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 8 September 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. 3

2....... Attendance. 3

3....... Prayer. 4

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

5....... Disclosure Of Interests. 4

6....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 4

7....... Question Time For Public. 4

8....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 10

Previous Council Meetings. 10

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 August 2021. 10

Committee Meetings. 10

8.1          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee held 18 August 2021. 10

8.2          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 August 2021. 10

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 11

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 11

11..... Items brought forward.. 12

ITEMS for debate. 12

16.2        BUSSELTON PERFORMING ARTS AND CONVENTION CENTRE - CONSULTATION OUTCOMES. 12

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 59

12.1        Airport Advisory Committee - 18/8/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - AIRPORT UPDATE. 60

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/8/2021 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: RISK MANAGEMENT. 69

14.1        RFT 07/21 - STREET AND DRAIN CLEANING SERVICES. 78

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 83

ITEMS FOR DEBATE. 101

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/8/2021 - REALIGNMENT OF KING STREET AND BROWN STREET BEACH DOG MANAGEMENT AREAS. 101

16.1        2021 REVIEW OF COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS AND TERMS OF REFERENCE. 113

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 131

19..... urgent business. 131

20..... Confidential Reports. 131

21..... Closure. 131

 


Council                                                                                      4                                                              8 September 2021

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN THE Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 8 September 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 5.31pm.

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

Cr Sue Riccelli

Cr Ross Paine

Cr Kate Cox

Cr Paul Carter

Cr Phill Cronin

Cr Jo Barrett-Lennard

Cr Lyndon Miles

 

Officers:

 

Mrs Naomi Searle, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Matthew Riordan, Acting Director, Planning and Development Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Ms Maxine Palmer, Acting Director, Community and Commercial Services

Ms Sarah Pierson, Manager, Governance and Corporate Services

Ms Melissa Egan, Governance Officer

 

Apologies:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

Public:

 

52

3.               Prayer

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Joe O’Donovan of the Hope Christian Church.

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

Nil

 

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

The Mayor noted that declarations of impartiality interests had been received from:

 

·         Cr Lyndon Miles in relation to Agenda Item 12.2 ‘Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/8/2021 - Realignment of King Street And Brown Street Beach Dog Management Areas’.

 

·         Cr Ross Paine in relation to Agenda Item 16.2 ‘Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre – Consultation Outcomes’.

 

The Mayor advised that, in accordance with regulation 22(2)(b) of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021, these declarations would be read out immediately before these items were discussed.

 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

The Mayor noted and extended congratulations to Mr Allan Guthrie who was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for his services to the community through emergency response organisations, and to Mr Andrew Thompson who was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal, in the Australia Day 2021 Honours List, which will be presented at Parliament House tomorrow.

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

 

The following questions were taken on notice by the Council at the 24 August 2021 Ordinary Council meeting:

 

7.1             Mrs Michelle Shackleton

 

Question

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

 

Response

(Provided by Mr Tony Nottle, Director Finance and Corporate Services)

The total budgeted rates revenue growth from 2020/21 – 2021/22 is expected to increase by $1.43 million. Council has budgeted an amount of $630,000 in interim rates. This equates to approximately 1.15% of total rates revenue.


 

Question

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

 

Response

(Provided by Mr Tony Nottle, Director Finance and Corporate Services)

The increase in fees and charges from 2020/21 to 2021/22 is $408,000.

 

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

(Provided by Mr Tony Nottle, Director Finance and Corporate Services)

It was identified that that the 2020/21 budget for Cabarita public open space was incorrect and as such required a budget amendment. Please refer to the council resolution C2008/096 from 25 August 2020.  A copy can be provided if required. The budget was reduced from $100,000 to $28,000.

 

No funding has been expended on this project to date. It is the intention to complete works on this reserve this financial year and we will shortly be commencing consultation with the local residents.   

 

 

7.2             Ms Anne Ryan

 

Question

Was the Eastern Link project completed on time and on budget?

 

Response

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

The City received a grant on 15 September 2017 from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development for $1,250,000, with the final project agreement received 13 December 2017.  At its meeting on 14 April 2018, Council resolved to undertake further public consultation and feasibility investigations in relation to the Eastern Link and other road traffic options.  After considering the outcomes of this work it resolved to proceed with the Eastern Link project on 14 April 2018. 

 

An expression of interest was put out for the Construction of the City Centre Eastern Link Stage 1 on 1 December 2018, with tenders publicly invited in April / May 2019.  All tender submissions were in excess of the available project budget.  As a result tender requirements were reviewed and a tender reissued on 13 July 2019.  A contract was awarded for the works on 11 November 2019. 

 

The project cost for Stage 1 of the works was $5,123,493.14 (excl. 10% GST). The project completion date for Stage 1 was 30 June 2020. The final project cost was calculated at practical completion, in the last week of June 2020, with formal opening held on Friday 3 July 2020.

 

Noting all of the above, the Eastern Link Stage 1 project (Construction works – Leeuwin Civil Contract – RFT11/19) was completed on time and within budget, and the statement made by Councillor Kelly Hick at the project’s opening ceremony was correct.

Question Time for Public

 

7.3             Mr Keith Sims

 

Question

Is the latest date that the tenders can be considered for the construction of the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC) written into the tender contract?

 

Response

(Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services)

The Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provide an exemption where a local government can go back to the tenderers as long as it is prior to a six-month deadline, if it had previously determined there were no advantageous tenders.

 

Question

Have you asked the lowest tenderer for the BPACC if they would hold that price?

 

Response

(Mrs Naomi Searle, Acting CEO)

We have had ongoing conversations with contractors who submitted tenders for the [BPACC] project. We would be seeking re-pricing, so that pricing is not held.

 

Question

If the builders withdrew their price they tendered for the project, what would the City do?

 

Response

(Mayor)

Council will then make a decision on whether the project proceeds or not.

 

Response

(Mrs Searle)

If Council decides to proceed with option A [of the officer recommendation], we will not go back out to tender, we will seek a re-pricing based on the current designs of the project. If Council proceeds with option B, that is a whole new design and new tender process.

 

Question

Can the City obtain funding after construction [of the BPACC project] has commenced?

 

Response

(Mrs Searle)

There is the opportunity to seek funding after the project has started, but it is dependent on the State or Federal requirements. I do not know many projects that have been funded after construction has started. There could be discussions with the State Government to see how far into the contract the City could proceed before funding becomes invalid. We should find out about Federal funding through Building Better Regions any day now.

 

Question

If you did not receive funding during election time, why do you think you will receive a grant now?

 


 

Response

(Mayor)

The State Budget is out tomorrow, so we will see, but there is also the opportunity for obtaining a commitment for funding in the future.

 

Response

(Mrs Searle)

The South West Development Commission has reviewed the business case [for the BPACC project] and that is far as the business case has been received through the State Government, so there still is the opportunity for State funding.

 

Question

Part of the Council decision made at its meeting on 23 June was that if further funding is not obtained in one month that would maintain or not significantly increase the financial contribution of the City, so how would option A or option B not significantly increase the City’s financial contribution?

 

Response

(Mayor)

As has been responded to you previously [at public question time], the second part of that resolution was, if funding was not obtained within that time frame, we would go out to the community on a survey, which we have done.

 

 

7.4             Mrs Norma Sims

 

Question

The results of the Catalyse survey was a 52%-53% majority, with a range of participants selecting option C, which was not to proceed with the BPACC. What further guidance is needed, other than listening to the majority?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The survey was always a part of informing the Council’s decision-making, and it will.

 

Question

Why are the ratepayers not included as stakeholders?

 

Response

(Mayor)

Ratepayers and residents are stakeholders in all of the decisions that we make for everyone in the community.

 

Question

Will the Councillors explain their understanding of their role in the decision-making as compared to the decision of the majority of the community?

 

Response

(Mayor)

Councillors are required to make a decision under the rules and regulations of the Local Government Act and are required to make decisions based on all the information provided.


 

Question

How do Council propose to encourage the community to participate in surveys if their opinions are continually ignored?

 

Response

(Mayor)

Your opinions are not ignored and they will be considered in the decision-making process, as they always are.

 

7.5             Mr Gordon Bleechmore

                  

Question

When is building due to commence on the bridge on Tuart Drive?

 

Response

(Mayor)

We have received Federal funding for the restoration of the bridge which was damaged. Main Roads have advised that, due to a paucity of contractors so far, they are looking at commencing it this financial year.

 

Question

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

It is due for completion, hopefully, by January 2022.

 

Question

What is the reason for replacing the cladding on the Administration Building?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The problem is aluminium composite panelling, which was an approved material at the time of the construction of the building. Subsequent to that, there have been some incidents where this material was deemed to be unsafe in certain fire situations. As part of a safety audit of this building, it was determined that the best way of mitigating this risk was replacing the cladding, which will come out of the building maintenance reserve.

 

Question

Why is the City paying for the cost?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The builder is not liable, because they were compliant at the time.

 

Question

At the Community Access Session last week, Mr Thompson stated that some of our rates money was kept back and put towards a performing arts centre. Why didn’t Council correct Mr Thompson and provide him some advice that what he was saying was not correct?

 

Response

(Mayor)

There is no reserve for a performing arts centre, as with many of our long-term capital projects. However, a portion of rates is put into reserves, which may be used for projects.

 


 

Question

Where is the City’s legal defence with regard to BCP’s challenge of the tender process for the Eastern Link?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The City of Busselton is being defended by its insurer in this case.

 

 

7.6             Mr Don Watt

                  

                   Question

                   The [local] newspaper said there was “hoards” of people who came to Council in favour of the performing arts centre. How is this true?

 

                   Response

(Mayor)

                   I did not write what was in the newspaper, so I cannot answer that question.

 

                   Response

                   (Cr Cox)

                   At the Community Access Session, there were about 12 people who spoke in favour of the performing arts centre and two against.

 

                   Question

                   Is the Eastern Link project completed?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The road network was completed in accordance with the budget and timeline.

 

 

7.7             Ms Anne Ryan

                  

                   Question

                   Why did nobody [from the City] contact Bay to Bay Action Group to advise that the order had been lifted preventing a special electors meeting we petitioned for?

 

                   Response

                   (Mayor)

                   We will take that on notice.

 

 

7.8             Mrs Jill Walsh

                  

                   Question

                   How much money did the City receive from the DWER grant of $900,000 for the Vasse River?

 

                   Response

                   (Cr Ricelli)

                   My understanding was it was $250,000 or $350,000, going specifically to the Vasse River.


 

7.9             Mr Neville Wheatley

 

                   Question

                   You had an original budget of $25 million [for the BPACC]. Why can’t you build it for this amount?

 

                   Response

                   (Mayor)

                   I wish we could, but the reality is the tenders came back over that price. 

 

                  

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 August 2021

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/191              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

 

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 August 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 9/0

 

Committee Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee held 18 August 2021

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/192              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor P Cronin

 

That the Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 18 August 2021 be noted.

CARRIED 9/0

 

8.2             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 August 2021

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/193              Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor K Cox

 

That the Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 August 2021 be noted.

CARRIED 9/0

 


 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil

Presentations

 

Mr David Barton, CinefestOZ, spoke with respect to Agenda Item 16.2 ‘Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre – Consultation Outcomes’. Mr Barton was in favour of the officer recommendation options to proceed with the construction of the BPACC.

 

Ms Anne Ryan, Bay to Bay Action Group Inc, spoke with respect to Agenda Item 16.2 ‘Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre – Consultation Outcomes’. Ms Ryan was in favour of the officer recommendation options, and the alternative motion foreshadowed by Councillor Riccelli, to not proceed with the construction of the BPACC.

 

Mrs Lisa Massey, Friends of Busselton Performing Arts Inc, spoke with respect to Agenda Item 16.2 ‘Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre – Consultation Outcomes’. Mrs Massey was in favour of the officer recommendation options to proceed with the construction of the BPACC.

 

Ms Midge Avery, Busselton and Districts Residents Association Inc, spoke with respect to Agenda Item 16.2 ‘Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre – Consultation Outcomes’. Ms Avery was in favour of the officer recommendation options to not proceed with the construction of the BPACC.

Deputations

 

Nil

 

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

Nil


 

11.             Items brought forward

6.43pm:                At this time, the Presiding Member advised that item 16.2 ‘Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre – Consultation Outcomes’ would be brought forward.

 

ITEMS for debate

16.2           BUSSELTON PERFORMING ARTS AND CONVENTION CENTRE - CONSULTATION OUTCOMES

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.4 Establish a performing arts facility for the District.

SUBJECT INDEX

Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Catalyse Community Engagement Report - Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre  

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

23 June 2021

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Ross Paine / Councillor

Item No./Subject

Item No. 16.2 ‘Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre – Consultation Outcomes’

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

I previously disclosed an impartiality interest, as I was a volunteer with Acting Up, which is an organisation that occasionally hires the Weld Theatre.

 

Prior to the meeting, Cr Cronin 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 motion and was moved first.

 

There was opposition to the motion, debate ensued and the motion was carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/194              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

That the Council:

 

1.              Receives  and  notes  the  outcomes  of  the  survey  in relation  to  the  Busselton  Performing  Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC); and

 

2.              Resolves  to  proceed  with  construction  of  the  BPACC  on  the  basis  of  the  current  and previously  tendered  design  subject  to  value  engineering  options  that  do  not  materially affect functionality or performance of the centre; and

 

3.              Delegates power and authority to the CEO to accept a tender and enter into a construction contract  not  exceeding  the  value  of  $38  million,  either  through  the  public  invitation  of tenders  or  through  utilisation  of Regulation  11(2)(c)(i)  of  the Local  Government  (Function and General) Regulations 1996 ; and

 

4.              Acknowledges the community sentiment raised by some residents in relation to potential  future rate increases and the City’s debt levels; and

 

5.              Requests that the CEO review funding options for the BPACC which may assist to mitigate concerns around rate increases and debt, including continuing to pursue State and Federal Government funding contributions, reviewing the use of City Reserves to potentially reduce Treasury borrowings, and reviewing Fees and Charges; and present funding scenarios as part of the next review of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.

CARRIED 7/2

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

For the motion: Cr  Cronin, Cr Hick, Cr Cox, Cr Miles, Cr Carter

Cr Barrett-Lennard, Cr Paine

Against the motion: Cr Riccelli, Cr Henley

 

Reasons:       The Performing Art Centre (PAC) was first investigated and put out to initial consultation 17 years ago and was added to the first Strategic Community Plan 11 years ago. Since then, there has been much consultation and, over the last three years, since receiving a $10.35M Federal grant towards the project, the City has moved forward on this promise and invested a lot of time and money into developing the best facility for the future of this City.

We currently have catered for a $28M PAC in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) with rate rises remaining below 3% for the next 10 years.  The City is in a strong financial position to more than cover the full debt required to complete the build. Currently the interest rates are the lowest they have ever been, since the start of the RBA in 1959, meaning that this is one of the best times ever to borrow money, resulting in substantial savings through locking in the interest rate over the next 10 to 20 years.

This full design offers a multi-functional facility that will not compromise its offering to the local community and surrounding districts, and this design will increase the desirability to commercial operators, thereby creating a positive revenue stream that that will reduce the operating cost to the rate payers.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation Option A

That the Council:

1.         Receives and notes the outcomes of the survey in relation to the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC); and

2.         Resolves to proceed with construction of the BPACC on the basis of the current and previously tendered design subject to value engineering options that do not materially affect functionality or performance of the centre; and

 

3.         Delegates power and authority to the CEO to accept a tender and enter into a construction contract not exceeding the value of $38 million, either through the public invitation of tenders or through utilisation of Regulation 11(2)(c)(i) of the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996; and

4.         Acknowledges the community sentiment raised by some residents in relation to potential future rate increases and the City’s debt levels; and

5.         Requests that the CEO review funding options for the BPACC which may assist to mitigate concerns around rate increases and debt, including continuing to pursue State and Federal Government funding contributions, reviewing the use of City Reserves in lieu of Treasury borrowings, and reviewing Fees and Charges; and present funding scenarios as part of the next review of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.

Recommendation Option B

That the Council:

1.         Receives and notes the outcomes of the survey in relation to the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC); and

2.         Resolves to proceed with construction of the BPACC on the basis of a modified design; and

3.         Authorises the CEO to:

(a)       instruct Kerry Hill Architects Pty Ltd to prepare revised detailed designs; and

 

(b)       publicly invite tenders for the construction of the BPACC on the basis of the revised designs; and

4.         Acknowledges the community sentiment raised by some residents in relation to potential future rate increases and the City’s debt servicing levels; and

5.         Requests that the CEO review funding options for the BPACC which may assist to mitigate concerns around rate increases and debt, including continuing to pursue State and Federal Government funding contributions, reviewing the use of City Reserves in lieu of Treasury borrowings, and reviewing Fees and Charges; and present funding scenarios as part of the next review of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.

 

Recommendation Option C

That the Council:

1.         Receives and notes the outcomes of the survey in relation to the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC).

2.         Resolves not to proceed with construction of the BPACC at this time.

3.         Authorises the CEO to write to the Federal Government thanking them for the grant funding commitment of $10.35 million and outlining that the City cannot accept the grant; and

4.         Request the CEO to consider the future of the BPACC project as part of the next review of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan and / or review of the City’s Strategic Community Plan.

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a recently undertaken survey in relation to the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC) and provides Council with three options with respect to the future of the project.

 

BACKGROUND

The provision of a performing arts and convention centre has been identified as a community need for fifteen years; over which time feasibility reports, project planning and comprehensive stakeholder engagement has occurred to ensure the viability, support and long term sustainability of the centre.  In 2019, as a result of this planning, the City received a $10.35 million grant from the Federal Government towards the BPACC.

 

The City does not currently have a purpose built indoor performance and convention venue capable of hosting large indoor events. The BPACC seeks to provide a venue which supports the City’s standing as the ‘Events Capital WA’, increases the vibrancy of the Busselton town centre by facilitating an improved night time economy, and enables our community to attend performances locally, as opposed to travelling outside of the District. It is the third pillar of a long held regional growth strategy, alongside the Busselton Foreshore Development and the Busselton Margaret River Airport redevelopment, and provides an investment into the arts and culture sector, that has traditionally experienced limited funding.

 

Located in a unique heritage setting, integrated with the Weld Theatre and ArtGeo Gallery in Busselton, the BPACC is designed to be a multi-functional venue and a place where people can watch live performances, participate in dance, drama or music recitals, and attend business events, award nights and graduations.

 

In March 2021, the City issued RFT 06/21 for construction of the BPACC. Tenders closed in May 2021, with prices coming in higher than expected due to the current construction environment.  As a result Council resolved at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 June 2021 (C2106/0136):

That the Council:

1.         Acknowledges receipt of the tender submissions for RFT 06/21 Construction of the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre; and

2.         Declines to accept any tender; and

3.         Continues to pursue additional funding from State and Federal Governments; and

4.         If a commitment for further funding is not obtained within one month that would maintain or not significantly increase the current financial contribution by the City, reviews design options and associated impacts and undertakes a community survey to help inform decisions on the future of the project.

 

With no funding commitment from the State Government having been received, and no further funding from the Federal Government beyond its initial $10.35 million investment, the City reviewed design options for the building.  Having identified capacity to reduce the size of the building, while still retaining required functionality, the City then commissioned Catalyse Pty Ltd, an independent research company, to undertake a community survey, using random sampling as well as providing the opportunity for interested people to opt-in to the survey. 

 


 

The survey sought community views on the following options, in order to provide information that would assist and contribute to Council’s decision making on the future of the project:

 

·        Option A – Proceeding with construction of a performing arts and convention centre as per the tendered design at an estimated construction cost of $38 million.

·        Option B – Proceeding with construction of a performing arts and convention centre based on a modified design at an estimated construction cost of $33 million.

·        Option C – Not proceeding with construction of a performing arts and convention centre at this time.

OFFICER COMMENT

Survey Findings

The survey opened on Monday 26 July 2021 and closed at 5pm Monday 9 August 2021.  4,000 randomly selected invitations to participate in the survey were extended to residents and ratepayers; 3,000 by email and 1,000 by hard copy.  The ability for people to opt-in to the survey was also available with an opt-in survey link accessible via the City’s Your Say Busselton website. 

 

A total of 2,352 people completed the survey. The results of the survey were analysed and are presented in the Catalyse survey report at Attachment A. The survey submissions have been analysed and reported by:

·        residents;

·        out of area ratepayers;

·        visitors;

·        businesses; and

·        council affiliated. 

 

The resident sample has been weighted for age and gender (using ABS population data) to ensure it is representative of the City’s population demographic; with the out of area ratepayers, visitors, businesses and council affiliated samples being unweighted, with the exception of council affiliated, this is because they do not fit an ABS population profile.  Council affiliated respondents have been removed from the resident sample to ensure this remains free of any potential bias. 

 

The business sample contains both resident and non-resident businesses and hence is unable to be weighted (note however where a business respondent is also a resident they are also in the resident sample; in effect they wear two hats).

 

The resident random and resident opt-in sample are very closely aligned in terms of outcomes, and for this reason they have also been reported as a combined sample.  The combined resident sample has also been analysed and reported with breakdowns by housing tenure, location, age, gender and life stage.  It is noted that the resident random sample excludes youth (14-17 years).

 


 

The table below summarises the sentiment as to whether Council should proceed (based on selection of either option A or B) or not proceed (based on selection of option C) with the project:

 

 

Proceed (A or B)

Do not proceed (C)

Unsure / NR

Residents

45%

53%

2%

Random

44%

52%

 

Opt In

45%

53%

 

Out of area ratepayers

73%

27%

0%

Visitors

90%

9%

1%

Businesses

46%

52%

2%

Council affiliated 

71%

29%

0%

 

If Council is to proceed, Option A is preferred across all groups (and all demographic breakdowns) over Option B.

 

Analysis of the resident sample shows that males and gender diverse residents are the least supportive of the project proceeding, along with those in the 55 plus age bracket, and those living in rural and rural residential locations.  Support is strongest amongst resident youth and younger adults.  Support declines through the age brackets.  Residents with children in the household are more supportive than those without (50% support vs 41% support). The results do not vary significantly in terms of where people live within the District, with the exception of rural and rural residential residents. Owner-occupiers are less supportive of proceeding with the project than those renting / other, who are quite strongly supportive (41% support owner occupier vs 65% support renting / other).

 

Out of area ratepayers, visitors and council affiliated respondents are very supportive of the Council proceeding. Businesses as a subset sample (noting this includes both resident and out of area respondents) are less supportive. 

 

Qualitative analysis of the survey results provide insights as to why people selected option A, B or C.  In summary, respondents who selected Option A were primarily focused on the economic and social benefits that the centre will bring. They feel that a performing arts and convention centre is needed to support arts and culture, showcase local talent and attract performances and events, and as an investment for the future. 

 

Respondents who selected Option B did so on the basis that it is a cheaper option, and adequate for our needs.

 

Respondents who selected Option C were primarily focused on financial concerns. They feel that the cost of constructing a performing arts and convention centre is too high in the current economic climate, that it is not needed and that the project will have too much of an impact on rates.  Some of these respondents felt that the money should be spent in other areas. 

 

In terms of importance and usage, views are again polarised between very low / low importance and very high / high importance. Music concerts are of the most interest, followed by theatre performances, festivals, and comedy or cabaret shows.  Interest is fairly spread overall.

 


 

Decision Making Considerations

In deciding whether to proceed with construction of the BPACC and if so, to what extent, Council will need to consider a range of factors including:

1.         the project objectives and benefits (outlined below) and its role as a District pillar project;

2.         community sentiment;

3.         impacts on the City’s financial position;

4.         impacts on ratepayers;

5.         alignment to the Strategic Community Plan themes and strategic priorities;

6.         impacts of returning the Federal Government funding.

 

The BPACC project objectives / benefits are seen as:

·        Economic:

o   Injection of $6.6m annually to the local economy;

o   Creation of local jobs - 115 during construction and 44 through its operations;

o   Increased tourism and events offering;

o   Increased visitor spend and attraction of a more lucrative, higher spending business, incentive and exhibition travel market;

o   Activation of CBD and connection of the foreshore with the Busselton town centre.

·        Social:

o   Providing support for local artistic and cultural pursuits;

o   Providing opportunities for creative industries sector;

o   Broadening opportunities for creative youth;

o   Providing entertainment for youth;

o   Improved mental health and capacity to connect and engage;

o   Total social benefits valued at an estimated $7M.

 

The demonstration of support from visitors and out of area rate payers, as well as resident youth and younger adults, suggest alignment to these objectives.  Qualitative analysis also shows that those who support the project proceeding do so for the stated economic and social benefits, and are willing to pay for it through a rate increase if required. Economic development, promotion of employment opportunities, activation of town centres, and the provision of more things for youth to do along with more indoor activities are all outlined in of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031 (SCP).

 

However, the survey results also indicate that there are many people, and just over half within the resident sample, who would prefer that the Council do not proceed, largely on the basis of concerns about rate increases and the financial sustainability of the City given the projected borrowings.  Strong and responsible management of ratepayer funds was a key matter raised through development of the SCP, along with increased attention to the needs of residents and ratepayers.  Financial implications of proceeding or not proceeding are outlined further below and are summarised in the financial implications section of this report.  It is noted that the State Government is continuing to review the BPACC business case and the City’s request for funding for the project, and so the financial implications presented are a ‘worst case’ scenario.

 


 

Given the nature of the project, that is, as an arts and culture facility, and that it is a significant investment, it is not surprising for views on the project to be polarised.  Ultimately, the decision before Council is a difficult one.  To assist Councillors with their deliberations, officers have outlined in the officer recommendation a number of potential recommendation options.  The impacts and next steps of each is detailed below.

 

Recommendation A - Proceed on the basis of the current and previously tendered design, delegating power and authority to the CEO to accept a tender and enter into a construction contract not exceeding the value of $38 million.

The estimated total project value on the basis of the previously tendered design is $44.5 million, as set out below. Also set out below is a potential funding scenario, assuming the City is unable to obtain further external funding.

 

In addition to confirmed external funding, the City has a number of pending grant applications as well as access to apply for some potential grant funding including:

 

Funding Program/Source

Estimated amount

Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program (Tranche 4)

$1,400,000 - $1,900,000

Lotterywest Application – Community Spaces

$2,700,000

State Government funding request/contribution

$5,000,000 - $10,000,000

Other Federal Grant (Building Better Regions)

$1,500,000

Total potential funding

$10,600,000 - $16,100,000

 

This potential additional funding would reduce the need to borrow the full loan amount of $26.7 million.  In consultation with the Western Australian Treasury Corporation (WATC), the City has shown that it has spare borrowing capacity to more than adequately service the required loan amount while maintaining the appropriate benchmarks debt ratios. The final loan value would be able to be borrowed at a fixed interest rate of 1.96% over 20 years (interest rate confirmed as at 27 August 2021). 

Borrowings and associated repayments could be funded through increases to fees and charges or rates, or a combination of the two.  In addition, Council also has the ability to consider a review of key cash reserves held by the City, of which there is a current balance of $62.8 million. Council could consider accessing some of these funds to reduce the loan liability. The $26.7 million is therefore a ‘worst case’ scenario.

 

This ‘worst case’ scenario would increase the City’s loan borrowings (not including community self-supporting loans) from $27.85 million in 2020/21 to $53.85 million by the end of 2021/22.  To ensure the City’s debt remains within an acceptable level, the Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) is required to remain above the minimum standard of 2.0 as per the Department of Local Government Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) Guidelines. The impact of the total projected borrowings on the City’s DSCR is depicted in the graph below and shows that the City’s DSCR will remain within acceptable guidelines.

 

 

As detailed in the survey information, in the absence of any other funding being utilised, an additional rate increase of up to 2% may be necessary, most likely in 2022/23.  This is additional to the 2.5% currently projected in the City’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and would result in an extra $37 per annum based on the projected average rate for 2022/23.  Any additional rate increase would be modelled into the next review of the LTFP along with any further utilisation of Reserve funds as mentioned above. The City’s LTFP currently provides for operating costs averaging approximately $1.2 million per annum, which has been reviewed by third parties. This is not expected to change significantly. 

 

In terms of entering into a construction contract, officers recommend that the CEO is provided with a delegation to accept a tender and enter into a contract not exceeding the value of $38 million, either through the public invitation of tenders or through utilisation of Regulation 11(2)(c)(i) of the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996 (as outlined further in the Statutory Environment section of this report).

 


 

Recommendation B - Proceed with redesign and invite tenders on the basis of a modified design

The estimated total project value for a modified design is $40.05 million, as set out below.  Also set out below is a potential funding scenario, assuming the City is unable to obtain further external funding.

 

As per recommendation option A, the City would be able to borrow the required amount at fixed interest rates of 1.96% over 20 years. This would increase the City’s Council Loans (not including community self-supporting loans) borrowings from $27.85 million in 2020/21 to $49.85 million by the end of 2021/22.  Once again, the City would maintain its DSCR within the DLGSC guidelines, above 2%. This is depicted in the graph below.

 

 

Again as with recommendation option A, the City still has a number of pending grant applications that could deliver a further $8.6 – $11.1 million towards the project. The City would also be able to review use of its internal cash reserves as indicated earlier. 

 

In the absence of any other funding, an additional rate increase of up to 1% may be necessary to cover the additional borrowings and associated repayments. This would result in an extra $18 per annum based on the projected average rate for 2022/23. Any additional rate increase would be modelled into the next review of the LTFP along with any further utilisation of Reserve funds.  Operating costs averaging approximately of $1.2 million within the City’s LTFP are, again, not expected to change significantly. 

 

If Council was to proceed with option B, officers would recommend that Kerry Hill Architects Pty Ltd be engaged to prepare detailed designs, and that tenders be publicly invited, for Council’s consideration.

 

Recommendation C - Not proceed with construction of a performing arts and convention centre at this time.

If Council choose not to proceed with the construction of a performing arts and convention centre the City would advise the Federal Government of the decision, and explain that they cannot accept the grant funding commitment of $10.35 million.  The City would request that the Federal Government reallocate the funding towards an alternate project to facilitate economic development initiatives such as the Busselton Margaret River Airport terminal.  This would of course be at the discretion of the Federal Government and is considered unlikely given the airport (or other potential projects) were not submitted as part of the Regional Growth Fund funding round.  In returning the funding there is the real risk that the City’s ability to secure funding for this or other projects in the future would be jeopardised.   

 

While the project would be further considered as part of the next review of the LTFP and / or future review of the City’s SCP, the future development of a performing arts facility for the District would be unlikely in the medium term, given the significantly reduced funding (with loss of the Federal grant).  It is highly unlikely that the City would be able to afford a performing arts facility such as the one designed without this level of grant funding without significantly impacting on services and facilities for the community.      

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

As noted in the report background the City publicly invited tenders in March 2021 for construction of the BPACC. Tenders closed in May 2021 and Council declined to accept any tender.  Under Regulation 11(2)(c)(i) of the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996, tenders do not have to be publicly invited (for the supply of goods or services) if, within the last 6 months, the local government has publicly invited tenders for the supply of the goods or services but no tender was submitted that met the tender specifications or satisfied the value for money assessment. 

 

Recommendation option A recommends that Council delegate power and authority to the CEO to accept a tender and enter into a construction contract, with the CEO able to utilise Regulation 11(2)(c)(i) and negotiate with interested suppliers (a number of whom have indicated interest).  Alternatively the CEO may again publicly invite tenders. 

 

Recommendation option B recommends that tenders be publicly invited.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The planning and development of a PACC for Busselton has been identified as far back as 2004 and further included in the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan since 2010 (2013, reviewed 2015; 2017 and 2019) as a local priority project. The South West Regional Blueprint (February 2015) identifies the construction of a performing arts venue in the Busselton Cultural Precinct as a regional priority in support of burgeoning creative industries and events. 

Financial Implications

The financial implications of each recommendation option is discussed in the main body of the Officer Comment above.  In summary all options are within the financial capacity of the City, subject to Council increasing their loan borrowings or sourcing funding through external grants or use of internal reserve funds or review of fees and charges.  Dependent on the extent of the loan borrowings required an additional rate increase of up to 2% (over and above current LTFP rate projections) may be required.  The City’s DSCR shows the City has sufficient loan borrowing capacity and interest rates are comparatively very low.

Stakeholder Consultation

External stakeholder consultation was undertaken as described above in the main body of the Officer Comment.

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:

Recommendation A

Reputational damage with respect to resident perceptions of Council not listening.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Reputation

Moderate

Possible

Medium

 

Recommendation B

Reputational damage with respect to resident perceptions of Council not listening.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Reputation

Moderate

Possible

Medium

Reputational damage noting Option B was least preferred in the survey; mitigated however by it being cheaper and perhaps more palatable than Option A by those who do not want Council to proceed.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Reputation

Minor

Possible

Medium

The cost and time delays associated with redesigning the building may see costs increase; mitigated however by the chance that prices may instead decrease.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Financial

Minor

Possible

Medium

 


 

Recommendation C

Reputational damage with respect to those residents and respondents who would like to see the project proceed.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Reputation

Moderate

Possible

Medium

Reputational damage with respect to Federal Government perception by returning the $10.35M.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Reputation

Moderate

Possible

Medium

Loss of future financial funding with respect to returning the $10.35M.                            

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Financial

Moderate

Possible

Medium

Options

This report presents a number of optional recommendations for the Council.  It is for the Council to determine which recommendation they prefer.  Councillor/s will be required to foreshadow and move (with support of a seconder) their preferred recommendation for consideration and / or debate.

CONCLUSION

In summary Council is asked to consider three options:

·        Recommendation Option A - Proceed on the basis of the current and previously tendered design, delegating power and authority to the CEO to accept a tender and enter into a construction contract not exceeding the value of $38 million;

·        Recommendation Option B - Proceed with redesign and invite tenders on the basis of a modified design;

·        Recommendation Option C - Not proceed with construction of a performing arts and convention centre at this time.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Timelines for implementation are dependent on the recommendation option, and are broadly as follows:

·        Recommendation Option A – The CEO will commence further procurement immediately, and, subject to negotiations a contract may be entered into prior to Christmas 2021.

·        Recommendation Option B – Redesign will commence immediately.  It is anticipated that a request for tenders would not be issued until early in 2022.

·        Recommendation Option C – Council’s decision would be effective immediately, with the CEO writing to the Federal Government within one month.


Council

58

8 September 2021

16.2

Attachment a

Catalyse Community Engagement Report - Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre

 


































 

 


Council                                                                                      59                                                           8 September 2021

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

C2109/195              Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

That the Committee Recommendations for items 12.1 and 12.3 and the Officer Recommendations in relation to items 14.1 and 17.1 be carried en bloc:

               

12.1        Airport Advisory Committee - 18/8/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - AIRPORT UPDATE

 

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/8/2021 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: RISK MANAGEMENT

 

14.1        RFT 07/21 - STREET AND DRAIN CLEANING SERVICES

 

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN:

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      68                                                           8 September 2021

12.1           Airport Advisory Committee - 18/8/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - AIRPORT UPDATE

STRATEGIC THEME

OPPORTUNITY - A vibrant City with diverse opportunities and a prosperous economy.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

3.4 Develop aviation opportunities at the Busselton Margaret River Airport.

SUBJECT INDEX

Airport Operations

BUSINESS UNIT

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Airport Operations Coordinator - David Russell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 18/8/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

The committee recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/196              Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

That the Airport Advisory Committee receives and notes the Airport Operations Report.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Airport Advisory Committee receives and notes the Airport Operations Report.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of the operations and activities of the Busselton Margaret River Airport (BMRA) for the reporting period 1 July 2020 - 30 June 2021. This includes an update on passenger numbers, aircraft landings, and actions relating to COVID-19 and general airport operations.

 

BACKGROUND

Focus in the 2020/21 financial year centred on the preparation for the commencement of Jetstar Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) services between Melbourne and Busselton. This has resulted in increased regulatory requirements, with the BMRA upgrading from a security classified category 6 to tier 2 airport and the implementation of a new Transport Security Program.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Federal and State Government restrictions, the launch of the RPT services has been deferred on five occasions with a revised commencement date of 1 September 2021, dependent on COVID-19 travel and interstate border restrictions being lifted. 


 

Passenger Numbers

During the 2020/2021 financial year, the airport has seen a significant increase in the overall passenger numbers totalling 40,469 compared to 26,496 passengers for 2019/2020. This can be attributed to an increase in the overall number of fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) passengers and an increase in private charter operations which saw 1,223 ad hoc passengers pass through the BMRA in 2020/21 compared to 241 passengers for 2019/20.

 

                                                                     

               

                                  

 

Aircraft Movements

A total of 3,267 aircraft landings were recorded for the reporting period, an increase of 690 landings for the same period in 2019/20 (2,577). The increase can be attributed to:

·        FIFO charter aircraft landings (over 30,000kg category) rising from 537 in 2019/20 to 905 in 2020/21;

·        Firefighting aircraft landings of 76 in 2019/20 compared to 230 in 2020/21; and

·        The Busselton Aeroclub’s increased activity of 94 landings.

 

The total number of FIFO services using BMRA is currently 15 flights (30 movements) per week utilising the F100 and A320 aircraft with two new F70 services expected to commence on Thursday 19 August 2021.

 

             

                   

 

The increase in emergency services landings is mainly due to firefighting water bomber and fire spotter aircraft operations. The table below includes all emergency service operations including approved training flights for emergency services.

 

       

 

Carpark

There are currently 831 car park patrons using the FIFO swipe card system, with an average of 234 vehicles utilising the car park per day for the period 1 January – 31 June 2021.  The highest number of vehicles parked on one day has been 348 (recorded on 22 June) out of an available 422 bays. 

 

Operations

The focus for the reporting period has been on:

·        The continued operational readiness for Jetstar’s Melbourne to Busselton RPT service.

·        CASA and Home Affairs surveillance audits.

·        Preparation of new BMRA Aerodrome Manual submitted to CASA in early December for review, with approval and issue of the new Aerodrome Certificate received in April.

·        Establishment of DFES operations and re-fuelling support of firefighting aircraft.

 

As at 12 January 2021, the West Australian Government introduced a directive under the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) for all persons entering Airport terminal facilities to wear face masks.  A further amendment, Number 3 Contact Register Directions, was implemented on 22 July 2021 requiring all persons entering an airport terminal to register via a QR code or manual registration.

 

Signage has been placed on the terminal entry doors and when there are no scheduled flights, the terminal doors are locked to prevent access.  QR codes and registers have been placed in both the terminal and arrivals hall. 

 

Hangar Leases

Hangar leases and hire agreements by emergency services and private operators continue to occupy 10 of the 12 hangars owned by the City of Busselton. The remaining two hangars are being used to store aircraft ground servicing equipment and airport maintenance equipment owned by the City and the ground handling operator. City officers will continue to liaise with emergency services and aircraft owners to secure interest in the existing hangars and new general aviation precinct.

 

International Alternate Airport

In March 2019, BMRA was designated as an alternate international airport by the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Communications. This allows international aircraft to land at the BMRA when Perth Airport is unavailable due to inclement weather or closure. The City has granted approval for the Qantas Group and Virgin Australia to use BMRA as an alternate to Perth Airport for domestic operations only at this stage. The City has also approved two freight carriers to use BMRA as an alternate on three occasions on an ad hoc basis for operations into Perth airport.

Aviation Projects has been engaged to further assess the opportunity with selected international airlines, with initial feedback proving positive.  Ongoing dialogue will continue and a final report will be provided to the City by the end of October.

Regional Airports Development Scheme (RADS) Grant 2019-21

The Department of Transport (DoT) has been developing an asset and financial management framework for all Western Australian Airports to implement. The Strategic Airport Assets and Financial Management Framework (Framework) aims to enable a consistent, transparent and documented approach to the management of airports across Western Australia. The City of Busselton has been allocated up to $50,000 (exc. GST) for the development of this framework however DoT has been delayed in providing the framework templates used for the project. DoT expect to release the templates and funding agreement in August 2021.

 

Regional Airports Development Scheme (RADS) Grants 2021-23

The DoT RADS 2021-23 Scheme includes a COVID-19 stimulus initiative to support the State’s COVID-19 economic recovery. RADS funding will cover up to 75% of the total eligible project cost for successful projects that can be completed prior to 31 December 2021.  The City received the funding agreement on 19 May 2021 for the completion of general aviation (GA) precinct fencing to allow airside/landside access for future hangar owners/tenants. It is anticipated that the funding for this project will be split 50:50 with the Federal government under the below Regional Airports Program (RAP) Round 2.

Regional Airports Program (RAP) Round 2 grant opportunity

Applications for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications RAP Round 2 grant funding program closed on 18 December 2020. The key objective of the RAP is to improve the safety and accessibility of airports or aerodromes in regional areas by assisting aerodrome owners/operators to undertake essential works, promoting aviation safety, and enhancing access for regional communities. As the City falls under the category of an Australian local government agency or body and the total project cost is equal to or less than $300,000, Federal funding will cover up to 100% of eligible project costs.

The City has been successful to receive funding under this program for:

·        Relocation of the Royal Flying Doctor’s Service (RFDS)/St Johns transfer station from the central apron to the emergency services precinct. The total cost of this project is $188,665.

·        Extension of the central apron northern shoulders to facilitate extended taxiing guideline markings and apron edge clearance for A320 and B737 aircraft utilising bay 11 for RPT operations. Total cost of this project $88,100.

·        Completion of a general aviation (GA) precinct fencing to allow airside/landside access for future hangar owners/tenants to the value of $23,235. Funding for this project will be split 50:50 with the State Government under the above Regional Airports Development Scheme 2021-23 (RADS).

 

City officers have received and replied to the above funding RAP agreements and are now awaiting confirmation of funding conditions.

Domestic Airports Security Costs Support Program (DASCS)

The City of Busselton was invited to apply and was accepted for the DASCS grant funding program earlier in the year. The program announced on 11 March 2021 as part of the Australian Government’s Tourism and Aviation's flight path to recovery support package aims to support regional airports with security screening costs. The funding program period was originally from 29 March to 30 September 2021 however the Federal Government announced on 3 August 2021 that the program will be extended to 31 December 2021.

The Program will reimburse Grantees for eligible costs associated with passenger and baggage security screening operations required under the Regulations with a maximum grant amount for the BMRA of $300,000.

The City of Busselton has now entered into a funding agreement to receive the support funding which will extend from the commencement of the first RPT service through to the 31 December 2021.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

FIFO passenger numbers through the BMRA have increased significantly in comparison to previous years and officers expect passenger numbers to continue to increase as FIFO employment recruiting from the South West continues. The 15 flights per week currently operating are servicing RioTinto, with an additional two services per week set to commence this month to service BHP.

 

The increase and additional resource sector companies commencing services from BMRA, together with Busselton – Melbourne RPT services once commenced, could see passenger numbers increase to 60,000 this financial year.

 

Officers continue to liaise regularly with Jetstar executives and operations teams for the commencement of the Busselton - Melbourne flights expected on 1 September 2021. BMRA is operationally ready to commence RPT services with the exception of the security screening contractor’s team who need to be redeployed and complete final training.

 

Officers are continuing to liaise with the RAAF regarding the RAAF centenary which occurred on 31 March 2021. Officers are planning to host a BMRA Open Day on 7 November 2021 for the community to come and view the upgraded Airport facilities, and take the opportunity to invite the RAAF to celebrate their centenary at the same time. Officers will also invite the Busselton Aero Club to participate in the open day by hosting a general aviation ‘fly in’ and ground display of recreation and general aviation aircraft.

 

Busselton Margaret River Airport General Aviation (GA) Precinct

Officers advertised an expression of interest for hangar lot leases in the new GA precinct in 2019. While there was some interest shown, no lease agreements were entered into. Feedback from interested parties at the time indicated that capital funding for hangar construction was difficult to secure and there were concerns relating to the term of the leases (21 years) and no buy-back clauses for hangar infrastructure at the end of the lease term. As such City officers will advertise for expressions of interest to lease hangars at improved market rent value and on commitment of signing a lease which ensures that the City invests based on demand for hangars. Council (C2102/092) endorsed the allocation of $210,000 in the 2021/22 budget for the construction of up to three 10m x 15m sized GA hangars, noting that officers have been informed that construction costs for hangers has increased by 30% as of 1 August 2021 and lead times for delivery are now approximately 6 months.

 

Noise Management Plan Review

The BMRA currently operates under Ministerial Statement 1088 which was issued on 7 January 2019 (Statement) and the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan 2019 – Version 2 (NMP). The Statement determines that within three months of each three year period (from the date of issue of the Statement) a report is to be submitted to the CEO of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) which reviews the effectiveness of the NMP.  The report is to include but be limited to:

1.         noise monitoring results;

2.         noise amelioration assessments and/or implementation;

3.         number of complaints received and actions taken to resolve complaints;

4.         published flight paths to minimise impacts; and

5.         the findings of the review to determine the effectiveness of the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan.

The NMP further defines this review as being undertaken in conjunction with the Airport Advisory Committee and includes consultation with key stakeholders, including the community, industry, government agencies and airport users.

 

The Airport team in conjunction with the City’s Environmental Health team have been undertaking noise monitoring for the last two months and will use this information in the review, as well as information collected on flight approaches/departures and flight paths over the past 12 months, recorded complaints, and stakeholder feedback.

 

A report detailing the results of the review and effectiveness of the current NMP and any recommendations for amendments to the NMP will be presented to the Airport Advisory Committee in October 2021.

 

Terminal Advertising

The terminal expansion works completed in March 2020 in preparation for the Jetstar RPT services included the installation of an electronic advertising screen and static light boxes in the new Arrivals Hall. Advertising commenced on 1 June 2021 with nine companies / organisations booking advertising in three month slots. The electronic screen is operating with a 90% subscription rate and the two static light boxes are booked for the first three months with waitlists in place for future bookings.

 

Adventure Warbird Joy Flights

City officers have received a request from Outback Aviation Logistics Pty Ltd to approve an "Adventure Warbird" style joy flight service from BMRA on an "ad hoc" basis, based on the demand for that type of flight experience. The aircraft is a vintage 1968 Agusta-Bell 205A helicopter that is registered and conforms to all of the requirements imposed by the Civil Aircraft Safety Authority (CASA) and the Australian Warbirds Association. The pilot has been flying since 1990, both fixed wing and rotary aircraft in a commercial and recreational capacity all around the world. The aircraft will be stored in a hangar that is currently tenanted by another company until suitable hangarage can be obtained by the operator. The operator will need to comply with the conditions in the BMRA Noise Management Plan and has been requested to provide noise data and proposed schedules for operations based from the BMRA.

Statutory Environment

The BMRA operates in accordance with the following:

·        Aviation Transport Security Act 2004

·        Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005

·        CASA Manual of Standards 139 (Aerodromes)

·        City of Busselton Transport Security Plan

·        Ministerial Statement 1088

·        City policies and procedures

Relevant Plans and Policies

The BMRA operates under the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan 2019.


 

Financial Implications

Operating income for 2020/21 financial year totalled $1,841,092, an increase of $165,292 than the projected annual budget of $1,675,800. There are a few factors contributing to this result with greater than expected revenue realised for:

·        landing fees  - $721,302 actual compared to $408,000 budgeted due to an increase in FIFO charter activity, military aircraft delivering materials for the DFES firefighting activities and ad hoc charter flights; 

·        hangar leases - $72,818 actual compared to $31,900 budgeted with increased interest in short term hangar leases;

·        airport sundry income - $54,247 actual compared to $800 budgeted resulting from ad hoc landside licences;

·        car parking - $402,576 actual compared to $381,500 budgeted; and

·        operating contributions - $123,000 actual compared to $50,000 budgeted which included marketing contributions from other local governments and grant funding allocations.

 

Noting that the year-end actual revenue received was also offset by a total of $350,687 in revenue not received in areas such as security screening ($162,350), passenger fees ($159,837) and car hire fees ($28,500) which can all be attribute to the delay of RPT services.

The 2020/21 financial year actual operating expenses of $1,583,734 (including depreciation) are lower than budgeted operating expenses of $3,302,571. The main variances between actual and budgeted expenditure can be attributed to the following not being expended due to the delay in RPT services; Airport screening services ($183,000), marketing and promotions ($1,441,667) and the airline attraction program ($211,000). Noting that actual depreciation expenses incurred totalled $767,989 compared to budgeted expense of $694,670. 

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation has been occurring on a regular basis with Department of Transport, Government agencies, airport stakeholders, Department of Home Affairs, Aviation Marine Security (AMS), Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Air Services Australia, Virgin Australia Regional Airline, Qantas Group, the Busselton Aero Club, Albany, Esperance, Geraldton Airports and Australian Airports Association, concerning many topics and issues relating to the Airport.

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 Airport Advisory Committee may choose not to receive and note the Airport Operations Report.


 

CONCLUSION

The Airport team has had a busy financial year working with the firefighting aircraft and readiness for the commencement of RPT services and capital works projects. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, commercial investment opportunities have slowed and is proving difficult for Officers to progress. As COVID-19 restrictions begin to lift within Australia and the aviation industry begins its recovery and airlines recommence operations, there will be potential for officers to market and attract various commercial and investment opportunities at the BMRA.

Officers will continue to provide a high level of customer service to ensure the airport is compliant, safe and security is maintained throughout.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.  


 


Council                                                                                      71                                                           8 September 2021

12.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/8/2021 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: RISK MANAGEMENT

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 Policies

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Proposed Policy: Risk Management

Attachment b    Current Policy: Risk Management

Attachment c    Proposed Policy: Risk Management with Committee Amendments

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 24/8/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

The committee recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/197              Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council adopt the amended Council Policy: Risk Management (Attachment A) inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment C, to replace the current policy (Attachment B).

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

Reasons:              The committee recommended amendments to the proposed policy to improve the readability and intent of the policy.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopt the amended Council Policy: Risk Management (Attachment A) to replace the current policy (Attachment B).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a revised Council policy - Risk Management (the Policy) (Attachment A). The Policy has been revised as part of the City’s regular cycle of review of its Council policies and is recommended for endorsement by Council. The current policy is included at Attachment B for reference.

 

BACKGROUND

The Policy was originally adopted in May 2006 to demonstrate the City’s commitment to the development of a culture of risk-based decision making aimed at the effective management of potential opportunities and the reduction of the downside impacts of risk.

Since its adoption, the Policy has been reviewed five times, the latest in 2018, where the Policy was amended to incorporate the recommendations of Mr John Woodhouse’s Review of Governance Systems and Processes conducted in 2017, including transfer into a new policy template.  As a result of this review, the Policy’s reference to the relevant Australian Standard was updated and the Policy renamed from ‘Organisation Wide Risk Management’ to simply ‘Risk Management’.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

The City’s internal Risk Management Committee (made up of the Director Finance and Corporate Services, the Manager Governance and Corporate Services, the Risk Systems Officer, and representatives from across the organisation) is currently conducting an annual review of the committee’s effectiveness, including a review of the risk policy and the Committee’s terms of reference.

 

The Risk Management Committee discussed the relevance of the Policy and whether, given that the City has an established Risk Management Framework and that reporting requirements in relation to risk exist under the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), it should be retained or rescinded.  The committee felt that the Policy provides an important statement of commitment to the development and management of a risk management culture and the establishment and implementation of a risk management framework based on international standards of risk management (ISO 31000 Standard). 

 

It also supports the functions of the Audit Committee of Council established under the Act, and the functions of the CEO in relation to risk and risk reporting.  Officers are currently reviewing the terms of reference of the Audit Committee and will be proposing that the Committee be renamed Audit and Risk Committee and that its objectives be amended to more specifically include risk and more regular risk reporting.  Given this, the Risk Management Committee felt that the Policy should be retained.  It is recognised that the option of rescission was a valid one.

 

The Policy has been transferred into the City’s recently updated policy template (to align with the review of the City’s style guide), with minor amendments to further streamline the Policy.  It is essentially a statement of commitment. The Strategic Context has also been amended to reflect the new Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031.  The revised Policy can be seen at Attachment A.

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

In accordance with regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996, the CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to risk management, as well as internal control and legislative compliance. This review was last reported to Council in June 2021.

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Risk Assessment

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

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Propose further revisions to the Policy; or

2.         Propose that the Policy be rescinded, given the City has an established Risk Management Framework, an Audit Committee of Council (proposed to be expanded to Audit and Risk), and that reporting requirements in relation to risk management exist under the Act.

CONCLUSION

The Policy has been reviewed by officers and was found to be of continuing importance and relevance as a statement of commitment to effective risk management. The revised Policy: Risk Management is presented to Council for its adoption.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The Policy will be published to the City’s website within one week of Council’s adoption.  


Council

73

8 September 2021

12.3

Attachment a

Proposed Policy: Risk Management

 



Council

75

8 September 2021

12.3

Attachment b

Current Policy: Risk Management

 



Council

77

8 September 2021

12.3

Attachment c

Proposed Policy: Risk Management with Committee Amendments

 


 

 


Council                                                                                      82                                                           8 September 2021

14.1           RFT 07/21 - STREET AND DRAIN CLEANING SERVICES

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.12 Provide well maintained community assets through robust asset management practices.

SUBJECT INDEX

Tenders

BUSINESS UNIT

Operation and Works Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager, Operation and Works Services - Matthew Twyman

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 - RFT 07/21 Street & Drain Cleaning Services  

 

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/198              Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

That the Council:

1.         Pursuant to RFT 07/21 Street and Drain Cleaning Services, accept the tender from
B & B Street Sweeping Pty Ltd ATF B & B Street Sweeping Trust as being the most advantageous tender.

2.         Delegates power and authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Pursuant to RFT 07/21 Street and Drain Cleaning Services, accept the tender from
B & B Street Sweeping Pty Ltd ATF B & B Street Sweeping Trust as being the most advantageous tender.

2.         Delegates power and authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Busselton invited tenders under Request for Tender RFT 07/21 Street and Drain Cleaning Services (RFT 07/21) for a suitably experienced and qualified contractor to deliver street and drain cleaning services for the City.

 


 

This report 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, B & B Street Sweeping Pty Ltd ATF B & B Street Sweeping Trust T/A B & B Street Sweeping (B & B Street Sweeping).

 

BACKGROUND

This Contract is for the provision of street and drain cleaning services within the City of Busselton boundary. The services required include (but are not limited to):

·        Sweeping of roads; footpaths; car parks and off-road bicycle paths;

·        Eduction of drainage pits;

·        Jetting of drainage pipes; and

·        Eduction of gross pollutant traps (GPTs).

 

Services are required at various specified frequencies and hours of operation, including emergency after-hours response.

 

The City generally maintains assets as follows:

·        350km of urban roads are swept at frequencies varying between 1 and 52 times per annum depending on the hierarchy of the road.

·        10km out of 226km of footpaths are swept at frequencies between 4 and 52 times per annum, with a focus on CBD and school areas.

·        20km out of 51km of cycleways are swept at frequencies between 2 and 16 times per annum, with a focus on CBD and school areas.

·        Approximately 179,000 m² out of the 291,000m² of car parks are swept between 1 and 26 times per annum with a focus on CBD area.

·        Approximately 2,000 out of 11,000 stormwater pits are educted once per annum, with a focus on CBD, light industrial areas and known problem areas.

·        Approximately 10km out of 253km of stormwater pipes are jetted once per annum, with a focus on known problem areas.

·        43 gross pollutant traps are serviced annually.

 

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 would be in excess of the contract value.

 

The current provision for these works is supplied using RFT 15/16, and is delivered by B & B Street Sweeping.  The service provided to date by B & B Street Sweeping has been consistently of a very high standard.

OFFICER COMMENT

The City received a total of two submissions as follows:

1.         B & B Street Sweeping Pty Ltd ATF B & B Street Sweeping Trust T/A B & B Street Sweeping;

2.         Specialised Cleaning Group Pty Ltd T/A Cleansweep.

Assessment Process

On 12 May 2021, tenders were invited via TenderLink and advertised in ‘The West Australian’ newspaper. Tenders closed on 1 June 2021 and two 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. All tenders were deemed compliant; and

(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

25%

Local Benefit

5%

Tenderer’s Resources

10%

Demonstrated Understanding

10%

 

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.

 

Summary of Assessment Outcomes

Of the two submissions received for RFT 07/21, B & B Street Sweeping ranked first on the Qualitative Criteria and ranked second in the Weighted Cost Criteria, and ranked first overall, providing a well-documented and detailed submission.  Their submission demonstrated a clear understanding of the full range of required street and drain cleaning services.

 

The submission received from Cleansweep ranked second on the Qualitative Criteria and ranked first in the Weighted Cost Criteria, and ranked second overall.  Their submission focussed predominantly on street sweeping and provided little detail of the drainage component of the Tender Requirements.

 

The drainage component of the Tender Requirements is extremely important as it minimises flooding and ongoing drainage issues associated with Busselton’s unique low-lying coastal location, its high water table and the significant root intrusion experienced in the City’s drainage network.  It is essential that the successful contractor has a thorough understanding of, and relevant experience in, treatment of the abovementioned issues.

 

Confidential Tender Evaluation Report - RFT 07/21 Street & Drain Cleaning Services (Attachment A) provides further detail of the tender submissions and evaluation (provided under separate cover).


 

Statutory Environment

In terms of 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.

 

With a contract duration of up to five years, the estimated expenditure is in excess of $500,000 which is above the Chief Executive Officer’s delegated authority. 

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 07/21, and have been adhered to in the process of requesting and evaluating this tender.

Financial Implications

The street sweeping and drain cleaning services provided under RFT 07/21 will be funded from the Operating Budget (12600 Street and Drain Cleaning) and Capital Budget. The estimated operating expenditure for the 21/22 financial year based on the rates submitted equates to approximately $460,290.  This is within the available allocated budget.

 

The schedule of rates offered by B & B Street Sweeping have increased by 5% compared to their current schedule of rates at June 2020 (last approved CPI adjustment under RFT 15/16).  During the same time period, CPI-All Groups Perth has increased by 4.2%. 

 

A rise and fall price adjustment option for CPI is not included in RFT 07/21, meaning 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:

1.              Determine not to accept the tender from B & B Street Sweeping as being the most advantageous to the City to deliver street and drain cleaning services and accept the tender from Cleansweep; or

2.              Decline to accept any tender.

CONCLUSION

The submission from B & B Street Sweeping is considered the most advantageous to the City.  It is recommended that B & B Street Sweeping be awarded the contract to deliver street and drain cleaning services for the City resulting from RFT 07/21.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

If endorsed by Council, it is expected the City will enter into a contract with B & B Street Sweeping on 1 October 2021 to run for a period of five years with the City having the option of three plus two 1-year extensions under the same terms and conditions as the initial period.


Council                                                                                      85                                                           8 September 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   Current SAT Reviews

Attachment b    Letter from Hon Jackie Jarvis MLC on behalf of constituent Mr Clement Taylor

Attachment c    Letter from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

Attachment d   Department of Water and Environmental Regulation Compliance Report

Attachment e    Mitigation Activity Fund Grants Program 2021/22 Round 1 - Funding Schedule  

 

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/199              Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor K Hick

 

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

 

17.1.1       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 

17.1.2     Correspondence from Hon Jackie Jarvis MLC regarding pedestrian crossing on Caves          Road, Dunsborough

 

17.1.3           Letter from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation – Notice of Compliance    Audit of Statement 1088

 

17.1.4           Mitigation Activity Fund Grants Program 2021/22 Round 1 – Successful Application and Next Steps – City of Busselton

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 


 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

17.1.1       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

17.1.2       Correspondence from Hon Jackie Jarvis MLC regarding pedestrian crossing on Caves Road, Dunsborough

17.1.3       Letter from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation – Notice of Compliance Audit of Statement 1088

 

17.1.4      Mitigation Activity Fund Grants Program 2021/22 Round 1 - Successful Application and Next Steps - City of Busselton

 

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       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

A summary of the current State Administrative Tribunal Reviews is at Attachment A.

17.1.2       Correspondence from Hon Jackie Jarvis MLC regarding pedestrian crossing on Caves Road, Dunsborough

Correspondence has been received from Hon Jackie Jarvis MLC on behalf of her constituent Mr Clement Taylor addressed to the Minister for Transport, the Hon Rita Saffioti MLA regarding a petition for a pedestrian crossing on Caves Road, Dunsborough. Consideration from the State Government is required as Caves Road is under their control and management, not that of the City. A copy of the correspondence is provided at Attachment B.

17.1.3       Letter from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation – Notice of Compliance Audit of Statement 1088

A letter from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and the DWER Compliance Report are provided at Attachment C and Attachment D respectively.


 

17.1.4       Mitigation Activity Fund Grants Program 2021/22 Round 1 - Successful Application and Next Steps - City of Busselton

The City has recently been advised that it has been successful in securing $500,000 towards bushfire risk mitigation projects as part of the 2021/22 Mitigation Activity Fund (MAF) Grants Programme. $500,000 is the maximum funding that can be provided to an eligible local government per annum as part of the MAF Programme, and a similar amount was also secured last financial year.

 

The projects that have been funded this financial year, together with estimated costs, are set out in Attachment E.

 

The projects were prioritised based on the City’s Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BRMP), an understanding of the total quantum of funding that may be available, as well as an understanding of operational, environmental and land tenure constraints. As more detailed implementation planning occurs, the costs and priorities may require some adjustment, and City officers will need to use judgement and discretion as part of that process.

 

Together with the increase in funding for the City’s Bushfire Risk Planning Coordinator, half of which has come from the City’s own sources and half from the State, allowing an increase in resourcing levels from 0.2FTE to 0.5FTE for this financial year, there has been a substantial increase in resources allocated to bushfire risk mitigation over the last two financial years.

 

 


Council

87

8 September 2021

17.1

Attachment a

Current SAT Reviews

 

As at 23 August 2021

APPLICATION (Name, No. and City File Reference)

PROPERTY

DATE
COMMENCED

DECISION BEING REVIEWED

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

 

STAGE COMPLETED

NEXT ACTION AND DATE OF ACTION AS PER SAT ORDERS

DATE COMPLETED / CLOSED

CITY OF BUSSELTON

 

Lindberg v City of Busselton

 

4822  Bussell Highway, Busselton                            

 

October 2019

 

Review of a decision to give a direction under s.214.

 

Ben Whitehill / Lee Reddell

 

●   Directions hearing on the 8 November 2019 against the decision of the City to give a direction under s.214.

●   The matter was adjourned to a further directions hearing on 29 November 2019 in order to determine whether the application is misconceived or lacking in substance pursuant to s.47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004

●   Directions hearing on the 29 November 2019 where it was resolved:

-      The application is amended by substituting Mr Doug Hugh Lindberg as applicant in place of Mr Johnson.

-      The matter is listed for an on-site mediation on 6

January 2020.

-      Mr Michael Johnson is invited to attend and participate in the mediation.

●   Mediation on 6 January 2020 where it was resolved that :

-   the applicant is to provide additional information to the   respondent by 3 February 2020;

-   The matter is listed for mediation on 13 February 2020.

●   Mediation on 13 February where, following further discussion with the landowners and Mr Johnson, it was resolved to adjourn the proceeding back to a further directions hearing on 17 April 2020.

●   Directions hearing on 17 April was vacated and listed for a directions hearing on 5 June 2020.

●   Directions hearing on 5 June was vacated and listed for a directions hearing on 7 August 2020.

●   Directions hearing on 7 August 2020 was vacated and listed for a directions hearing on 6 November 2020.

●   Directions hearing on 6 November 2020 was vacated and listed for a directions hearing on 5 February 2021.

●   Directions hearing on 5 February 2021 was vacated and listed for a directions hearing on 7 May 2021.

●   Directions hearing on 7 May 2021 was vacated and listed for a directions hearing on 2 July 2021.

●   Directions hearing on 2 July 2021 was vacated and listed for a directions hearing on 5 November 2021 whilst proceedings relating to the eviction of the tenant from the land continue in the Magistrates Court.

 

 

Directions Hearing 5 November 2021

 

 

 

JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

 

NIL

 

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

 

NIL

 

 


Council

88

8 September 2021

17.1

Attachment b

Letter from Hon Jackie Jarvis MLC on behalf of constituent Mr Clement Taylor

 



Council

89

8 September 2021

17.1

Attachment c

Letter from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

 


Council

92

8 September 2021

17.1

Attachment d

Department of Water and Environmental Regulation Compliance Report

 







Council

100

8 September 2021

17.1

Attachment e

Mitigation Activity Fund Grants Program 2021/22 Round 1 - Funding Schedule

 





 


Council                                                                                      108                                                         8 September 2021

ITEMS FOR DEBATE

12.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/8/2021 - REALIGNMENT OF KING STREET AND BROWN STREET BEACH DOG MANAGEMENT AREAS

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

Animal Management

BUSINESS UNIT

Environmental Services

REPORTING OFFICER

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Map - Overview of the Brown Street Dog Management Area Boundary

Attachment b    Map - Overview of the King Street Dog Management Area Boundary

Attachment c    Map - Proposed Realignment of the Brown Street Dog Management Area Boundary

Attachment d   Map - Proposed Realignment of the King Street Dog Management Area Boundary  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 24/8/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

8 September 2021

Meeting

Council

Name/Position

Cr Lyndon Miles, Councillor

Item No./Subject

12.2, Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/8/2021 - Realignment of King Street and Brown Street Beach Dog Management Areas

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

My children and I are members of the Busselton Surf Life Saving Club which may be impacted by the potential changes in the dog management boundaries.

 

Prior to the meeting, Cr Miles foreshadowed a motion that was different to the committee recommendation. In accordance with clause 10.18(7) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2008, the committee recommendation was moved first.

 

substantive motion

That the Council:

1.         Resolves to adopt and implement after the giving of 28 days public notice, the following dog management areas:

(a)       Pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the beach access path from the car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection to the wooden finger jetty approximately 90 metres east of Busselton Jetty (segment 6), as a seasonal dog exercise area;

(b)       Pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the wooden finger jetty approximately 90 metres east of Busselton Jetty to the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets (segment 7), as a dog prohibited area;

(c)       Pursuant to section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets to the beach access point at the eastern end of the King Street car park (segment 9), as a dog exercise area; and

(d)       Pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the beach access point at the eastern end of the King Street car park to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park (segment 10), as a seasonal dog exercise area.

2.         Resolves to adopt the following with regard to the specified dog management areas in recommendation 1:

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

(i)        ‘Dog Prohibited’ area pursuant to s.31(2B)(a) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are prohibited at all times (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976);

(ii)      ‘Dog Exercise’ area pursuant to s.31(2) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times except when approved, organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited unless specifically permitted by the City (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976); and

(iii)    ‘Seasonal Dog Exercise’ area pursuant to s.31(2B)(b) of the Dog Act 1976 and means dogs are prohibited between 9am and 5pm during the period 1 December to 28 February inclusive (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976) but are otherwise permitted as per ‘Dog Exercise’ area as defined above.

 

3.         Notes the City will provide temporary signage for use by the Busselton Surf Life Saving Club during club and other approved public events, advising dogs are prohibited on the beach during such events.

LAPSED

FOR WANT OF A MOVER

 


 

The motion lapsed and the foreshadowed alternative was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/200              Moved Councillor L Miles, seconded Councillor R Paine

That the Council:

1.         Resolves to adopt and implement after the giving of 28 days public notice, the following dog management areas:

(a)       Pursuant to section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets to the beach access point at the eastern end of the King Street car park (segment 9), as a dog exercise area; and

(b)       Pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the beach access point at the eastern end of the King Street car park to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park (segment 10), as a seasonal dog exercise area.

 

2.         Resolves to adopt the following with regard to the specified dog management areas in recommendation 1:

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

(i)     ‘Dog Exercise’ area pursuant to s.31(2) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times except when approved, organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited unless specifically permitted by the City (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976); and

(ii)     ‘Seasonal Dog Exercise’ area pursuant to s.31(2B)(b) of the Dog Act 1976 and means dogs are prohibited between 9am and 5pm during the period 1 December to 28 February inclusive (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976) but are otherwise permitted as per ‘Dog Exercise’ area as defined above.

 

3.         Notes that, following concerns raised by the Busselton Surf Life Saving Club that the proposed realignment of the boundary between the seasonal dog exercise beach (segment 6) and dog prohibited area (segment 7) approximately 143 metres east of the existing location, would adversely impact club and public events, the boundary between segments 6 and 7 will remain as adopted by the Council on 22 April 2015 (C1504/100).

CARRIED 9/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

Reasons:       The Surf Life Saving cadets are on the beach from 7.00am on Sunday mornings and nippers are playing on the beach from about 8.30am ready for 9.00am start. Even though most dog owners do the right thing, as a parent I wouldn't like to risk my child running through or diving into dog excrement that hasn't been picked up. There are a number or major and small local events that use this area for entering and exiting the water, e.g. Ironman, Jetty Swim, local Triathlon club races. There is a local volleyball competition held over summer and players warm up in this area. There would be confusion from signs at the top of the beach that say dogs are permitted but then temporary signage saying they are not permitted. This could create unnecessary tension between beach users.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Resolves to adopt and implement after the giving of 28 days public notice, the following dog management areas:

(a)       Pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the beach access path from the car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection to the wooden finger jetty approximately 90 metres east of Busselton Jetty (segment 6), as a seasonal dog exercise area;

(b)       Pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the wooden finger jetty approximately 90 metres east of Busselton Jetty to the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets (segment 7), as a dog prohibited area;

(c)       Pursuant to section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets to the beach access point at the eastern end of the King Street car park (segment 9), as a dog exercise area; and

(d)       Pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, the beach area from the beach access point at the eastern end of the King Street car park to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park (segment 10), as a seasonal dog exercise area.

2.         Resolves to adopt the following with regard to the specified dog management areas in recommendation 1:

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

(i)        ‘Dog Prohibited’ area pursuant to s.31(2B)(a) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are prohibited at all times (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976);

(ii)      ‘Dog Exercise’ area pursuant to s.31(2) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times except when approved, organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited unless specifically permitted by the City (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976); and

(iii)     ‘Seasonal Dog Exercise’ area pursuant to s.31(2B)(b) of the Dog Act 1976 and means dogs are prohibited between 9am and 5pm during the period 1 December to 28 February inclusive (except assistance dogs as defined in s.8 of the Dog Act 1976) but are otherwise permitted as per ‘Dog Exercise’ area as defined above.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under the provisions of the Dog Act 1976, a local government may specify public areas within its district as areas where dogs are prohibited, prohibited at specified times (seasonal), or permitted to be exercised at all times, including off-leash. The Council adopted its current dog management controls in April 2015.

 


 

Each of the dog management areas along the City’s coastline was designated a unique identifying segment number. This report proposes to realign the boundary between:

 

·        Segments 6 (dog seasonal) and 7 (dog prohibited) adjacent to the Busselton Foreshore from the skate park to the YCAB building; and

·        Segments 9 (dog exercise) and 10 (dog seasonal) adjacent to the King Street foreshore reserve and car park.

 

In both cases, the primary reason for the changes proposed is physical changes to infrastructure since 2015 (changes to paths, car parks, buildings or similar).

 

BACKGROUND

Existing dog management areas, identification of which followed two rounds of extensive consultation, were adopted by the Council on 22 April 2015 (C1504/100). Each of the areas designated are identified by a segment number as shown on the City’s GIS mapping system.

 

They included the following beach areas under the care, control and management of the City:

a.         An area designated as ‘segment 6’ from the beach access path from the car park at Ford Road/Geographe Bay Road intersection to a point parallel with a seaward extension of Brown Street (seasonal dog exercise).

b.         An area designated as ‘segment 7’ from a point parallel with a seaward extension of Brown Street to the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets (dog prohibited).

Attachment A is an overview map of the boundary between segments 6 and 7 as adopted by the Council.

c.         An area designated as ‘segment 9’ from the westernmost beach access steps between West and Gale Streets to the beach access stairs on the eastern side of the King Street car park (dog exercise).

d.         An area designated as ‘segment 10’ from the beach access stairs on the eastern side of the King Street car park to the beach access from the Margaret Street car park (seasonal dog exercise).

Attachment B is an overview map of the boundary between segments 9 and 10 as adopted by the Council.

 

A dog prohibited area is one in which dogs (except assistance dogs) are prohibited at all times.

 

A dog exercise area is one in which dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times except when approved organised events are taking place in which case they are prohibited (except assistance dogs).

 

A seasonal dog exercise area is one in which dogs are permitted, including off-leash, except between 9am and 5pm from 1 December to 28 February inclusive each year, and when approved organised events are taking place in which case they are prohibited (except assistance dogs).

 

Works to upgrade the King Street car park, which included the provision of formal access points to the beach from the car park, were completed in late 2020. During summer months, matting is situated at the easternmost access point from the car park onto the beach to facilitate disabled access.


 

OFFICER COMMENT

Brown Street Boundary Realignment

Although there is access to the seasonal dog exercise area beach (segment 6) from a track adjacent to the northeast corner of the skate park, people with dogs coming from the main foreshore car park or the car park behind the Surf Lifesaving Club, often take a shortcut by accessing the beach in front of the YCAB building. This part of the beach (segment 7) is currently a dog prohibited beach and in taking the shortcut, those people are technically committing an offence. Although it is unlikely the City would issue an infringement under these circumstances, there is the potential for conflict between beach users when dog owners use the prohibited part of the beach as a shortcut to access the seasonal dog exercise beach.

 

To reduce the potential for conflict between beach users, it is proposed to relocate the boundary between segments 6 and 7 to a point that aligns with the wooden finger jetty east of the Busselton Jetty. This point has been chosen as a logical landmark which, whilst still maintaining the beach either side of Busselton Jetty as a dog prohibited area, formalises the practice of people accessing the seasonal beach from an area of beach on which dogs are prohibited.

 

The impact of this during the summer period 1 December to 28 February each year is minimal as it would only have effect from 5pm to 9am each day. Note that, from 1 March to 30 November each year, dogs are permitted to be exercised off-leash at all times on all beaches that are designated as seasonal dog exercise beaches during the summer.

 

The proposed change would not impact on approved public events, including surf lifesaving competitions and/or training, at which time dogs are prohibited under the provisions of the Council’s April 2015 resolution.

 

A recommendation of this report is to realign the boundary between segment 6 (seasonal dog exercise) and segment 7 (dog prohibited) to a point approximately 80 metres to the west of the existing boundary as shown on Attachment C.

 

King Street Boundary Realignment

When existing dog management controls were established in 2015, the only formal access to the beach abutting the King Street reserve was the beach access stairs on the eastern side of the car park. At the time, the car park did not have any formal access points to the beach so the access stairs to the east of the car park were used to delineate the boundary between the dog seasonal (beach to the west) and dog exercise (beach to the east) areas. The stairs were deemed to be the most logical landmark to describe the physical location of the boundary between the two areas.

 

Since the upgrade to the King Street reserve and car park, the eastern most beach access point in the car park, immediately in front of the two disabled parking bays, is used by most people including people with dogs, to access the beach. This was evidenced early in 2021 when several dog owners spoke to the City’s Seasonal Dog Exercise Area Officer, and asked that the dog bag dispenser located on the pole at the beach access stairs be relocated to the car park for this reason.

 

The problem this creates is that when people use this point to access the dog exercise beach approximately 28 metres to the east of the boundary, between 9am and 5pm from 1 December to      28 February each year, they are technically committing an offence. Although it is unlikely the City would ever issue an infringement under these circumstances, there is the potential for conflict between beach users when dog owners use the seasonal beach as a thoroughfare at a time when dogs are prohibited.

 

A recommendation of this report is to realign the boundary between segment 9 (dog exercise) and segment 10 (seasonal dog exercise) to a point approximately 28 metres to the west of the existing boundary as shown on Attachment D.

Statutory Environment

The management and control of dogs in public areas is prescribed under the following sections of the Dog Act 1976:

Section 31(2B):

A local government may, by absolute majority as defined in the Local Government Act 1995 section 1.4, specify a public place, or a class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a place where dogs are prohibited:

a.        at all times; or

b.        at specified times.

 

Section 31(3A):

A local government may, by absolute majority as defined in the Local Government Act 1995 section 1.4, specify a public place, or a class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a dog exercise area.

Section 31(3C):

At least 28 days before specifying a place to be:

a.        a place where dogs are prohibited at all times or at a time specified under subsection (2B); or

b.        a dog exercise area under subsection (3A),

a local government must give local public notice as defined in the Local Government Act 1995          section 1.7 of its intention to so specify.

Assistance dogs, and persons entitled to be accompanied by assistance dogs, are defined in section 8 of the Dog Act 1976.  Under the provisions of section 8(2) a person mentioned in subsection (3):

a.        is entitled to be accompanied by an assistance dog, in any building or place open to or used by the public, for any purpose, or in any public transport; and

b.        is not guilty of an offence by reason only that he or she takes that dog into or permits that dog to enter any building or place open to or used by the public or on any public transport.

 

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

Due to the minor nature of the boundary realignment associated with this report, no external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken. Pursuant to the requirements of section (3C) of the Dog Act 1976 public notice of the intention to realign the boundaries is required at least 28 days prior to implementation.

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.         Resolve to maintain existing dog management controls at this location (leave the boundaries where they are).

2.         Resolve to establish new dog management controls at these location (change the designation of the existing dog exercise and/or seasonal exercise areas).

CONCLUSION

Existing dog management controls, for the beach segments below, were adopted by the Council in April 2015. Since then, there have been physical changes to the infrastructure (paths, car parks, buildings or similar) in the areas listed and as such it is sensible to make the following boundary realignments to reflect those changes:

·        A realignment of the boundary 144 metres to the west of the existing boundary, between segments 6 (dog seasonal) and 7 (dog prohibited).

·        A realignment of the boundary 28 metres to the west of the existing boundary, between segments 9 (dog exercise) and 10 (dog seasonal).

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Following endorsement of the boundary realignment by the Council, officers will arrange for the public notice requirements of the Dog Act 1976 to be implemented within two weeks. The changes will come into force 28 days after the giving of the public notice, at which time arrangements will be made to move the sign delineating the boundary from its current location at the beach access stairs, to the new location at the eastern beach access point in the car park.


Council

109

8 September 2021

12.2

Attachment a

Map - Overview of the Brown Street Dog Management Area Boundary

 


Council

110

8 September 2021

12.2

Attachment b

Map - Overview of the King Street Dog Management Area Boundary

 


Council

111

8 September 2021

12.2

Attachment c

Map - Proposed Realignment of the Brown Street Dog Management Area Boundary

 


Council

112

8 September 2021

12.2

Attachment d

Map - Proposed Realignment of the King Street Dog Management Area Boundary

 

 


Council                                                                                      125                                                         8 September 2021

16.1           2021 REVIEW OF COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

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 Committees

BUSINESS UNIT

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Audit and Risk - Amended ToR

Attachment b    Finance - Amended ToR

Attachment c    Policy and Legislation - Amended ToR

Attachment d   Airport Advisory - Amended ToR

Attachment e    Bush Fire Advisory - Amended ToR

Attachment f    Local Emergency Management - Amended ToR

Attachment g   Meelup Regional Park - Amended ToR

Attachment h   Current ToR Combined  

 

Prior to the meeting, officers foreshadowed an amendment to the officer recommendation. The amended recommendation was moved first and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2109/201              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor L Miles

 

That the Council, pursuant to s. 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995:

1.         Retains the following Committees:

(a)       Audit  Committee, and endorses its change of name to Audit and Risk Committee;

(b)       Finance Committee;

(c)       Policy and Legislation Committee;

(d)       Airport Advisory Committee;

(e)       Bush Fires Advisory Committee;

(f)        Local Emergency Management Committee;

(g)       Meelup Regional Park Committee.

2.         Endorses the amended Committee Terms of Reference for the following Committees at Attachments A, B, C, D and E

(a)       Audit and Risk Committee (Attachment A);

(b)       Finance Committee (Attachment B);

(c)       Policy and Legislation Committee (Attachment C);

(d)       Airport Advisory Committee (Attachment D);

(e)       Bush Fires Advisory Committee (Attachment E) subject to the following modifications:

                                      i.              Delete clauses 3.4 and 3.6 and adjust numbering accordingly; and

                                    ii.              Amend existing clause 3.5 to insert the words “and the Bushfire Ready Action Group” before the words “will be advisory members”;

(f)        Local Emergency Management Committee (Attachment F);

(g)       Meelup Regional Park Committee (Attachment G).

 

That the Council:

1.         Retains the following Reference/Working Groups/Panels of elected and non-elected members with elected membership as outlined in this report:

(a)       Sustainability and Energy Working Group

(b)       Economic Development Taskforce

(c)       Economic Development Working Group

(d)       Busselton Jetty Reference Group

(e)       Disability Access and Inclusion Plan Reference Group

(f)        Marketing and Events Reference Group

(g)       BPACC Councillor Working Group (renamed from ‘BEACH Working Group’)

(h)       Lower Vasse River Advisory Group

(i)        CEO Performance Review Panel

 

2.         Endorses the establishment of a Community Assistance Advisory Panel.

 

3.         Endorses the appointment of a Councillor as an ex-officio board member to the Busselton Jetty Inc. board upon invitation from Busselton Jetty Inc.

 

4.         Endorses the appointment of a Councillor as an ex-officio board member to the Busselton Senior Citizens Centre, as necessary by their constitution.

 

5.         Endorses the continued delegation of elected members to the following external groups:

(a)       Peron-Naturaliste Partnership

(b)       Busselton and Sugito Cities Association

(c)       Regional Roads Group and Convention

 

6.         Endorses the continued attendance of an elected member at the Australian Coastal Councils annual conference / Annual General Meeting.

 

7.         Endorses the continued appointment of the Mayor to the following external groups:

(a)       Regional Capitals Australia Alliance (subject to appointment by the Regional Capitals Australia Alliance Board)

(b)       Regional Capitals Western Australia Alliance

(c)       South West Zone Local Government Association

 

8.         Endorses the nomination of elected members as required to the following Ministerial Committees subject to approval of the relevant Minister:

(a)       Yallingup Land Conservation District Committee

(b)       Development Assessment Panel

(c)       Vasse Ministerial Taskforce

(d)       GeoCatch (the Mayor or delegate as appointed by the Minister)

 

9.         Agrees that the following Consultative/Working Groups are no longer required:

(a)       Busselton Margaret River Airport Consultative Group

(b)       Smart Cities Digital Strategies Working Group

(c)       Vasse Recreational Facilities Working Group

(d)       Geographe Bay Regional RoadWise Road Safety Working Group

CARRIED 9/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 

Reasons:              Officers considered that the representative from the Bushfire Ready Action Group should be in an advisory capacity only and reference to the Community Emergency Services Manager should be removed.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ONE (ABSOLUTE MAJORITY)

That the Council, pursuant to s. 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995:

1.         Retains the following Committees:

(a)       Audit  Committee, and endorses its change of name to Audit and Risk Committee;

(b)       Finance Committee;

(c)       Policy and Legislation Committee;

(d)       Airport Advisory Committee;

(e)       Bush Fires Advisory Committee;

(f)        Local Emergency Management Committee;

(g)       Meelup Regional Park Committee.

2.         Endorses the amended Committee Terms of Reference for the following Committees at Attachments A, B, C, D and E

(a)       Audit and Risk Committee (Attachment A);

(b)       Finance Committee (Attachment B);

(c)       Policy and Legislation Committee (Attachment C);

(d)       Airport Advisory Committee (Attachment D);

(e)       Bush Fires Advisory Committee (Attachment E);

(f)        Local Emergency Management Committee (Attachment F);

(g)       Meelup Regional Park Committee (Attachment G).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION TWO (SIMPLE MAJORITY)

That the Council:

1.         Retains the following Reference/Working Groups/Panels of elected and non-elected members with elected membership as outlined in this report:

(a)       Sustainability and Energy Working Group

(b)       Economic Development Taskforce

(c)       Economic Development Working Group

(d)       Busselton Jetty Reference Group

(e)       Disability Access and Inclusion Plan Reference Group

(f)        Marketing and Events Reference Group

(g)       BPACC Councillor Working Group (renamed from ‘BEACH Working Group’)

(h)       Lower Vasse River Advisory Group

(i)        CEO Performance Review Panel

 

2.         Endorses the establishment of a Community Assistance Advisory Panel.

 

3.         Endorses the appointment of a Councillor as an ex-officio board member to the Busselton Jetty Inc. board upon invitation from Busselton Jetty Inc.

 

4.         Endorses the appointment of a Councillor as an ex-officio board member to the Busselton Senior Citizens Centre, as necessary by their constitution.

 

5.         Endorses the continued delegation of elected members to the following external groups:

(a)       Peron-Naturaliste Partnership

(b)       Busselton and Sugito Cities Association

(c)       Regional Roads Group and Convention

 

6.         Endorses the continued attendance of an elected member at the Australian Coastal Councils annual conference / Annual General Meeting.

 

7.         Endorses the continued appointment of the Mayor to the following external groups:

(a)       Regional Capitals Australia Alliance (subject to appointment by the Regional Capitals Australia Alliance Board)

(b)       Regional Capitals Western Australia Alliance

(c)       South West Zone Local Government Association

 

8.         Endorses the nomination of elected members as required to the following Ministerial Committees subject to approval of the relevant Minister:

(a)       Yallingup Land Conservation District Committee

(b)       Development Assessment Panel

(c)       Vasse Ministerial Taskforce

(d)       GeoCatch (the Mayor or delegate as appointed by the Minister)

 

9.         Agrees that the following Consultative/Working Groups are no longer required:

(a)       Busselton Margaret River Airport Consultative Group

(b)       Smart Cities Digital Strategies Working Group

(c)       Vasse Recreational Facilities Working Group

(d)       Geographe Bay Regional RoadWise Road Safety Working Group

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the lead up to the next local government elections to be held on 16 October 2021, officers have undertaken a review of the various committees, panels, advisory and working groups that involve the participation of elected members. The purpose of the review is to identify the function of the committees and working groups, and provide recommendations to Council as to their ongoing purpose.

 

As part of this review, the Terms of Reference for the formal committees of Council have also been amended and are presented to Council for consideration and endorsement.

 

This report also proposes that Council endorse the establishment of a Community Assistance Advisory Panel; the appointment of an elected member to the board of Busselton Jetty Inc. as an ex-officio member, and the continuation of the newly formed CEO Performance Review Panel.

BACKGROUND

The Council currently has six Council committees established under the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) and one established under the Bush Fires Act 1954. The Council has also over the years formed many working groups to assist with progressing various initiatives. In addition, the Council is represented on a number of external groups and committees and working groups.

It is appropriate to review on a regular basis whether or not these working groups and representations are still performing the function originally intended and / or are still warranted, noting the resource requirements associated and that travel allowances are payable for elected member attendance. It is also important that the Terms of References for the formal committees of Council are reviewed regularly to ensure they remain relevant with legislation and the City’s local laws.

OFFICER COMMENT

This review was conducted by assessing each committee, group and representation in the context of the following:

·        recent changes to the Local Government Act 1995 and associated Regulations;

·        statutory requirements;

·        its current and future function;

·        outcomes of the review conducted in 2019;

·        information gathered from committee members and senior management; and

·        the frequency of meetings and the actions arising from those meetings.

 

Officers considered the original purpose behind the establishment of the committee/group and if that purpose is still relevant and necessary. Officers also considered where there might be duplication between committees/groups or where the original purpose of the committee/group is now able to be effectively managed at an administrative level, with matters brought to Council as required. 

 


 

Officers have updated all the Terms of Reference into a new format and amended the delegated powers of the Audit and Risk Committee, Policy and Legislation Committee and Finance Committee to include the ability of the committees to set and endorse their own meeting dates and times; to return a policy to the CEO or their nominee for further consideration (Policy and Legislation Committee only); and to note items that do not require a recommendation to Council. These are attached for Council’s consideration (Attachments A to G).

 

Due to the updated Terms of Reference having also been wholly transferred to a new template, no tracked changes versions have been included in this report. The current terms of reference have been provided as one combined attachment (Attachment H) for comparative purposes.

 

Council has recently endorsed the establishment of a CEO Performance Review Panel (C2108/168), in accordance with Council policy, ‘Chief Executive Officer Performance Review’. This panel is to continue and, following the 2021 local government election, Council will reappoint two elected members and the Mayor to the Panel.

 

Busselton Jetty Inc.

To further strengthen the important working relationship and increase communications between Busselton Jetty Inc. (BJI) and the City of Busselton, the BJI Chairperson has advised that the BJI Board have agreed to include a Councillor representative on the BJI Board, in an ex-officio capacity. This report seeks Council support for this new appointment, which will occur following the 2021 local government election.

 

Community Assistance Program

A Community Assistance Advisory Panel is recommended to be officially established to assess and make recommendations to Council on the applications received through the Community Assistance Program (CAP). The Community Assistance Program (CAP) is a funding program run by the City that consists of three funding streams; Assistance grants, Revitalisation Grants and Revitalisation Grants Plus. Previously titled Community Bids, the program was refocused in 2020, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and its repercussions on the City of Busselton community. The CAP moving forward will support and facilitate programs, services and projects that contribute to the social, environmental and cultural development of the City.

 

To aid in the processing of applications received during the COVID period, two Councillors have been providing assistance on the assessment of CAP applications. It is recommended that this practice continue, through the establishment of the Community Assistance Advisory Panel.

 

Dunsborough Community Planning Reference Group

Informal discussions between staff and Councillors, as well as some members of the Dunsborough community, have identified that there may be benefits in the establishment of a ‘Dunsborough Community Planning Reference Group’. It is envisaged that the group would have a broad representation from the Dunsborough community, including from community organisations, but also from business and industry, sporting and recreation groups. The objective of the group would be to provide feedback to the City on community and recreational planning, strategic town planning matters and significant development and infrastructure projects. It is hoped the group would provide for two-way communication with the City, providing feedback to the City, but also assist with the task of keeping the broader community informed about City projects and planning.

 

Noting the importance of a clear Terms of Reference for this proposed new reference group, this report acknowledges the potential for its establishment but does not recommend its establishment.  Instead a report to consider the establishment of the Dunsborough Community Planning Reference Group, including terms of reference and appointment of elected members, will presented separately to Council prior to the 2021 elections.

The tables below summarise the proposals for ongoing Committees and working groups.

Formal Committees (elected members only)

Committee / Group

Function / Membership

2021 recommendations

Audit and Risk Committee

Established pursuant to statute to assist Council to fulfil its corporate governance, stewardship, leadership and control responsibilities relating to financial reporting, audit and risk. Meets as required.

·    4 elected members (incl. Mayor)

·    2 deputy members

Retain: statutory requirement

 

Title has been amended.

 

Terms of Reference have been amended: inclusion of explicit risk related requirements; amendments to delegated powers.

Finance Committee

Assists the Council to oversee the allocation and use of the local government’s finances and resources.  Meets monthly.

·    5 elected members (incl. Mayor)

·    4 deputy members

Retain

 

Terms of Reference have been amended: amendments to delegated powers (power to endorse dates, power to note an item).

Policy & Legislation Committee

Assists the Council to determine the local government’s policies and to carry out its legislative functions.  Meets monthly.

·    5 elected members (incl. Mayor)

·    4 deputy members

Retain

 

Terms of Reference have been amended: amendments to delegated powers (power to endorse dates, power to note an item, power to return a policy to CEO or CEO nominee).

Airport Advisory Committee

Assist Council with the development of the Airport with a critical role under the Noise Management Plan.  Meets as required.

·    4 elected members

·    2 deputy members

Retain

 

Terms of Reference have been amended: set a regular meeting frequency; amendments to delegated power; inclusion of additional objective (noting Airport Consultative Group is recommended to be disbanded).

 


 

Formal Committees (with elected and non-elected members)

Committee / Group

Function / Membership

2021 recommendations

Bush Fires Advisory Committee

Established pursuant to the Bushfires Act 1954 to provide advice to Council in regard to all matters relating to bush fire control, prevention and management.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

Terms of Reference have been amended: addition of members from the Bushfire Action Ready Group to the membership of the committee.

 

 

Local Emergency Management Committee

Established pursuant to the Local Emergency Management Act 2005 to assist Council and ensure local emergency management arrangements are established.

Meets at least bi-annually.

·    2 elected members (Mayor and Deputy Mayor)

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

Terms of Reference have been amended: addition of a representative of Busselton Jetty Inc. to membership of the committee.

Meelup Regional Park Committee

Assists the Council in managing and promoting Meelup Regional Park.

Supported by a working group with the same membership.

·    2 elected members

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

Terms of Reference have been amended: removal of delegated power to adopt plans/policies/document as this delegation has never been used and is no longer required.

External Groups / Committees with elected member delegations

Committee / Group

Function / Membership

2021 Recommendations

Peron-Naturaliste Partnership

One of 9 local governments on the Board. Works with State government to lobby Federal government about environmental issues.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

Busselton and Sugito Sister Cities Partnership

Manages the sister city relationship with Sugito, Japan and arranges adult and youth exchanges.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 


 

Regional Roads Group and Convention

The group prioritises and resolves projects for the allocation of monies received from State and Federal government.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Retain

Geographe Bay Regional Roadwise Road Safety Working Group

Reviews road safety issues.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Discontinue Council’s participation due to inactivity.

 

Australian Coastal Councils Association

The City is a member of this group which is a lobby group to develop resources relating to climate change.

 

No set membership: elected member selected to attend conference and represent the City.

Retain City’s membership and selection of an elected member to attend conference / AGM.

 

Meelup Regional Park Working Group

Same membership as the Meelup Regional Park Committee.

·    2 elected members

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

No Change

Mayor / Board Appointments

Board

Function / Membership

2021 Recommendations

Regional Capitals Australia

 

Brings Australia’s 51 regional capital cities together as one unified voice to provide an alliance that understands sand presents to the Federal Government the needs of combined regional communities.

·    Mayor (by appointment of the Board)

Retain

 

No change

Regional Capitals WA Alliance

Provides a WA alliance of regional capitals.

·    Mayor

Retain

 

No change

South West Zone Local Government Association

An association of 12 South West Local Governments that meets to consider WA Local Government Association initiatives.

·    Mayor

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

No change

 


 

Ministerial Appointments

Committee / Group

Function / Membership

2021 Recommendations

Development Assessment Panel

Invite and appointment by relevant Minister.

·    2 elected members

·    1 deputy members

No change

 

Yallingup Land Conservation District Committee

Invite and appointment by relevant Minister.

·    1 elected member

·    0 deputy members

No change

Vasse Ministerial Taskforce

Invite and appointment by relevant Minister.

·    1 elected member

·    0 deputy members

No change

 

 

GeoCatch

Mayor or delegate noting that they are also appointed by the Minister for a 3 year term. 

·    Current appointment is Cr Paine

No change

City Formed Reference / Working Groups (elected members only)

Committee / Group

Function / Membership

2021 recommendations

Busselton Margaret River  Airport Consultation Group

Consults with community, aviation, tourism, business and government organisations about the BMRRA project, operations and potential impacts.

·    1 elected member (Busselton Airport Advisory Committee or delegate)

·    1 deputy member

Disband: no longer required.

Move the objectives of the noise management plan from the Group to the Airport Advisory Committee

BEACH Working Group

Consults with key stakeholders, seeks specialist advice and enables community participation in the development of initiatives aimed to attract tourism, business and events to the region.

·    3 elected members

·    1 deputy member

Change in title to ‘BPACC Councillor Working Group’

 

 


 

Sustainability and Energy Working Group

Considers the development and implementation of energy efficiency initiatives.

·    2 elected members

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

No changes

City Formed Reference / Working Groups (elected and non-elected members)

Committee / Group

Function / Membership

2021 recommendations

Economic Development Taskforce

Provides advice and recommendations as to the Economic Development Strategy.

·    Mayor + 2 elected members

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

Terms of Reference anticipated to be updated in October 2021.

Economic Development Working Group

Is a subsidiary working group of the Economic Development Taskforce

·    1 elected member

Retain

 

Smart Cities Digital Strategies Working Group

Is a subsidiary working group of the Economic Development Taskforce.

·    1 elected member

Discontinue – Economic Development Working Group will oversee the implementation of the Economic Development Strategy.

Busselton Jetty Reference Group

Provides a forum for discussion on Jetty-related matters with Busselton Jetty Inc. and Council.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

Disability Access and Inclusion Plan Reference Group

Assists with the implementation of initiatives identified in the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Retain

Marketing and Events Reference Group

Makes recommendations to Council on the allocation of marketing and events funding.

·    3 elected members

·    1 deputy member

Retain

 

 

Vasse Recreational Facilities Group

Assist with the development of recreational facilities at Vasse.

·    1 elected member

·    1 deputy member

Disband: no longer active.

Lower Vasse River Advisory Group

·    3 elected members

·    2 deputy members

Retain

 

 

CEO Performance Review Panel

Authorised to undertake the CEO Performance Review, in accordance with the objectives of Council Policy: Chief Executive Officer Performance Review.

·    Mayor

·    2 elected members

Retain

Community Assistance Advisory Panel

Assess and provide recommendation to Council on applications received through the Community Assistance Program (CAP).

·    Mayor

·    1 elected member

New

Statutory Environment

The review was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the following:

·        Local Government Act 1995 (the Act)

·        Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996

·        Bushfires Act 1954 WA

·        Emergency Management Act WA 1995

Relevantly, under Section 5.8 of the Act, a local government may, by absolute majority, establish committees of three or more persons to assist the Council. 

Section 5.10 and 5.11A of the Act relates to the appointments of Committee members and Deputy Committee members. Appointments will be made at a special Council Meeting following the election. 

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

Elected members may claim an allowance for travel to and from committee and working group meetings, therefore any reduction in the number of working groups may result in minor financial benefit.

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.         Retain any Committees or Groups which have been recommended to discontinue;

2.         Discontinue any Committees or Groups which have been recommended to retain and establish; and

3.         Further amend the Terms of Reference of the Committees.

CONCLUSION

This report presents a review of committees, working groups, advisory groups and the appointment of elected members to various boards prior to the 2021 local government elections.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations will be implemented immediately upon Council endorsement.  


Council

128

8 September 2021

16.1

Attachment a

Audit and Risk - Amended ToR

 




Council

130

8 September 2021

16.1

Attachment b

Finance - Amended ToR

 



Council

132

8 September 2021

16.1

Attachment c

Policy and Legislation - Amended ToR

 



Council

134

8 September 2021

16.1

Attachment d

Airport Advisory - Amended ToR

 



Council

137

8 September 2021

16.1

Attachment e

Bush Fire Advisory - Amended ToR

 




Council

140

8 September 2021

16.1

Attachment f

Local Emergency Management - Amended ToR

 




Council

143

8 September 2021

16.1

Attachment g

Meelup Regional Park - Amended ToR

 




Council                                                                                      163                                                         8 September 2021


















 


 

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil

 

19.             urgent business

Nil

 

20.             Confidential Reports  

Nil


 

21.             Closure

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 7.36pm.

 

 

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 131 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 22 September 2021.

 

DATE:_________________  PRESIDING MEMBER:         _____________________________