are to separate power and drainage servicing Winderlup Court and Winderlup Villas.

The power requirements will not be triggered until the new conditional land title lot is created. Upgrade and separation of drainage is planned to occur this financial year as the infrastructure is damaged.

B9302

Aged Housing Capital Improvements - Winderlup Court (City)

 -

52,000

52,000

100.0%

 -

As per above.

B9407

Busselton Senior Citizens

620,333

738,128

117,795

16.0%

 -

Works were completed in September. The savings against budget are being reviewed for potential use on roof replacement and carpark works. Contractor delays in providing estimates have delayed commencement of these works.

B9558

Churchill Park -  Change Room Refurbishment

 -

21,000

21,000

100.0%

 -

Works are scheduled to be completed before the end of the financial year.  Procurement for roof sheeting is currently underway.

B9591

Performing Arts Convention Centre

923,912

1,143,756

219,844

19.2%

71,961

Regional Growth Fund milestones are under review pending funding extension confirmation.  Design contract program extension pending.  Budgeted cash flow is under review on this basis.

B9596

GLC Building Improvements

57,164

245,826

188,662

76.7%

(13,629)

Carried over works from the prior year. Works have been rescheduled and have been forecast to be completed in February/March 2021 to minimise impact to GLC operations.

B9606

King Street Toilets

49,061

23,016

(26,045)

(113.2%)

3,421

Stage 1 works completed.

Minor additional works undertaken in this period to improve accessibility to new viewing platform.

 


 

B9608

Demolition Allocation

(Various Buildings)

2,011

12,500

10,489

83.9%

12,500

Funds have been allocated to partial demolition of the Weld Theatre by the end of the financial year, in preparation for its integration with the BPACC.

B9610

Old Butter Factory

130,269

 -

(130,269)

(100.0%)

(1,716)

Conservation and fire damage works now completed.  Insurance claim has now been approved, with the final position estimated to be in the order of ($30K), with savings being identified in other areas to account for this variance.

B9612

Churchill Park

Renew Sports Lights

 -

70,000

70,000

100.0%

70,000

A review of consultants work to date is being undertaken, with a decision to be made Feb/March with Council if this site is the subject of a grant application to the State Government.  If yes, application to be submitted and funds to be carried forward; if not, funds to be spent this financial year.

B9711

Busselton Airport – Building

 -

15,000

15,000

100.0%

 -

Small capital works projects to be completed either prior to Jetstar flights commencing or by the end of the financial year.

B9717

Airport Construction, Existing Terminal Upgrade

 -

21,402

21,402

100.0%

3,567

As per above.

B9809

Busselton Jetty Tourist Park Compliance Works

3,600

40,000

36,400

91.0%

40,000

Compliance electrical works to be completed by the end of the financial year.

Plant & Equipment

693,830

1,222,172

528,342

43.2%

98,062

10372

Dunsborough Cemetery

 -

20,000

20,000

100.0%

 -

The budget is for maintenance trailers for the cemetery, both for grave shoring equipment and watering equipment, as well as fencing and turf upgrades. The delay in procurement of these items is due to current workloads of relevant staff and other projects taking a higher priority to date.

10810

Statutory Planning

 -

35,000

35,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle ordered in December, delivery expected in January. A delay in the order was due to a delay in confirmation of government pricing and availability of different vehicle makes by the manufacturer.

10920

Environmental Health Services Administration

 -

35,000

35,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle ordered in September, delivery expected in January.  Delays in delivery are due to the high demand currently being experienced by dealers due to the government’s stimulus package in concurrence with supply chain restrictions due to COVID.

11106

Street Lighting Installations

17,300

 -

(17,300)

(100.0%)

(17,300)

The expenditure represents a storage container for the lighting equipment.  The budget for the whole activity has been entered against one operational line incorrectly, rather than being split according to operational maintenance, capital upgrade, and one of asset purchases such as this.

11156

Airport Development Operations

172,865

141,552

(31,313)

(22.1%)

23,592

Baggage handling system supply/install is now completed, however monthly budget allocation has been spread over a longer time period.


11160

Busselton Jetty

 -

15,000

15,000

100.0%

 -

Jetty mule ordered in October, delivered in January.

11401

Transport – Workshop

10,410

30,000

19,590

65.3%

 -

Delivery of upgrades to repeater at communications tower still in progress.

11402

Plant Purchases (P10)

321,201

400,000

78,799

19.7%

40,000

Generators at DWF pond and cell – not yet replaced.  Site and operations under review.  Manager’s vehicle also yet to be ordered/delivered.

 


 

11403

Plant Purchases (P11)

 -

190,000

190,000

100.0%

22,500

1 x vehicle ordered, delivery expected in January – reasoning similar to above, another ordered with delivery expected in March.  1 x light truck ordered in December, delivery expected in May.

11404

Plant Purchases (P12)

 -

114,000

114,000

100.0%

19,000

1 x light truck and concrete scarifier to be ordered early February, delivery expected in May.

11407

P&E - P&G Smart Technologies

 -

49,998

49,998

100.0%

8,333

The annual scope of the project is currently being finalised and delivery will follow in the last quarter of 20/21.

11500

Operations Services Administration

 -

40,000

40,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle ordered in October, delivery expected in March. Delays in delivery are due to the high demand currently being experienced by dealers due to the government’s stimulus package in concurrence with supply chain restrictions due to COVID.

B1025

Yallingup Coastal Bushfire Brigade

10,592

 -

(10,592)

(100.0%)

 -

Unbudgeted donated asset (offsetting revenue shown above).

Furniture & Office Equipment

200,289

323,310

123,022

38.1%

114,180

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services

190,289

287,310

97,022

33.8%

111,180

Project delivery has been affected by COVID including the single label domain of which the majority should have been spent by now. We are soon to be procuring a round of Computer Hardware which will reduce the variance.

10591

Geographe Leisure Centre

 -

20,000

20,000

100.0%

 -

Funds have been committed in January for the purchase and installation of a new disability access hoist for the pool.

Infrastructure By Class

7,880,369

17,007,033

9,126,664

53.7%

1,242,448

Various

Roads

4,245,345

8,443,107

4,197,762

49.7%

(183,073)

Capital projects with civil works are commonly scheduled to be carried out later in the financial year, in the drier summer/autumn construction season. The capital works budgets have been entered based on an even spread method and approach, not on a scheduled timing of works basis.  Project delivery increased during December.

Various

Bridges

 -

721,998

721,998

100.0%

5,333

Bridge projects are largely completed towards the end of the summer months, will billing expected to come through towards the end of the third quarter.

Various

Car Parks

873,044

1,026,238

153,194

14.9%

(93,408)

Generally similar to the above Roads comment, however good progress has been made with several projects now that inclement weather has abated.

Various

Footpaths & Cycleways

164,908

740,910

576,002

77.7%

107,162

Generally similar to the above Roads comment, however there are delays in invoice receipting.

Various

Parks, Gardens & Reserves

2,463,130

5,391,066

2,927,936

54.3%

1,004,328

Capital projects within this grouping are planned to be carried out largely later in the financial year. The capital works budgets have been entered based on various spread method, not on a scheduled timing of works basis.  WAPC POS upgrade projects are currently at the consultation stage and will move through to construction in the last quarter.  The Craig Street Groyne and Sea Wall project is scheduled for construction during the last quarter.

Various

Drainage

 -

55,394

55,394

100.0%

6,725

Projects of this nature are scheduled for the summer months.

Various

Regional Airport & Industrial Park Infrastructure

133,942

628,320

494,378

78.7%

395,381

Airport projects planned over the year, bird netting due to start in January, car park works completed but not invoiced; other line items not started as yet.

7.    Proceeds From Sale of Assets

YTD proceeds from sale of assets is $312K behind budget due to delays in delivery of acquisitions, and the associated transfer to auction of the vehicles being replaced. 

 

Also, aside from a significantly reduced capital replacement program in both light vehicles and heavy plant items, many existing items of plant that were due to be replaced have been retained in service to maintain operational requirements.

 

8.    Proceeds From New Loans

The budgeted proceeds of $7.5M are related to the 50% drawdown on the construction loan for the BPAC. This project has been deferred in consultation with the Federal Government. Construction is now planned to commence in July 2021. Grant funding will start to be acquitted in the second half of 2021, as will the drawdown on the borrowing facility.

 

9.    Repayment of Capital Lease

The budget was being finalised during the first COVID lockdown. As such, the timing was not set as accurately as it could have. The timing difference at the end of December YTD will rectify by the end of January.

 

10.  Transfer to Restricted Assets

There is a YTD variance in transfers to restricted assets of $2.6M more than amended budget. Grant funding received from Federal Government for “Drought Communities Program” of $500k (attributable to CC C3223 Dunsborough Non-Potable Water Network). The funding was received in September whereas budget projected allocation was in June. It was anticipated that the expenditure would be incurred in June, hence the funding timing projections followed.

 

Developer contributions, deposits and bonds are inherently hard to predict and budget for. An annual amount of $50K spread evenly over 12 months was budgeted, however, over $2.1M has been received in the YTD as at December, the bulk of which are for road works bonds ($1.7M).

 

11.  Transfer from Restricted Assets

YTD there has been $664K transferred from restricted assets into the Municipal Account. This was mainly attributable to refunds of road work bonds of $492K, refund of hall deposits of $14K, Busselton Jetty Tourist Park deposit refunds of $136K, and other sundry refunds of $22K.

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 31 December 2020, the value of the City’s invested funds totalled $87.29M, steady from $89.29M as at 30 November 2020.

 

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) remained unchanged at $6.0M.

 

During the month of December, two term deposits totalling the amount of $8.0M matured. Existing deposits were renewed for a further 182 days at 0.36% on average.

 

The official cash rate remains steady for the month of December at 0.10%. This will have a strong impact on the City’s interest earnings for the foreseeable future.

 

Chief Executive Officer – Corporate Credit Card

Details of transactions made on the Chief Executive Officer’s corporate credit card during December 2020 are provided below to ensure there is appropriate oversight and awareness.

 

Date

Payee

Description

$ Amount

14/12/2020

ADINA APARTMENT HOTEL

ACCOMMODATION - RCAWA MEETING

201.39

14/12/2020

PRINT HALL PERTH

MEALS - RCAWA MEETING

74.17

14/12/2020

PRINT HALL PERTH

MEALS - RCAWA MEETING

78.23

15/12/2020

ADINA APARTMENT HOTEL

ACCOMMODATION - RCAWA MEETING

10.12

18/12/2020

RAMADA RESORT DUNSBOROUGH

END OF YEAR COUNCILLOR FUNCTION

1,442.00

21/12/2020

PHIL HOLLETT GALLERY

GIFTS FOR 2021 COMMUNITY CITIZEN OF THE YEAR NOMINEES

220.00

 

 

 

2,025.91

 

Statutory Environment

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

Relevant Plans and Policies

There are no relevant plans or policies to consider in relation to this matter.

Financial Implications

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

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

The Statements of Financial Activity are presented in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Act and Regulation 34 of the Regulations and are to be received by Council. Council may wish to make additional resolutions as a result of having received these reports.

CONCLUSION

Budget timings remain affected by COVID impacts and are gradually being re-aligned. As at 31 December 2020, the City’s net current position stands at $26.4M. The City’s financial performance is considered satisfactory, and cash reserves remain strong.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.  


Council

34

24 February 2021

12.2

Attachment a

Investment Report - December 2020

 


Council

51

24 February 2021

12.2

Attachment b

Financial Activity Statement - December 2020

 


















 


Council                                                                                      70                                                             24 February 2021

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.1           COASTAL HAZARD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTATION PLAN - PROPOSED ADOPTION AS DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION

STRATEGIC GOAL

3. ENVIRONMENT Valued, conserved and enjoyed

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

3.4 Climate change risks and impacts are understood, acknowledged and responded to through appropriate planning and community education.

SUBJECT INDEX

Coastal Adaptation Strategy

BUSINESS UNIT

Planning and Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

Manager, Strategic Planning - Matthew Riordan

Principal Strategic Planner - Louise Koroveshi

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Executive: Substantial direction setting, including adopting budgets, strategies, plans and policies (excluding local planning policies); funding, donations and sponsorships; reviewing committee recommendations

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Draft CHRMAP

Attachment b    Research Solutions report

Attachment c    Multi-criteria analysis

Attachment d   Advisian report  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopt the  City of Busselton Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (Attachment A) as a draft for consultation, subject to:

1.         Detailed editing and refinement of presentation of the document;

2.         Development of artists’ impressions and cutaway drawings illustrating existing coastal protection infrastructure in place at the Busselton and Dunsborough town foreshores, as well as for recommended protection approaches; and

3.         Referral to the project steering group (and subject to changes to detailed presentation and wording as a result of steering group feedback, but not in terms of strategic direction).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council is asked to consider adopting the City of Busselton Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan as a draft for consultation. The document seeks to set out the strategic direction on what is a very important issue for the City and our community. It is vital, however, that our community and other stakeholders are consulted and engaged with before firm decisions are made about that direction. The officer recommendation, if adopted by the Council, would allow that to occur.

 

BACKGROUND

Introduction

The Council is asked to consider adopting the City of Busselton Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) as a draft for consultation. The need to develop the CHRMAP reflects requirements of State Planning Policy 2.6: Coastal Planning (SPP2.6) and the fact that the City has a long, dynamic coastline; with significant property, infrastructure and environmental assets in close proximity to the coast and potentially vulnerable to coastal processes. The CHRMAP is provided as Attachment A.

SPP2.6 requires planning authorities to consider the potential impact of coastal processes on proposed development over a 100 year time horizon (i.e. if a decision is being made in 2021, through to 2121). SPP2.6 also sets out that planning authorities should assume an increase in mean sea level over that period of 0.9 metres. That rise, should it occur, is expected to significantly increase risks associated with the two main coastal hazards – coastal erosion and coastal inundation (the latter may also be referred to as ‘storm surge’ or ‘coastal flooding’). It may also increase other hazards, such as through the lifting and salinization of groundwater tables in near coastal areas. Such a rise in mean sea level is expected to result in accelerated coastal erosion, with approximately 100-200 metres of land along the City’s northern coast potentially being lost to erosion over the 100 year period, if the coast is not actively managed.

 

SPP2.6 also requires that planning authorities consider the potential coastal inundation impact of a 1 in 500 year coastal storm surge event (or, to use the current technical term, a 1 in 500 Annual Exceedance Probability - ‘AEP’ - event). Whilst there have been more recent assessments which indicate the risk may be somewhat lower, the current advice of the Department of Transport (‘DoT’ - which is effectively the State’s ‘coastal engineer’) applicable to most of the City’s northern / Geographe Bay coast is that such an event may result in storm surge as high as 2.9 AHD (i.e. 2.9 metres above mean sea level) with present day mean sea levels, or 3.8 AHD with mean sea level 0.9 metres higher. Cyclone Alby is thought to have resulted in water levels of around 1.8 AHD and, unless steps were taken to prevent ocean water moving inland, a 3.8 AHD event could result in coastal inundation several kilometres inland in some cases, and could result in significant flooding, to depths of up to around 2.0 metres, in significant parts of both Busselton and Dunsborough.

 

It should be noted that much of the City’s coast is, in fact, actively managed today. Much of the coast has, in fact, been actively managed for many decades. It should also be noted that both coastal erosion and coastal inundation risks are significantly lower on the City’s west-facing coast; although there are still risks, especially in relation to coastal erosion.

 

The process of preparing the CHRMAP was preceded by a series of other projects, undertaken over the course of more than a decade; by both the City and other agencies. That includes coastal erosion studies undertaken for the City around 2010, coastal inundation studies undertaken by DoT and referenced above, as well as other inundation studies undertaken for the City or the State Government. It also includes the ‘Coastal Adaptation Pathways’ work undertaken by the Peron-Naturaliste Partnership (‘PNP’ - a partnership of the nine local governments between Point Peron, in the City of Rockingham, and Cape Naturaliste, in the City of Busselton). It also includes shorter-term coastal management programmes for the City’s coast; developed, implemented and periodically reviewed over the last ten years or so.

 

Those earlier studies also identified that coastal erosion and/or inundation risks along the City’s coast are significant. The aim of the CHRMAP is to set out how the City, necessarily working in partnership with the State Government and other partners, intends to manage those risks into the future – essentially, the ‘adaptation strategy’ that the City intends to pursue in response to those risks.

 

Whilst the challenges that may be faced in the future may be greater than those of the past, the City and its community have been faced with the challenges of a highly dynamic coastline, in close proximity to significant assets and infrastructure, for well over 100 years. As a result, both the City and the community have more experience and more knowledge of those challenges than most, if not all, local governments and communities in Western Australia. As such, we are well prepared to develop and consider our future adaptation strategies. In doing so, we are also guided by SPP2.6.

 


 

SPP2.6 defines ‘adaptation’ as follows:

'adaptation' means an adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Adaptation is the means for maximising the gains and minimising the losses associated with coastal hazards over the planning timeframe.

 

SPP2.6 also sets out a hierarchy of coastal adaptation options to be considered in preparing CHRMAPs, as set out in clause 5.5 (iii) (bold text in original):

Where risk assessments identify a level of risk that is unacceptable to the affected community or proposed development, adaptation measures need to be prepared to reduce those risks down to acceptable or tolerable levels. Adaptation measures should be sought from the following coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning hierarchy on a sequential and preferential basis:

(1)       Avoid the presence of new development within an area identified to be affected by coastal hazards. Determination of the likely consequences of coastal hazards should be done in consideration of local conditions and in accordance with the guidelines provided in Schedule One.

(2)       Planned or Managed Retreat or the relocation or removal of assets within an area identified as likely to be subject to intolerable risk of damage from coastal hazards over the planning time frame.

(3)       If sufficient justification can be provided for not avoiding development of land that is at risk from coastal hazards then Accommodation adaptation measures should be provided that suitably address the identified risks. Such measures would involve design and/or management strategies that render the risks from the identified coastal hazards acceptable.

(4)       Where sufficient justification can be provided for not avoiding the use or development of land that is at risk from coastal hazards and accommodation measures alone cannot adequately address the risks from coastal hazards, then coastal Protection works may be proposed for areas where there is a need to preserve the foreshore reserve, public access and public safety, property and infrastructure that is not expendable.

 

In simple terms, this hierarchy can be described as setting out that, if a section of the coast is likely to be affected by coastal hazards over the next 100 years, the response in relation to both potential and existing development should be as follows:

1.    Avoid: If there is no existing development within the area thought to be potentially affected, then no development should occur in that area – that is an ‘avoid’ strategy. For most of the City’s coast, an avoid strategy is not possible over the 100 year planning time horizon, as there is already significant development in areas thought to be potentially affected.

2.    Retreat: If an avoid strategy is not possible (i.e. because there is existing development in the area thought to be potentially affected), then a ‘retreat’ strategy should be pursued, progressively removing or relocating development, so that the coast can progressively move inland, before it affects the existing development (new development may be contemplated in vulnerable areas, but only where the development is temporary in nature).


 

3.    Accommodate: If a retreat strategy is not possible (it is not clear what tests may need to be met to demonstrate that), then an ‘accommodate’ strategy may be pursued. Accommodate is probably only a relevant strategy in relation to coastal inundation hazard – as it can be addressed through some combination of building design (e.g. minimum floor levels above projected flood levels) and emergency management (e.g. sandbagging, evacuation). Accommodate is usually not a relevant strategy in relation to coastal erosion hazard, as the protection of a building whilst the land around it erodes is simply an inappropriate protection strategy.

4.    Protect: If an accommodate strategy is not possible (again, it is not clear what tests may need to be met to demonstrate that), then a ‘protect’ strategy may be pursued. A protect strategy may involve things like groynes (to manage erosion and protect beaches), seawalls or bunds/levees (to protect property or infrastructure from erosion or inundation) or artificial reefs (principally to manage erosion, through reducing the wave energy that reaches the beach). A protect strategy may also involve things like beach nourishment, where sand is added to the beach or placed offshore, to compensate for sand lost through coastal erosion. Beach nourishment could potentially be seen as an accommodate strategy too – it is though a semantic and unimportant distinction when identifying and assessing real world adaptation options.

 

Whilst there is obviously some variation in the character of different sections of the City’s coast, and therefore some variation in the assessment of potential adaptation strategies in different sections of the coast, the character of much of the City’s northern / Geographe Bay coast is quite similar, and similar observations can be made about much of that part of our coast. It is therefore possible to make some general comment about the different adaptation options. Given the above, and the nature of the City’s coast, the choice is essentially between a retreat strategy, or a protect strategy. That is especially the case for coastal erosion hazard; an accommodate strategy may be appropriate in relation to coastal inundation hazard in some areas at some times.

 

If the City’s CHRMAP adopted a ‘retreat’ strategy for a particular section of the coast, it is strongly arguable that the planning response should involve: (1) no densification of development, and no approval of new development without a sunset clause or similar placed on that approval in areas thought to be vulnerable to coastal erosion hazard and; (2) no approval for new development with a floor level lower than 3.4-3.8 AHD within areas thought to be vulnerable to coastal inundation hazard, noting that in some cases existing ground and floor levels in substantial parts of the affected area are as low as 1.5-2.0 AHD.

 

In addition, unless affected private land was acquired by government, along most of the City’s coast there would no longer be a public beach or foreshore reserve – the beach and foreshore would be in private property. There are means by which such land might be acquired by government, but a lot of uncertainty around: precisely what means may be used; which level of government does the acquisition; how it is funded; and the basis for land valuation. Acquisition of land at unaffected market value, if that were to occur, would be a very significant cost (see ‘Financial Implications’).

 

Further, once land had been acquired, it would no longer be economically productive to any significant degree, and would no longer generate local government rates revenue, or State land tax revenue. Because of the affect that a decision to retreat would have on land valuation, especially a retreat strategy that did not provide for acquisition at unaffected market value, State land tax revenue from the affected area may also be significantly reduced well ahead of the actual acquisition occurring.

 


 

Over and above the issues related to land acquisition, retreat would also not be a passive process in other ways. Whilst in a more natural context the shoreline could ‘naturally’ recede, and ‘nature’ may progressively adjust, that is not the context along most of the City’s coast. There are buildings, roads and other infrastructure (e.g. sewer pipes) which would most likely need to be proactively and progressively removed in advance of coastal erosion. There would also be substantial costs associated with that work, including costs of removal and, potentially, building new infrastructure further inland (which may also be temporary in nature in some cases, as it may need to be removed in a later phase of the retreat process).

 

Conversely, if the City’s CHRMAP adopted a ‘protect’ strategy for a particular section of the coast, the planning response would not need to involve limitations on development (there may, however, be other reasons to limit development potential). If a protect strategy was adopted in relation to coastal inundation hazard, there may also be no need to set minimum floor levels for new development, once such protection was in place. There would also not be the same impact on economic productivity or government revenues (revenues which could support, amongst other things, coastal management).

 

It is also true, though, that a protect strategy that did not preserve beach and foreshore amenity may have significant impacts on the broader community, whilst disproportionately benefitting the owners of vulnerable property. Further, protection of a particular section of the coast may impact other sections of the coast; in two key ways. Firstly, groynes or similar structures which help to protect the coast in one location can accelerate erosive pressures elsewhere. Secondly, the chief means of combatting that impact, other than sensitive and strategic design of such structures, is through beach nourishment – and the supply of sand for those and other purposes is constrained.

 

Finally, in relation to a protect strategy, it needs to be understood that, whilst the potential means of protection may be well understood in some parts of the coast, they are less well understood in others. For instance, along much of the City’s northern / Geographe Bay coast, especially places where there are still fairly wide foreshore reserves, some combination of geotextile groynes, beach nourishment, and either buried seawalls or other means of lifting and strengthening the ground in the foreshore reserve, should be a workable protection strategy – possibly in tandem with localised retreat in the short to medium-term, where that can occur without affecting any significant assets. The potential means of protection, though, are less well understood in some other contexts. For instance: in the much higher energy sections of the coast at Yallingup and Smiths Beach; in an area like Siesta Park where there is often little or no foreshore reserve; or at the mouth of the Vasse Diversion Drain or the Port Geographe Marina entry channel.

 

There are also significant financial challenges associated with both retreat and protect strategies. Those challenges relate in substantial part to the scale of funding that may be required. There are also challenges, however, in ensuring that expenditure is efficient and strategic in nature, and that revenue is secured in an efficient, sustainable and equitable fashion. For reasons that are outlined further in ‘Financial Implications’, meeting all of those challenges properly is probably beyond the scope of the City alone – or indeed of any local government acting alone.

 

On top of those challenges, it needs to be understood that there is a lot of uncertainty associated with long-term coastal adaptation planning – in fact there is a lot of uncertainty associated with planning at such a large scale over such a long period of time in general, but more so in this context than in many others. There are uncertainties associated with future sea level change and how those changes may affect the coast. There are uncertainties around the future cost and availability of materials, especially sand, which is so critical for beach nourishment. There are also uncertainties around the future financial capacity of the City and our community to meet the challenges. The City is, however, required by SPP2.6 to set out its strategic direction, notwithstanding those uncertainties.

 


 

Process

The process of preparing the CHRMAP, and determining which adaptation strategies may be best pursued, consisted of six key elements:

1.         Assembling, synthesizing and supplementing (essentially, filling in the gaps) coastal hazard assessments, to identify when and where different sections of the coast may be vulnerable (each of these sections is identified as a ‘Management Unit’, of which there are 19).

2.         Considering and supplementing consultation / engagement undertaken over an extended period to determine what the community values about the coast, and their views on how coastal hazards should be managed.

3.         Developing a financial model to identify potential financial implications associated with different adaptation strategies – and that model does allow the testing of different strategies or assumptions about future costs, as well as allowing for the application of different strategies to different sections of the coast, or during different time periods.

4.         Developing and then applying a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) framework to identify which of the fundamental adaptation options is most appropriate for each Management Unit, in both the short-term (through to 2040), medium-term (2040-2070) and long-term (2070-2020 – noting that the latter date will require adjustment as the project progresses).

5.         Reflecting the outcomes of the MCA (Attachment C), developing a set of recommendations – some of which are overarching recommendations, related to the coast as a whole, or to multiple Management Units, and some of which are specific to particular Management Units. A number of recommendations also set out further, more detailed work that is required to refine and implement the proposed strategic direction.

6.         Assembling that work in the CHRMAP.

 

Most of the technical work which underpins the CHRMAP was undertaken by an external consulting team, led by Advisian (part of Worley Group) – see Attachment D. The development of the MCA framework and recommendations, however, was largely undertaken in-house. The development of the CHRMAP was also assisted by a multi-agency Steering Group (see ‘Stakeholder Consultation’).

 

Should the Council adopt the CHRMAP as a draft for consultation, there are several further steps that would need to be taken before consultation actually commences, mostly related to the presentation of the document. The draft document would be subject of detailed review and editing; with the presentation also improved to reflect the City’s style guide and accessibility standards.

 

It is also proposed that some artists’ impressions be developed to illustrate what the coast may actually look like, if the recommended strategies are pursued. It is envisaged that would involve ‘cutaway’ drawings, illustrating what may be in place beneath the land surface, as well as above the surface. To a significant extent, the recommended approach for much of the City’s northern / Geographe Bay coast reflects what has already been implemented in sections of the Busselton and Dunsborough town foreshore areas – ‘cutaway’ drawings illustrating what is already in place in those areas are also envisaged. The CHRMAP also needs to be referred to the Steering Group (also see ‘Financial Implications’ and ‘Stakeholder Consultation’). The recommendation allows adjustments to be made to detailed presentation and wording as a result of steering group feedback, but not changes to strategic direction.

 


 

SPP2.6 does not set out a particular process for the adoption of a CHRMAP. State planning policies in general, however, must be given due regard in the making of all planning decisions, including applications for development approval, applications for subdivision approval, assessments of structure plans or similar and, most importantly, in the making and amending of town planning schemes. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is, for obvious reasons, aware of the coastal adaptation issues in the City, and it is likely that the CHRMAP and its recommendations will be very important to support the City’s new town planning scheme, currently under development (and as required by the WAPC). For that reason, officers envisage that, after consultation and further consideration by the Council, the City’s CHRMAP be sent to the WAPC for its formal consideration, ahead of the City’s new scheme also being forwarded to the WAPC.

 

Recommendations

The CHRMAP’s recommendations and a brief description of their rationale is set out below (Recommendation 8 is summarised only).

 

Recommendation 1

That the coastal erosion hazard lines shown on the maps for each of the identified Management Units in Recommendation 8 be adopted as a guide for future planning.

 

Key rationale: The most pervasive hazard for most of the City’s coast, especially over the short to medium term, is coastal erosion. Unless and until direction is set regarding how that hazard is to be addressed, it is difficult to develop clear direction on the other key hazard; coastal inundation. There are also a range of other recommendations that require the identification of an area that may be subject to coastal erosion hazard, if the coast is not protected from that hazard. Given that some sections of the coast already benefit from coastal erosion protection, and especially because those protections do not have a 100 year design life, in adopting coastal erosion hazard lines for those purposes, it is seen as appropriate to assume that existing protections are not in place, even though it is clear that, unless those structures were deliberately removed, they would provide some coastal erosion protection.

 

Recommendation 2

That the adaptation pathways for the identified Management Units are generally as set out in Recommendation 8.

 

Key rationale: This identifies the key role that the Management Unit specific recommendations play in setting the overall strategic direction. 

 

Recommendation 3

That, in addition to the financial responses set out in Recommendation 8, the City:

a.    Allocates (through a phased increase from 1.0% currently) a minimum of 2.0% of total rates revenue to the ‘Coastal Adaptation Reserve’ within the City’s next 10 year Long Term Financial Plan;

b.    Advocates and makes application for State and/or Federal Government grant funding to support coastal adaptation as possible and necessary;

c.     Advocates at State and Federal level for the identification and implementation of a sustainable, equitable and efficient framework for funding of coastal adaptation; and

d.    Advocates at State level to identify and secure strategic sand supplies for beach nourishment, including a coordinated regional approach to the delivery of sand supplies.

 

Key rationale: Part (a) reflects a decision that the Council has already made in adopting the City’s latest Long-Term Financial Plan, and is prudent given the potential risks and costs faced by the City and our communities. It is also a demonstration that, whilst the City sees a clear case and need for support from higher levels of government, the City is also prepared to make a significant financial commitment itself. Parts (b) and (c) reflect the fact that support from higher levels of government will be required, but the City obviously cannot make decisions on their behalf – the focus needs to be on advocacy. Part (d) reflects the vital importance of sand supplies, and that the issue would be best addressed at a regional or State level.

 

Recommendation 4

That the City undertake or support, subject to appropriate assistance from the State and/or Federal Government, the following additional work:

a.         A cost-benefit and/or benefit distribution analysis and/or systemic financial and economic system risk analysis of the identified adaptation pathways;

b.         Further coastal erosion modelling, following further geotechnical investigations, possibly in partnership with landowners, for the following Management Units –

i.          Smiths Beach;

ii.         Yallingup;

iii.        Bunker Bay;

iv.        Eagle Bay; and

v.         Old Dunsborough.

c.         Further coastal inundation hazard modelling, given the identified pathways for coastal erosion hazard management, and including coastal inundation hazard modelling for both Geographe Bay and west coast settlements (Yallingup and Smiths Beach);

d.         Preliminary design and costings associated with storm surge (coastal inundation hazard)  protection at –

i.          Toby Inlet mouth;

ii.         The mouths of all agricultural drains;

iii.        The eastern bank of the Buayanyup Drain;

iv.        Vasse Diversion Drain mouth and Vasse Estuary storm surge barrier;

v.         Port Geographe Marina entry channel and seawall;

vi.        Vasse Estuary Channel;

vii.       Layman Road, from a point just to the north of Vasse Estuary Channel to a point somewhat to the north of Tuart Drive; and

viii.      Urban stormwater outlets.

 


 

Key rationale: Part (a) reflects the fact that in advocating for or otherwise pursuing appropriate funding options, and refining the adopted adaptation pathways, further economic or financial assessments of that kind may be appropriate and useful. Part (b) recognises that existing coastal erosion hazard assessments in those areas are not informed by detailed geotechnical information, and more detailed assessments would be appropriate to get a better sense of the potential risks. Part (c) recognises that the response to coastal erosion hazard can have profound impacts on coastal inundation hazard, and that little work has been done to assess inundation hazard on the west coast (although the risk are thought to be relatively low). Part (d) reflects the fact that there are a number of locations where there needs to be connection between inland waterways / drainage infrastructure and the ocean, and that means of preventing coastal inundation in those locations have not been scoped or costed yet, but do need to be at some stage.

 

Recommendation 5

That the above recommendations are incorporated into:

a.         The City’s Strategic Community  Plan;

b.         The City’s Corporate Business Plan;

c.         The City’s Long-Term Financial Plan;

d.         The City’s rolling, ten-year Coastal Management and Monitoring Programme;

e.         The City’s Local Emergency Management Arrangements; and

f.          The City’s town planning scheme.

 

Key rationale: This reflects the fact the CHRMAP, in and of itself, does not set the direction for the City. Rather, the direction set out in the CHRMAP needs to be reflected in a suite of other documents. The City’s town planning scheme is listed last because, in many respects, given the proposed strategic direction, it is the least important of those documents. It also reflects a view that coastal adaptation planning has been too narrowly focused on and driven by town planning considerations to date, rather than from the ‘whole-of-government’ perspective that is required.

 

Recommendation 6

That the City provide an annual update to the community and other stakeholders on progress towards implementation.

 

Key rationale: This reflects the fact this is a very significant issue for the community, and that annual updates to the community would be appropriate, and a useful tool to keep the community engaged and informed.

 

Recommendation 7

That the CHRMAP is subject of periodic review, at least once every ten years.

 

Key rationale: This reflects the fact that periodic review is likely to be appropriate, as further information becomes available. Also, community values and aspirations may change over time.

 


 

Recommendation 8

Recommendation 8 sets out the direction for each of the 19 Management Units. It sets out the adaptation pathways for three time periods: short-term (through to 2040); medium-term (2040-2070); and long-term (2070-2020 – noting that the latter date will require adjustment as the project progresses, to ensure the CHRMAP time horizon extends to 100 years). In some cases, the fundamental adaptation pathway differs between the two key coastal hazards of erosion and inundation. Four sets of adaptation responses are also identified: planning; infrastructure / coastal management; emergency management; and financial.

 

Fundamentally, five different kinds of adaptation strategies are recommended, for the various Management Units (MUs), summarised as follows:

1.         MU01 – Smiths Beach, MU02 – Yallingup and MU03 – Bunker Bay: Protect from coastal erosion hazard, and avoid coastal inundation hazard. The key rationale for this is that the public foreshore reserves in these areas are vulnerable to coastal erosion, and, further, these are some of the only places where there is easy public access to the beach on or near the City’s west coast – and the only ones not in National Park. Yallingup Beach Road may also be vulnerable. Coastal inundation risk, however, can be avoided. In part, because of the high energy nature of these sections of the coast, significant further work would be required to determine the most appropriate approach to erosion protection. Through potential future development of the ‘Farmbreak’ site to the east of the ‘Pullman’ site at Bunker Bay, there is also an opportunity to provide a second public foreshore area, in an area where there are very few opportunities to provide additional access or facilities – a recommendations related to that potential is also set out.

2.         MU04 – Eagle Bay and MU05 – Old Dunsborough: Protect from coastal erosion hazard, and accommodate coastal inundation hazard (principally, through setting minimum finished floor levels for new development, in the small areas that may be vulnerable). The key rationale for this is that narrow public foreshore reserves in these areas are vulnerable to coastal erosion, and if those foreshore reserves were lost, it would not be possible to provide replacement access to the beach or facilities without private land acquisition, or further development of facilities in highly sensitive and valuable areas in Meelup Regional Park. Coastal inundation hazard is limited to small pockets very close to the coast, and in the case of new development can be accommodated through the setting of minimum floor levels.

3.         MU06 – Dunsborough Townsite, MU07 – Quindalup, MU11 – Abbey, MU12 – Broadwater, MU13 – Busselton West (A), MU14 – Busselton West (B), MU15 - Busselton Central, MU16 – Busselton East, MU17 – Port Geographe and MU18 – Wonnerup: Protect from coastal erosion hazard. Accommodate coastal inundation hazard through setting minimum finished floor levels for new development over the short term (and emergency management responses), and protect from inundation in the medium and long terms (through a continuous seawall / bund or elevated / protected foredune). These are the main urban areas, all of which are vulnerable to both coastal erosion and coastal inundation. Other than where inland waterways intersect the coast, it is also fairly clear that, in a practical sense, they are able to be protected (subject to funding). In the shorter term some retreat may be sensible in some areas (such as what has occurred in recent times in the section of the coast to the east of Alan Street, where the coastal dual-use path has been relocated inland, after the earlier path closer to the coast was affected by erosion). In the medium to longer term, though, erosion hazard would either require protection, or retreat strategies that progressively impact significant private property over time, perhaps in a series of phases, but in a process that would be very complex, uncertain and costly.

 

A retreat strategy in this section of the coast would also mean an accommodate strategy would be needed for inundation in the longer-term, rather than just the shorter term, meaning that minimum floor levels for new development may need to be set as high as 3.8 AHD, which may be more than 2.0 metres above existing ground and floor levels in some areas. It would also mean that existing development, much of which may still be in place in 100 years, would be highly vulnerable. The protect strategy recommended for these areas, however, would protect beaches, foreshore reserves and property / infrastructure from erosion, and also allow a shift to a protect strategy for inundation over the medium to long term. Once reasonable judgements are made around the costs associated with retreat, protection is also much less expensive in these areas than retreat.

4.         MU08 – Marybrook, MU09 – Siesta Park and MU19 – Forrest Beach: Protect from coastal erosion hazard for the short term (subject to resolution of land tenure issues, and to be fully funded by the benefitting landowners). Accommodate coastal inundation through setting minimum finished floor levels for new development over the short term (and emergency management responses). The direction is to leave open the option of retreat in the longer-term, which would be supported by only approving new development subject to a ‘sunset clause’ (i.e. a time limited approval – with development approval not extending beyond 1 July 2070). The absence of a substantial foreshore reserve in most of Marybrook and Siesta Park means that protection from inundation is not practicable – hence the accommodate strategy proposed. Also, the absence of a foreshore reserve means there is little broader public benefit in coastal protection in this area – as such, it is considered that the costs of protection should be borne by the benefiting landowners. An integrated approach, led by the City, however, would likely result in protection at lower overall cost and with less unintended consequences (such as protection on one property increasing erosion elsewhere). Because there are not substantial developed areas inland of the narrow strips of private property along the coast, some of the issues that would arise with retreat strategies elsewhere would also not arise here; certainly not to the same degree. Once the planned Vasse-Dunsborough Link is built, the importance of Caves Road as a transport route would also diminish significantly. For those reasons, it is seen as appropriate to provide for potential retreat from this section of the coast in the longer-term – although that does not mean that would necessarily occur, but the adoption of such a strategy would provide flexibility for future decision-makers (albeit less certainty for landowners). The issues at Forrest Beach are somewhat different, but the proposed direction is the same, other than that there is a substantial public foreshore reserve in this area, meaning the costs of protection, especially in the short term, are much lower, and there is a greater rationale for the community in general to meet some of the costs of protecting the coast (as there is a foreshore reserve and beach that can be used by the community in general, as well as significant environmental values).

5.         MU10 – Locke Estate: As the land in this Management Unit is all publicly owned, and the campsites on the northern side of Caves Road are leasehold facilities, in some respects there is a different planning time horizon, which coincides with the lease terms in place (which cannot extend beyond 21 years at present). The strategy proposed is to protect from erosion in the short-term (noting there are already coastal protections in place with a design life that extends for at least another ten years), and to accommodate inundation risk (through minimum floor levels for new development and emergency management approaches). The option of retreat over the medium to long term is, however, left open for future decision-makers.


 

OFFICER COMMENT

The CHRMAP seeks to address what is clearly a very significant issue for the City and our communities. The consequences of not adopting a sound, robust and well-considered strategic approach to addressing this issue could be very significant – socially, economically and environmentally. Especially over the longer term, there are also no easy choices. It is also clear that the City will not be able to make all of those choices on its own. The State also has a key role to play. Over time it is considered highly likely that the State will need to play a progressively bigger role, both in our District and elsewhere in the State; and in relation to funding, coordinating and planning of coastal adaptation.

 

It is considered that the CHRMAP sets out a well-reasoned and appropriate strategic direction for the City on this issue. It is clear, though, that further work is needed to refine that direction, so the CHRMAP also sets out what further work is required. Whilst, in some respects, it may be desirable for some of that further work to occur before the CHRMAP is subject of consultation, it is considered that there is already sufficient information available to engage and consult with the community, and other stakeholders. In part, that recognises that the CHRMAP is not just a technical exercise – it is also substantially about political choices and community values.

 

On balance, it is considered that now is the right time to adopt a draft CHRMAP, setting out what the City considers at this stage to be an appropriate strategic direction on this issue. It is also the right time to seek feedback from the community and other stakeholders, as a critical part of testing and refining that direction. As such it is recommended that the Council adopt the CHRMAP as a draft for consultation.

Statutory Environment

The Officer Recommendation supports the general function of a local government under the Local Government Act 1995 to provide for the good government of persons in its district.

 

In addition, the CHRMAP will guide the City and WAPC in the development and review of the City’s town planning scheme, which is adopted pursuant to powers established in the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The key policy considerations are set out in SPP2.6, as set out in the Background section of this report.

Financial Implications

The financial model developed as part of the CHRMAP process seeks to identify the potential long-term financial implications associated with different adaptation strategies, both generally and for particular sections of the coast. The model, like all such models, has its limitations, but is considered to provide a reasonable basis for high level direction setting.

 

In terms of some of the limitations of the model, it is incomplete in some respects. For instance, it does not identify costs associated with coastal inundation protection at places like the Port Geographe Marina entry channel. It also does not identify the legal and other administrative costs that may be associated with land acquisition as part of retreat scenarios, or costs of land acquisition where property is rated on the basis of unimproved value. Another limitation reflects the fact that the model is a tool which has been designed to calculate potential costs at decadal time scales. It has not been set up to provide a realistic guide to expenditures in any given year, or over shorter time periods.

 


 

Also worth noting is that the model is not a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ in the usual sense of that term, as it does not seek to identify the value of non-financial costs or benefits. There are three key reasons for that. Firstly, all of the modelled scenarios, reflecting the outcomes of coastal values work undertaken (see ‘Stakeholder Consultation’), assume the retention of a continuous beach and foreshore reserve along the whole of the coast, wherever possible – essentially giving that benefit an infinite value. Secondly, ascribing equivalent dollar values to non-financial costs or benefits is fraught with difficulty. For instance, what is the value of a beach? Is it to be valued on a per-linear metre or a per-square metre basis? How is that value to be derived? There are means of doing so – one of which is a set of techniques sometimes known as ‘hedonic pricing’ – but it is not clear what such an approach would add, when it comes to real world decision-making. Finally, in this particular case, to secure many of the non-financial benefits, financial costs would be involved, and money is required for that. Including non-financial costs and benefits in the model would have meant that it was a less useful tool to isolate and identify what funds may be required and when.

 

The model identifies that, for most sections of the City’s coast, once reasonable assumptions about property values are made for the purposes of retreat, a protect strategy would be significantly less costly than a retreat strategy. Over the 100 year planning time horizon and on the basis of a ‘best estimate’ scenario, the cost of retreat is estimated at approximately $8.3B in today’s dollars, whereas the least expensive of the protect scenarios modelled is estimated to cost approximately $1.6B in today’s dollars. Even that protect scenario represents a very significant cost, equivalent to an average of $16M per annum over the 100 year period. Average annual costs for the next few decades, however, are substantially lower than that, and higher in later decades. It also needs to be noted that, in some Management Units, the relative costs of different scenarios vary somewhat.

 

Set out below are the estimated long-term (100 year) costs and benefits, in today’s dollars, of several different adaptation scenarios, derived from the financial model (which correlate with the scenarios described in the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report):

Adaptation scenario

Financial cost

Public financial benefit

Private financial benefit

Net financial benefit (cost)

1. Tailored

(mostly protection for erosion through groynes, seawalls and nourishment, protection for inundation in main urban areas vulnerable to erosion, accommodate elsewhere, with some densification)

$1,601,271,518

$277,762,764

$11,670,524,258

$10,347,015,503

2. Retreat, with some densification and unaffected value land acquisition

(requires accommodation for inundation)

$8,297,425,778

$214,787,607

$7,484,391,656

($598,246,515)

 


 

3. Retreat, without densification, but with unaffected value land acquisition

(requires accommodation for inundation)

$5,605,555,122

$214,787,607

$4,792,521,000

($598,246,515)

4. Retreat, without land acquisition

(requires accommodation for inundation)

$813,034,122

$214,787,607

(probably overvalued – model not set up with this option in mind, as it doesn’t preserve public beach / foreshore)

Nil

($598,246,515)

 

It is highly likely those costs will not be able to be met through the City’s resources alone. It is also unreasonable to expect that would occur. The City already allocates 1.0% of total rates revenue to a ‘Coastal Adaptation Reserve’ each year, drawing on the balance as required to support coastal management. The City’s Long Term Financial Plan also provides for that to increase to 2.0% of total rates revenue in coming years. The CHRMAP also recommends that consideration be given to applying a higher differential rate to properties in the areas identified as vulnerable, and which would therefore be disproportionate beneficiaries of coastal management spend. It is clear, however, that will be insufficient over the longer term, if it is to be the only source of funding for coastal adaptation.

 

In a practical/physical sense this may be an issue that can be addressed at a local government scale by the City of Busselton. That is not the case, certainly not to the same degree, in the Greater Bunbury, Peel or Perth regions. It does seem that a more pro-active role will need to be taken by the State in the future, in relation to planning, coordinating and funding coastal adaptation. The State has recently increased the funding it provides to support coastal adaptation work, but it is clear that it is still insufficient to meet current demands, let alone the larger demands expected in the future.

 

At some stage, that may best be supported by the introduction of a levy or similar by the State that would provide an equitable, sustainable and efficient basis for addressing this significant risk. The Emergency Services Levy (ESL) is one example of where that kind of thing has been implemented, but there are many others from around the country and elsewhere in the world. Whatever funding approach is taken, it may be sensible for it to support both coastal protection, where appropriate, but also managed retreat, in contexts where that may be appropriate. These are not, however, matters that will be simply or easily resolved – and it is likely that whatever approaches are adopted from time to time, the approach will evolve over time.

 

There are a number of other reasons why the costs of coastal adaptation should not be met by local government ratepayers alone. State government and utilities own very significant assets that are potentially vulnerable to coastal risks – and the owners of those assets would benefit from coastal protection. There are also very significant environmental assets at potential risk, including the Ramsar-listed Vasse-Wonnerup Wetlands, and significant habitat for the Critically Endangered Western Ringtail Possum which is located in coastal areas in both Busselton and Dunsborough.

 


 

The financial challenge is also potentially less significant when looked at in the context of the economy of the City of Busselton as a whole, rather than from the perspective of the local government rate-base alone. Projecting what the City’s rate-base may be over such a long period of time is obviously very difficult and highly uncertain. But, on the basis of a scenario which assumes continued rate-base growth, and continued economic growth, at rates somewhat lower than what has occurred over recent decades, costs of the tailored scenario calculated through the financial model would be around 9.0% of total rates revenue over the 100 year period, but less than 0.2% of gross regional product (i.e. crudely, for every $100 spent in the City in a year, 20c would need to be spent on coastal management).

 

It does need to be very strongly emphasised, though, that is merely one, fairly crude scenario, and over such a long period, small adjustments in underlying assumptions can have a very significant impact on those figures. For instance, if growth in the rate-base and economy ceased at the end of the ten year period of the City’s current Long-Term Financial Plan, but other assumptions remained the same, costs of the tailored scenario calculated through the financial model might be as high as 33.6% of total rates revenue over the 100 year period, and more than 0.6% of gross regional product (i.e. crudely, for every $100 spent in the City in a year, 60c would need to be spent on coastal management).

 

It is for the reasons set out above that the CHRMAP does not make specific recommendations about long-term funding arrangements. Rather, there is a focus on advocacy and working with partners to resolve those issues over time. The key partner being the State Government, although the Federal Government is also identified in the recommendations.

 

As well as needing to address these long-term funding issues, it should be noted that the CHRMAP recommendations involve extensive further work to better define the approach and associated costs. Grant funding, or other support from partners may be able to assist with those tasks, but there will be a need for City funds to be allocated to that work as well in coming years. Those costs are not captured in the financial model.

 

In relation to the financial implications of the CHRMAP per se, the project has been undertaken with the support of funds allocated to the Strategic Planning Consultancies budget, drawn from what is now the Climate Adaptation Reserve (which is intended to become the Coastal Adaptation Reserve in the 2021/22 budget), as well as from a State Government grant; with the grant component being a total of $75,000. Half of those grant funds are yet to be received, and receipt of half of that is conditional on steering group sign-off on the CHRMAP prior to consultation. Given the feedback from some steering group members, however, it is not certain that sign-off will be achieved.

Stakeholder Consultation

In developing the CHRMAP, input and feedback was sought from a steering group, which consisted of City officers, as well as representatives of –

·        Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH);

·        Department of Transport (DoT);

·        Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER);

·        Geographe Catchment Council (Geocatch);

·        Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA); and

·        Water Corporation.

 


 

There have been a number of consultation / engagement exercises identifying our communities’ thoughts / feelings on long-term coastal adaptation issues, some of which have been undertaken by the City, and some by the PNP. As part of the CHRMAP process, the City commissioned a firm called Research Solutions to undertake a community survey to determine what the community values about our coastline (Attachment B).

 

The survey sample was divided into coastal and inland residents/property owners. An important outcome was to deliver a random and representative sample of the community, including those members of the community who may not typically participate in consultation.

 

The survey intended to:

·        Establish how the coastline is used and compare this with the values people espouse for the coastline.

·        Establish key values and what people feel should be protected and preserved from future erosion.

·        Establish whether the community understands the changes that are occurring on the coastline and the level of awareness of the City’s actions to manage coastal erosion.

·        Explore who the community feels should pay for the work required to reduce the impact of coastal erosion.

 

The survey found that the north facing beaches in the City are strongly valued by the community, with over half of those surveyed feeling that uninterrupted stretches of sandy beaches are a vital part of the character of Busselton and our social wellbeing.

 

The most important coastal value cited was handing the coastal area onto our children and grandchildren in the same or better state than it is now. Other important values cited were:

·        Knowing that there are places on the coast that feel ‘natural’

·        Natural vegetation/habitat on foreshore and beach areas

·        Uninterrupted stretches of sandy beach to walk along

·        Heritage – historical features such as the Pioneer Cemetery or the Busselton Jetty

·        Safe swimming beaches

 

The survey established that a significant proportion of the community use our local beaches. Over 53% of respondents cited walking/jogging on the beach or foreshore at least once a week. Of those, 42% of respondents living in the western part of the City preferred remotely located parts of the beaches (this increased to 54% of respondents who lived in the eastern part of the City). Of all respondents, 22% cited using areas close to the Busselton ‘town beach’ or Old Dunsborough beach and remote beach areas for walking and/or jogging.

 

There was a high level of awareness of natural changes in the coastline over the year preceding the survey (62%) and 60% of respondents were aware that the City had taken action to stop or reduce impacts from coastal erosion over the previous five years (e.g. groynes, seawalls, beach nourishment and revegetation).

 


 

On the question of who should pay to mitigate coastal erosion impacts, 41% of respondents felt that the taxpayer should bear the cost, with the balance feeling that costs should be borne by all ratepayers in the City (29%) or the private landowners/businesses most affected (30%).

 

The results of the community coastal values survey have been used to inform the MCA, the financial model (where all scenarios assume preservation of a continuous beach and foreshore wherever possible) and the recommendations.

 

If the Council adopts the CHRMAP as a draft for consultation, and once the final editing of the document and related tasks has occurred, a two month consultation period is envisaged. During the period, the following consultation activities are envisaged:

·        The document would be published on the City’s website;

·        Notices advising of the consultation process would be published in the newspaper, in the Bay-to-Bay electronic newsletter and promoted on the City’s homepage;

·        An online survey and portal for submissions would be established via the City’s YourSay portal;

·        Community information sessions would be organized – one in Busselton and one in Dunsborough;

·        Static displays in the City’s Administration foyer and the Naturaliste Community Centre foyer;

·        Some manned ‘shopping centre’ display days;

·        Sessions with community groups and organisations (e.g. YRA, BCCI) if requested; and

·        Some independently facilitated focus group sessions, with representative samples of the community.

 

Should it be necessary, further consultation with particular parts of the community or other stakeholders may also occur before or after Council’s consideration of the CHRMAP after the initial round of consultation. That may occur because changes to the strategic direction are being contemplated as a result of the consultation responses, or because there is seen to be a need to get further feedback from particular stakeholders.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. As the recommendation is to adopt a CHRMAP for consultation only, the key risks at this stage are reputational. The following risks have been identified:

 

Reputational risks may arise associated with recommendations of the CHRMAP, as well as through the supporting information. Those risks may be mitigated through a careful and proactive approach to community engagement. There are some members of the community, however, who may have concerns with elements of the CHRMAP and its recommendations, and their reaction may pose reputational risks for the City. Key groups that may have concerns are: landowners in the Marybrook, Siesta Park and Forrest Beach areas; those who are sceptical of sea level rise projections; those who have concerns about coastal protection in general; and those concerned about the financial implications of coastal adaptation.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Reputation

Moderate

Possible

Medium

These risks will be best mitigated through clear and patient communication during the consultation phase, and through careful and thorough considerations of issues raised through the consultation process, before seeking to finalise the CHRMAP. It is still likely, though, that there will be some people aggrieved to some degree by the direction set out in the CHRMAP.

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Not adopt the CHRMAP as a draft for consultation; or

2.         Require further work before adopting the CHRMAP as a draft for consultation.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council adopt the CHRMAP as a draft for consultation, subject to refinement / review of the documentation prior to consultation commencing. That will be an important step in setting the City’s strategic direction in relation to this important issue, and allow community consultation and engagement to occur as a vital next step.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the Council adopt the CHRMAP as a draft for consultation, it is envisaged that it could take up to around six weeks to complete the document to a presentation standard, including the artists’ impressions referred to in the recommendation, and it is therefore envisaged consultation may commence in early April 2021. Given the envisaged two month consultation period, and the need to consider and assess any submissions received, it is anticipated the CHRMAP could be considered by the Council after consultation in August 2021.


Council

115

24 February 2021

13.1

Attachment a

Draft CHRMAP

 


























































































Council

248

24 February 2021

13.1

Attachment b

Research Solutions report

 


























































































Council

267

24 February 2021

13.1

Attachment c

Multi-criteria analysis

 




















Council

308

24 February 2021

13.1

Attachment d

Advisian report

 















































































































































































































 


Council                                                                                      482                                                           24 February 2021

14.             Engineering and Work Services Report

14.1           AWARD OF TENDER RFT 08/20 WEST BUSSELTON SEAWALL UPGRADE

STRATEGIC GOAL

3. ENVIRONMENT Valued, conserved and enjoyed

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

3.2 Natural areas and habitats are cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of current and future generations.

SUBJECT INDEX

Coastal Adaptation

BUSINESS UNIT

Engineering and Facilities Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager, Engineering and Technical Services - Daniell Abrahamse

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

NATURE OF DECISION

Contractual: To enter into a contract e.g. a lease or the award of a tender etc.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Published Under Seperate Cover - Confidential RFT08/20 Tender Recommendation Report, Evaluations and Panel Consensus Score Sheet  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Pursuant to RFT 08/20 West Busselton Seawall Upgrade (RFT 08/20), accept the tender from Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd for $908,975 (exclusive of GST) for Stage 1, Option 3 (Re-use existing ironstone, import additional ironstone armour rock and import additional granite armour rock to provide a granite veneer, seawall) as the most advantageous tenderer, (Successful Tenderer) subject to minor variations to be negotiated in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (FG Regs).

2.         In accordance with Regulation 18(5) of the FG Regs, decline to accept any tender in respect to RFT 08/20 Stage 1, Option 1 and Option 2 and Stage 2, Options 1 and 2.

3.      In respect to RFT 08/20 Stage 1, Option 3, delegate power and authority to the Chief Executive Officer to:

a.         negotiate and agree with the Successful Tenderer minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the FG Regs, subject to such variations and final terms not exceeding the overall project budget;

b.        subject to and conditional upon all environmental approvals having been obtained, enter into a contract with the Successful Tenderer for supply of the relevant goods and services.

4.        Endorse the requested budget amendment outlined in Table 1 below resulting in no change to the budgeted cash position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

Table 1:

 

Cost Code

 

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

 

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

 

510-C2528-3280-0000

 

Craig Street Groyne and Seawall

 

660,0000

 

958,975

 

298,975

Reserve

 

 

 

 

102-9103

Transfer from Climate Adaptation Reserve

(660,000)

(958,975)

(298,975)

Net Total

$0

$0

$0

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Busselton invited tenders under Request for Tender RFT08/20: West Busselton Seawall Upgrade (the RFT) for the upgrade of the existing rock seawall along Geographe Bay Road between Bower Street and Earnshaw Road (West Busselton).  The RFT called for respondents to price two options for the refurbishment of the seawall in two stages (stage 1 and stage 2), followed by a third option for stage one.

 

This report summarises the submissions received, and recommends that Council:

·        endorse the outcome of the evaluation panel’s assessment;

·        delegate power and authority to the CEO to negotiate and agree final terms and conditions with the Successful Tenderer, Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd, and

·        enter into a contract(s) for Stage 1, Option 3:- the refurbishment of the eastern 460m of the structure between Bower Street and Earnshaw Road (West Busselton), using existing ironstone, imported additional ironstone armour rock and imported additional granite armour rock.

 

It is further recommended that Council decline to accept any tenders in respect to Stage 1, Options 1 and 2 and Stage 2, Options 1 and 2.

 

BACKGROUND

The West Busselton seawall is a strategic coastal protection structure for West Busselton, constructed in the 1970s and aligned along Geographe Bay Road. The seawall provides protection to Geographe Bay Road and the adjacent Dual Use Path. The seawall is approximately 600m long and extends west from Craig Street Groyne to approximately in line with Earnshaw Road.

 

The overall condition of the seawall has deteriorated over time due to high water levels and a number of large winter storm events in recent years. There is an ongoing risk that the Dual Use Path and Geographe Bay Road will become undermined and damaged as the seawall progressively deteriorates.

 

Two existing timber groynes (refurbished in 2016) and submerged Longard tubes (constructed late 1970s) have provided varying degrees of coastal stabilisation to the beach since construction. The Longard tubes are now buried and may be uncovered during the works. There are also remnants of two timber groynes (c1980s) on the eastern end of the wall that may be uncovered during the works.

 


 

On 27 November 2020, tenders were invited (via Tenderlink) for the upgrade of the existing seawall between Bower Street and Earnshaw Road (West Busselton).  The RFT closed on 22 December 2020, with three submissions received.

 

Respondents initially were asked to price two options for Stages 1 and 2, stage 1 being the refurbishment of the eastern 460m length of the structure between Bower Street and Earnshaw Road (West Busselton), and stage 2 the refurbishment of 150m of the structure between the two timber groynes. See figure 1 below.

 

Stage 1 is on budget this financial year and stage 2 has been included in the Long Term Financial Plan for the 21/22 Financial Year.

 

                                                                                                                          

Figure 1 West Busselton Seawall Refurbishment Proposed Staging

The two initial options were:

·        Option 1: Re-use existing ironstone and import additional ironstone armour rock;

•          Option 2: Re-use existing ironstone and import additional granite armour rock.

The evaluation panel and the Contract and Tendering Officer met on Thursday 14 January 2021 to discuss the submissions received. The tender prices received for both options were in excess of the current available project budget. The CEO was advised of this and a briefing was arranged for Council to discuss the different materials used for constructing seawalls, their cost and expected useful life.

Following the Council briefing on 20 January 2021, officers issued all tenderers with an addendum, requesting them to complete a pricing schedule for a third option for stage 1 only. As outlined below, this option proposed use of a more cost effective combination of materials to provide for an aesthetic and durable granite veneer seawall:

·        Stage 1 - Option 3: Re-use existing ironstone, import additional ironstone armour rock and import additional granite armour rock to provide a granite veneer seawall.

 

The addendum was sent out on 25 January 2021 and respondents had until close of business 5 February 2021 to return the pricing schedule. All stages and options were evaluated together.

OFFICER COMMENT

The City received three compliant tender submissions from the following companies:

 

·        BCP Contractors Pty Ltd;

·        Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd; and

·        Neo Civil Pty Ltd.

 

Assessment Process

In accordance with the City’s procurement practices and procedures, tender assessments were carried out by a tender evaluation panel comprising City officers and an independent evaluation panel member with relevant skills and experience.

 

The tender assessment process included:

·        Assessing tenders received against relevant compliance criteria. The compliance criteria were not point scored. Each submission was assessed on a Yes/No basis as to whether each criterion was satisfactorily met. All tenders were deemed compliant.

·        Assessing tenders against the following qualitative criteria (weighted as indicated in the table below):

Criteria

Weighting

(a)

Relevant Experience

20%

(b)

Local Content

5%

(b)

Key Personnel Skills and Experience

15%

(c)

Tenderer’s Resources

10%

(d)

Demonstrated Understanding

10%

 

The qualitative criteria were scored depending on the extent to which each tenderer was able to appropriately satisfy each criteria. The tendered prices were then assessed together with the weighted qualitative criteria and the tenders scored and ranked to determine the most advantageous outcome to the City, based on principles of best value for money. That is, although price was a consideration, the tender containing the lowest price will not necessarily be accepted by the City and nor will the tender ranked the highest on the qualitative criteria.


 

Summary of Assessment Outcomes

The outcome of the evaluation panel’s assessment was as follows:

Rank

Company

Summary

 

1.

 

Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd

 

The submission addressed all five of the qualitative criteria in detail. 

 

Relevant experience was demonstrated on four similar projects; City of Busselton - Coastal Protection Works - that included a seawall refurbishment along Geographe Bay Road - Craig Street, Falcon Bay Seawall, 65m long seawall, Augusta Boat Harbour Development - Department of Transport, and Abbey Boat Ramp and Rock Protection - City of Busselton.

 

The submission demonstrated a high level of relevant experience amongst their personnel, and substantial plant including mobile plant and trucks, and maintenance capacity.  There was a demonstrated understanding of the requirements provided though a detailed construction methodology.  Detailed information was also provided on service locations and traffic management for the hauling of rock material to site.  They noted lead times on the supply of geotextile material and the supply of ironstone.  Local benefit was demonstrated.

 

 

2.

 

BCP Contractors Pty Ltd

 

The submission addressed all five of the qualitative criteria in detail. 

 

Relevant experience was demonstrated with a total of six similar projects successfully completed. Five of the six projects were local to the City of Busselton. The sixth project is the Culham Inlet Crossing Reconstruction project in the Shire of Ravensthorpe. Experience with the following materials was noted - laterite, granite and Geosynthetic Sand Container (GSC).

 

Most key personnel have been involved in relevant projects and allocation to the project was clearly identified.  Substantial plant including mobile plant and trucks, and maintenance capacity was demonstrated.  There was a demonstrated understanding of the requirements though a detailed construction methodology which included construction staging, key hold points, critical risks for the project, methodologies for latent conditions, project execution plan and specific scope of works. The respondent did not provide details of how they will be accessing the site and possible locations of the site compound.  Local benefit was demonstrated.

 

 

 

3.

 

Neo  Civil Pty Ltd

The submission only addressed four of the five qualitative criteria in detail.

 

In terms of relevant experience the respondent listed the completion of twelve similar projects including projects at the Shire of Gingin - Seabird foreshore - construction of armoured seawall, the City of Albany - Middleton Beach Foreshore Redevelopment  - rock and concrete seawall, the City of Mandurah - Falcon Bay Seawall, the City of Busselton - Dunsborough Sewall - 170m GSC Seawall, the Shire of Coolgardie - Kambalda West Weir Dam, and Chevron - Thevenard Island - GSC – Seawall.  Other listed projects were for the City of Rockingham, City of Albany, City of Mandurah, SMC Marine, Shire of Gingin and City of Geraldton.

 

The submission indicated a relatively large number of organisational personnel including site supervisors, operators and engineering support. Specific project roles were not clear.  There was modest plant demonstrated, based in the Perth region.  A comprehensive construction methodology was provided including a program indicating the works will be completed before Easter 2021. Given lead time for procurement of some of the material, this time frame might not be achievable. The source for ironstone was uncertain. No direct local community benefit was identified

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the combination of price and the qualitative criteria it is recommended that the tender from Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd for Stage 1, Option 3 be endorsed as the Successful Tenderer and that Council decline to accept any tenders in respect to Stage 1, Options 1 and 2 and Stage 2, Options 1 and 2.

Statutory Environment

In accordance with section 3.57 of the Act, a local government is required to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods and service. Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996:

•          requires that tenders be publicly invited for such contracts where the estimated cost of providing the required goods and/or service exceeds $250,000; and

•          under Regulations 11, 14, 18, 20 and 21A, provides the statutory framework for inviting and assessing tenders and awarding contracts pursuant to this process.

 

With regard to the RFT, City officers have complied with abovementioned legislative requirements.

 

As the Contract value is greater than $500,000, and in accordance with section 5.43(b) of the Act and Council delegation DA 1-07, Council endorsement of the Successful Tenderer is required.

 

Section 6.8 of the 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's purchasing policies, regional price preference, occupational health and safety, asset management, engineering technical standards and specifications were all relevant to the RFT, and have been adhered to in the process of requesting and evaluating tenders.

Financial Implications

The project/procurement will be funded from Craig Street Groyne and Seawall which has a budget allocation of $660,000 (cost code 510 C2528 3280 0000), and a recommended draw down from the Climate Adaptation Reserve of $298,975. A budget amendment as per Table 1 is recommended for that purpose. 

Planned Amendment Item

Table 1:

 

Cost Code

 

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

 

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended

Budget ($)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

 

510-C2528-3280-0000

 

Craig Street Groyne and Seawall

 

660,0000

 

958,975

 

298,975

Reserve

 

 

 

 

102-9103

Transfer    from Climate Adaptation Reserve

(660,000)

(958,975)

(298,975)

Net Total

$0

$0

$0

 

The Climate Adaptation Reserve currently has an available balance of $525,155 estimated at the end of the 2020/21 financial year, assuming that all projects funded from the reserve are completed on budget.

 

Therefore, with the proposed amendment, the balance of the Climate Adaptation Reserve would be $226,180.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The RFT was advertised in the ‘West Australian’ newspaper on 28 November 2020 and uploaded to TenderLink on 27 November 2020. The closing time and date for lodgement of a response was 2.00pm (AWST) on Tuesday 22 December 2019. Officers have undertaken reference checks of the preferred tenderer.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer's recommendation has been undertaken using the City's risk assessment framework, with the intention being to identify risks which, following implementation of controls, are identified as medium or greater. There are no such risks identified, with the Successul Tenderer assessed as being capable of delivering the services to a suitable service level.


 

Options

The Council may consider the following alternate options:

1.         To award the tender to an alternative tenderer/s. In the view of the officers, this could result in the tender being awarded to a tenderer that is not most advantageous to the City.

2.         To not award the tender. This would mean going back out to tender, resulting in significant delays to the contract award and potential significant delays to the delivery of the West Busselton Seawall Upgrade.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council accept the tender of Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd as the most advantageous to the City, subject to minor variations to be negotiated by the CEO, not exceeding the overall project budget. A budget amendment is also requested.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should Council adopt the officer recommendation, it is anticipated that the contract for construction of Stage 1 of the West Busselton Seawall Upgrade will commence during March 2021 and be completed by mid - June 2021, weather permitting.


Council                                                                                      483                                                           24 February 2021

15.             Community and Commercial Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      486                                                           24 February 2021

16.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

16.1           NEW REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2021

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Model Code of Conduct

BUSINESS UNIT

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

Executive: Substantial direction setting, including adopting budgets, strategies, plans and policies (excluding local planning policies); funding, donations and sponsorships; reviewing committee recommendations

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Complaints Form (Model Code of Conduct)  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Authorise the Chief Executive Officer for the purposes of receiving complaints and withdrawal of complaints in accordance with Schedule 1, Clause 11(3) of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations);

2.         Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to appoint one or more persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints in accordance with Schedule 1, Clause 11(3) of the Regulations;

3.         Approve the form as at Attachment A as the form in which complaints of alleged breaches of the Code may be received;

4.         Notes that the CEO will hold a briefing with Councillors to consider any additional behavior requirements for incorporation into the Code of Conduct and present the Code of Conduct for adoption prior to 3 May 2021.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks to authorise the Chief Executive Officer for the purposes of receiving complaints and the withdrawal of complaints in accordance with Schedule 1, Clause 11(3) of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) and also delegates to the CEO the power to appoint one or more other persons to receive complaints of alleged breaches of the model Code of Conduct (Model Code) and, once adopted, the City’s Code of Conduct.  This report also seeks Council endorsement of the form in which complaints of alleged breaches may be received (Attachment A).

 

BACKGROUND

The new Regulations were gazetted and came into effect Wednesday 3 February 2021. Local Governments are required, to adopt a Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates (the Code) within three months of gazettal (being 3 May 2021), as per Section 5.104 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) and the Regulations.

 

Under the Regulations, local governments are required to authorise one or more persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints, and approve a complaint form in which complaints of alleged breaches of the Code (or in the interim the Model Code) may be made.

OFFICER COMMENT

It is recommended that the CEO be authorised for the purposes of receiving and withdrawing complaints of alleged breaches of the Model Code and the Code, and further, that the CEO be delegated the power to appoint one or more other persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints.

 

A form for receipt of complaints of alleged breaches has been modelled on the template form provided by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (Attachment A).

 

Section 5.104(4) of the Act prescribes that a local government cannot include in an adopted code of conduct any provisions in addition to the principles referred to in Section 5.103(2)(a), that is the general principles to guide behaviour , or the rules of conduct. Additional behaviours may however, in accordance with 5.104(3), be included, with any additional behaviours subject to the complaints process. 

 

Officers propose to hold a briefing with Councillors on the Code and any additional behaviours to be included.  Following the briefing officers will finalise the Code and return it to Council for adoption, prior to 3 May 2021. In accordance with section 5.104 of the Act, until such time that the Council adopt the Code, the Model Code will be taken to be the City’s adopted Code of Conduct.

Statutory Environment

The adoption of the City of Busselton Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates is required under sections 5.103 and 5.014 of the Act and the new Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2020.

 

Schedule 1, Division 3, clause 11(3) of the Regulations requires Council to authorise one or more persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints, while clause 11(2)(a) requires the approval of a form for the receiving of complaints.

 

Section 5.42 of the Act provides for duties and powers to be delegated to the CEO, other than those referred to in section 5.43 of the Act.

Relevant Plans and Policies

There are no relevant plans or policies to consider in relation to this matter.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.


 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council could:

1.         Choose not to delegate to the CEO the authority to appoint one or more persons to receive complaints and instead authorise only the CEO as the person to receive complaints.

2.         Request amendments to be made to the form in which complaints of alleged breaches of the Code may be received.

CONCLUSION

This report seeks Council authorisation of the Chief Executive Officer for the purposes of receiving complaints and the withdrawal of complaints and the delegation of power to the CEO to appoint one or more other persons to receive complaints of alleged breaches of the model Code of Conduct (Model Code) and, once adopted, the City’s Code of Conduct. This report also seeks Council endorsement of the form in which complaints of alleged breaches may be received (Attachment A).

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Immediately upon endorsement, the CEO will be authorised for the purposes of receiving and withdrawing complaints and the form in which complaints will be received will be approved.  


Council

488

24 February 2021

16.1

Attachment a

Complaints Form (Model Code of Conduct)

 



Council                                                                                      491                                                           24 February 2021

16.2           CITY MANAGED AUTOMATIC WEATHER STATIONS

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6.4 Assets are well maintained and responsibly managed.

SUBJECT INDEX

Governance

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

Executive: Substantial direction setting, including adopting budgets, strategies, plans and policies (excluding local planning policies); funding, donations and sponsorships; reviewing committee recommendations

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Response Letter BOM

Attachment b    MEA Weather Station  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Acknowledge the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BOM) response to the City’s request for establishment of additional weather stations in Busselton and Dunsborough;

2.         Further consider the procurement and installation of two automated weather stations, one in Busselton and one in Dunsborough, as part of its 2021/2022 budget deliberation process.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the General Meeting of Electors held on 2 December 2019, the following motion was carried:

That the City of Busselton take the necessary steps to request that the WA Bureau of Metrology establish an office weather station in the Busselton CBD.

 

In response, Council resolved to write to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) seeking the establishment of a weather station in a central location in both Busselton and Dunsborough. This report provides Council with the BOM’s feedback, outcomes of research undertaken into the City procuring and managing its own weather stations, and recommends that the Council further consider the procurement and installation of two automated weather stations as part of its 2021/2022 budget deliberations.

 

BACKGROUND

At the General Meeting of Electors held on 2 December 2019, the following motion was carried:

That the City of Busselton take the necessary steps to request that the WA Bureau of Metrology establish an office weather station in the Busselton CBD.

 

In response, Council considered the motion at its Ordinary Council meeting of 29 January 2020 and resolved (C2001/023):

 

That the Council:

1.         Note the following Motion carried at the General Meeting of Electors, 2 December 2019 (C1912/245):

That the City of Busselton take the necessary steps to request that the WA Bureau of Meteorology establish an office weather station in the Busselton CBD;

 

2.         Request the CEO to write to the Bureau of Meteorology seeking the establishment of a weather station on the City of Busselton Civic and Administration Centre or at another suitable and central location; and

3.         Additionally request the CEO to write to the Bureau of Meteorology seeking the establishment of a weather station at a suitable and central location in the Dunsborough town centre.

 

Officers wrote to the BOM on 28 February 2020 and received a response dated 22 June 2020 (Attachment A).  In brief, the BOM declined the City’s request on the basis that the City of Busselton already has two weather stations that cover all of the intended services, and Dunsborough also has its own. The BOM advised that the City could explore buying its own automated weather station, the details from which can be hosted on their Weather on the Web (WOW) website.  

OFFICER COMMENT

Busselton’s weather is currently recorded by the weather station at Busselton Margaret River Regional Airport, located 10.6 kilometres from the centre of Busselton (as per the Busselton GPO). There is also a weather station at the Busselton Jetty however it only records wind.  Up until approximately 2011 there was a weather station at the Busselton Hospital.  In Dunsborough weather is recorded at Cape Naturaliste. 

 

Notwithstanding the BOM’s response, weather conditions can differ between central Busselton and the airport which is further inland on the coastal plain.  Conditions can also differ in Dunsborough to those experienced at Cape Naturaliste.  Officers have therefore undertaken research into the costs and implications of procuring and managing its own automated weather stations. 

 

The standard model recommended by the BOM is the MEA. This the station used by the Department of Primary and Regional Industries and is designed for general purpose applications. It is supplied in a largely built up form, and is attached to a 1.5m in-ground post (not provided). The installation of the equipment is not complex.  The attached brochure provides more information (Attachment B). While there are alternative models available, officers have based their considerations on this model.

 

The MEA station transmits data to a web app called Green Brain. The BOM however have referred to a website called WOW. The WOW website is a BOM affiliated website and has significantly more weather data, both from BOM and from private weather stations.  It is therefore recommended that the data from any automated weather station be pushed to the WOW website.  An upload link would need to be configured by IT for this purpose.  A link to the WOW website would be placed on the City’s website and promoted through facebook and the City’s Bay to Bay publication. 

 

The approximate cost per station based on the MEA quotation is as follows:

 

Item

Cost (ex GST)

Station

(including upgraded wind sensors due to the coastal location)

$7890

Yearly Subscription

(for telemetry and website maintenance) – while the website aspect would not be needed this is part of the fixed cost quoted

$350

Timber Crate (refundable once returned)

$300

Freight (approx.)

$120

TOTAL

$8,660 (plus installation and maintenance)

 

Additional (in-house) installation costs, including time to configure the upload link, are estimated at $500 per station. Ongoing maintenance is estimated at approximately one hour per month, with replacement of each station every 3 to 5 years.

 

While the BOM have indicated that Busselton and Dunsborough are adequately serviced in terms of official weather stations, they have suggested that the City consider setting up their own weather stations. The costs to do so are not significant, and establishing a data link to the WOW website is reasonably straightforward. The costs are not provided for in the current financial year budget however; given this, it is recommended that Council do not proceed with the project this financial year, but that they further consider it as part of their 2021/2022 budget deliberations.

Statutory Environment

The officer recommendation supports the general function of a local government under the Local Government Act 1995 to provide for the good government of persons in its district.

Relevant Plans and Policies

There are no relevant plans or policies to consider in relation to this matter.

Financial Implications

There are no immediate financial implications associated with the officer recommendation. If Council choose to proceed with establishing the weather stations in 2021/2022 a budget allocation of $17,000 would be required in the facilities budget.

Stakeholder Consultation

The BOM was consulted in relation to the matter, as detailed within the report.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council could purchase an automated weather station for Busselton and for Dunsborough in the current 2020/2021 financial year using the Council contingency budget allocation.

CONCLUSION

The BOM have advised that both Busselton and Dunsborough are adequately serviced by the current official weather stations. The City can however procure and manage its own additional stations, and officers recommend that Council give further consideration to this as part of the 2021/2022 budget deliberations.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The Council resolution will be implemented as part of the 2021/2022 budget workshops in May 2021.  


Council

493

24 February 2021

16.2

Attachment a

Response Letter BOM

 



Council

495

24 February 2021

16.2

Attachment b

MEA Weather Station

 


 


Council                                                                                      497                                                           24 February 2021

17.             Chief Executive Officers Report

17.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Councillors' Information Bulletin

BUSINESS UNIT

Executive Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Reporting Officers - Various

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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

17.1.1       Current Active Tenders

17.1.2       Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund – January 2021

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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       Current Active Tenders

 

Note: Information in italics has previously been provided to Council, and is again provided for completeness.

 

EOI02/20 CONSTRUCTION OF BUSSELTON PERFORMING ARTS AND CONVENTION CENTRE

·    Requirement – the construction of the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre.

·    An Expression of Interest was advertised on 11 July 2020 with a closing date of 11 August 2020.

·    Seven submissions were received.

·    The CEO under delegation has shortlisted all seven respondents as acceptable tenderers. 

·    The original timeframe for issuing the Request for Tender to the shortlisted tenderers was December 2020, but has since been revised to the first quarter of 2021.

 


 

RFT08/20 WEST BUSSELTON SEAWALL REFURBISHMENT

·    Requirement - refurbishment of approximately 460m of the existing rock seawall along Geographe Bay Road between Bower Street and Earnshaw Road.

·    A request for tender was advertised on 28 November 2020 and closed on 22 December 2020. 

·    Three tenders have been received and are currently being evaluated.

·    The value of the contract is likely to exceed the CEO’s current delegated authority.

·    A report will be presented to Council for consideration at the 24 February 2021 meeting. 

 

RFT09-20 CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT

·    Requirement – construction superintendent services for the construction phase of the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre.

·    A request for tender was advertised on 9 December 2020 and closed on 12 January 2021.

·         The value of the contract was within the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders (DA 1 – 07 Inviting, Rejecting and Accepting Tenders).

·    11 tenders have been received. 

·    Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) Pty Ltd was selected as preferred tenderer.

·    Pursuant to the CEO’s delegated power the City entered into a contract with the preferred tenderer.

 

RFT01-21 MITCHELL PARK UPGRADE

·    Requirement - a contractor to carry out civil and landscaping works as part of the Mitchell Park Upgrade.

·    A request for tender was advertised on 16 January 2021 and closed on 16 February 2021. 

·    The value of the contract is expected to exceed the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders (DA 1 – 07 Inviting, Rejecting and Accepting Tenders).

·    A report to Council for deciding which tender to accept will be included in the 24 February 2021 Council meeting agenda.

 

PQS01/21 PEST AND WEED CONTROL SERVICES

·    Requirement: To establish a panel of pre-qualified suppliers for provision of pest and weed control services as follows:

¾  Pest and weed control within City urban areas, including road verges, cycleways, footpaths, kerb-lines, drainage infrastructure and public open space.

¾  Pest and weed control within City rural areas, including road verges, cycleways, footpaths, kerb-lines, drainage infrastructure and public open space.

¾  Inspection of and pest and weed control at various bridge infrastructure managed by the City.

·    An invitation to apply was advertised on 6 February 2021 and closed on 23 February 2021.

·    Applications will be evaluated and the panel of pre-qualified supplier will be established by the CEO under delegation DA 1 – 10 Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers.

 

17.1.2       Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund – January 2021

0 applications were processed in January 2021. 

 

 


Council                                                                                      498                                                           24 February 2021

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil

 

19.             urgent business

 

20.             Confidential Matters

Nil 

 

21.             Closure