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

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES OF THE Council MEETING HELD ON 24 August 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening / aCKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Visitors / DISCLAIMER / NOTICE OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS. 2

2....... Attendance. 2

3....... Prayer. 3

4....... Application for Leave of Absence. 3

5....... Disclosure Of Interests. 3

6....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 3

7....... Question Time For Public. 3

8....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 7

Previous Council Meetings. 7

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 11 August 2021. 7

Committee Meetings. 7

8.2          Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 11 August 2021. 7

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 7

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 7

11..... Items brought forward.. 8

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 8

12.1        Finance Committee - 11/8/2021 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - JUNE 2021. 9

12.2        Finance Committee - 11/8/2021 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 30 JUNE 2021. 27

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 65

ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH  BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION (WITHOUT DEBATE). 71

14.1        RFT 13/21 TURF MAINTENANCE SERVICES AWARD OF TENDER. 71

ITEMS for debate. 76

13.1        BUSHFIRE NOTICE REVIEW - CONSULTATION AND NEXT STEPS. 76

13.2        RECONSIDERATION - DA 21/0043.01 - 22 MANSON STREET, WEST BUSSELTON.. 105

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 139

19..... urgent business. 140

19.1        COUNCILLOR SUE RICCELLI - REMOTE ATTENDANCE. 140

20..... Confidential Reports. 144

21..... Closure. 144

 


Council                                                                                      3                                                                    24 August 2021

MINUTES

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 24 August 2021 AT 5.30pm.

1.               Declaration of Opening / aCKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Visitors / DISCLAIMER / NOTICE OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS

The Presiding Member opened the meeting at 5.30pm.

The Presiding Member noted this meeting is held on the lands of the Wadandi people and acknowledged them as Traditional Owners, paying respect to their Elders, past and present, and Aboriginal Elders of other communities who may be present.

2.               Attendance

Presiding Member:

Members:

 

Cr Grant Henley     Mayor

Cr Kelly Hick          Deputy Mayor (By remote attendance)

Cr Sue Riccelli

Cr Ross Paine

Cr Kate Cox

Cr Paul Carter

Cr Phill Cronin

Cr Jo Barrett-Lennard

Cr Lyndon Miles

 

Officers:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Mrs Emma Heys, Governance Coordinator

Ms Melissa Egan, Governance Officer

 

Apologies:

 

Nil

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

Media:

 

0

 

Public:

 

9

3.               Prayer

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Nathan Seinemeier of the Cornerstone Church.

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

Nil

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

The Mayor noted that a declaration of financial interest had been received from Cr Paul Carter in relation to Agenda Item 14.1 ‘RFT 13/21 Turf Maintenance Services Award of Tender’.

 

The Mayor advised that, in accordance with regulation 22(2)(a) of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021, this declaration would be read out immediately before Item 14.1 was discussed.

 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

Nil

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Question Time for Public

 

7.1             Mrs Michelle Shackleton

 

Question

I note that the Jetstar subsidy is contracted to run for three years. What dates does the three year contract arrangement commence and terminate?

 

Response

(Mrs Naomi Searle, Director Community and Commercial Services)

The subsidy commences from the date of the commencement of services. The term remains for three years, but the term is calculated on the number of flights. 157 flights per year need to be conducted, so the subsidy may roll over a calendar year.

 

Question

The Shire of Augusta Margaret River have committed to contributing $25,000 over five years. Is that on a similar basis or is it annually?

 

Response

(Mrs Searle)

It is on an annual basis and we will receive the first instalment of that funding in the first year of regular public transport operations.

 


 

Question

What is the City’s total rate revenue growth, without the rate increase, this financial year?

 

Response

(Mr Tony Nottle, Director Finance and Corporate Services)

The interim rates is $610,000, approximately. I will get an exact price for you.

 

Question

What is the additional revenue which the City will receive this financial year from the increases in fees and charges?

 

Response

(Mayor)

We will take that on notice.

 

Question

At the Electors Meeting of 2 December 2019, an elector asked whether Council intended to proceed with the traffic roundabout at Victoria Square, to which the Mayor responded that there were no plans. What happened and when did the Council change their mind?

 

Response

(Mayor)

It was part of a strategy to address traffic issues in and around the town centre and broader. The idea of using the area around Victoria Square as a large dispersal roundabout was brought forward by the Engineering Department, however, on further examination, it was not carried through. 

 

Question

In the City’s Capital Acquisition report, it states that the Cabarita Road public open space (POS) upgrade was allocated $100,000 in the budget. That was later written down to $28,141 and, by the end of the financial year, the actual outlay was zero. What was planned for the reserve, why was it scaled down and then later rubbed out?

 

Response

(Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services)

I will take that on notice.

 

 

7.2             Mr Gordon Bleechmore

 

Question

In regards to the BEACH, and whether it was a priority project in the [South West Regional] Blueprint, I will ask the CEO what is his definition of a “priority project”? 

 

Response

(Mr Archer)

It is a project that the Council had asked for the South West Development Commission to be placed into their Blueprint. The Blueprint says on page 76 “Delivery Actions, one to two three years, construct a performing arts academy in the Cultural Precinct”. Under the heading “Regional Priorities - Tourism” it says “in the years one to three, regional priorities – build convention facilities at Margaret River and Busselton and incorporate into an international convention marketing strategy”.

 

 

In 2014, there was a resolution of Council [C1407/187] that clearly said it was a priority project for this district, that it be put down at the cultural precinct, and that we seek funding. At the time, we were considering three priority projects - performing arts, the Airport and the Foreshore. It was a question of which one we could get funded first.

 

 

7.3             Mr Kevin Strapp

 

Question

Have these architects, quantity surveyors, contractors and the like, who are no doubt involved if the BEACH gets up, being stood down and the staff involved that accepted that advice being stood down, yes or no? 

 

Response

No response required. Mr Strapp retracted the question.

 

 

7.4             Ms Anne Ryan

 

Question

On 6 July 2020, the ‘Mail’ newspaper stated that the Eastern Link was officially opened to road users and Deputy Mayor Cr Kelly Hick was quoted as saying the project was delivered on budget and on time. Is this not misleading the ratepayers on both counts?

 

Response

(Mayor)

I don't think it is misleading the ratepayers, because the scope of works changed during the project.

 

Response

(Mr Darby)

Ms Ryan may be referring to documentation with regards to the initial tenders that went out on the Eastern Link, which were significantly over budget. We then altered the tender by using a different, specific type of contractor, because there are different types of contractors that can build bridges, as approved by Main Roads. We went out to tender again. A local company was awarded the contract and they came in on or around the appropriate budget. I can provide more clarification on that. 

 

Question

A newspaper article dated 11 September 2002, with the headline “Ford Road Appeal Win”, says the Appeals Committee report recommended that the Shire be allowed to appeal the EPA’s decision to not approve the construction of Ford Road for the Eastern Link, subject to a number of conditions. Haven’t you misled ratepayers?

 

Response

(Mayor)

No. It was approved with conditions that were appealed. It was never fully approved. 

 


 

Question

What confidence should ratepayers have in the City to deliver the BEACH project on time and on budget, let alone the annual projected losses of $1.2 million, based on this information? 

 

Response

(Mayor)

We will do our best endeavours to do that.


 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 11 August 2021

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/180           Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 11 August 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 9/0

 

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 11 August 2021

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/181           Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 11 August 2021 be noted.

CARRIED 9/0

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil

 

Presentations

 

Mr Shane Byrne spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.2 ‘Reconsideration – DA 210043.01 – 22 Manson Street, West Busselton’. Mr Byrne was opposed to the officer recommendation.

 

Mr Duncan Gardner spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Bushfire Review – Consultation and Next Steps’. Mr Gardner was generally opposed to the officer recommendation.

 

Deputations

 

Nil

 

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

Nil

 

11.             Items brought forward

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION

At this juncture the Mayor advised the meeting that, with the exception of the items identified to be withdrawn for discussion, the remaining reports, including the Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc, i.e. all together.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/182              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Committee Recommendations for items 12.1 and 12.2 and the Officer Recommendation for item 17.1  be carried en bloc:

12.1        Finance Committee - 11/8/2021 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - JUNE 2021

12.2        Finance Committee - 11/8/2021 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 30 JUNE 2021

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      10                                                                 24 August 2021

12.1           Finance Committee - 11/8/2021 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - JUNE 2021

STRATEGIC THEME

LEADERSHIP - A Council that connects with the community and is accountable in its decision making.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

4.2 Deliver governance systems that facilitate open, ethical and transparent decision making.

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

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   List of Payments - June 2021  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 11/8/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

The committee recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/183              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council notes payment of voucher numbers M118826 – M118860, EF079829 – EF080582, T7563 – T7565, DD004509 – DD004559, as well as payroll payments, together totalling $10,084,386.60.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council notes payment of voucher numbers M118826 – M118860, EF079829 – EF080582, T7563 – T7565, DD004509 – DD004559, as well as payroll payments, together totalling $10,084,386.60.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of June 2021, 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 June 2021 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 June 2021 is presented for information.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.


Council

13

24 August 2021

12.1

Attachment a

List of Payments - June 2021

 

















Council                                                                                      48                                                                 24 August 2021

12.2           Finance Committee - 11/8/2021 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 30 JUNE 2021

STRATEGIC THEME

LEADERSHIP - A Council that connects with the community and is accountable in its decision making.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

4.2 Deliver governance systems that facilitate open, ethical and transparent decision making.

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 June 2021

Attachment b    Statement of Financial Activity - 30 June 2021  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 11/8/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

The committee recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/184              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 30 June 2021, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 30 June 2021, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

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 30 June 2021.

 


 

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 1996, 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 can be provided as required to further supplement the information comprised within the statutory financial reports.

 

Comments on Financial Activity to 30 June 2021

The Statement of Financial Activity (FAS) for the year to date (YTD) shows an overall Net Current Position of $2.45M as opposed to the amended budget of $643K. This represents a positive variance of $1.8M YTD.  This variance represents a decrease of $15.3M from $17.1M at the end of May.  

 

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

 

4.18%

3,155,707

517,837

1.    Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

6,903,317

4,782,445

4,782,445

44.35%

2,120,872

546,641

2.    Other Revenue

551,450

424,730

424,730

29.84%

126,720

(89,254)

3.    Interest Earnings

870,759

1,046,684

1,046,684

(16.81%)

(175,925)

(20,582)

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

 

4.12%

3,386,233

(1,148,221)

4.    Other Expenditure

(2,599,852)

(5,236,779)

(5,236,779)

50.35%

2,636,927

1,583,138

5.    Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

20,309,932

34,487,199

34,487,199

(41.11%)

(14,177,267)

(5,546,267)

Capital Revenue & (Expenditure)

 

8.96%

3,449,143

(10,375,149)

6.    Land & Buildings

(3,568,495)

(17,454,059)

(17,454,059)

79.55%

13,885,564

8,159,622

Plant & Equipment

(1,324,192)

(2,510,340)

(2,510,340)

47.25%

1,186,148

(52,902)

Infrastructure

(22,065,182)

(40,406,675)

(40,406,675)

45.39%

18,341,493

3,117,518

7.    Proceeds from Sale of Assets

647,517

581,500

581,500

11.35%

66,017

307,762


 

8.    Proceeds from New Loans

110,000

7,700,000

7,700,000

(98.57%)

(7,590,000)

110,000

9.    Advances to Community Groups

(110,000)

(200,000)

(200,000)

45.00%

90,000

(110,000)

10.  Transfer to Restricted Assets

(9,067,466)

(62,750)

(62,750)

(14350.14%)

(9,004,716)

(3,602,103)

11.  Transfer from Restricted Assets

7,252,387

2,807,074

2,807,074

158.36%

4,445,313

3,406,156

12.  Transfer to Reserves

(23,719,860)

(20,025,834)

(20,025,834)

(18.45%)

(3,694,026)

(3,717,696)

13.  Transfer from Reserves

20,781,683

35,200,476

35,200,476

(40.96%)

(14,418,794)

(17,985,610)

 

Revenue from Ordinary Activities

In total, revenue from Ordinary Activities is $3.2M, or 4.2%, ahead of budget YTD. The material variance items contributing to this include:

 

1.     Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

Ahead of YTD budget by $2.1M, or 44.4%, 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

2,765,290

1,737,490

1,027,800

37.17%

980,253

10510

Governance Support Services – State Government Operating Grants

 -

20,400

(20,400)

(100.00%)

(1,700)

Each year the City takes on a disability trainee. At the time of setting the budget, it is not known where this person may be placed, so the reimbursement from the State Government is budgeted in this area. The trainee was actually placed at the GLC, with all associated actual wage costs and reimbursements allocated to this area.

10152

Other General Purpose Funding –

Financial Assistance Grants

2,369,264

1,394,881

974,383

41.13%

945,145

Actual grants received are higher than originally budgeted due to the prepayment of approximately half of the 21/22 year grant.  It is never known at the time of budgeting whether or not the commission will prepay any portion, so a normal full year is always budgeted.  The prepaid portion is transferred to reserves and budgeted to be drawn down during the 21/22 financial year.  As such, although revenue appears to be significantly higher than budget, due to the restriction of the prepaid component the net impact on the year-end Net Current Position is nil.

10151

Rates Administration – Reimbursements – Legal Fees

61,845

31,600

30,245

48.90%

17,386

There has been a much higher than expected requirement for debt recovery services in relation to overdue rates.  Legal costs for this process are reimbursed by the ratepayers involved. 

10200

Financial Services – Reimbursements

122,650

104,900

17,750

14.47%

(4,093)

The surplus to budget at year end is due to $8.4K more in insurance reimbursements, which are inherently difficult to predict, plus a miscellaneous reimbursement of $11.4K from the ANZ Bank for overcharged merchant fees.

10500

Legal and Compliance Services - Reimbursements

36,311

5,750

30,561

84.16%

22,165

Higher than expected income in this area is due to legal settlements in the City’s favour. This is not an area that can be forecast with a great deal of accuracy at time of preparing the budget.

10522

Occupational Health & Safety – Reimbursement – Wellness Program

7,160

25,000

(17,840)

(249.16%)

(2,087)

Due to COVID restrictions in the first half of the financial year a number of programs were either not able to proceed or were undersubscribed. With the relaxing of restrictions and returning confidence, staff participation in the various Wellness activities has increased, however it is unlikely that the full budget will be achieved by year end. 

Community and Commercial Services

354,735

254,100

100,635

28.37%

(3,634)

11151

Airport Operations – Contributions

123,000

50,000

73,000

59.35%

22,000

More contributions toward airport marketing have been received from neighbouring local governments and organisations such as the MRBTA than was originally anticipated.

10530

Events & Cultural Services Administration – Parenting Leave Reimbursements

14,655

 -

14,655

100.00%

 -

Parenting leave reimbursement was not planned at the time of the development of the 20/21 budget.

10630

Economic and Business Development Administration – Parenting Leave Reimbursements

9,059

 -

9,059

100.00%

 -

Parenting leave reimbursement was not planned at the time of the development of the 20/21 budget.

Planning and Development Services

1,299,346

1,329,470

(30,124)

(2.32%)

(16,717)

10820

Strategic Planning – State Government Grants

22,500

37,500

(15,000)

(66.67%)

 -

The variation from Strategic Planning budget (Grant $37,500) is due to the total grant ($75,000) being acquitted in three instalments: the first 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 second payment (30%) was received in May 2021 following adoption of the draft CHRMAP for advertising by the Council (OCM 24 February 2021). The final payment of 20% is due once Council adopts 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 31 March 2022. The $15,000 final grant payment will therefore not be paid until FY 21/22.

10925

Preventative Services – CLAG – State Government Grants

32,038

44,370

(12,332)

(38.49%)

 -

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


 

Engineering and Works Services

2,483,946

1,461,385

1,022,561

41.17%

(413,261)

S0076

Kaloorup Road (Stage 1) – Main Roads Operating Grant

 -

267,000

(267,000)

(100.00%)

 -

Works originally budgeted to be completed by April are forecast to be complete in June, however grant acquittal and invoicing cannot be finalised until all billing has been processed and a final reconciliation of works has been completed and signed off.  This has happened with most of the revenue being recognised ($92K carried over), however this is actually a Non-Operating Capital Grant with the budget being incorrectly allocated against operational grants.

W0267

Road Safety Signage Infrastructure – Federal Operating Grant

75,117

97,985

(22,868)

(100.00%)

(22,868)

These works were not completed by the end of the financial year.  $23K in relation to the grant funded portion has been carried over.

11160

Busselton Jetty – Contributions

842,772

859,400

(16,628)

(100.00%)

(429,700)

Contributions from BJINC slightly less than budgeted. The final amount to be received is not known until after year-end review of the Jetty financials, which is well after the budget is set.

11162

Busselton Jetty - Underwater Observatory – Reimbursement of Utilities Charges

25,969

 -

25,969

100.00%

1,726

The City recoups both electricity and sewer service charges from Busselton Jetty Inc. Due to an administrative oversight, this item has not been budgeted, however there is a nil impact on the municipal net current position due to this income being put into the Jetty reserve.  This offsets the costs which are also put into the reserve.  YTD also contains an insurance re-imbursement of $14K for damage to the UPS during storm events in May 2020.

11300

Sanitation Waste Services  Administration – Parenting Leave Reimbursements

13,570

 -

13,570

100.00%

 -

Parenting leave reimbursement was not planned at the time of the development of the 20/21 budget.

11301

Regional Waste Management Administration – Reimbursements

105,919

22,000

83,919

79.23%

8,163

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

11501

Operations Services Works – Insurance Reimbursements

253,793

61,200

192,593

75.89%

(5,013)

Workers compensation claims totalling $254K 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%

 -

Conservation and fire damage works were completed during the year with the insurance claim being 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).

M9999

Road Maintenance Bal Of Budget – Insurance Reimbursements

780,201

 -

780,201

100.00%

2,188

Storm damage claims from the storm events in May 2020.

2.      Other Revenue

Ahead of YTD budget by $127K, or 30%, 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

50,961

33,450

17,511

52.35%

(8,574)

10200

Financial Services – Sundry Income

12,573

200

12,373

6186.34%

(9,400)

Due to workload issues and a change in staff in Planning, there was a delay in on-payment of development application fees to the Department of Planning for fees received from applicants in May. This had not occurred by the end of June but is expected to have been actioned by the end of July.  There was also an unreconciled portion of an overpayment from LGIS for $2K.

Community and Commercial Services

40,811

24,550

16,261

66.24%

(26,666)

10630

Economic and Business Development Administration – LSL Contributions from other LG’s

9,738

 -

9,738

100.00%

 -

Long Service Leave entitlements accrued can be transferred between local governments. At the time of budgeting, it was not known that the City would be employing a person for whom a LSL entitlement would be transferred.

Planning and Development Services

205,367

145,530

59,837

41.12%

(12,246)

10925

Preventative Services –

CLAG – Sundry Income

83,203

4,080

79,123

1939.30%

(331)

Due to the much earlier and more significant onset of the Ross River Virus threat, extra chemical applications were required. Permission was received from the Department of Health to draw extra trust funds for these purposes.

10970

Parking Control –

Parking Fines & Costs

32,903

60,000

(27,097)

(45.16%)

(3,632)

Budgeting for this is always done on a simple historical trend basis, and is never a targeted revenue source.  It is down on budget due to the enforcement team being temporarily understaffed.

Engineering and Works Services

254,311

221,200

33,111

14.97%

(41,767)

11107

Engineering Services Design – LSL Contributions from other LG’s

14,475

 -

14,475

100.00%

 -

Long Service Leave entitlements accrued can be transferred between local governments. At the time of budgeting, it was not known that the City would be employing a person for whom a LSL entitlement would be transferred.

G0030 & G0031

Busselton & Dunsborough  Transfer Station – Sale of Scrap Materials

210,812

196,050

14,762

7.53%

(41,158)

The pricing received for scrap metal has been significantly higher than originally forecast.  As such, higher than predicted volumes have also been delivered to the recyclers to take advantage of this pricing.

 


 

3.      Interest Earnings

Interest earnings is $176K, or 16.8%, behind budget YTD June due to the significantly lower than forecast interest rates, as a result of the COVID pandemic induced economic downturn. The current low interest rate environment has reduced the City’s income in both the current budget period and future years.

 

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

Expenditure from ordinary activities is $3.4M, or 4.1%, less than expected when compared to the budget YTD as at June. The only expense line item on the face of the financial statement that has a YTD variance that meet the material reporting threshold is Other Expenditure.

 

4.    Other Expenditure

$2.6M, or 50.3%, 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

72,279

108,000

35,721

33.1%

3,872

10001

Office of the CEO

71,708

108,000

36,292

33.6%

3,373

The underspend relates to donations contributions and subsidies budget ($8K), CapeROC budget ($20K) and the CEO Discretionary Budget ($8K).

Finance and Corporate Services

851,624

1,114,770

263,146

23.6%

121,836

10000

Members of Council

513,363

550,800

37,437

6.8%

(28,339)

Timing variances exist in relation to the payment of elected member allowances and reimbursements. The main contributors being the elected members training budget underspent by $23K, and no expenditure against the Council Contingency Holding account with a YTD budget of $14K.

10151

Rates Administration

94,102

109,300

15,198

13.9%

(3,306)

Budget variances are due to interim valuation invoices still to be received.

10200

Financial Services

 -

40,900

40,900

100.0%

40,900

The valuation of the City’s Land & Buildings was deferred until the 21/22 financial year to align all asset valuations to the 5 year cycle per the LG Act.  It was also not possible to conduct the valuations in 20/21 year due to COVID related limitations on the availability of valuation consultants in the required timeframe.

10221/27/

28/29/30

Finance & Borrowing Prog 04/11/12/13/14

106,663

231,320

124,657

53.9%

115,660

Notification of the second bi-annual payment of the indicative guarantee for the City’s borrowings through the WA Treasury Corporation, was not received by the end of June. This will therefore be processed in July.

10700

Public Relations

88,713

126,850

38,137

30.1%

(2,423)

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

1,160,011

3,441,809

2,281,798

66.3%

1,274,576

10530

Events & Cultural Services Administration (formerly Community Services Administration)

528,322

751,100

222,778

29.7%

57,824

Funds currently committed from the 2020/21 events budget through multi-year agreements and Rounds 1 and 2 of the Event Sponsorship Program totals $380,562. In addition, $200,000 is allocated towards the development of an electronic events billboard. This leaves a balance of $205,852 in the 2020/21 events budget for any further event attraction or initiatives. This balance includes funds from cancelled events.

Of the $250,000 allocated to the 2020/21 marketing budget, $120,000 has been allocated to the Airport Marketing Reserve, $50,000 to the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC), up to $12,000 had been allocated to update the City’s Events Strategy and up to $5,000 for the update of tourism signage, leaving a balance of $63,000 for any further initiatives. It is recommended that the remaining balance after any further allocations be transferred to the Airport Marketing Reserve.

Of the $40,000 allocated to City run events, a total of $11,684 was spent on seven Sun-Sets on the Bay events in Busselton and Dunsborough. This leaves a balance of $28,316. Pending any further initiatives, the remaining balance at the end of financial year will remain in the Marketing and Area Promotion Reserve.

10532

BPACC Operations

12,018

50,000

37,982

76.0%

(350)

Low cost marketing materials have been developed to date and until final decisions are made regarding the project tenders, no large investments in event attraction will be made.

10547

Iron Man

65

200,000

199,935

100.0%

(65)

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 be completed until later in the calendar year, so will be carried over to the 21/22 budget.

10550

Forrest Rally

 -

12,500

12,500

100.0%

 -

Forrest Rally organisers have advised that the event will not be proceeding from 2020/2021 onwards, therefore these funds will not be expended.

10567

CinefestOZ

80,000

120,000

40,000

33.3%

 -

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.

10630

Economic and Business Development Administration

3,440

55,000

51,560

93.7%

15,654

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, the City budgets 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 relates to cruise ship visitor servicing ($38K), which due to the effects of COVID-19 will not be spent this financial year.

10634

Business Support Program

83,030

106,892

23,862

22.3%

(1,605)

An amount of $19K was not allocated from the total annual budget by year end.

11151

Airport Operations

5,394

1,660,267

1,654,873

99.7%

1,239,408

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


 

Planning and Development Services

161,904

175,000

13,096

7.5%

7,838

10805

Planning Administration

29,148

60,000

30,852

51.4%

5,000

This variance relates to the façade refurbishment program which is not likely to have any additional projects / work costed to it this financial year as the City has not run the program as per normal because of unusually high workloads caused by the building stimulus.

10931

Protective Burning & Firebreaks-Reserves

4,673

17,600

12,927

73.4%

616

Due to the limited seasonal burning opportunities, the budget for catering for the crews has not been spent as expected YTD.

10942

Bushfire Risk Management Planning – DFES

23,466

 -

(23,466)

(100.0%)

 -

This represents repayment of unspent 19/20 BRMP grant funds.

Engineering and Works Services

354,035

397,200

43,165

10.9%

175,016

B1205

Centennial Park – Toilets

76

200,100

200,024

100.0%

200,000

The City’s contribution to the development of the toilets and Café/Kiosk at Centennial Park did not occur in 20/21.  This has been re-listed to proceed in the 21/22 budget.

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.  Final inspection of the toilet facilities was expected late March, after which the invoice should have been forthcoming.  This has been carried over to be paid as part of the 21/22 budget, funded from the year end surplus. 

G0042

BTS External Restoration Works

267,038

50,000

(217,038)

(434.1%)

(24,996)

There was an unforeseen cost increase in groundwater monitoring due to a laboratory error by our third party contractor.

The round of testing conducted in November included the sampling of over 50 groundwater bores, many of which reported “anomalous results”.  The contractor concluded that the lab had made errors in mis-labelling samples, which required re-sampling.

Although the lab did not charge us for additional testing due to their error, the City incurred extra costs when it had to re-engage the contractor to re-test several dozen bores in January.

The City’s Legal department is investigating whether compensation from the contractor can be pursued.

In May, a legal settlement payout that was made in November 2020 was re-allocated from capital per advice from the Office of Auditor General, as these costs are not capital in nature.

 


 

5.   Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

The negative variance of $14.2M is mainly due to the items in the table below. It should be noted that apart from the Locke Estate Contributions variance (due to COVID hardship deferral relief), and the Donated Assets items, any negative variance in this area will approximately correlate to an offsetting positive underspend variance in a capital project tied to these funding sources. This can be seen in the section below that outlines the capital expenditure variances.

Revenue Code

Revenue Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Finance and Corporate Services

46,678

77,370

(30,692)

(39.7%)

(17,370)

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services – Grants Utilised

 -

17,370

(17,370)

(100.0%)

(17,370)

R0288

Locke Estate –

Leaseholder Contributions

46,678

60,000

(13,322)

(22.2%)

 -

Community and Commercial Services

473,919

1,006,261

(532,342)

(52.9%)

(649,530)

10380

Busselton Library –

Grants Utilised

 -

10,000

(10,000)

(100.0%)

(10,000)

10541

Recreation Planning –Grants Utilised

 -

100,000

(100,000)

(100.0%)

(100,000)

11156

Airport Development Operations –

Grants Utilised

199,403

188,100

11,303

6.0%

11,303

B9717

Airport Construction, Existing Terminal Upgrade – Grants Utilised

3,416

42,800

(39,384)

(92.0%)

(39,384)

C6025

Installation of Bird Netting – State Capital Grant

28,270

38,851

(10,581)

(27.2%)

(53,769)

C6026

Airport Car Park Reseal – Grants Utilised

75,127

6,700

68,427

1021.3%

68,427

C6087

Airport Construction Stage 2, Landside Civils & Services Inf –

Grants Utilised

11,382

 -

11,382

100.0%

11,382

C6099

Airport Development - Project Expenses –

Grants Utilised

65,048

520,850

(455,802)

(87.5%)

(455,802)

Planning and Development Services

535,421

1,282,200

(746,779)

(58.2%)

(1,249,258)

10830

Environmental Management Administration –

Grants Utilised

 -

185,000

(185,000)

(100.0%)

(185,000)

B1025

Yallingup Coastal Bushfire Brigade – Donated Assets

10,592

 -

10,592

100.0%

 -

B1029

Busselton SES –

Donated Assets

 -

97,200

(97,200)

(100.0%)

(97,200)

C3223

Dunsborough Non-Potable Water Network –

Federal Capital Grant

516,597

1,000,000

(483,403)

(48.3%)

(967,058)

Engineering and Works Services

19,253,915

32,121,368

(12,867,453)

(40.1%)

(3,630,108)

11101

Environmental Services Administration –

Grants Utilised

 -

30,000

(30,000)

(100.0%)

(30,000)

A0014

Bussell Highway - 0241 – Grants Utilised

 -

744,000

(744,000)

(100.0%)

(744,000)

A0022

Yallingup Beach Road Bridge - 3347 –

Federal Capital Grant

 -

700,000

(700,000)

(100.0%)

(700,000)

A0023

Kaloorup Road Bridge – 3381 – Donated Asset

 -

1,074,000

(1,074,000)

(100.0%)

(138,000)

A0024

Boallia Road Bridge – 4854 – Donated Asset

 -

1,147,000

(1,147,000)

(100.0%)

(138,000)

A0025

Tuart Drive Bridge 0238 – Federal Capital Grant

 -

2,670,330

(2,670,330)

(100.0%)

(2,500,000)

B9407

Busselton Senior Citizens – Developer Cont. Utilised

626,400

738,128

(111,728)

(15.1%)

(544,555)

B9591

Performing Arts Convention Centre – Federal Capital Grant

175,000

5,350,000

(5,175,000)

(96.7%)

 -

B9999

Donated Buildings (Micro-Brewery Public Toilets)

110,000

 -

110,000

100.0%

 -

C0050

Forth Street Groyne Carpark –

Formalise and Seal –

Developer Cont. Utilised

1,151

12,480

(11,329)

(90.8%)

(11,329)

C0051

Vasse Oval Gravel Car Parking - Dawson (Eastern Side) –

Developer Cont. Utilised

228,137

200,000

28,137

14.1%

28,137

C0059

Dunsborough Yacht Club Carpark – Developer Cont.

127,641

160,000

(32,359)

(20.2%)

(92,359)

C1753

Eagle Bay Viewing Platform –

Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

95,458

(95,458)

(100.0%)

(95,458)

C2527

Storm Damage Renewal of Infrastructure –

Developer Cont. Utilised

594

37,090

(36,496)

(98.4%)

(36,496)

C3020

Donated Assets Parks, Gardens & Reserves

1,956,797

1,500,000

456,797

30.5%

456,797

C3116

Dawson Park (McIntyre St POS) –

Developer Cont. Utilised

5,259

159,467

(154,208)

(96.7%)

(76,741)

C3166

Vasse River Foreshore - Bridge to Bridge – Developer Cont. Utilised

11,966

28,000

(16,034)

(57.3%)

(16,034)

C3211

Tulloh St (Geographe Bay Road) - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

2,101

90,332

(88,231)

(97.7%)

(88,231)

C3213

Cabarita Road –

POS Upgrade

Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

28,141

(28,141)

(100.0%)

(28,141)


 

C3214

Kingsford Road –

POS Upgrade

Developer Cont. Utilised

5,242

154,375

(149,133)

(96.6%)

(149,133)

C3215

Monash Way –

POS Upgrade

Developer Cont. Utilised

5,541

167,174

(161,633)

(96.7%)

(161,633)

C3216

Wagon Road - POS Upgrade

Developer Cont. Utilised

5,541

167,174

(161,633)

(96.7%)

(161,633)

C3217

Limestone Quarry - POS Upgrade

Developer Cont. Utilised

5,541

167,174

(161,633)

(96.7%)

(161,633)

C3218

Dolphin Road - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

4,879

91,000

(86,121)

(94.6%)

(86,121)

C3219

Kingfish/ Costello - POS Upgrade

Developer Cont. Utilised

4,689

91,000

(86,311)

(94.8%)

(86,311)

C3220

Quindalup Old Tennis Courts Site - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

4,591

53,283

(48,692)

(91.4%)

(48,692)

C3225

Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct (Stage 1) – Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

1,338,000

(1,338,000)

(100.0%)

(1,338,000)

C3238

Vasse River - General Upgrade

Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

100,000

(100,000)

(100.0%)

(100,000)

C6099

Airport Development - Project Expenses –

Grants Utilised

 -

(140,000)

140,000

(100.0%)

140,000

D0009

Busselton LIA - Geocatch Drain Partnership WSUD Improvements –

Grants Utilised

17,626

30,000

(12,374)

(41.2%)

(12,374)

D2000

Donated Assets Drainage

2,804,822

1,500,000

1,304,822

87.0%

1,304,822

F0101

Yalyalup Pump Track & Temporary Toilet – Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

150,000

(150,000)

(100.0%)

(150,000)

F1003

Donated Assets Footpaths & Cycleways

816,606

500,000

316,606

63.3%

316,606

F1022

Buayanyup Drain Shared Path – State Capital Grant

59,589

320,000

(260,411)

(81.4%)

32,926

S0048

Bussell Highway – Developer Cont. Utilised

302,935

640,516

(337,581)

(52.7%)

(79,244)

S0070

Peel & Queen Street Roundabout Service Relocation –

Developer Cont. Utilised

392,989

800,000

(407,011)

(50.9%)

72,989

S0072

Kaloorup Road - Reconstruct and Seal Shoulders

Developer Cont. Utilised

200,000

250,000

(50,000)

(20.0%)

(150,000)


 

S0073

Gale Road Rural Reconstruction –

Federal Capital Grant

991,837

1,372,500

(380,663)

(27.7%)

361,640

S0074

Causeway Road Duplication –

Developer Cont. Utilised

1,439,713

1,000,000

439,713

44.0%

(60,287)

S0076

Kaloorup Road (Stage 1) – Main Roads Direct Grant

174,954

 -

174,954

100.0%

68,154

T0019

Wonnerup South Road - Reconstruct and Widening (narrow seal) –

RTR Capital Grant

418,081

448,000

(29,919)

(6.7%)

(29,919)

T0020

Capel Tutunup Road –

RTR Capital Grant

1,163,486

1,426,750

(263,264)

(18.5%)

1,044,570

W0030

Donated Roads

3,666,283

3,000,000

666,283

22.2%

666,283

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

18,039

6,582

11,457

174.1%

(543)

W0265

Seascape Rise - Road Safety Upgrade –

Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

235,000

(235,000)

(100.0%)

(235,000)

 

6.    Capital Expenditure

As at 30 June 2021, there is an underspend variance of 54.9%, or $33.4M, in total capital expenditure, with YTD actual at $27.4M against the YTD amended budget of $60.8M. A large 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 and Restricted Assets 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

4,029

150,000

145,971

97.3%

71,921

10610

Property Services Administration

4,029

150,000

145,971

97.3%

71,921

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

3,564,466

17,304,059

13,739,593

79.4%

8,087,701

B9516

Busselton Library Upgrade

555,092

608,000

52,908

8.7%

5,000

Library works completed. Balance of funds to be directed to fit-out items as a carry over in the 21/22 budget.


 

B9300/1/2

Aged Housing Capital Improvements

64,128

192,000

127,872

66.6%

12,400

Budgeted works were proposed to separate power and drainage servicing Winderlup Court and Winderlup Villas.  Whilst the power requirements are not triggered until the new conditional land title lots are created, the intention was to progress with this anyway. The procurement process has elicited one quotation only which, even if acceptable is unlikely to generate an invoice payable in the current financial year.  As such the budgeted funds will be carried over in reserve to be utilised once appropriate contractual arrangements can be made.

B9402

Busselton Waste Transfer Station  - Buildings

18,206

 -

(18,206)

(100.0%)

 -

A requirement arose for a 2.4 x 2.4 Transportable Ablution Block, and savings were identified in the budget for infrastructure that could be utilised for these purposes.  This overspend variance will be offset by the identified underspends in infrastructure.

B9407

Busselton Senior Citizens

626,400

738,128

111,728

15.1%

 -

Works were completed in September. The savings against budget are being reviewed for potential use on roof replacement and carpark works. Works have been re-scoped based on preliminary estimates to reduce costs of roof replacement. The tender to perform these works has now been awarded, however will need to be carried over and completed in the 21/22 financial year.

B9534

Community Resource Centre

36,100

50,000

13,900

27.8%

19,650

The replacement and upgrade of the entire carpeting cam in significantly under budget.

B9556

NCC Upgrade

43,355

130,000

86,645

66.7%

87,957

Work is still underway re-defining the scope of works required.  As this was not clear by year end, funds will not be carried over. A budget amendment may be sought at later date if further re-scoped works are required.

B9558

Churchill Park -  Change Room Refurbishment

32,673

21,000

(11,673)

(55.6%)

(32,673)

Roof sheeting and guttering renewal works were more than expected.

B9591

Performing Arts Convention Centre

1,522,792

14,246,200

12,723,408

89.3%

7,705,294

Regional Growth Fund milestones are under review pending funding extension confirmation. Design contract program extension pending. Budgeted cash flow has been reviewed, with works now pending final Council decision on the tenders and community surveys.  Project will be carried over and re-listed in the 21/22 budget.

B9596

GLC Building Improvements

330,355

491,657

161,302

32.8%

(226,836)

Scheduled building works (some of which were carried over from the 19/20 FY), have been completed.  The positive variance to budget is largely due this area also incorrectly containing the budget for Infrastructure capital works at the GLC.

B9605

Energy Efficiency Initiatives (Various Buildings

21,217

103,000

81,783

79.4%

88,726

The $21K expended in the year was associated with the installation of LED lighting at the High Street Hall. $81K of this budget was unspent at 30 June thus this amount was carried over into the 2022 financial year. Works were planned to replace the existing lighting at the Busselton Library with LSD’s, due to the availability of contractors this was delayed by two weeks with works completed in July. These works valued at $74,000 have subsequently been paid in July 2021.    


 

B9607

General Buildings Asset Renewal Allocation (Various Buildings)

84,565

150,000

65,435

43.6%

40,857

This budget was assigned for various Capital works as identified as per the City’s Building Asset Management Plan. Some items of expenditure have been for undertaking maintenance as opposed to Capital renewal works. To this end, $44K in costs incurred have been moved back and recorded against Operations in the June period. These major maintenance works will still be funded from the Building Reserve, however an under-expended position to budget will result against this item.

B9608

Demolition Allocation

(Various Buildings)

 -

25,000

25,000

100.0%

12,500

Funds were initially allocated to partial demolition of the Weld Theatre by the end of the financial year, in preparation for its integration with the BPACC.  Final Council decision on this project is now pending due to further review of tenders and community surveys.

B9610

Old Butter Factory

131,811

 -

(131,811)

(100.0%)

145,623

Conservation and fire damage works were completed early in the financial year. A journal for $145K representing costs associated with the Wood Turners relocation to the Old Butter Factory site was processed in May and hence the end of month $277K unfavourable variance; this JNL has since been reversed back out in June bringing the variance back to its original $131K. An Insurance claim reimbursement totalling $99.4K offsets the true costs of $131K leaving a net overspend to budget of $32K come 30 June. 

B9611

Smiths Beach New Public Toilet

2,456

200,000

197,544

98.8%

200,000

Project commencement delayed due to changes to the project scope as a result of potential changes to size of the toilet facilities (yet to be resolved) and investigations into the capacity of the existing septic system/upgrade to an ATU system to accommodate these changes. We have also encountered long lead times with consultancy and environmental applications / approvals. This underspend surplus has been carried forward to fund the relist of this project in the 21/22 budget.

B9612

Churchill Park

Renew Sports Lights

11,791

140,000

128,209

91.6%

(11,610)

A review of consultants work to date has been undertaken. Remaining budgeted expenditure carried forward, with $73K State Government Grant Funding added to complete the Sports Lights Upgrade in 21/22.

B9711

Busselton Airport – Building

 -

15,000

15,000

100.0%

 -

Small capital works projects that were planned to be completed either prior to Jetstar flights commencing or by the end of the financial year, were not able to proceed due to other priorities.  The majority of these projects have been re-budgeted to occur in the 21/22 financial year, before the Jetstar flights commence.

B9717

Airport Construction - Existing Terminal Upgrade

5,704

42,800

37,096

86.7%

1,275

Invoicing in relation to the retention monies owing to Pindan for works completed has not been received.  As a result this budget will be carried over.

B9809

Busselton Jetty Tourist Park Compliance Works

7,421

80,000

72,579

90.7%

36,179

Compliance electrical works were not able to be completed by the end of the financial year due to competing priorities.  Unspent funds remain in the reserve, with a portion relisted in the 21/22 budget.


 

Plant & Equipment

1,324,192

2,510,340

1,186,148

47.3%

(52,902)

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.  Suitable specifications have now been developed and quotes are being sought, however the new equipment is not expected to be delivered until August 2021.  As such, these budgeted funds will remain in reserve and be relisted to be drawn in the 21/22 budget.

11106

Street Lighting Installations

17,300

 -

(17,300)

(100.0%)

 -

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-off asset purchases such as this.

11156

Airport Development Operations

199,403

283,100

83,697

29.6%

23,588

All baggage handling system invoices have been invoiced and paid. The remaining funds will be included in the outstanding Airport Development Reserve funding balance. Some funds were utilised to purchase the CCTV for the carparking as well.

11162

Busselton Jetty - Underwater Observatory

17,523

 -

(17,523)

(100.0%)

 -

In February there was $17.5K in unplanned expenditure for an Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) for the Underwater Observatory (UWO) lift. This will be funded from the Jetty Reserve.

11401

Transport – Workshop

19,227

30,000

10,774

35.9%

 -

The hardware for upgrades to the repeater at the communications tower has been delivered.  Installation of these will be dependent upon receiving Telstra approvals, which is being worked through by Property and Leasing, but will take place in 21/22 FY.

11402

Plant Purchases (P10)

657,839

1,420,000

762,161

53.7%

(61,379)

Underspend variances to budget YTD are due to:

·        The new generators at DWF pond and cell that were ordered in April, with delivery of one unit in June and the second in July. (carryover listed in the 21/22 budget);

·        A waste truck side loader that has been ordered, but delivery/payment is not expected until August (this underspend saving will be a carry-forward purchase from the Plant Reserve in the 21/22 budget);

·        The waste compactor semi-trailer purchase has been deferred indefinitely pending development of the new waste plan.

11403

Plant Purchases (P11)

52,990

205,000

152,010

74.2%

(3,495)

One ute ordered with delivery delayed until July and one light truck ordered in December, delivery now delayed until July. Both listed as carryovers in the 21/22 budget.

11404

Plant Purchases (P12)

8,923

114,000

105,077

92.2%

 -

One light truck ordered with delivery expected in July. Listed as carry-over in the 21/22 budget.

11407

P&E - P&G Smart Technologies

11,041

100,000

88,959

89.0%

(2,704)

Two weather stations were supplied and installed worth $52K, however this was incorrectly allocated as an operational expense.  As such, the underspend variance has been returned to the reserve from which it was meant to be funded.


 

Furniture & Office Equipment

492,196

461,088

(31,108)

(6.7%)

(39,309)

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services

321,786

407,088

85,302

21.0%

(59,683)

Project delays meant key projects including the phone line migration and online payments portal will not be completed until the 21/22 financial year. Hardware supply delays have affected delivery times along with some adjustments to the capital replacement forecast have reduced capital spend.

10380

Busselton Library

39,329

 -

(39,329)

(100.0%)

(39,329)

Cost savings realised on the building upgrade project were used to fit-out the children’s play area.

10591

Geographe Leisure Centre

73,700

20,000

(53,700)

(268.5%)

(2,320)

New pool covers costing $51.6K were purchased as a result of the positive underspend on the building upgrade works.

11156

Airport Development Operations

17,622

 -

(17,622)

(100.0%)

(17,622)

CCTV installation for the airport carpark. Budget was not split correctly – all included under Plant & Equipment, where there has been a significant underspend due to COVID related delays in commencement of Jetstar flights.

Infrastructure By Class

 

 

 

 

 

Various

Roads

13,326,324

15,170,848

1,844,524

12.2%

(1,524,264)

Only 12% representing $1.844M of the $15.170M in Road Capital works were unspent at 30 June.  33%, or $610K, of this was attributable to the Peel  / Queen street roundabout works that are scheduled to commence early in Financial Year 2022; this budget will be carried over.  24%, or $447K, of the unspent budget was attributable to complex staged works on Bussell Highway; this will also be carried over into 2022. Some projects went over budget while others countered by coming in under budget.  

Various

Bridges

4,872

6,399,989

6,395,117

99.9%

2,096,500

Although Bridge renewal works will be done on both the Bussell Highway and Yallingup Beach Road bridges this financial year it is unlikely any expenditure will be recorded due to the requirement for formal notification of completion from Main Roads and of invoices from them. Main Roads carry out these works on behalf of the City. Works on the Kaloorup, Boallia Road and Tuart Drive Bridges are now scheduled to commence in the 2022 financial year.  All 5 bridge projects will represent carry overs. 

Various

Car Parks

1,452,017

1,855,535

403,518

21.7%

(82,655)

Car Park projects finished the year $403K underspent. 72% of this variance is attributable solely to the Car Parking associated with the Barnard East Development with the majority of construction to occur in 2022. This budget will be carried over.

Various

Footpaths & Cycleways

508,782

1,739,745

1,230,963

70.8%

244,870

Footpath projects finished the year a significant $1.230M underspent to budget. This was primarily attributable to the Buayanyup Drain Shared Path project that commenced in June and represents 42%, or $521K, of the end of  year variance; this budget has been carried over.

Contributing a further $250K in combined under expenditure to budget were the Yalyalup Pump Track & Temporary Toilet project that has since been cancelled and the Dunsborough Centennial Park Footpath Project where its budget was notionally re-assigned to cover additional Queen Street Paving costs. This budget has been relisted into 2022.


 

Various

Parks, Gardens & Reserves

6,489,876

13,888,161

7,398,286

53.3%

1,891,110

$7.398M of the $13.888M in Parks related projects remained underspent to budget come 30 June. The majority of unspent budget has been carried over into 2022.

The Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct (Stage 1) budget was the largest project contributing to the underspent position at $2.117M, or 28.6%, of the variance.

Following this was the  Dunsborough Non-Potable Water Network project underspent by $1.483M, representing 20% of the year end variance.

Waste Capital also categorised into this area was under expended by $1.2M while the collective of Public Open Space playground projects accounted for a further $973K of the unspent budget.  

Various

Drainage

50,854

95,744

44,890

46.9%

(10,577)

There were only three small drainage related projects on budget for the 2021 financial year.  These projects collectively came in under budget by $44.8K.

Various

Regional Airport & Industrial Park Infrastructure

232,458

1,256,653

1,024,195

81.5%

502,534

The car park works have been completed but not paid at the time of this report. The most significant part of the underspend relates to noise amelioration works which is funded from grant funds held in reserve. This was be partially invoiced by the end of the financial year, but due to construction timelines, the rest will remain on the Airport development budget for future noise amelioration. Unspent funds will therefore remain in the reserve to fund the carry over portions of the projects.

 

7.   Proceeds From Sale of Assets

YTD proceeds from sale of assets is $66K 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

$7.5M of the budgeted proceeds of $7.7M are related to the planned drawdown on the construction loan for the BPACC. This project has been deferred in consultation with the Federal Government.  The tender process has been completed and Council is now reviewing its options regarding this project.  No drawdown is expected this financial year. 

 

The remaining $90K of the variance is offset by advances to community groups which did not occur.

 

9.    Advances to Community Groups

Only one application was received for $110K by the end of the year. This was to the Busselton Golf Club for the construction of a new maintenance and machinery storage shed. The $90K positive variance is offset by the non-receipt of the associated loans funds that the City would receive for these on-lending purposes.


 

10.  Transfer to Restricted Assets

There is a YTD variance in transfers to restricted assets of $9M more than amended budget.

 

At the time of budgeting it is not possible to predict what grants will be received in what timeframe, nor when they will be spent and hence potentially transferred to restricted assets (or unspent portions thereof). The following grants, totalling $5.2M, have been received and transferred to restricted assets for which there was no budgeted transfer:

·        Grant funding received from Federal Government for “Drought Communities Program” of $700K (attributable to CC C3223 Dunsborough Non-Potable Water Network);

·        $1M of Local roads & Community Infrastructure grants, for the Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Fields Development;

·        $2.2M of the annual Roads to Recovery Grant allocation;

·        $243K from the Department of Transport for the Buayanyup Drain Shared Path project;

·        $98K from the Roads Safety Innovation Fund;

·        $120K in Regional Roads Grants;

·        $132K in Blackspot Roads funding;

·        $341K in Financial Assistance Grants for specific bridge projects; and

·        $385K for various community and commercial services specific activities including CSRFF.

Developer contributions, deposits and bonds are inherently hard to predict and budget for. An annual amount of $63K spread evenly over 12 months was budgeted, however over $3.8M has been received YTD, the bulk of which are for road works bonds ($2.6M).

 

11.  Transfer from Restricted Assets

YTD there has been $7.2M transferred from restricted assets into the Municipal Account. This was mainly attributable to:

·        Acquittal or usage of the grants mentioned above totalling $4.5M;

·        Refunds of road work bonds of $1.5M;

·        Refund of hall deposits of $30K;

·        Busselton Jetty Tourist Park deposit refunds of $395K;

·        $650K used of Cash-in-Lieu of POS and Developer Contributions;

·        $130K of town planning bonds; and

·        Other sundry refunds of $66K.

 

The variance to YTD budget for these items is due to the inherent difficulty in predicting the quantum and timing of the use or expenditure of government grants and the various Developer Contributions and Cash-in-Lieu of POS.


 

12.  Transfer to Reserves

$3.7M more than budget was transferred to reserves by the end of June. This was due to the following items:

·        $777K more than expected net profit from Airport Operations, plus $82K leftover in the MERG Reserve, transferred to the Airport Marketing & Incentive Reserve;

·        $331K more than expected net profit from the Busselton Jetty Tourist Park, transferred to its reserve;

·        $89K more than expected surplus from the Aged Housing properties, transferred to both the joint venture and City controlled reserves;

·        $188K more than expected was received from the sale of vehicles and plant, which is all transferred to the Plant Replacement Reserve;

·        $300K more than budget required to be transferred to the Long Service Leave Reserve after year end reconciliations were completed;

·        $311K more than budgeted for developer contributions transferred to the various Communities Facilities Reserves;

·        $38K more to the Coastal & Climate Adaptation Reserve;

·        $45K less to the Cemetery Reserve;

·        $279K more to the Waste Reserve largely due to an actual net operating surplus compared to a  budgeted loss; and

·        $1.3M in prepaid Financial Assistance Grants transferred to the Prepaid Grants Reserve.

 

13.  Transfer from Reserves

YTD there has been $20.2M transferred from reserves into the Municipal Account, compared to a budget of $35.2M. The $15M discrepancy is caused by non-completion of many reserve funded activities, capital projects or acquisitions, with the biggest contributors being:

·        Airline marketing program - $1.2M;

·        Airport noise mitigation projects - $752K;

·        Various City building capital works - $1.08M;

·        Jetty maintenance & capital works - $336K;

·        Various road asset & traffic improvement capital works - $1,229K;

·        Various footpath & cycleway capital works - $619K;

·        Various other infrastructure & drainage works - $212K;

·        Various parks & gardens works - $658K;

·        Less new plant & vehicles purchased than budgeted - $284K;

·        $468K due to the delay in Mitchell Park Upgrade project;

·        $1.84M due to delays in the Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct (stage 1) project;

·        Car parking projects - $553K;

·        Delays in commencement of the ERP Upgrade project plus in-house resourcing of some of the earlier scoping and design work - $208K;

·        Delays in the Rating Review project and deferment of the Land & Building valuations - $141K;

·        $158K less for drainage and waterways improvement activities;

·        Coastal & climate adaptation, and Energy Sustainability initiatives (including the Dunsborough Non-potable Water project) - $1.3M; and

·        $2M from the Waste Reserve, mainly due to delays in replacement of a variety of operating plant & equipment.

Investment Report

As at 30 June 2021, the value of the City’s invested funds totalled $77.4M down from $80.3M as at 31 May 2021. This was mainly due to the processing of the year-end reserve recoups.

 

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) increased from $7.0M to $9.5M.    

 

During the month of June, six term deposits totalling the amount of $18M matured. Two deposits were closed totalling $5.0M to provide funds for standard operations.  Remaining deposits were renewed for a further 137 days at 0.41% on average.

 

The official cash rate remains steady for the month of June 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 June 2021 are provided below to ensure there is appropriate oversight and awareness.

 

Date

Payee

Description

$ Amount

9/06/21

AIRPORT SECURITY PARKING PERTH

PARKING WHILE IN BROOME – RCAWA

M. ARCHER

$117.16

9/06/21

THE FLOWER PLACE

STAFF LEAVING GIFT

$60.00

10/06/21

AIRPORT SECURITY PARKING PERTH

PARKING WHILE IN BROOME – RCAWA G. HENLEY

$75.75

18/06/21

DIVERS TAVERN

CABLE BEACH

DINNER – RCAWA

($28.00 REIMBURSED)

$79.00

21/06/21

VIRGIN AUST

SEAT CHARGE-

(DUPLICATE CHARGE –

CREDIT RECIEVED)

$55.00

22/06/21

HERTZ AUST

BROOME CAR HIRE – ADDITIONAL KMS

($55.00 REIMBURSED)

$67.75

 

 

TOTAL

$454.66

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

As at 30 June 2021, the City’s net current position stands at $2.45M. The City’s financial performance is considered satisfactory, and cash reserves remain strong.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.

 

 


Council

50

24 August 2021

12.2

Attachment a

Investment Report June 2021

 


Council

63

24 August 2021

12.2

Attachment b

Statement of Financial Activity - 30 June 2021

 















Council                                                                                      65                                                                 24 August 2021

17.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

STRATEGIC THEME

LEADERSHIP - A Council that connects with the community and is accountable in its decision making.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

4.2 Deliver governance systems that facilitate open, ethical and transparent decision making.

SUBJECT INDEX

Councillors' Information Bulletin

BUSINESS UNIT

Executive Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Reporting Officers - Various

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   KidSport Letter of Thanks  

 

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/185              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

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

 

17.1.1      Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund – July 2021

 

17.1.2      Current Active Tenders

17.1.3      KidSport – Thank you EOFY 2020/2021

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

17.1.1       Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund – July 2021

17.1.2       Current Active Tenders 

17.1.3       KidSport – Thank you EOFY 2021/2021

 

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       Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund – July 2021

Zero (0) donation applications were processed throughout July 2021.

17.1.2       Current Active Tenders 

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

 

RFT 04/21 ROAD NETWORK UPGRADE – PEEL TERRACE CAUSEWAY ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE – STAGE 1A

·        Requirement – Upgrade – Peel Terrace and Causeway Road intersection upgrade (Stage 1A).

·        Invitation for tenders was advertised on 21 August 2021 and will close on 8 September 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).  

 

RFT 07/21 STREET AND DRAIN CLEANING SERVICES

·        Requirement – street and drain cleaning services across the City of Busselton. 

·        Invitation for tenders was advertised on 12 May 2021 and closed on 1 June 2021.

·        Two submissions were received. 

·        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 a decision on the tender is intended to be included in the 8 September Council meeting agenda.

 

RFT 08/21 DUNSBOROUGH LAKES SPORTS PRECINCT- SUPPLY AND PLANTING OF TURFGRASS

·        Requirement - supply and install of turf grass sod at Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct. 

·        A request for tender was advertised on 10 April 2021 and closed on 4 May 2021.

·        One tender submission was received from Sanpoint Pty Ltd t/a LD (LD Total).

·        The tender from LD Total offered various solutions, including different species (kikuyu, “TifTuf” couch and “Wintergreen” couch) and different methodologies (plugging or rolled).

·        Tendered prices varied from approximately $174,000 to $614,000, depending on the species and the methodology for establishing the turf.

·        The tender evaluation panel’s assessment indicated that TifTuf couch is the most suitable for the type of use in this location and, for various reasons, including the significant price difference between (“plugging” - $174,374) and instant lawn (rolled - $614,175), recommended the plugging methodology.

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

·        The tender from LD Total for TifTuf couch (to be established by planting - or “plugging”) was accepted – contract price $174,374.

 


 

RFT 13/21 TURF MAINTENANCE SERVICES

·        Requirements – a contractor to provide turf maintenance services for the City’s broad acre sites such as playing fields and large public open spaces.

·        A request for tender was advertised on 23 June and closed on 15 July 2021. 

·        Five submissions were received. 

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

·        The tender assessment has been completed and a recommendation to Council for accepting a tender is included in the Council report on the agenda for the 24 August 2021 Council meeting.

 

RFT 14/21 ELECTRONIC EVENTS BILLBOARD

·        Requirements - the design, fabrication and installation of an electronic events billboard on Bussell Hwy, Busselton.

·        A request for tender was advertised on 19 June and closed on 14 July 2021. 

·        Three submissions were received – all are exceeding the project budget. 

·        City officers is in process of seeking further direction from Marketing and Events Reference Group in relation to funding for this project. 

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

 

RFT 15/21 SURF LIFE SAVING SERVICES

·        Requirements – the provision of professional lifeguarding services at Smiths Beach and Yallingup Beach for the 2021/22 & 2022/23 seasons. 

·        It is intended that an invitation for tenders will be advertised in September 2021.

 

RFT 16/21 ROAD SHOULDER WIDENING

·        Requirements – rework and widening of road shoulders on Wildwood Road, Chapman Hill Road and Kaloorup Road Busselton. 

·        A request for tender was advertised on 31 July 2021 and closed on 19 August 2021.

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

·        It is intended that a report to Council for a decision on the tender will be presented to Council at its meeting on 8 September 2021. 

 

RFT 17/21 NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT

·        Requirements – a suitable contractor to provide management and maintenance works of the City’s natural reserve areas.

·        A request for tender was advertised on 31 July 2021 and closed on 17 August 2021.

·        The value of the contract is not expected to exceed the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders (DA 1 – 07 Inviting, Rejecting and Accepting Tenders).

·        It is intended to complete assessment of tenders and enter into a contract with the preferred tenderer in September 2021.

 


 

PQS 02/21 PARKS AND GARDENS SERVICES

·        Requirement a panel of suppliers to provide the City’s parks and gardens services in the City of Busselton.

·        A request for applicants was advertised on 22 May 2021 and closed on 11 June 2021.

·        Eleven applications were received for the panel.

·        The applications will be evaluated and the panel of pre-qualified suppliers will be established by the CEO under delegation (DA1-10 Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers) by end August 2021.

 

PQS 03/21 BULK RECYCLABLE WASTE COLLECTION AND PROCESSING

·        Requirement – a panel of suppliers to provide bulk recyclable and non-recyclable waste collection and processing services in the City of Busselton. 

·        A request for applicants was advertised on 22 May 2021 and closed on 15 June 2021.

·        Two submissions were received. 

·        The applications will be evaluated and the panel of pre-qualified suppliers will be established by the CEO under delegation (DA1-10 Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers) by end August 2021

17.1.3       KidSport – Thank you EOFY 2021/2021

Correspondence has been received from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries formally acknowledging the City for the continued support of the KidSport program over the 2020/2021 financial year.

 

The letter of thanks and an infographic showing the KidSport vouchers distributed to your community in the past financial year is provided at Attachment A. 

 


Council

70

24 August 2021

17.1

Attachment a

KidSport Letter of Thanks

 


 

 


Council                                                                                      75                                                                 24 August 2021

ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH  BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION (WITHOUT DEBATE)

14.1           RFT 13/21 TURF MAINTENANCE SERVICES AWARD OF TENDER

STRATEGIC THEME

LIFESTYLE - A place that is relaxed, safe and friendly with services and facilities that support healthy lifestyles and wellbeing.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.3 Provide well planned sport and recreation facilities to support healthy and active lifestyles.

SUBJECT INDEX

Tenders

BUSINESS UNIT

Operation and Works Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Parks and Gardens Coordinator - Bradley Reynolds

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

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Published Under Separate Cover  Confidential Tender Evaluation Report  

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

24 August 2021

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Paul Carter

Item No./Subject

Item No. 14.1 RFT 13/21 Turf Maintenance Services Award of Tender

Type of Interest

Financial Interest

Nature of Interest

The owner of the recommended successful tenderer is purchasing a vehicle from my employer which will likely be used for the tender works.

 

6.14pm:         At this time, Cr Carter left the meeting.

 

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/186              Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor K Cox

That the Council:

1.         Pursuant to RFT 13/21 Turf Maintenance Services accept the tender from CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf as being the most advantageous tender.

2.         Delegates power and authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree with the minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, subject to such variations and the final terms not exceeding the overall project budget.

3.         Subject to resolutions 1 and 2, authorise the CEO to enter into a contract with CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf for the supply of the relevant goods and services.

CARRIED 8/0

 


 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Pursuant to RFT 13/21 Turf Maintenance Services accept the tender from CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf as being the most advantageous tender.

2.         Delegates power and authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree with the minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, subject to such variations and the final terms not exceeding the overall project budget.

3.         Subject to resolutions 1 and 2, authorise the CEO to enter into a contract with CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf for the supply of the relevant goods and services.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Busselton invited tenders under Request for Tender 13/21 Turf Maintenance Services (RFT 13/21) for a suitably experienced and qualified contractor to deliver various turf maintenance services to the City’s broadacre sports grounds.

 

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 CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf; and

·        authorise the CEO to award the contract to CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf to provide the requirements of the tender.

 

BACKGROUND

The contract is for the provision of turf services to broadacre sports fields and public open spaces which totals 38.4 Ha across the city. Locations include:

·        Bovell

·        Churchill Park

·        Barnard

·        Signal Park

·        Lou Weston

·        Dunsborough Ovals

·        Vasse

 

In addition, at the City’s option, is for a further 4.5 Ha at Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct.

Services required include (but not limited to):

·        Scarifying / Vertimowing

·        Coring

·        Fertilizer application

·        Pest and weed control

 


 

Scheduled services are to be provided as per Annual Sports Turf Program (detailed in the tender) plus ‘as required’ services dependent on varying ground conditions / requirements. Note, the City currently provides all mowing services to sports fields. Supplementary Coring and Scarifying is also completed by City staff and accounts for 50% of these required annual renovation services. 

 

In order for City staff to carry out all services in house, a large investment in specialised machinery and additional staff would be required, the value of which is currently in excess of the contract value. The current provision for these works is supplied using RFT 11/18, and is delivered by CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf.  The service provided to date by CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf has been consistently of a very high standard.

OFFICER COMMENT

The City received a total of five (5) submissions for RFT 13/21 as follows:

·        CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf

·        Echofield Pty Ltd TA Spraymow

·        Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

·        Total Horticultural Services

·        Profounder Turfmaster Pty Ltd

 

Assessment Process

On 26 June 2021, tenders were invited via TenderLink and advertised in ‘The West Australian’ newspaper. Tenders closed on 15 July 2021 and five (5) submissions were received.

In accordance with the City’s procurement practices and procedures, assessments were carried out by an evaluation panel comprising City officers with relevant skills and experience. The assessment process included:

(a)       Assessing submissions 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. One tender (Total Horticultural Services) was deemed non-compliant as no price submitted for five required services.

(b)       Assessing submissions received against the Qualitative Criteria and each Criteria was given a score in accordance with the rating scale detailed below.

 

Qualitative Criteria

Weighting

Relevant Experience

5%

Local Benefit

5%

Tenderer’s Resources

20%

Demonstrated Understanding inc OSH

20%

Price

50%

 

Summary of Assessment Outcomes

Of the five submissions received for RFT 13/21, CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf ranked first (1st) on the Qualitative Criteria and ranked second (2nd) in the Weighted Cost Criteria (following application of Regional Price Preference), and ranked (1st) overall, providing a well-documented and detailed submission.


 

This decision is based on the following:

•          The five submissions received were processed through to qualitative criteria assessment on the basis that all terms and conditions and mandatory requirements of RFT 13/21 had been met.  

•          The submissions were scored according to the qualitative criterion outlined above.

•          The net price was scored using the ‘Average Based Scoring Method’ recommended by WALGA in the ‘Local Government Purchasing and Tender Guide’.

•          The panel members individually assessed the qualitative criteria for each schedule, then met and applied an average to provide a final ranking. The scores were then added together to indicate the rankings.

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 $150,000; 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.

 

The officer’s recommendation complies with the above-mentioned legislative requirements.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The City's Purchasing, Regional Price Preference, Occupational Safety and Health, and Asset Management policies, and the City’s Engineering Technical Standards and Specifications were all relevant to RFT 13/21, and have been adhered to in the process of requesting and evaluating this tender.

Financial Implications

The turf maintenance services provided under this RFT 13/21 will be funded from the Operating budget (grouping 120 Parks and Gardens) and individual Capital Works budgets as required. 

 

The 20/21 financial year expenditure using the current Turf Services Tender (RFT 11/18) was $114,000, which was within budgeted allocations.

 

The schedule of rates offered by CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf have increased by 2.61%, which is less than the inflation rate over the same period.

 

The estimated expenditure for the 21/22 financial year using the existing schedules with the application of the new contract rates (increasing by 2.61%) equates to approximately $117,000 which remains within available allocated operating budgets.

 

With a contract duration of up to 5 years the estimated expenditure is in excess of $500,000 which is above the Chief Executive Officers delegated authority and is therefore being presented to the Council.

 

A rise and fall price alteration option for CPI is not included in RFT 13/21, therefore the submitted rates will remain unchanged for the duration of the contract.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer’s recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management 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 preferred tenderer(s) assessed as being capable of delivering the services to a suitable service level. 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council could determine not to accept the tender from CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf as being the most advantageous to the City to deliver turf maintenance services, and award the contract to second placed Perth contractor Profounder Turfmaster Pty Ltd.  This would incur additional risk to the City as Profounder Turfmaster do not have local knowledge of the City’s sports fields, and all equipment would need to be transported from Perth, creating potential delays to unscheduled / reactive turf renovation operations.

CONCLUSION

The submission from CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf is considered the most advantageous to the City.  It is therefore recommended that CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf be awarded the contract to deliver turf maintenance services for the City resulting from RFT 13/21.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

If endorsed by Council, it is expected the City will enter into a contract with CJ AH Shreeve Pty Ltd TA Naturaliste Turf on 14 September 2021 to run for a period of three (3) years with the City having the option of two (2) x one (1) year extensions.

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      83                                                                 24 August 2021

6.15pm:                At this time, Cr Carter returned to the meeting.

 

ITEMS for debate

13.1           BUSHFIRE NOTICE REVIEW - CONSULTATION AND NEXT STEPS

STRATEGIC THEME

LIFESTYLE - A place that is relaxed, safe and friendly with services and facilities that support healthy lifestyles and wellbeing.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.2 Work with key partners to facilitate a safe, healthy and capable community.

SUBJECT INDEX

Bushfire Notice Review

BUSINESS UNIT

Planning and Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

Ranger & Emergency Services Coordinator - Ian McDowell

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 Bushfire Notice for Consultation (version 1 March 2020)

Attachment b    Draft Bushfire Notice Map for Consultation (version 1 March 2020)

Attachment c    YourSay Survey Project Report

Attachment d   A Categorised Summary of Written Comments  

 

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Cox foreshadowed a motion that was different to the officer recommendation. In accordance with clause 10.18(7) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, it was taken to be an alternative recommendation and was moved first.

 

There was opposition to the motion and debate ensued. The alternative motion was carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/187              Moved Councillor K Cox, seconded Councillor P Cronin

 

That the Council, having considered the outcomes of the consultation process undertaken in April and May 2021 regarding a new bushfire notice for the City:

1.              Acknowledge the submissions received and thank respondents for their engagement in the process;

2.              Defer further work on the bushfire notice review, including further community engagement, until at least 30 March 2022;

 

3.              Acknowledge that the deferral set in point 2 above means that the current notice will remain in place for both 2021/22 and 2022/23;

 

4.              Request that a further report be brought to the Council by no later than 30 June 2022 seeking direction on whether and how to recommence the review; and

 

5.              Endorses advocacy with the State Government to address the following key concerns:

(a)       Review of the bushfire prone area mapping standard to avoid situations where neighbouring properties are subject to significantly different controls, despite having very similar levels of exposure to bushfire risk;

(b)      Introduction of simplified and standardised approaches to planning and building regulation in bushfire prone locations within urban areas;

(c)       Identifying that the ‘APZ Standard’ set out in current State planning policy documents is not consistent with community values, and needs to be reconsidered; and

(d)      Identifying that achieving consistency between planning and building control regulation and ongoing compliance through bushfire notices requires proactive State leadership.

CARRIED 8/1

For the motion: Cr Cox, Cr Henley, Cr Riccelli

Cr Hick, Cr Cronin, Cr Carter, Cr Barrett-Lennard

Against the motion: Cr Paine

 

Reasons:              The first draft of the Revised Bushfire Notice was released for community consultation in April 2021. There was an overwhelming response to the survey from the community. The consultation process indicated that there were low levels of support from the community for the Draft Notice and significant opposition to some of the content. Proper consideration should be given to the drafting of a notice that effectively balances bushfire risk mitigation, the financial and practical implications of landowner compliance and environmental, social and amenity impacts. It is clear, that in order to further progress any review of the Bush Fire Notice that it is necessary to engage in comprehensive stakeholder consultation, preferably in the form of forums or workshops. If we are deeply committed to community engagement, then we need to listen to the voice of the community which has overwhelmingly indicated that they are not supportive of any significant changes to the current Bushfire Notice without further consultation and consideration.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Endorses the following approach to the next stages of development of a new bushfire notice for the City:

(a)       Face to face meetings with key stakeholders including community groups, the Bush Fire Advisory Committee, and bushfire consultants;

(b)       Engage external specialist advice from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant to assist with the development of an alternative ‘APZ standard or similar’ with less amenity, environmental and financial than the standard detailed in the first draft notice, whilst still achieving meaningful bushfire safety benefits and which is broadly consistent with community values (the external consultant should be involved in at least some of the meetings referred to above);

(c)       Confirm that it does not intend to introduce boundary firebreak requirements in Rural Residential areas where they are not currently required; and

 

 

 

(d)       Taking into consideration feedback from key stakeholders, specialist advice and the results of the earlier consultation process (conducted in April and May 2021), develop a second draft notice for consultation, to be presented to the Council in late 2021.

2.         Foreshadows the following subsequent steps, should the Council adopt a second draft notice in late 2021:

(a)       In early 2022, carry out a further round of community consultation and a series of face to face and online information sessions on the second draft notice; and

(b)       In the first half of 2022, considers the second draft notice, in light of submissions made following the consultation process referred to in (a) above, with a view to potentially adopting a new notice to come into effect for the 2022/2023 fire season; and

3.         Endorses advocacy with the State Government to address the following key concerns:

(a)       Review of the bushfire prone area mapping standard to avoid situations where neighbouring properties are subject to significantly different controls, despite having very similar levels of exposure to bushfire risk;

(b)       Introduction of simplified and standardised approaches to planning and building regulation in bushfire prone locations within urban areas;

(c)       Identifying that the ‘APZ Standard’ set out in current State planning policy documents is not consistent with community values, and needs to be reconsidered; and

(d)       Identifying that achieving consistency between planning and building control regulation and ongoing compliance through bushfire notices requires proactive State leadership.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In pursuance of an earlier Council resolution in April 2021, the Council is presented with the outcomes of consultation undertaken as part of the bushfire notice review. The Council is also asked to endorse a proposed approach to the further progression of that review, as well as supporting some advocacy with the State Government on related matters. It is clear that significant change and further work is required to develop a notice more consistent with community values, and the recommendation seeks to identify workable and consultative means to achieve that aim.

 

BACKGROUND

On 11 March 2020, the Council adopted (C2003/084) the draft Bushfire Notice set out at Attachment A and B for consultation. Consultation was put on hold due to the impact of COVID-19 and other workload priorities.

 

Consultation commenced in April 2021. Originally, the end date for the first round of consultation was intended to be 10 May 2021. Following considerable community interest and comment, however, the end date was changed to 31 May 2021. A summary of the consultation process and results has been provided in the Stakeholder Consultation section of this report.

On 28 April 2021, due to the level of concern expressed by respondents to the consultation process, the Council resolved (C2104/085) not to instigate changes to the bushfire notice in time for the 2021/2022 fire season. As part of this resolution the Council requested the CEO to:

(a)       Continue to collate feedback from the community in balancing the needs of bushfire preparedness with conflicting concerns such as cost, environmental and amenity impacts;

(b)       Examine existing consultation to ensure the broadest reasonable stakeholder engagement is achieved; and

(c)       Before the end of the 2021 calendar year, bring a report to the Council on the draft bushfire notice and proposed amendments for 2022/2023.

OFFICER COMMENT

The consultation process indicates that there are low levels of support from the community for the draft notice that was adopted for consultation in March 2020, and significant opposition to some of the content. It is clear that is a consequence both of the content of the draft notice itself, but also that the City was not able to communicate the draft notice, or its rationale, sufficiently clearly and accurately.

There is clearly a need to engage more broadly and communicate effectively as part of further progressing the review. It is also, however, clear that the need to remove and/or manage vegetation to meet proposed Asset Protection Zone (APZ) and boundary firebreak requirements are not consistent with community values from an environmental and amenity perspective.

There is also considerable community angst around the potential financial burdens for some property owners to achieve compliance with the draft notice. Many people expressed concerns that the additional works and associated costs are not commensurate with the risk.

Given feedback to date, the requirement for additional firebreaks on Category 3 (Rural Residential) land is not something officers would recommend that the Council progress as part of a revised proposed notice. The proposed APZ requirements are also not something that officers would recommend the Council include, certainly not without significant change, as part of a revised notice.

Based on the results of the consultation officers propose the following actions be taken with a view to progressing the review of the City’s bushfire notice:

(a)       Face to face meeting with key stakeholders including community groups (such as residents’ associations or similar that have been formed to represent the interests of particular communities or areas – e.g. Injidup, Eagle Bay, Dunsborough – as well as environmental groups, most of which are represented on the City’s Environmental Reference Group), the Bush Fire Advisory Committee, and bushfire consultants;

(b)       Engage external specialist advice to assist with the development of an APZ standard to reduce the amenity, environmental and financial impact of the standard detailed in the first draft bushfire notice, whilst still achieving meaningful bushfire safety benefits (it is envisaged the consultant engaged to provide this advice);

(c)       Council resolve that it does not intend to introduce boundary firebreak requirements in Rural Residential areas where they are not currently required (there was strong and very consistent opposition to this element of the draft notice);

(d)       Taking into consideration feedback from key stakeholders, specialist advice and the results of the recent first draft consultation process, develop a second draft notice for consultation to be presented to the Council in late 2021;

(e)       Should the Council adopt a second draft notice, in early 2022, carry out a further round of community consultation and a series of face to face and online information sessions on the second draft notice; and

(f)        In the first half of 2022, the Council consider the second draft notice in light of submissions made following the consultation process above, with a view to potentially adopting a new notice to come into effect for the 2022/2023 fire season (noting that this would not rule out further community consultation on a further revised draft notice if required).

The timeframes set out above are indicative and may be affected by a number of factors, including other workload priorities, the nature of the feedback received and the capacity to obtain suitable expert advice.

As well as recommendations related to the bushfire notice review, this report also makes some recommendations related to advocacy with the State around review of bushfire policies, especially those that relate to planning and development. There are four key reasons for that:

1.         The City has been advocating with the State around these issues for some time, and a Council resolution could aim some weight and impetus to that advocacy;

2.         A key rationale for the draft notice was to seek to align the City’s bushfire notice with the expectations for ongoing vegetation management created by planning controls (in simple terms, when new houses are approved, the level of bushfire protection built into the structure assumes there will not be significant vegetation in areas close to the house, and State policies then assume that bushfire notices will ensure that remains the case over time) - but the consultation indicates that would require vegetation management to a level that is inconsistent with community values (again, in simple terms, many people want to keep and/or plant trees and other vegetation around their houses – and that appears to often be the case both with older houses and with newer houses, built since current planning controls have come into effect);

3.         Whilst the values of the local community may be somewhat different to people elsewhere in the State, it is not unreasonable to suggest that similar views may exist elsewhere, indicating that the State’s current planning policies are, in fact, inconsistent with community values more broadly; and

4.         The consultation has highlighted again the excessive complexity and lack of integration between planning/development control and bushfire notices, resolution of which would require proactive leadership by the State.

Note that some of the key advocacy points suggested are already part of the State’s bushfire policy reform programme, but are reforms that may have stalled.

 

Statutory Environment

The statutory framework for the bushfire notice is set out in the Bush Fires Act 1954, specifically section 33(1), which states that, inter alia:

(1)       Subject to subsection (2) a local government…may,…as a measure for preventing the outbreak of a bush fire, or for preventing the spread…of a bush fire…give notice in writing…to all owners or occupiers of land in its district by publishing a notice in the Government Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the area requiring…them…to do…all or any of the following things –

(a)      to…clear upon the land fire-breaks in such a manner…as are specified in the notice, and thereafter to maintain the fire-breaks…;

(b)      to act…as specified…with respect to anything which is upon the land, and which… is likely to be conducive to the outbreak of a bush fire or the spread or extension of a bush fire,

and the notice may require the owner or occupier to do so -

(c)       as a separate operation, or in co-ordination with any other person, carrying out a similar operation on adjoining or neighbouring land…

Sections 24G(2) and 25(1a) are also of relevance to the proposed notice, as they establish powers for local government to make notices relating to the burning of garden refuse and camp/cooking fires.

Relevant Plans and Policies

Key policy guidance is set out in State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7) and the associated Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (Guidelines). The Final Position Statement also forms part of the relevant planning framework, by virtue of clause 3.1 of State Planning Policy 1.0: State Planning Framework (SPP1), but the ‘weight’ to be attached to such statements in decision making is less that what should be attached to the content of an SPP. Collectively, these documents, as well as the overarching statutory environment, and further documents incorporated by reference, constitute to what is referred to in this report as the ‘State Bushfire Planning Framework’.

Financial Implications

A recommendation of this report is to engage external specialist advice to assist with the development of the bushfire notice generally but more so, an APZ standard that is consistent with mitigating the risk of bushfire and community values. The cost to engage a consultant is expected to be between $5,000 and $10,000.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The first draft of the revised bushfire notice was released for community consultation in April 2021. Deadline for submissions was 31 May 2021. The City’s Your Say platform was used to provide information about the proposed changes, and included a survey to seek community input.

Public notice of the consultation process was published in local newspapers, on social media and on the City’s website. A media release was provided to local newspapers and ABC South West radio.

In addition to this, a frequently asked question document was uploaded to the Your Say platform mid-May, and three community Zoom information sessions were conducted by Officers on 14, 20 and 21 May 2021.

During the consultation period there were 2,311 visitors to the Your Say survey. Of these 1,434 participants submitted 1,504 responses to the survey, with 1,364 respondents also providing written (free text) submissions to the survey questions.

A further 137 people provided written submissions to the City independent of the Your Say platform. Please note, this number was originally reported as 174 however, it included submissions provided directly to Councillors as well as the City resulting in some being counted twice.

 

A summary (project report) of the Your Say survey is attached to this report (Attachment C). It provides numerical data relating to the questions (i.e. set questions requiring a multiple choice response).

 

All of the 1,501 written submissions, those provided through the Your Say survey and directly to the City and/or Councillors, were analysed by Officers so as to gain a better understanding of their content. Comments were then categorised as a means of assigning a numerical value to each one to determine how many respondents had raised that as an issue in their submission. For example:

·        606 (40.37%) of respondents expressed concerns in their comments about the removal and/or pruning of trees (including significant and/or old trees) and other vegetation or bush.

·        112 (7.46%) of respondents commented property owners know and accept the risks associated with fire (need less regulation, not more).

·        95 (6.33%) of respondents expressed concerns about the need to replace wooden fencing as part of the APZ requirements.

·        68 (4.53%) of respondents have concerned with the firebreak provisions (not needed due to low risk, or because they would not provide additional protection from fire.

 

A categorised summary of the issues raised in written submissions is attached to this report (Attachment D). It provides a breakdown by property category 1 to 4, independent written submissions, and a combined total.

An analysis of the feedback from our community indicates:

·        Broad objection to the extent of vegetation clearing and management associated with:

o   proposed changes to the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) in areas designated urban bushfire prone, as well as Rural Residential and rural land categories; and

o   the proposed requirement for boundary firebreaks on Rural Residential land where they are not required under the existing notice.

·        General concerns regarding the potential impact on amenity, the environment and financial costs.

·        Proposed APZ requirements, and new or additional boundary firebreaks on Rura Residential land are not consistent with community values.

 

It was also clear from the feedback there had been issues with the communication and understanding of the proposals which may account for some of the concerns expressed. In particular the following issues are seen as being significant:

·        A proportion of respondents most interested in proposed Category 1 (urban) did not seem to understand the requirements of the new notice are significantly less than the requirements of the existing notice.

·        Concerns about the means of differentiating between Category 1 (urban) and Category 2 (urban – bushfire prone) properties (designation of property categories based on (DFES) mapping or property size with no relationship to risk).

·        Insufficient understanding and clarity of what constitutes ‘low-threat’ vegetation. Especially in Category 2 (urban – bushfire prone) land where the amount of vegetation management required under the provisions of the new notice would be less than that required under the existing notice.

·        Insufficient awareness amongst those most interested in proposed Category 2 (urban – bushfire prone) land that boundary firebreak requirements would not apply under the proposed notice, whereas they do under the existing notice on lots over 2,042m2.

 

Some of the issues raised during consultation also demonstrate insufficient awareness and clarity, across all land categories, that the requirements of the new notice replace the requirements of the existing notice (they are not in addition to existing requirements).

 

Next steps in the development of a new bushfire notice for the City includes the development of a second draft notice for consultation as detailed above and as per the Officer Recommendation. Prior to, and following the development of the second draft there will be full consultation with key stakeholders before a final draft in presented to the Council for potential adoption in the first half of 2022. 


 

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. The following risks have been identified:

Risk of reputational harm to the City and the Council – (1) arising from community feedback to the review process on one hand and (2) from the continued inconsistency between the planning framework and the bush fire notice on the other

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

(1)    Reputation

Minor

Likely

Medium

(2)    Reputation

Moderate

Possible

Medium

 

There has already been significant community and media interest over the review of the bushfire notice. Given the level of anxiety within the community about the requirements detailed in version 1 of the revised draft notice, version 2 would most certainly attract the same high level of interest.

 

It is imperative, therefore, that the City takes heed of the feedback from the community with regard to consultation, and the level of works required (particularly with regard to the management of vegetation) on all future draft versions of the notice.

 

The officer recommendation serves to mitigate the currently identified risk of not effectively addressing community feedback to the review process. It does not, however, significantly address risks associated with the continued inconsistency between the planning framework and the bush fire notice. There are also potential risks of other kinds – public health or operational, associated with the second class of reputational risks identified above.

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council could retain the existing notice, however, in doing so it should be noted that not all requirements of the existing notice are strictly enforced by the City. Should these requirements subsequently be enforced, they would in some cases exceed the proposed requirements of the new notice (albeit future draft versions released for consultation may differ significantly to the notice subject of recent consultation).

CONCLUSION

The recommendations of this report will allow the City to progress the development of a revised bushfire notice that is in line with community values whilst mitigating the risks of bushfire whilst.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Planning for the first two elements of the officer recommendation, stakeholder engagement and engagement of external specialist advice, would commence within one month of the Council making a resolution consistent with the Officer Recommendation of this report. Implementation of these two recommendations would then occur in time for officers to present a second draft bushfire notice for the Council to consider in late 2021.

 

Following further stakeholder consultation and a series of public information sessions in early 2022, the Council would be asked to consider the third draft notice, in light of submissions made following consultation, with a view to potentially endorsing a new bushfire notice in mid-2022 which would come in to effect for the 2022/2023 fire season.

 


Council

86

24 August 2021

13.1

Attachment a

Draft Bushfire Notice for Consultation (version 1 March 2020)

 




Council

87

24 August 2021

13.1

Attachment b

Draft Bushfire Notice Map for Consultation (version 1 March 2020)

 


Council

103

24 August 2021

13.1

Attachment c

YourSay Survey Project Report

 

















Council

104

24 August 2021

13.1

Attachment d

A Categorised Summary of Written Comments

 


Council                                                                                      107                                                               24 August 2021

13.2           RECONSIDERATION - DA 21/0043.01 - 22 MANSON STREET, WEST BUSSELTON

STRATEGIC THEME

ENVIRONMENT - An environment that is valued, conserved and able to be enjoyed by current and future generations.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

1.1 Ensure protection and enhancement of environmental values is a central consideration in land use planning.

SUBJECT INDEX

Development Applications

BUSINESS UNIT

Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Development Services - Lee Reddell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Regulatory: To determine an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests e.g. development applications, applications for other permits/licences, and other decisions that may be reviewable by the State Administrative Tribunal

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Decision Notice

Attachment c    Endorsed Plans

Attachment d   Photographs of tree

Attachment e    Applicant submission

Attachment f    Arborist Report

Attachment g   Private works on City land Policy  

 

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Carter foreshadowed a motion that was different to the officer recommendation. In accordance with clause 10.18(7) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, it was taken to be an alternative recommendation and was moved first.

 

There was opposition to the motion and debate ensued. The alternative motion was carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/188              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor K Cox

That the Council determines:

 

A.        That application DA 21/0043.01 which seeks to delete Condition 3.1 of DA 21/0043 requiring “that the driveway and front fence shall be re-designed and aligned to ensure the retention of all street trees” at Lot 46 (No. 22) Manson Street, West Busselton, is considered by the Council to be consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21.

 

B.         That Development Approval is issued for the proposal referred to in (A) above, subject to Condition 3.1 being replaced with the following:

 

 3.1.    Provision of two replacement Agonis Flexuosa (WA Peppermint) trees to be planted in a street verge or within a reserve within the vicinity of the site, to be agreed with the City.

CARRIED 8/1

For the motion: Cr Cox, Cr Henley, Cr Riccelli

Cr Hick, Cr Cronin, Cr Carter, Cr Barrett-Lennard

Against the motion: Cr Paine

 


 

Reasons:              This DA was/is required for this development because the proposal included a parapet wall on the western boundary, which is not as of right in an R15 area, as well as a minor rear setback variation. The proposal was advertised to the adjacent properties for comment and no objections were received.  Both of these variations to the R-Codes were considered reasonable and were supported by officer.

A DA was also required because of the proposed removal of the street tree. The deemed-to-comply provisions at Part 5.3.5 / C5.3 of the R-Codes indicate (amongst other things) that a driveway shall be “located so as to avoid street trees, or, where this is unavoidable, the street trees replaced at the applicant’s expense or re-planting arrangements to be approved by the decision-maker”.

The officer position is that the driveway is able to avoid the street tree on the western side of the verge through a redesign of the access (e.g. a curved driveway) and courtyard fence and, as such, it is not “unavoidable”.

However, I have visited the site, marked out the boundary, setback, likely driveway alignment and widths, required setback from the existing tree, and imagined myself in a vehicle navigating the driveway.  Imagine cars parked in the driveway to navigate, a situation where a driver is in a hurry or flustered with kids and perhaps a school kid is walking or riding along the road as a vehicle is leaving the property, and the consequences of missing seeing something as you are looking over shoulder to shoulder as you navigate the S-bend of your driveway also with your view obstructed by a tree.  This will be an accident waiting to happen.

Further, where the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes cannot be satisfied (as would be the case where the design requires the realignment), assessment against the design principles is required. The design principles at Part 5.3.5 / P5.1 of the R-Codes relating to vehicular access indicate amongst other things that “vehicular access provided to each development site to provide; vehicle access safety; reduced impact of access points on the streetscape; legible access; pedestrian safety; minimal crossovers; and high quality landscape features”.

Respectfully and contrary to officer’s opinion, and again having visited the site, it is my view that requiring the applicant to retain the tree and redesign and realign the driveway (and courtyard fence) will be detrimental to vehicle access safety, reduce pedestrian safety and will reduce legible access to the property contradictory to the design principles at Part 5.3.5 / P5.1 of the R-Codes relating to vehicular access.

These two points are almost circular in their arguments and contribute to my opinion that removal of the street tree is in fact unavoidable.


 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council determines:

 

A.        That application DA 21/0043.01 which seeks to delete Condition 3.1 of DA 21/0043 requiring “that the driveway and front fence shall be re-designed and aligned to ensure the retention of all street trees” at Lot 46 (No. 22) Manson Street, West Busselton is considered by the Council to be inconsistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21.

 

B.         That a refusal be issued for the proposal referred to above (A) for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed deletion of condition 3.1 has the effect of removing the western-most street tree in front of the subject site. The removal of the street tree is not unavoidable and therefore does not satisfy the Deemed to Comply requirements of Part 3.5.3 C5.3 of the R-Codes.

 

2.         The application does not demonstrate compliance with the Design Principles outlined in Part 3.5.3 P5.1 of the R-Codes in that the proposed access point has a negative impact on streetscape.

 

3.         The street tree proposed to be removed is mature, in good health, contributes positively to the streetscape.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval for DA 21/0043 for a ‘Single House’ at 22 Manson Street, West Busselton (Attachment A) was issued by the City on 1 June 2021 (Attachments B & C). 

 

The Development Approval (DA) included a condition (No. 3.1) requiring that the driveway and front fence be redesigned to ensure the retention of all street trees at the front of the property, as the proposed alignment of the driveway would have necessitated the removal of a mature Agonis Flexuosa (WA Peppermint Tree) on the western side of the street verge. 

 

The applicant has subsequently applied for a reconsideration by Council to delete Condition 3.1 (via a proposed amendment to the DA), and allow for the removal of the street tree at the western side of the verge which will enable the driveway and front fence / courtyard to be constructed as per the original proposal. 

 

BACKGROUND

The site is zoned Residential R15 where a Single House is a “P” or permitted use.  As per the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 a development application is not required for the “erection of, or alteration or additions to a single house on a lot” where the R-Codes apply to the works and the works comply with the deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes. 

 

In this case, a DA was required because the proposal included a parapet wall on the western boundary, which is not as of right in an R15 area, as well as a minor rear setback variation. The proposal was advertised to the adjacent properties for comment and no objections were received.  Both of these variations to the R-Codes were considered reasonable and were supported by the relevant planning officer.

 


 

A DA was also required because of the proposed removal of the street tree. The deemed-to-comply provisions at Part 5.3.5 / C5.3 of the R-Codes indicate (amongst other things) that a driveway shall be:

“located so as to avoid street trees, or, where this is unavoidable, the street trees replaced at the applicant’s expense or re-planting arrangements to be approved by the decision-maker”

 

It is the officer position that the driveway is able to avoid the street tree on the western side of the verge through a redesign of the access (e.g: a curved driveway) and courtyard fence and, as such, it is not “unavoidable”. Where the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes cannot be satisfied, assessment against the design principles is required. 

 

The design principles at Part 5.3.5 / P5.1 of the R-Codes relating to vehicular access indicate that:

“vehicular access provided to each development site to provide:

·        vehicle access safety;

·        reduced impact of access points on the streetscape;

·        legible access;

·        pedestrian safety;

·        minimal crossovers; and

·        high quality landscape features.”

During the assessment of the original application, a number of City officers visited the site to assess the health of the street tree and the safety of the proposed access should the tree remain in situ.  Upon inspection, it was agreed by officers that the mature tree is in good health, contributes positively to the streetscape, may provide some habitat for Western Ringtail Possums and that adequate sightlines could be achieved to ensure driver and pedestrian safety if the driveway were redesigned and the tree retained.

See photographs of the tree proposed to be removed at Attachment D.

 

This advice was communicated to the applicant who sought further consideration of the matter and provided justification for the proposed removal of the street tree, as summarised below:

·        Retention of the tree and curving the driveway around it, does not provide an unobstructed sightlines and compromises pedestrian safety. This is of particular concern considering the driveway is in close proximity to a school zone and is frequented by children walking, and riding bikes and scooters.

·        Offered to either replace the street tree on the verge or undertake similar tree planting at a location requested by Council.

·        The required structural protection zone (SRZ) has been calculated as 3 metres. Adhering to that exclusion zone we would be left with an access width of only 2.0 metres between the edge of driveway and fence. Installing the driveway closer to the tree within the SRZ may compromise the health and viability of the tree. Furthermore, the potential of concrete cracking from root disturbance is increased.

·        With the tree retained accessing the right hand side of the driveway, it will become problematic, particularly for children and elderly parents. Reversing out of the driveway will be especially challenging because of the tight turning angle that will be required to avoid the tree. If a car is parked on the left hand side of the driveway it will become impossible to enter or exit the right hand side at all.

·        With the tree retained, it will not be possible to reverse a caravan onto the driveway.

·        In the immediate local area there is a large number of peppermint trees, at the hospital grounds and to the rear of the site in ‘Peppy Park’, which provide a safer habitat for possums.

·        Acknowledge Councils view that the tree is a valuable City asset which contributes to residential amenity and streetscape. However, if the tree is retained, limbs that extend out from the eastern side of the tree will need to be removed to allow access for vehicles because of height restrictions meaning the tree will not be retained in its present state in any case.

·        This is one of the only properties in the street contributing to the streetscape with two trees on the front verge.

·        As residents and ratepayers about to undertake a large investment which supports local jobs, disappointing that officers did not consider our concerns with respect to the retention of the tree.

·        Future home is a valuable asset both in monetary terms and personal value and has been designed to be a sustainable home that takes advantage of natural features of the block.

·        The home has been designed with consideration of family life both now and into the future, including the needs of our children and older relatives, is functional and adds value to the streetscape.

 

It was considered by officers, however, that the removal of the street tree was not unavoidable and because of the size, condition and contribution of the tree to the streetscape, it should be retained. As such, DA 21/0043 was issued with Condition 3.1 requiring that the driveway and front fence shall be re-designed and aligned to ensure the retention of all street trees”.

The applicant has subsequently applied for a ‘reconsideration’ by Council to delete Condition 3.1 (via a proposed amendment to the DA) which will allow for the removal of the street tree at the western side of the verge, enabling the driveway and front fence / courtyard to be constructed as per the original proposal.  ‘Reconsideration’ is provided for under delegation DA 7 - 01 to the CEO, whereby prior to determination on a reconsideration request, a copy of the request, together with a report assessing the application, is circulated to all Councillors for a period of not less than 14 days, providing the opportunity for the matter to be called-in to Council for determination. If two or more Councillors request that the CEO bring the matter to the Council for determination, the CEO must consider their request. In this case, three Councillors requested that the matter be called in, and the CEO has agreed to their request.  Justification provided by the applicant for the proposed removal of the street tree can be found at Attachment E.

OFFICER COMMENT

Trees on verges are important to protect and enhance visual amenity, they help to cool down streets and neighbourhoods, and have been shown to increase property values. They can also play an important role as habitat for native fauna.

 

It is acknowledged that a redesign of the access to the garage from a straight to a curved driveway impacts on the way that the applicants would like to configure their front courtyard and use the driveway (e.g.: for additional vehicle parking and caravan storage).  The applicants desire to provide a functional outdoor space for their family and their offer to plant a replacement tree on their verge or contribute to off-set planting elsewhere in the vicinity is also acknowledged. 

 

It is considered however, that the loss of the street tree to facilitate redevelopment on this site is not ‘unavoidable’ and as such an assessment against the Design Principles of the R-Codes is required.  The key issue for consideration in this respect relates to reducing the impact of access points on the streetscape.

 

Inspection by City officers, prior to the issue of the DA, indicated that there were no issues which would justify the removal of the tree on health grounds. The City has subsequently also commissioned an independent arborist report to assess the quality of the tree (Attachment F).  The report indicates that the structure and health of the tree is “Fair” with no defects, pest or disease issues of concern noted.  The report also indicates that a tree protection zone of only 2m is likely to be required should the driveway be designed to curve around the tree.

 

Had the tree been determined to be in poor condition, by City officers or the independent arborist, it would be considered reasonable to allow the removal of the tree subject to replacement planting in the vicinity.  Given that the tree is in fair condition however, and given that adequate sightlines can be achieved to ensure pedestrian and vehicle safety, the trees contribution to the streetscape is considered significant enough to justify its retention. 

 

While it is acknowledged that street tree planting in Manson Street is not extensive or uniform in nature, the maturity, canopy and overall size of the tree, at approximately 10m in height, contributes positively to the streetscape character and it is therefore recommended that the application to delete Condition 3.1 from DA 21/0043 be refused on the basis that it does not satisfactorily address the Design Principles in Part 5.3.5 / P5.1 of the R-Codes requiring that proposed vehicle access points be designed to reduce the impact on the streetscape.

 

It is also noted that the arborist report identified the presence of a possum drey and other signs of possum activity within the subject tree.  While not identified as a relevant consideration within the R-Codes, this is arguably considered relevant in respect of the requirement in the Deemed Provisions to consider orderly and proper planning.

Statutory Environment

Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law

Street trees are protected by the City’s Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law 2015.

 

Part 2.5 of the Local Law provides General Prohibitions and indicates:

 

2.1       General Prohibitions

(1)       A person shall not:

(a)      remove or damage a tree or part of a tree on a thoroughfare, irrespective of whether the tree was planted by the owner or occupier of a lot abutting that portion of the thoroughfare

 

Part 2.2 allows for some activities subject to a permit and includes:

2.2      Activities allowed with a permit – general

(1)       A person shall not, except under a permit –

(i)        prune or fell any tree in or onto a thoroughfare

 

The Local Law is the control used to determine whether a tree can and should be lopped or removed upon request from a landowner when there is no associated DA being considered. Had an application been made to remove the tree under the Local Law, assessment of the tree’s health and potential impact on safety would likely have resulted in a refusal to remove the tree.  It is noted however that general practice is that a separate permit under the Local Law is not required where the removal of a street tree is approved through consideration of a Development Approval. 

 

Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49

Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 has been developed to mitigate potential habitat loss for the critically endangered Western Ringtail Possum in the City’s urban areas where inadequate tree controls currently exist.  The amendment aims to:

·                Address deficits in current clearing controls;

·                Restrict the clearing of WA Peppermint trees;

·                Define criteria for assessment of tree removal;

·                Allow for variations to site and development requirements where trees retained;

·                Provide an allowance for replacement planting (or payment in lieu of); and

·                Recognise development of vacant sites.

 

A new local planning policy is intended to be advertised concurrently with the amendment, to provide operational detail for implementation.

 

While it is noted that the draft policy is yet to be publically advertised, its development is an indication of Council’s intent to address the retention of Western Ringtail Possum habitat in urban environments, which is an important contributor to the longevity of the species.

Relevant Plans and Policies

Council Policy: Private Works on City Land Including Private Coastal Protection Works on City land

This Policy (see Attachment G) sets out guidance relating to private works on City Land, where existing laws or other policies do not already provide sufficient guidance, such that City Land is appropriately managed.

 

Part 5.3 of the Policy indicates:

5.3.     Removal of vegetation on City Land for the purposes of private works (which in law must always be approved the City) may be supported in the following circumstances:

a.        where the vegetation is identified as a cause or likely cause of damage to infrastructure and where there are no other ways of managing the damage or risk of damage; or

b.        where the works are considered to be necessary and there are no other reasonable alternatives to removal of the vegetation in order for the works to proceed.

This Policy is a guiding document for assessment of proposals for private works on City land, such as the proposed removal of a street tree made under the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law as referenced above.

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.         Refuse the proposal on different or additional grounds (e.g: Western Ringtail Possum habitat); or

2.         Approve the proposal – allowing Condition 3.1 of DA21/0043 to be deleted – subject to a contribution towards the planting of two replacement Agonis Flexuosa (WA Peppermint) trees in a street verge or public reserve in the vicinity of the site, to be agreed with the City.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, it is respectfully recommended that the applicant’s reconsideration request to delete Condition 3.1 of DA 21/0043 and to permit the removal of the street tree on the western side of the lot be refused. 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The applicant will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council meeting.

 


Council

114

24 August 2021

13.2

Attachment a

Location Plan

 



Council

118

24 August 2021

13.2

Attachment b

Decision Notice

 





Council

123

24 August 2021

13.2

Attachment c

Endorsed Plans

 






Council

125

24 August 2021

13.2

Attachment d

Photographs of tree

 



Council

127

24 August 2021

13.2

Attachment e

Applicant submission

 



Council

136

24 August 2021

13.2

Attachment f

Arborist Report

 










Council

138

24 August 2021

13.2

Attachment g

Private works on City land Policy

 


 


Council                                                                                      141                                                               24 August 2021

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil


 

19.             urgent business

19.1           COUNCILLOR SUE RICCELLI - REMOTE ATTENDANCE

STRATEGIC THEME

LEADERSHIP - A Council that connects with the community and is accountable in its decision making.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

4.2 Deliver governance systems that facilitate open, ethical and transparent decision making.

SUBJECT INDEX

Council Meetings

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

Nil

 

The Presiding Member called on a Councillor to move a motion to consider the item as urgent business. The motion was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/189              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That Council agree to consider the item ‘Councillor Sue Riccelli – Remote Attendance’ as an item of urgent business as the urgency of the business is such that it cannot await inclusion in the agenda for the next meeting of Council.

CARRIED 9/0

 

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2108/190              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Council:

1.    Approves Councillor Sue Riccelli to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting on 8 September 2021 by telephone or other means of instantaneous communication pursuant to regulation 14A(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

2.    Resolves that the location of a motel located in Bentley Western Australia, is a suitable place in accordance with regulation 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 9/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 


 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.    Approves Councillor Sue Riccelli to attend the Ordinary Council Meeting on 8 September 2021 by telephone or other means of instantaneous communication pursuant to regulation 14A(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

2.    Resolves that the location of a motel located in Bentley Western Australia, is a suitable place in accordance with regulation 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of an arrangement which enables Councillor Sue Riccelli to attend the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 8 September 2021 by telephone or other means of instantaneous means of communication in accordance with regulation 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations).

 

Council is also asked to consider the location of a motel located in Bentley, Western Australia, as a suitable place as defined by 14A(4) of the Regulations.

 

BACKGROUND

At the Council Meeting of 28 July 2021, Council endorsed an application for a leave of absence for Councillor Riccelli (C2107/142) for the Ordinary Meeting of Council 8 September 2021. Cr Riccelli’s circumstances have recently changed, meaning Cr Riccelli no longer requires the approved leave of absence and requests Council consider her application to attend the Ordinary Meeting of Council of the 8 September via remote attendance.

Cr Riccelli provided notice of her ability to attend remotely to the CEO on 24 August 2021. Cr Riccelli is attending a work conference for her employer, Anglicare, in Perth from 8 September until 10 September 2021. Councillor Riccelli will, however, be residing at a secure location in Bentley after the conference and able to attend the meeting by electronic means.

OFFICER COMMENT

In accordance with 14A(1) of the Regulations, a person who is not physically present at a meeting is to be taken to be present:

(a)       if the person is simultaneously in audio contact, by telephone or other means of instantaneous communication, with each other person present at the meeting; and

(b)       the person is in a suitable place; and

(c)       the council has approved of the arrangement - by absolute majority.

 

A Council cannot give its approval under 14(A)(1)(c) if to do so would mean that at more than half of the meetings of the council in that financial year, a person who was not physically present was taken to be present in accordance with this regulation.

 

With respect to the meeting Councillor Riccelli is seeking approval to attend by electronic means, this will not constitute more than half of the meetings in the financial year ending 30 June 2022 (but would need to be taken into consideration should a similar arrangement be sought in the future).

 


 

Councillor Riccelli’s remote attendance will be facilitated through an audio and visual instantaneous connection with the meeting. If at any time during the meeting, Councillor Riccelli ceases to have this instantaneous connection, as per regulation 14A(3) of the Regulations, she will be deemed to be no longer taken to be present. If this occurs, the minutes of the meeting will record that Councillor Riccelli has left the meeting until such time she regains connection. Having used this practice previously, officers are comfortable that it will provide Councillor Riccelli sufficient connection and the ability to fully participate in the meeting with little impediment.

 

Councillor Riccelli has advised that, during the time of the meeting, she will be situated at a secure location in Bentley, Western Australia, which is approximately 218km from the location of the meeting in Busselton. The definition of “townsite” is an area that constitutes land, districts and townsites as defined by order of the Minister. Bentley is a locality within the Town of Victoria Park in the Perth metropolitan area and would sufficiently meet the requirements of “townsite” as defined.

 

Councillor Riccelli has provided assurances that she will be the sole occupant of her motel room and will be wearing a headset with microphone, which will provide sufficient privacy and maintain the confidentiality of the meeting with little impact on the running of the meeting. It is therefore recommended by officers that Council approves Councillor Riccelli’s location at a motel located in Bentley Western Australia as a suitable place and approve her attendance by electronic means at the meeting on 8 September 2021.

Statutory Environment

Regulation 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 provides that:

(1)       Any person who is not physically present at a meeting of a council or committee is to be taken to be present at the meeting if –

(a)       The person is simultaneously in audio contact, by telephone or other means of instantaneous communication, with each other person at the meeting; and

(b)       The person is in a suitable place; and

(c)       The council has approved* of the arrangement.

(4)       Under this regulation –

suitable place [other in relation to a person with a disability]

(d)      … means a place that the council has approved* as a suitable place for the purpose of this paragraph and that is located –

(i)        In a townsite or other residential area; and

(ii)       150km or further from the place at which the meeting it to be held … measured along the shortest road route ordinarily used for travelling.

townsite has the same meaning given to that term in the Land Administration Act 1997 section 3(1).

* Absolute majority required.

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 choose not to approve the Bentley location as a suitable place and/or not approve Cr Riccelli’s attendance by electronic means at the meeting of 8 September 2021. If this option was elected by Council, Councillor Riccelli may instead choose to default to the previously approved leave of absence for the respective meeting.

CONCLUSION

Councillor Sue Riccelli has sought approval from Council, under 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, to attend the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 8 September 2021 via remote attendance. Officers are of the opinion that the application meets the requirements under the Regulations and recommend the approval in accordance with the officer recommendation.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The officer recommendation will be implemented on the meeting date specified.

 


Council                                                                                      144                                                               24 August 2021

20.             Confidential Reports  

Nil

 

21.             Closure

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 6.41pm.

 

 

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 2 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 8 September 2021.

 

DATE:_________________  PRESIDING MEMBER:         _____________________________