Agenda of Strategy and Assets Committee

Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Location: Council Chambers, City Administrative Centre, Bridge Road, Nowra

Time: 5:00pm

The following members were present:

Clr Andrew Guile - Chairperson

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Patricia White

Clr John Wells

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr Annette Alldrick

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Apology was received from Clr Kitchener

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Pakes) MIN17.86

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee held on Tuesday 24 January 2017 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Declarations of Interest

Mr Russ Pigg – significant non pecuniary interest declaration – will leave the room and will not take part in discussion or vote – as one of his neighbours is an associate of a waste company in the following items:

SA17.53 – Resource Recovery Park – West Nowra AWT
SA17.54 – Extension of Waste and recycling Collection and Processing Contracts
CSA17.4 – Resource Recovery Park – West Nowra AWT
CSA17.5 - Extension of Waste and recycling Collection and Processing Contracts

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

SA17.24 Notice of Motion - Ecocity World Summit

HPERM Ref: D17/39168

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council add the Ecocity World Summit, to be held in Melbourne, July 12-14, 2017 to the conference list that councillors and staff can attend.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN17.87

That Council:

Notes the details of the Ecocity World Summit scheduled for 12-14 July 2017 in the Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre, Melbourne Victoria.
Authorises available Councillors to attend the conference and such attendance be deemed Council Business.
Travel, registration fees, accommodation and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses be met in accordance with its adopted policy.
Request Councillors attending the conference to provide a written report within 30 days of returning from the conference.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot, Russ Pigg and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Guile and Clr Pakes

CARRIED

SA17.25 Notice of Motion - Shared Pathways - Mollymook

HPERM Ref: D17/39300

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the staff report on any plans to extend shared pathways in Mollymook. That the report include, specifically, any plan to create a pathway between Forest Way and Tallwood Avenue or when such a pathway might be expected to be constructed.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.88

That the staff report on any plans to extend shared pathways in Mollymook and the report include, specifically, any plan to create a pathway between Forest Way and Tallwood Avenue or when such a pathway might be expected to be constructed.

CARRIED

SA17.26 Notice of Motion - Bomaderry Sporting Complex

HPERM Ref: D17/39696

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

Council be provided regular reports and updates in relation to the Bomaderry Sporting complex.

MOTION (Clr Cheyne / Clr Wells)

That Council be provided regular reports and updates in relation to the Bomaderry Sporting complex.

Amendment (Clr Watson / Clr Proudfoot)

That Council:

1. Be provided regular reports and updates in relation to the Bomaderry Sporting complex; and

2. Abandon the compulsory acquisition of any private property.

Point of Order – Clr Findley – the amendment is contrary to the Master Plan which Council has already adopted for the Sporting Facility Complex and should be ruled out of order.

Note: The Chairperson ruled against the Point of Order.

MotioN OF DISSENT (Clr Findley / Clr Levett)

That the ruling by the Chairperson regarding the Point of Order is incorrect.

The Chairperson declared the MOTION LOST.

Clr Findley requested Division and the following vote was recored.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Russ Pigg and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Proudfoot

carried

The AMENDMENT is considered out of order and will not be debated or voted upon.

Procedural Motion - Adjournment of Meeting (Clr Findley / Clr Gash)

That the meeting be adjourned for 5 minutes.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Russ Pigg and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Proudfoot

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned the time being 5.28pm

The meeting reconvened the time being 5.32pm

The following members were present:

Clr Andrew Guile - Chairperson

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Patricia White

Clr John Wells

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Note: Clr Alldrick returned to the meeting at 5:37pm.

RESOLVED (Clr Cheyne / Clr Wells) MIN17.89

That Council be provided regular reports and updates in relation to the Bomaderry Sporting complex.

CARRIED

SA17.27 Notice of Motion - Future Planning Recreational Spaces

HPERM Ref: D17/44958

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council staff prepare a report for Council on the future planning used in determining the quantum of playing fields and recreational spaces needed to carry our city forward for the next thirty to fifty years. The report should cover, but not be restricted to, the following:

1. The current position regarding the planning of future fields.

2. The expected impact of an ageing population, and the demand that this places on the securing of sites for uses such as men's sheds, croquet courts and the like.

3. Increase in demand for a greater variety of recreational activities for our younger children.

4. The likely significant impact of the massive participation take-up in girl's and women's sport.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Pakes) MIN17.90

1. The current position regarding the planning of future fields.

2. The expected impact of an ageing population, and the demand that this places on the securing of sites for uses such as men's sheds, croquet courts and the like.

3. Increase in demand for a greater variety of recreational activities for our younger children.

4. The likely significant impact of the massive participation take-up in girl's and women's sport.

CARRIED

SA17.28 Question on Notice - NSW Container Deposit Scheme

HPERM Ref: D17/46213

It was noted that the commencement of the legislation was deferred until December 2017.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr Findley) MIN17.91

That the Question on Notice – NSW Container Deposit Scheme and Response be received for information.

CARRIED

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

Motion (Clr Findley / Clr Cheyne)

That the following items be brought forward for consideration:

SA17.41 – Greenwell Point Wharf Management Committee
SA17.51 – Determination of Review of Environmental Factors (REF) - Lake Conjola Boardwalk Replacement
SA17.52 – Determination of Review of Environmental Factors (REF) - Rehabilitation of Coolangatta Road CH5400 to CH6550
SA17.55 – Readoption of Environmental Services Policies.

CARRIED

SA17.41 Greenwell Point Wharf Management Committee

HPERM Ref: D17/2806

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Request NSW Department of Primary Industry – Lands remove Council as Trust Manager for the Greenwell Point Fisherman’s Wharf Reserve, as the Greenwell Point Wharf is used primarily by commercial vessels and not for recreation vessels.

2. Write to NSW Department of Primary Industry – Lands as the asset owner for the Greenwell Point main concrete wharf and advise that upgrading of the facility is required as a high priority to cater for the future needs of commercial and charter fishing vessels.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr White) MIN17.92

That Council:

1. Council request NSW Department of Primary Industry – Lands remove Council as Trust Manager for the Greenwell Point Fisherman’s Wharf Reserve, as the Greenwell Point Wharf is used primarily by commercial vessels and not for recreation vessels.

2. Council write to NSW Department of Primary Industry – Lands as the asset owner for the Greenwell Point main concrete wharf and advise that upgrading of the facility is required as a high priority to cater for the future needs of commercial and charter fishing vessels.

3. Prior to the request to the NSW Department of Primary Industry as outlined in parts 1 and 2 above, that Council advertise to the local community the intention to remove Council as the Trust Manager, and should there be no objections, the action proceed without reporting back to Council.

CARRIED

Note: Clr Gartner left the meeting at 5:51pm

SA17.51 Determination of Review of Environmental Factors (REF) - Lake Conjola Boardwalk Replacement

HPERM Ref: D17/33957

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopts the Lake Conjola boardwalk REF and determines the activity may proceed, and

2. Acknowledges that the Lake Conjola boardwalk site remains culturally sensitive due to previous discovery of Aboriginal ancestral remains close to the boardwalk and Council will ensure relevant safeguards listed in the REF are implemented.

Note: Clr Gartner returned to the meeting at 5:53pm

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Findley) MIN17.93

That Council:

1. Adopts the Lake Conjola boardwalk REF and determines the activity may proceed, and

CARRIED

SA17.52 Determination of Review of Environmental Factors (REF) - Rehabilitation of Coolangatta Road CH5400 to CH6550

HPERM Ref: D17/34043

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopts the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and determines the activity may proceed to improve road safety,

2. Acknowledges the tree removal component of the works

3. Ensure relevant safeguards listed in the REF are implemented.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.94

That under delegated authority from Council, the Committee:

1. Adopts the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and determines the activity may proceed to improve road safety,

2. Acknowledges the tree removal component of the works

3. Ensure relevant safeguards listed in the REF are implemented.

CARRIED

SA17.55 Readoption of Environmental Services Policies.

HPERM Ref: D17/34240

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council adopt the following policies, with the minor amendments outlined in the report:

1. The Control and Eradication of Noxious Weeds.

2. Companion Animals (Impacts on Native Fauna) – Conditions of Development Consent.

3. Caravan Parks on Flood Prone Land/ Local Approvals Policy

4. Flood Planning Levels for the Lower Shoalhaven River Floodplain Policy.

5. Foreshore Reserves Policy.

6. Mobile Food Stalls/Vehicles and Temporary Food Premises/ Local Approvals Policy

7. Food Premises Policy.

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Wells) MIN17.95

That Council adopt the following policies, with the minor amendments outlined in the report:

1. The Control and Eradication of Noxious Weeds.

2. Companion Animals (Impacts on Native Fauna) – Conditions of Development Consent.

3. Caravan Parks on Flood Prone Land/ Local Approvals Policy

4. Flood Planning Levels for the Lower Shoalhaven River Floodplain Policy.

5. Foreshore Reserves Policy.

6. Mobile Food Stalls/Vehicles and Temporary Food Premises/ Local Approvals Policy

7. Food Premises Policy.

For: Clr Guile, Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Russ Pigg and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Proudfoot

CARRIED

Report of the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee - 8 February 2017

CBD17.2 Member Resignation - Mark Crowther

HPERM Ref: D17/36538

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Accept the resignation of Mr Mark Crowther from the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee.

2. Write to Mr Crowther to thank him for his contribution to the Committee.

3. Remove one Council staff position (Council to determine: General Manager or Director Assets & Works or Director Planning & Development)

4. Add one (1) additional Community member position

5. Council amend the remaining Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee in addition to the reduced staff positions in the Terms of Reference to reflect the following membership:

· Two (2) Community members (non business operator or landowner)

· Two (2) CBD Landowners

· Three (3) CBD Business owner/operators

· One (1) CBD Business retailer (vacant)

6. Advertise the vacant positions.

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Gash) MIN17.96

That Council:

1. Accept the resignation of Mr Mark Crowther from the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee.

2. Write to Mr Crowther to thank him for his contribution to the Committee.

3. Remove the General Manager as a Staff member of the Committee

4. Add one (1) additional Community member position to the Committee

5. Amend the remaining Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee in addition to the reduced staff positions in the Terms of Reference to reflect the following membership:

· Two (2) Community members (non business operator or landowner)

· Two (2) CBD Landowners

· Three (3) CBD Business owner/operators

· One (1) CBD Business retailer (vacant)

6. Advertise the vacant positions.

7. Amend the Terms of Reference for the Committee to allow Councillors to attend and speak but not vote (non-voting members).

8. The meetings be conducted in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice.

For: Clr Guile, Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Russ Pigg and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Proudfoot

CARRIED

Reports

SA17.30 Six Monthly Delivery Program Operational Plan Report 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016

HPERM Ref: D17/38447

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That in accordance with the Committee’s delegated authority from Council, the report of the General Manager (Executive Strategy) regarding progress to 31 December 2016 on the 2015/2017 Delivery Program and 2016/2017 Operational Plan be received for information, noted and published on Council’s website.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Gartner) MIN17.97

CARRIED

SA17.31 December 2016 Quarterly Budget Review

HPERM Ref: D17/40951

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the December Quarterly Budget Review and vote movements outlined in the Quarterly Budget Review Statement be adopted by Council.

Note: Clr Proudfoot left the meeting at 7.25pm

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Gash) MIN17.98

That under delegated authority from Council, the December Quarterly Budget Review outlined in the Quarterly Budget Review Statement be adopted.

CARRIED

SA17.32 Re-establishment of Alcohol Free Zones - East Nowra, Shoalhaven Heads, Culburra Beach, Orient Point, Mollymook

HPERM Ref: D17/28001

Recommendation

That:

1. Council proceed with the re-establishment of the Alcohol Free Zones for a period of four (4) years in the areas of East Nowra, Shoalhaven Heads, Culburra Beach/Orient Point and Mollymook, including consultation with licensees in the surrounding areas;

2. Should no objections be received to the re-establishment of these zones, authority be given to staff to proceed with the declaration of the above areas as an Alcohol Free Zone, without further reference to Council.

Note: Clr Proudfoot was absent from the meeting.

Recommendation (Clr Gash / Clr White)

That:

CARRIED

SA17.33 Council Policy - Asbestos	HPERM Ref: D17/11876
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That Council adopt the draft Asbestos Policy as attached to this report.
Note: Clr Proudfoot returned to the meeting 7.28pm.
RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.99 That Council adopt the draft Asbestos Policy as attached to this report. CARRIED

SA17.34 Council Policy - Events Policy (Revision)

HPERM Ref: D17/30515

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That:

1. Council endorse the new Events Policy taking into consideration the changes due to new LEP requirements and place it on public exhibition for 28 days.

2. If no significant comments are received after 42 days the policy be adopted. If significant comments are received a further report be presented to Council

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.100

That:

1. Council endorse the new Events Policy taking into consideration the changes due to new LEP requirements and place it on public exhibition for 28 days.

2. If no significant comments are received after 42 days the policy be adopted. If significant comments are received a further report be presented to Council

CARRIED

SA17.35 Council Policy - Park Management (Policy Consolidation)

HPERM Ref: D17/23615

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt the Park Management Policy POL17/7.

2. Rescind the following policies:

· Parks & Reserves – Emplacement of plaques & artefacts & trees

· Reserve Naming

· Park Enhancement

· Icon Parks

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Levett) MIN17.101

That:

1. Council endorse the new Park Management Policy (POL17/7) and place it on public exhibition for 28 days.

2. If no significant comments are received after 28 days the policy be adopted. If significant comments are received a further report be presented to Council;

3. Rescind the following policies:

· Parks & Reserves – Emplacement of plaques & artefacts & trees

· Reserve Naming

· Park Enhancement

· Icon Parks

CARRIED

SA17.36 Bay and Basin Community Hub - Draft Master Plan

HPERM Ref: D17/28287

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Endorse public exhibition of the draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan for a period of 28 days.

2. Advise stakeholders involved in the preparation of the draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan of its public exhibition.

3. Receive a further report after public exhibition of the draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan.

Motion (Clr Watson / Clr Pakes)

That the public exhibition of the Draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan be deferred pending a review of the Master Plan by a Council Sub-Committee of the Strategy and Assets Committee comprising of available Clrs and representatives from the CCB’s in the area.

For: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner and Clr Findley

lost

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Gash) MIN17.102

That under delegated authority from Council, the Committee:

1. Endorse public exhibition of the draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan for a period of 42 days.

2. Advise stakeholders involved in the preparation of the draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan of its public exhibition.

3. Receive a further report after public exhibition of the draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan.

4. Establish a Sub-Committee comprising of Clrs and members of the CCB’s and user groups be convened to assist to finalise the Draft Bay & Basin Community Hub Master Plan.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Russ Pigg and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Proudfoot

CARRIED

SA17.37 Adoption of Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan

HPERM Ref: D17/28535

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That

1. Council finalise and adopt the draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (including the recommendations in Section 12 and Appendix H) with the following main amendments:-

a. the term “rationalisation” be defined further in the plan and understood as explained in this report

b. tennis court facilities and netball courts to be included in the plan

c. to update provision guidelines for arts, museums and libraries

2. The minor amendments as outlined in the attached submissions table (outlined in Attachment 2) and staff feedback / amendments as identified in the report below also be included in the final version and adopted.

3. Council continue to work with community and sporting groups to develop more accurate information on utilisation rates, times, programs, etc. to better understand future infrastructure needs and facilities that can be utilised for events and marketed

4. Council staff commence exploring ways in which its community infrastructure facilities can be marketed to maximise community knowledge of the facilities and increase utilisation.

5. Council advise those that made submissions related to the draft plan, CCBs, community and sports groups of the resolution of this meeting.

6. Council rescind the Sportsground Strategic Plan which is superseded by the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan:

7. The Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan inform a review of the Council’s Section 94 Plan.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN17.103

That:

1. Council finalise and adopt the draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (including the recommendations in Section 12 and Appendix H) with the following main amendments:

a. the term “rationalisation” be defined further in the plan and understood as explained in this report

b. tennis court facilities and netball courts to be included in the plan

c. to update provision guidelines for arts, museums and libraries

4. Council staff commence exploring ways in which its community infrastructure facilities can be marketed to maximise community knowledge of the facilities and increase utilisation.

5. Council advise those that made submissions related to the draft plan, CCBs, community and sports groups of the resolution of this meeting.

6. Council rescind the Sportsground Strategic Plan which is superseded by the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan:

7. The Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan inform a review of the Council’s Section 94 Plan.

8. Before Council plans to sell, rationalise, or close any park, reserve or community hall that it be the subject of a separate report to Council.

CARRIED

SA17.38 Grant Offer - Community Development Grants Programme - Construction of Ulladulla Netball Courts

HPERM Ref: D17/45952

Recommendation

That Council

1. Accept the Federal Government grant funding offer of $150,000 from the Community Development Grant Programme for construction of two (2) additional netball courts at Ulladulla Sports Park.

2. Write to Ann Sudmalis MP the Member for Gilmore and the Hon Fiona Nash, Minister for Regional Development, thanking them for the Federal Government funding assistance to assist in the delivery of two (2) additional netball courts at Ulladulla Sports Park.

Recommendation (Clr White / Clr Findley)

That Council:

1. Accept the Federal Government grant funding offer of $150,000 from the Community Development Grant Programme for construction of two (2) additional netball courts at Ulladulla Sports Park.

CARRIED

SA17.39 Public Policies for Review - Asset Management

HPERM Ref: D16/359772

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That

1. the following public policy be rescinded

· Cycleways and Footpaths – Charges Applicable

2. the following public policies be adopted with the minor changes

· POL16/142 Drainage Easements – Maintenance of Open Drains

· POL16/143 Drainage Easements –Piping in Existing Subdivisions

· POL16/148 Kerb and Guttering – Charges Applicable

· POL16/154 Private Use of Public Parking

· POL16/155 Ratepayer Financing Policy for Kerb and Gutter Construction

· POL16/158 Rural Fire Stations – Community Use

· POL16/138 Council Waterways Infrastructure – Use of for Commercial Purposes

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Gartner) MIN17.104

That:

1. The following public policy be rescinded

· Cycleways and Footpaths – Charges Applicable

2. The following public policies be adopted with the minor changes

· POL16/142 Drainage Easements – Maintenance of Open Drains

· POL16/143 Drainage Easements –Piping in Existing Subdivisions

· POL16/148 Kerb and Guttering – Charges Applicable

· POL16/154 Private Use of Public Parking

· POL16/155 Ratepayer Financing Policy for Kerb and Gutter Construction

· POL16/158 Rural Fire Stations – Community Use

· POL16/138 Council Waterways Infrastructure – Use of for Commercial Purposes

CARRIED

SA17.40 Building Better Regions Fund - Projects

HPERM Ref: D17/48198

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That;

1. Applications be made for the following projects under the Building Better Regions Fund – Infrastructure Projects Stream

a. Woollamia Regional Boating Maintenance Facilities (Project cost $1,980,000 with Council contribution of $990,000)

b. Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Centre (Project cost $12,000,000 with Council contribution of $8,000,000)

2. Applications be made for the following projects under the Building Better Regions Fund – Community Investments Stream

a. Nowra Waterfront – investment strategy (Project cost $500,000 with Council contribution of $250,000)

b. Stewart Place – investment strategy (Project cost $500,000 with Council contribution of $250,000)

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Gash) MIN17.105

That:

1. Applications be made for the following projects under the Building Better Regions Fund – Infrastructure Projects Stream:

a. Woollamia Regional Boating Maintenance Facilities (Project cost $1,980,000 with Council contribution of $990,000)

b. Riversdale Development Proposal – in partnership with the Bundanon Trust. Council acknowledges and accepts there are contractual responsibilities and risks for Council in submitting the application.

2. Applications be made for the following projects under the Building Better Regions Fund – Community Investments Stream

a. Nowra Waterfront – investment strategy (Project cost $500,000 with Council contribution of $250,000)

b. Stewart Place – investment strategy (Project cost $500,000 with Council contribution of $250,000)

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Guile, Clr Wells, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

CARRIED

Note: A rescission motion was received on this item.

SA17.41 Greenwell Point Wharf Management Committee

HPERM Ref: D17/2806

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.92

SA17.42 Intersection of Mernie Street and The Wool Road, Old Erowal Bay

HPERM Ref: D17/32181

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the General Manager (Director Assets & Works) continue to review conditions at the intersection of The Wool Road and Mernie Street, and actively pursue any available grant funding opportunities to provide safety improvements (in particular regarding right turn movements) for vehicles on The Wool Road turning right into Mernie Street, Old Erowal Bay.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson) MIN17.106

CARRIED

SA17.43 Land Acquisition - Easement for Drainage - Lot 202 DP1119087 - Jack Kooij

HPERM Ref: D16/377516

Recommendation

That Council resolve to:

1. Acquire an Easement for Drainage 3 metres wide along the northern boundary of Lot 202 DP1119087 at Kaross Close, South Nowra, shown by broken line on attached easement plan;

2. Endorse the agreement with Shoalhaven District Football Association that all costs associated with the acquisition, including the payment of compensation, be met by the Association; and

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documentation requiring the Seal to be affixed, otherwise the General Manager be given delegated authority to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr Cheyne)

That Council resolve to:

1. Acquire an Easement for Drainage 3 metres wide along the northern boundary of Lot 202 DP1119087 at Kaross Close, South Nowra, shown by broken line on attached easement plan;

2. Endorse the agreement with Shoalhaven District Football Association that all costs associated with the acquisition, including the payment of compensation, be met by the Association; and

CARRIED

SA17.44 Acquisition of Fire Trail Easements at Jerberra Estate, Tomerong

HPERM Ref: D17/14579

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Approve the acquisition of a fire trail easement approximately 6 metres wide and variable under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, in favour of the Rural Fire Service, over Lots 55, 61 & 62 DP 11629, Invermay Avenue, Jerberra Estate, Tomerong, for nil compensation (Attachment 1);

2. Agree to pay the effected land owners of Lots 55, 61 & 62 DP 11629 reasonable legal costs and any other reasonable ancillary costs associated with the acquisition from Job No. 85286; and

3. Authorise that the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed, otherwise the General Manager be authorised to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to the resolution.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot)

That Council:

2. Agree to pay the effected land owners of Lots 55, 61 & 62 DP 11629 reasonable legal costs and any other reasonable ancillary costs associated with the acquisition from Job No. 85286; and

CARRIED

SA17.45 Classification of land - Lot 116 DP1226471 Dolphin Point

HPERM Ref: D17/25477

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council approve the classification of the land described as Lot 116 DP 1226471 Dolphin Point as Operational land.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr Cheyne)

That Council approve the classification of the land described as Lot 116 DP 1226471 Dolphin Point as Operational land.

CARRIED

SA17.46 Acquisition and Extinguishment of Easement for Drainage - Woollamia - Pt Lot 1 DP650295 785 Woollamia Road

HPERM Ref: D17/30854

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Resolve to acquire a 2 metre wide Easement for Drainage and extinguish an existing Easement for Drainage over part of Lot 1 DP650295 known as 785 Woollamia Road, Woollamia as shown in Attachment 1;

2. Pay all reasonable legal and ancillary costs associated with the acquisition and be funded from Job number 74901.39954; and

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed, otherwise the General Manager is authorised to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to the resolution.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr White)

That Council:

2. Pay all reasonable legal and ancillary costs associated with the acquisition and be funded from Job number 74901.39954; and

CARRIED

SA17.47 Classification of land - Sunset Strip Manyana- Sewer Pump Station - SPS

HPERM Ref: D17/41087

Recommendation

That Council resolve to classify the land described as Lot 100 DP1222243 known as Sunset Strip Manyana as Operational land subject to no submissions being received objecting to this position by the closing date of 15 March 2017.

Recommendation (Clr Proudfoot / Clr White)

CARRIED

SA17.48 Rural Fire Service - RFS - Proposed Closure of Part North Street, Berry

HPERM Ref: D17/28879

Recommendation

That Council resolve to:

1. Make an application to the Minister administering the Roads Act 1993, for the part of North Street, Berry shown by hatching on Attachment “1” to be closed and retained by Council as Operational land; and

2. Affix the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to any documentation requiring the Seal to be affixed, otherwise the General Manager be given delegated authority to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Recommendation (Clr Pakes / Clr Alldrick)

That Council resolve to:

CARRIED

SA17.49 Sale by Expression of Interest - Lot 1 DP 1021332 George Evans Road, Mundamia - Update

HPERM Ref: D17/37826

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, consider a separate confidential report on this matter in accordance with Section.

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Gash) MIN17.107

That Council, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, consider a separate confidential report on this matter.

CARRIED

SA17.50 Proposed Retail Lease of 41 Kinghorne Street, Nowra

HPERM Ref: D17/38082

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Enter into a lease with Christian Mathew Wykniet (Trading as Pump House Pies) for two (2) years with a two (2) year option for an annual rent of $21,529 per annum plus GST with annual increases of 3%; and

2. Authorise the General Manager to sign all documentation required to give effect to this resolution and to affix the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to all documentation required to be sealed.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr Cheyne)

That Council:

CARRIED

SA17.51 Determination Of Review Of Environmental Factors (REF) - Lake Conjola Boardwalk Replacement

HPERM Ref: D17/33957

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.93

SA17.52 Determination Of Review Of Environmental Factors (REF) - Rehabilitation Of Coolangatta Road Ch5400 To Ch6550

HPERM Ref: D17/34043

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.94

SA17.53 Resource Recovery Park - West Nowra AWT	HPERM Ref: D17/37694
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That Council: 1. That Council consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the procurement methodology for provision of Alternative Waste Processing Technology. 2. Establish a bio-banking site on land surrounding the Huskisson Recycling and Waste Facility and retire Environmental Offsets needed for the Resource Recovery Park and Landfill extension projects. 3. Receive a further report on options to provide the required Species Credits needed for the Resource Recovery Park.
Russ Pigg – significant non pecuniary interest declaration - as one of his neighbours is an associate of a waste company - left the room and did not take part in discussion or vote.
RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.108 That Council: 1. That Council consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the procurement methodology for provision of Alternative Waste Processing Technology. 2. Establish a bio-banking site on land surrounding the Huskisson Recycling and Waste Facility and retire Environmental Offsets needed for the Resource Recovery Park and Landfill extension projects. 3. Receive a further report on options to provide the required Species Credits needed for the Resource Recovery Park. CARRIED

SA17.54 Extension of Waste and Recycling Collection and Processing Contracts	HPERM Ref: D17/40470
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That Council consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.
Russ Pigg – significant non pecuniary interest declaration - as one of his neighbours is an associate of a waste company – left the room and did not take part in discussion or vote.
Note: Clr Findley was absent from the meeting.
RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Pakes) MIN17.109 That Council consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993. CARRIED

SA17.55 Readoption Of Environmental Services Policies.

HPERM Ref: D17/34240

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.95

SA17.56 Acquisition of Easement for Water Supply - 2 Wandean Road Wandandian	HPERM Ref: D17/23306
Recommendation That: 1. Council resolve to compulsorily acquire an Easement for Water Supply variable width over Lot 5 DP1027962 at 2 Wandean Road Wandandian, shown by broken line on attached copy of DP269010. 2. Council pay compensation as determined by the Valuer-General in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and ancillary costs for the acquisition from Council’s Water Fund. 3. The necessary application be made to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor for approval to the acquisition under the Local Government Act 1993. 4. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed.
Note: Clr Findley was absent from the meeting.
Note: Russ Pigg returned to the meeting.
Recommendation (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Wells) That: 1. Council resolve to compulsorily acquire an Easement for Water Supply variable width over Lot 5 DP1027962 at 2 Wandean Road Wandandian, shown by broken line on attached copy of DP269010. 2. Council pay compensation as determined by the Valuer-General in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and ancillary costs for the acquisition from Council’s Water Fund. 3. The necessary application be made to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor for approval to the acquisition under the Local Government Act 1993. 4. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed. CARRIED

SA17.57 Acquisition of Crown land and easement over Crown land at Ulladulla

HPERM Ref: D17/16594

Recommendation

That the previous approval MIN 16.497 be varied and Council resolve to:

1. Compulsorily acquire from the Crown:

a. Lot 1 DP1109186, being part of Lot 7304 DP1166765, at Kings Point Drive Ulladulla, shown on the attached copy of DP1109186 marked Attachment ‘A’.

b. A Sewerage Easement 10 wide and variable over Lot 7304 and Lot 7305 DP1166765 and Lot 5 DP256334 at Kings Point Drive Ulladulla, the attached copies of DP1109186 marked Attachments ‘A’ & ‘B’.

2. Pay compensation and costs associated with the acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, from Shoalhaven Water’s Sewer fund.

3. The necessary application be made to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor for the acquisition under the Local Government Act 1993.

4. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed.

5. The land to be acquired to be classified as ‘Operational’ in accordance with Section 31(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993.

Recommendation (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Cheyne)

That the previous approval MIN 16.497 be varied and Council resolve to:

1. Compulsorily acquire from the Crown:

a. Lot 1 DP1109186, being part of Lot 7304 DP1166765, at Kings Point Drive Ulladulla, shown on the attached copy of DP1109186 marked Attachment ‘A’.

2. Pay compensation and costs associated with the acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, from Shoalhaven Water’s Sewer fund.

3. The necessary application be made to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor for the acquisition under the Local Government Act 1993.

4. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed.

5. The land to be acquired to be classified as ‘Operational’ in accordance with Section 31(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993.

CARRIED

SA17.58 Grant of easement & restriction over Council land at Nowra

HPERM Ref: D17/36398

Recommendation

That Council resolve to:

1. Grant an Easement for Padmount Substation 3.35 wide and a Restriction on the use of land in favour of Endeavour Energy, over Council land Lot 1 DP531142 at St Anns Street Nowra. The Easement and Restriction are deliniated (A) and (B) respectively on attached plan marked Annexure ‘B’.

2. Costs associated with the transaction are to be met from Council’s Sewer Fund. The Easement and Restriction are to be granted at $nil consideration.

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to be fixed to any document required to be sealed.

Recommendation (Clr Cheyne / Clr Levett)

That Council resolve to:

2. Costs associated with the transaction are to be met from Council’s Sewer Fund. The Easement and Restriction are to be granted at $nil consideration.

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to be fixed to any document required to be sealed.

CARRIED

SA17.59 Future of Human Waste Removal Services	HPERM Ref: D17/27138
Recommendation That Council; 1. Seek tenders for human waste removal services 2. Apply full cost recovery to all fees and charges relating to human waste removal services commencing 1 July 2018.
Note: Clr Findley returned to the meeting at 8.58pm
Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr White) That Council: 1. Seek tenders for human waste removal services 2. Apply full cost recovery to all fees and charges relating to human waste removal services commencing 1 July 2018. For: Clr Guile, Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Proudfoot, Russ Pigg and Clr Findley Against: Clr Watson CARRIED

SA17.60 Kangaroo Valley Sewerage Scheme Capacity Assessment - Proposed 3 lot subdivision Rendga Cl, Kangaroo Valley

HPERM Ref: D17/37189

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That:

1. Council approve the connection of the two additional lots (under SF10539) to the Kangaroo Valley Sewerage Scheme subject to development consent being granted.

2. Staff continue to monitor the Kangaroo Valley Sewerage Scheme capacity and report to Council only those development proposals in future that are considered to exceed normal infill development.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Guile) MIN17.110

That under delegated authority from Council:

1. Council approve the connection of the two additional lots (under SF10539) to the Kangaroo Valley Sewerage Scheme subject to development consent being granted.

2. Staff continue to monitor the Kangaroo Valley Sewerage Scheme capacity and report to Council only those development proposals in future that are considered to exceed normal infill development.

CARRIED

Introduction of Items as Matters of Urgency

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr White)

That the following addendum reports be introduced as matters of urgency:

1. SA17.61 Pedestrian Suspension Bridge Over Kangaroo River - Upper Kangaroo Valley

CARRIED

The Chairperson ruled the matters as ones of urgency as they relate to urgent business of Council and allowed their introduction.

Addendum Reports

SA17.61 Pedestrian Suspension Bridge Over Kangaroo River - Upper Kangaroo Valley

HPERM Ref: D17/51245

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council;

1. Engage an Engineering consultant to review the options, including costs, for repairing and renewing the footbridge over the Kangaroo River

2. Advise the residents and stakeholders that plans are being progressed to renew components of the bridge and funding will be considered as part of the 2017/18 budget against other priorities.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Guile) MIN17.111

That Council:

1. Engage an Engineering consultant to review the options, including costs, for repairing and renewing the footbridge over the Kangaroo River

2. Advise the residents and stakeholders that plans are being progressed to renew components of the bridge and funding will be considered as part of the 2017/18 budget against other priorities.

CARRIED

Confidential Reports

Pursuant to Section 10A(4) the public were invited to make representation to the meeting before any part of the meeting is closed, as to whether that part of the meeting should be closed.

No members of the public made representations.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr White) MIN17.112

That the press and public be excluded from the Meeting, pursuant to section 10A(1)(a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, to consider the following items of a confidential nature.

CSA17.3 Sale by Expression of Interest - Lot 1 DP 1021332 George Evans Road, Mundamia - Update

Commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.10(A)(2)(d)(i)

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information as disclosure of the information could reasonably expected to reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.

CSA17.4 Resource Recovery Park - West Nowra AWT

Information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.10(A)(2)(c)

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information as disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.

CSA17.5 Extension of Waste and Recycling Collection and Recycling Processing Contracts

Commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.10(A)(2)(d)(i)

CARRIED

The meeting moved into confidential the time being 9.05pm.

The meeting moved into open session, the time being 9.19pm.

Note: A rescission motion was received in relation to SA17.40 - Building Better Regions Fund - Projects. It will be considered at an Extra Ordinary Meeting on Thursday 23 February 2017 at 5.00pm in the Council Chambers.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 9.20pm.

Clr Guile

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 21 March 2017

Page 30

SA17.66 Citizens Panel

HPERM Ref: D17/82371

Group: General Manager's Group

Section: Executive Strategy

Attachments: 1. A City of Darebin Citizens Jury Timeline ⇩

2. Eurobodalla Shire Council Citizen Jury Report (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Citizen Jury Case Studies - At a Glance ⇩

Purpose / Summary

Council, at the Extra Ordinary meeting of 1 February 2017 resolved, in part, that:

Staff provide a report to the next Ordinary Council Meeting on the establishment of a Citizens’ Panel to provide recommendations to Council on priority areas for expenditure related to the proposed Special Rate Variation.

This report is in response to the above resolution.

Recommendation (Option 2)

That:

1. Council randomly select a total of 24 persons from the existing 24 Consultive Community Bodies (CCBs), Council’s Advisory Committees & Boards, and the Business Chamber Executives, to form a Community Reference Panel to provide input into the Community Strategic Plan (CSP) review process and the Delivery Program/Operational Plan (DPOP) and budget community engagement process.

2. This Panel undertake 3 workshops to provide feedback on the priorities for expenditure of the Special Rate Variation (SRV) and the projects and priorities of the CSP and DPOP

3. Council allocate a budget of $10,000 to meet staff and other costs to form and assist the Community Reference Panel in the process.

4. Council also utilise alternative community engagement methods to reach other stakeholders of Shoalhaven, to actively seek their feedback on their priority areas for expenditure of the proposed SRV as part of this year’s DP/OP and budget and allocate $5,000 to fund materials and resources for these engagement methods

5. Council consider providing a budget in the 2017/18 financial year for the establishment of a permanent randomly selected Community Reference Panel that could be externally facilitated and used for a number of projects of Council throughout the year and form part of Council’s overall community engagement strategy

Options

1. Should the proposed SRV be supported by the Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and adopted by Council then Council could form a Citizens Panel of randomly selected community participants that represent the demographic mix of the Shoalhaven. This Panel would be tasked to provide Council with recommendations about priority areas for the expenditure of the SRV. Council would need to allocate a budget of at least $100,000 to externally resource, fund and support the Citizens Panel process. The General Manager would also need to allocate internal staff resources to support the process.

Implications: A Citizens Panel and other forms of deliberative processes are excellent methods of independent engagement with the community and are highly recommended for many communities throughout Australia. Whilst Citizen Panel processes have worked very effectively in some situations, in others this engagement method has not been successful and the recommendations that Panels have made have not been supported by the community or Council.

There are cost implications for this option including the need for a currently unfunded budget of at least $100K and external resources to recruit and facilitate the process. There are also staff resource implications given the need for staff to be tasked with supporting the process on top of their existing project commitments.

Timing factors need to also be considered given the length of time required to run the Citizens Panel process - is estimated to be 8-12months. There is also the need to obtain quotations from external consultants and also undertake a planning and design of the process prior to commencement of the process.

The review of the current CSP and creation of the DPOP and Budget for 2017/18 will need to be finalised by June 2017. Engagement on the CSP is expected to commence in April 2017 and will include questions relating to priorities for the next 10 years. The DPOP and Budget engagement will focus on the expenditure of Council funds and the projects that will be undertaken for the next financial year and is expected to commence in May 2017. There is a limited time frame for all these engagement processes given the Council election process and proposed SRV process had to occur prior to commencement of the CSP review. Given the timing, any input provided by a Citizens Panel would not be able to be incorporated into these documents in this financial year and could only be incorporated in the 2018/19 financial year processes.

However by not adopting a Citizens Panel process the CCBs, who suggested this idea, may be concerned and feel that their proposal has not been supported. It is suggested that if alternative engagement methods are utilising and CCBs have input into selecting these methods or being part of these methods then this may assist in alleviating some of their concerns.

2. Council could choose to not utilise an independently run and selected Citizens Panel engagement method for the development of the priorities for the expenditure of the SRV and instead:

a. Randomly select persons from the existing 24 CCBs, Council’s Advisory Committees & Boards, and the Business Chamber Executives, to form a Community Reference Panel to provide input into the CSP Review process and the DPOP and budget community engagement (which would include the SRV if supported by IPART and Council).

b. Utilise alternative community engagement methods to reach other stakeholders of Shoalhaven to actively seek their feedback on their priority areas for expenditure of the proposed SRV as part of this year’s DPOP and budget process.

c. Council would need to allocate a budget and resources to support this (which would not be more than 10K).

d. Consider providing a budget in the next financial year for the establishment of a permanent randomly selected Community/Citizens Panel that could be used for a number of projects of Council throughout the year and form part of Council’s overall community engagement strategy.

Implications: This would be a less costly option and more efficient than the formation of an independently selected and run Citizens Panel. Council has used community reference panels in the past and they have been successful in providing input, along with input from other community members into Council projects and policies. The ultimate decision remains with Council and the recommendations of the panel are considered as part of the overall engagement process rather than being the single method of engagement utilised as would be the case in the use of a Citizens Panel.

Given the timing of the CSP review, DPOP and budget discussions that are about to occur with the community it is important that any panel is established quickly and can have input into this process.

This option does not allow for random community members to be part of the process and does not necessarily provide a representative view of the wider/broader community. It will provide the view point of those that are already actively engaged with Council and who already have an understanding of Council processes and policies. This can assist in the ability for the Panel to move to key considerations faster than community members who have no experience with Council at all.

There has already been information received from the community as part of the proposed SRV engagement process, recent community surveys and other engagement processes that have provided Council with some of the community’s priority areas for expenditure of the SRV. A clear message has been that the community seeks additional expenditure on roads and infrastructure. By including a community panel made up of interested community members as part of the CSP, DPOP and Budget engagement process Council will able to seek additional feedback in this area in timely manner.

This option proposes that as part of this option Council consider the establishment of a permanent community reference panel that forms part of Council’s overall Community Engagement Strategy. This panel would be randomly selected and facilitated. Given the timing of the SRV application, DPOP and budget for 2017/18 delaying the establishment of this Panel would allow for appropriate budget to be allocated in this next financial year and for the time to be available to establish the Panel for the 2018/19 financial year considerations.

3. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Background

Request for a Citizens Panel

As part of the community engagement process for the proposed Special Rate Variation Council received two submissions from our CCBs at Huskisson and Bawley Point. Council also received a combined CCB submission. In these submissions it was suggested that Council utilise a Citizens Panel, as had been used by Eurobodalla Council, to provide Council recommendations on how the proposed SRV be spent as shown in Image 1 below.

Image 1- Combined CCB submission extract

On the 1st February 2017 Council resolved (MIN17.71) to:

1. Council receive the feedback and results of the community engagement

2. Council endorse a financial sustainability approach that includes continued improvement in our procurement and asset management practices and improving productivity and implementing a Special Rate Variation

3. Council authorise staff to make formal application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and lodge a Section 508A Special Rate Variation (SRV) on general income for an increase of 11.5% in 2017/18 and 11.5% in 2018/19, above rate peg for each of the 2 years in order for Council to financially support the ongoing provision of service levels to the community and increase levels of asset maintenance and renewal.

4. Staff provide a report to the next Ordinary Council Meeting on the establishment of a Citizen’s Panel to provide recommendations to Council on priority areas for expenditure related to the Special Rate Variation

5. Council accept the submission from The Shoalhaven Independents on behalf of the ratepayers and residents who attended protest meetings at St Georges Basin, Bomaderry, Huskisson and Nowra as part of the overall submissions and the submission also be reported to IPART. 6. The General Manager report back to Council on how Council could capture any business that is operating from residential premises and re-categorise to business and if there are any legislative hurdles should Council wish to pursue this as an ongoing part of revenue review. This should include the cost for resourcing such a project- this suggestion was put to Council by concerned ratepayers.

7. The General Manager report back if any other Councils apply a levy or any other mechanism to increase rates on those properties that are known to supply accommodation to the tourism industry and are essentially a business- these properties would be those listed by real estate agents and online mechanisms such as Air BnB and Stayz –this suggestion has been raised by concerned business operators.

8. The General Manager also report back on any measures that can be used to essentially pass some of the financial burden of maintaining assets onto the many tourist that come to the Shoalhaven, suggestions that have come through include parking meters for peak tourist times and places and bed taxes. The report should also include any legislative or resourcing issues for such matters.

9. In reporting back could the General Manager please comment on any timing issues that could be foreseen if such mechanisms were to be adopted by Council.

10. Council refer the matters raised by an Independent Auditor in a recent confidential meeting with councillors to Council’s Risk & Audit committee for consideration and any further advice. .CARRIED

This report relates to part 4 of this resolution.

Community Engagement - Methods

Community engagement is a planned process with the specific purpose of working with identified groups of people, whether they are connected by geographic location, special interest, or affiliation or identify to address issues affecting their well-being. Good community engagement takes time, resources and a budget. Often community engagement in any organisation does not succeed because the methods used do not suit the stakeholders that are meant to be targeted, there is limited time for planning or no planning is undertaken at all, there is no budget allocated or the decision has already been made.

Often engagement is said to have “failed’ if it did not present the desired outcome or achieve the required number of comments or the result that the “squeaky” wheels desired. Often the term engagement or collaboration is being used when actually the engagement is really only about informing the community rather than seeking their feedback. Understanding the exact questions that are really being asked and the outcome that is actually trying to be achieved is very important in determining what method and measure is used for community engagement. Being up front at the beginning of the process about what level of input the community can actually have and why is also very important. Consistent clear messaging and a united voice is also vital to the success of the process.

There are a significant number of community engagement methods that can be used for any project depending where the project sits on the IAP2 community engagement spectrum.

There has recently been a trend towards undertaking more collaborative and deliberative processes and methods, in engaging with the community to enable them to feel included in the process. Many organisations have embarked on deliberative processes such as the use of community panels, working groups, juries and other methods. Each method has its benefits and its risks and needs to be tailored to the situation, stakeholders to be engaged, the question/consideration posed, budget allocated and resources available to the organisation.

The Citizens Panel Method

A Citizens Panel is a means of involving everyday people in the process of government decision-making. In essence, a Citizens Panel is a group of randomly selected members of a community convened to consider a given topic and provide a response or recommendation to the governing body.

The success of the panel model is based on the premise that if the public know that a group of their fellow citizens have reached consensus around a decision, they immediately have more trust in the decision than if it were made solely by someone in elected office or the public service.

Citizens Panels work because they can convey to the wider community that citizens like them are being given complete access to information, are studying detailed evidence and hearing from subject-matter experts of their own choosing.

There are a number of ways a citizens panel can be formed, run and obtain an outcome. The models that have been used by many organisations vary.

The classic citizens panel model is as follows:

· 12-24 randomly selected against stratified criteria.

· Overseen by stakeholder steering committee, who choose witnesses to give evidence.

· Commitment by decision-makers to seriously consider and publicly respond to recommendations.

· Consensus ‘verdict’ expected though majority reports still useful.

There are numerous variations to this including.

· The size of the panel can vary and range from a small number to up to 350 people.

· The time and duration of the process can vary and be either carried out in a consecutive fashion i.e. over 3-4 days or over a number of weeks with one meeting per week or month.

· Citizens Panels have taken on many different names and can be called Community Panel, Community Jury etc.

· Members of the panel can be randomly selected or a blend those engaged with randomly selected or comprise of very engaged community members (such as the community panel process used for Collingwood beach).

· Incentives given can vary from vouchers, to full funding eg $250.00 per day.

· Remits (or considerations) can be a very narrow question or a more broad question.

· Stakeholders role can vary from oversight to witnesses or observers.

There are significant risks with using a Citizens Panel. Some of these risks have been seen in the Shoalhaven through the Collingwood Beach Community Panel process and the Citizens Panel attempt for the Rating Category Review. Citizens Panels do not always work and are not the only engagement method that can be used to seek community input and empowerment. Risks associated with using deliberative methods include:

· Stakeholders can feel marginalized (those that are not selected as random panel members).

· It can be seen as a way to disempower those with different points of view.

· The broader community can feel or actually be left out of the process.

· Stakeholders will not go on the same journey as panel members, and may well still be polarised.

· Stakeholders may choose not to participate and lobby decision-makers directly.

· The Panel can be used inappropriately - it is seen as a new innovative method but may not be the right one for the decision making process.

· The recommendations of the Panel may not align with Council or Councillor priorities, finances or legislative requirements.

There are however benefits of using this method including:

· The ability to really consider and look at a tricky question.

· It can be a very transformative and inclusive experience for the Panel.

· Those with strong interests are required to pitch to citizens (rather than claiming to speak on their behalf when lobbying).

· Clearer accountability with process outputs and ultimate decisions made.

· They can be the convergence of a broader community engagement process.

Selection of Committee Members

The selection of the Community Panel can be undertaken using a variety of methods including:

· Random selection from the electoral roll or rate payers database, members are randomly selected from the electoral roll and sent invitations to participate, indicating that their agreement does not guarantee final selection as selection needs to be demographically representative of the community as a whole.

· Random face to face recruitment approaches are made door to door, at events, in shopping centres, etc.

· Random telephoning - community are randomly selected by telephone number and called and invited to participate. Respondents complete a demographic survey and are matched to fill the selection criteria.

· Non-targeted advertisements - advertisements are placed in relevant newspapers and community publications which provide no detail other than participants are sought. Those who express an interest are then surveyed against demographic data.

· Snowballing technique - recruiters ask friends and family to contact people they feel might be interested in participating.

Resources Required

As with any community engagement, it is important to have a clear purpose in mind which will inform the design of a panel process. It requires many months of careful planning and considerations of issues such as the panel selection, the remit, background material, observers, the authority of the panel’s recommendations, costing and evaluation. In particular, Council needs to be clear about what it will do with the panel’s recommendations. On receiving the panel’s final report, Council will be expected to respond publicly to the recommendations, outlining the reasons behind their response.

The Victorian Association of Local Government outlines in their summary on Citizens Panels that “anecdotal evidence speaks to the enormous amount of time and energy that a panel process requires of council officers with the responsibility of making it happen.” One fundamental task is to ensure that colleagues and elected representatives understand what’s involved. This is in addition to all of the many practical considerations about the design of the process and the smooth running of the panel on the day. Typically, the running of a panel process tends to fall to community engagement/development teams in council. Where a panel process sits in council is an important consideration.

Timing

A timeline prepared by the City of Darebin’s Citizens’ Panel is provided as Attachment A by way of an example. For this process the total time from beginning to end was almost 12 months, in most case studies reviewed the time to run the panel process was between 8-12months.

Council is about to commence the CSP review process and also undertake the DPOP and Budget engagement. All are due to be completed by June 2017. The establishment of a Citizens Panel to influence these processes will not be able to occur. Any input the Panel would have into the spending of the SRV, DPOP and CSP would be through the 2018/19 DP/OP and Budgetary process.

Costs

The cost of convening a citizens panel varies considerably with the design of the process. Detail contained in case studies and council budgets are unclear and may not include internal costs. Eurobodalla ran their process for $100K. The Victorian Local Government Association (representing the majority of councils that run these panels) estimates that many range from $50 - $180K, which includes the cost of an external facilitator. They outline that the City of Greater Bendigo’s Citizens’ Panel budget is given as $89K; and the City of Melbourne’s large-scale People’s Panel on the Council’s 10-year financial plan cost in the order of $180K.

Council needs to consider whether there would be funds available to support this type of process and whether this would be money well spent or represent value for money over other approaches to community consultation. It will also be important to consider some of the less tangible outcomes, such as the goodwill generated or the ability for a panel to generate new ideas that may not have been considered in the past.

Key Imperatives for Success

There are a number of key imperatives for the success of a Citizens Panel. Drawing information from a number of research documents on the subject the success factors are summarised below and include:

· Sufficient funding. Funding needs to include costs for the use of specialist consultant to run the process, recruitment, incentives, process design, facilitation, obtaining specialist witnesses, venues and catering.

· There is a well scoped remit - Research tends to point to Citizens Panels being most useful for convergence issues - focusing on making choices between carefully crafted options, yet with room to craft new possibilities.

· Design and structure of the Panel has been well planned and considered and set for the proposed remit. In order to run a Citizens Panel process there is a lot of time, resources and skill required, the process needs to allow for sufficient time for the Panel to deliberate, and for additional time to be provided as needed.

· The process is independent and equitable. The facilitation of the process needs to be undertaken independently of the organization including the formation of the Panel. This is to ensure that evidence has not been stacked to any particular side, the process has been fair and well run, stakeholders believe they have been able to provide their evidence and given the opportunity to also have their say. Some stakeholders however may not be able to participate in the process- there needs to be fair and balanced evidence.

· At the end of the process the Panel must feel that it is their report, that the process has been well run and genuine. The Panel is able to make public comment about the process, their findings and what they have learnt, this can be both positive and negative.

· Decision makers support and believe in the process. Decision makers need to be willing to accept that the outcome may be different to their preferred option and if it is accept the recommendations of the Panel. They need to accept the report provided by the Panel and this report needs to be unedited. They need to ensure that they are willing to adopt or support recommendations and if they do not support or adopted recommendation to provide detailed and public comment about why any recommendations are not adopted or supported.

There are significant risks associated within utilizing the Citizens Panel method. The ongoing “cost” (loss of trust, community dissatisfaction etc) can result if the process is done poorly and does not deliver sufficient rationale for the ‘verdict’. Not adopting the recommendations of the Panel can also have significant implications.

Case Study Examples

Eurobodalla Council

The request from CCBs references the Eurobodalla Council’s use of a Citizens Panel for the consideration of the way Council spent it’s money. Eurobodalla Council uses a Citizens Panel to review its range and level of services to inform development of the Delivery Program 2017-21 and meet Fit for the Future commitments. Commencing in June 2016 the expected completion of the project is March 2017. The process was independently run by the new Democracy Foundation.

The total cost of the process is stated as $100,000.

Prior to the process commencing Council staff prepared a briefing book for all panel members to assist in their deliberations and understanding of the process.

The Citizens’ Panel consultation process was run completely independent of Council. The process is entirely managed by the newDemocracy Foundation to ensure a fair methodology and unbiased result. A total of 24 panel members were used and selected based on the population of the Council area and previous experience of the consultant.

The newDemocracy Foundation posted invitations to 5,000 Eurobodalla residents. The addresses for the 5,000 invitations are randomly drawn from land titles information. Recipients of the invitation are asked to register online (or by phone) to indicate they are interested and available for the final selection. Based on those available, a second random draw was carried out to select the final 24 members. Upon completion of the process panel members will receive a one-off payment of $400 for any associated costs incurred from being a part of this process. Meals and refreshments were also be provided at the meetings. The panel members met six times between September and November 2016.

As part of the process Eurobodalla residents, community groups and organisations were encouraged to make a submission to the Panel on issues that they would like the Citizens’ Panel to consider when making their recommendations on Council spending and service delivery.

From the submissions, the panel members selected speakers to present at future meetings. Speakers will varied at each meeting to reflect the topics raised by the community submissions or to provide additional information to the Panel on topics of their choosing.

The final report of this Panel (Attachment B) provided to Eurobodalla Council and shows a range of recommendations which are yet to be fully considered by Council (expected March 2017).

Wollongong Council

In 2013 Wollongong City Council utilised a Citizens Panel for the consideration of the Financial Sustainability of Council. The Citizens Panel was established to seek feedback on Council’s finances, and to help Council develop a plan for the maintenance and repair of the City’s ageing infrastructure. The Panel was specifically tasked with identifying ways Council could direct further resources to pay for the upkeep our city’s post-war roads, buildings and footpaths. Council appointed a market research company to recruit randomly selected community members for the Citizens Panel. Council also hired an independent engagement specialist, Straight Talk, to facilitate the Panel. Straight Talk led a similar process for Canada Bay Council in 2012.

The 34-person Citizens Panel was asked to address three specific questions:

· What are the priority services for Council to deliver and to what level should Council deliver these services?

· What are the opportunities to achieve operational improvements?

· How should Council fund the delivery of these services to the desired level?

The Panel was seen as a first step in the community engagement process. The recommendations of the Panel were then provided to the broader community for further comments, ideas, and suggestions from all community members. Following the receipt of the recommendations from the Panel Council came out in the media with a message that “This is an ongoing process that will only get better with many hands and many voices from all areas of the City.”

The process was subject to significant community concern as the recommendations made proposed the closure of a number of community facilities and the cessation of a number of Council services. This case study shows an example of a process that can have negative impacts if the recommendations provided by the community do not match the wider communities view or the view of special interest groups or the view of the Council.

Some articles about the Panel and considerations include:

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1896767/growing-fears-over-citizens-panel-sway/

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1896704/swimmer-labels-potential-closure-cruel/?cs=300

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1894454/explanations-for-panel-recommendations/?cs=12

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1896710/report-just-a-conversation-starter-farmer/?cs=300

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1894633/citizens-panellist-dont-blame-us/?cs=300

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1889371/stand-by-to-pay-more-and-get-less-wollongong/?cs=300

There are many more similar articles that were featured in the Illawarra Mercury and other publications during this time. The process created significant distrust and outrage in the Wollongong community during this time and as a result most of the recommendations were not adopted. Whilst panels are effective and have been very successful in a number of locations, success is not always guaranteed and they can have potentially negative outcomes for the community, participants and Council.

Other Case Studies

There are numerous articles, research papers and case studies about the use of a Citizens Panel. A short summary of some of the key recent examples that have occurred in Australia has been provided as Attachment C.

The newdemocracy foundation website also provides some excellent examples of the use of panels https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/

Some examples of positive media and discussion on the use of Citizens Panels include:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/citzens-juries-giving-power-to-the-people/5779168

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/melbourne-peoples-panel-makes-bold-decisions-where-politicians-fear-to-tread-20150331-1mchjp.html

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/experiment-pays-off-melbourne-peoples-panel-produces-robust-policy-20150628-ghzoz4.html

Community Engagement

The proposed use of a Citizens Panel is one engagement method that can be utilised to determine the community’s priority in the expenditure of the proposed SRV. This method sits within “empower” on the IPA2 community engagement spectrum which hands the decision making power over to the people. This method needs funding and resource allocation and can be more costly that some other forms of community engagement methods.

As with any community engagement process it is imperative that community engagement is well planned and designed to obtain feedback from the key stakeholders that are being targeted.

Financial Implications

As outlined in the report the cost and resources estimated to be required for the implementation of a Citizens Panel can vary from 60K to 180K. In the case of Eurobodalla the costs stated for this Panel total 100K. It is not known if this also includes staff time. It is recommended that if a Citizens Panel engagement process is adopted by Council then a budget allocation of at least 100K is also provided.

Currently there is not a specific community engagement or project budget that could be used for this process. Community engagement is generally funded through specific projects and often there is not a community engagement budget allocated for some of our engagement activities e.g. recent SRV application engagement, Council merger community engagement.

Given the limited funds that Council has at this time (hence the need for the proposed SRV) Council needs to consider whether the allocation of these funds for this purpose is an appropriate use of Council resources. Council will also need to be able to justify to the wider community that this expenditure is necessary and that other alternative engagement methods could not be used to obtain a similar result.

Conclusion

There are two options that are being proposed as part of this report on the use of a Citizens Panel for the development of priority expenditure for the proposed SRV. The community have clearly shown that they would like input into how the funds obtained from any SRV are spent and that if they are able to have input into this they would be more willing to accept an increase in rates. There are many methods of obtaining community feedback about priority expenditure, a Citizens Panel is one method that could be employed. It can take at least 8-12months to complete the process and rely on funding in the order of 100K, Council needs to consider whether this is a useful use of Council funds and resources or if the same outcome could be achieved through alternative engagement methods or another option.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 21 March 2017

Page 47

SA17.68 Shoalhaven Family Day Care - Consultation process and feedback re transfer of service

HPERM Ref: D17/8966

Group: Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Family Day Care Submissions - Final (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To detail the consultation process with affected staff, Educators and Families and feedback regarding potential transfer of the Shoalhaven Family Day Care Service to a suitable provider.

Recommendation

1. That Council receive the report for information on the consultation process with affected staff, Educators and Families and feedback regarding potential transfer of the Shoalhaven Family Day Care Service to a suitable provider for information.

2. That Council adopt Option 4 Performance Targets met or transfer and that an update report be provided to Council in April 2018.

3. That as part of the public exhibition/community engagement period for the draft 2017/18 DP/OP council specifically gain feedback on the matter of ‘ratepayer subsidy’ for the FDC service.

Options

1. Recommendation as stated

Implications: the report is accepted for information in relation to the consultation process and staff commence changes in the service to meet the targets outlined in option 4.

2. An alternative recommendation is made

Implications: Council can make an alternative recommendation based on one of the other options.

Background

At the Council meeting of the 20 December (MIN16.989) Council resolved to:

1. Consider a further report once the consultation process with potential affected staff, Educators & Families to transfer the Shoalhaven Family Day Care Service to a suitable provider is complete. The report to council is to include all feedback, comment or suggestions from affected parties.

2. Immediately commence the necessary communication with relevant staff in line with the Local Government Award requirements

3. Immediately commence the necessary communication with the educators in line with requirements

4. Commence the necessary communication with users of the service in line with requirements

5. Make immediate representations to the Member for Gilmore and the relevant Federal Government Minister to have organisational funding for Family Day care restored.

Consultation Process

The consultation and information process with potential affected staff, educators and families is now completed.

Council resolved (MIN16.776) at the meeting of 22 November to commence the necessary steps to transfer the Shoalhaven Family Day Care Service to a suitable provider. The resolution also directed Council to commence necessary communication with relevant staff in line with the Local Government Award requirements as well as commencing necessary communication with educators and service users re the potential transfer of service.

The consultation process was as follows:

· Thursday 24 November (morning) Director Corporate and Community Services met with the Family Day Care Coordinator and informed her of the Council decision to seek to transfer the provision of Shoalhaven Family Day Care to an alternative provider;

· Thursday 24 November (afternoon) the Human Resources Manager and the Director Corporate and Community Services and the Coordinator Community Development met with Shoalhaven Family Day Care Coordination Unit staff to inform of the decision of Council, discuss implications for the service and outline the provisions of the Local Government Award;

· Monday 28 November 2016 Coordinator Community Development met informally with Coordination Unit staff to discuss the potential transfer of the service to another provider and potential implications for staff.

· Monday 28 November 2016. Letters sent to Educators and Families notifying of the Council decision to transfer the service to an alternative provider. Letters detailed the process for seeking an alternative approved Early Childhood provider and highlighted the transfer would have little impact on Educators or Families. The letter to Educators also informed of planned engagement sessions for Educators. Both letters assured Families and Educators of Councils’ ongoing commitment to the provision of quality Early Childhood Education and that Council would retain sponsorship until an appropriate alternative provider could be found.

· Thursday 1 December. A follow-up letter was sent to Educators providing more information on the decision, outline the reasons behind the decision and notify Educators of planned meetings with them to further discuss the issues. This letter assured Educators that Shoalhaven Family Day Care was not closing and that Educators would be involved in the evaluation and selection process as part of EOI development and assessment.

· Thursday 1 December. Individual letters were hand delivered to potentially affected staff. These letters outlined individual potential entitlements for staff as well as process and options for future deployment within the organisation.

· Thursday 1 December. Letter emailed to parents and families to assure them that the service was not closing and that Council’s commitment is for both families and educators to be supported by a highly competent licenced provider.

· Tuesday 6 December 2016. A meeting was convened with Educators. The meeting was addressed by the Director Corporate and Community Services. Also in attendance were the Manager Recreation Community and Culture and the Coordinator Community Development. The meeting outlined the process of service review, development of confidential report to Council regarding the transfer of the service to another approved provider and impacts on staff and other stakeholders. The outcome of the meeting was that an Educator working group was established to assist in the development of an EOI to attract another provider.

· Throughout the engagement and consultation process a number of submissions have been received. These are attached. A summary of the points raised are listed below. Through this process staff have maintained contact with those affected and sought to provide accurate responses to enquiries.

Future Direction

There are 5350 providers of Childcare services in NSW. Of this there are 358 FDC providers and 38 of these are provided by Local Government. Of these 38, 29 services meet or exceed the quality standards. (Source NQS data – Q4 2016 – data as at 30 December 2016).

The sector itself has been undergoing significant growth over the past 3 years. There have been an additional 565 new childcare services registered with the national register between the December reporting period in 2013 and 2016. Of these there have been 147 new FDC providers.

Council has several options available to it in relation to the future direction of Family Day Care. These are outlined below:

Option 1 – Continue with the original resolution

This option would be for Council commence the necessary steps to transfer the Shoalhaven

Family Day Care Service to a suitable provider. Council can choose to seek an alternate supplier of the service and transfer the service to that provider. If Council decided to withdraw from the provision of this service it cannot be sold to another provider but must be transferred for no financial gain. This can be achieved through an Expression of Interest process

There are a number of early childhood, education and care providers in the industry sector, including commercial and not for profit entities. Councils make up around 10% of the providers of Family Day Care Services.

If Shoalhaven City Council decide to transfer its operations to another Provider it must in writing notify the regulatory authority (NSW Government Early Childhood Education and Care Directorate) of the transfer at least 42 days before the transfer is intended to take effect.

A regulatory authority may intervene in a transfer of a service approval if it has concerns about whether the receiving approved provider is capable of operating the Education and Care Service.

Option 2 – Maintain the existing service but full cost recovery

This option would see Council maintain its commitment to FDC with the view of undertaking steps to cover in full the subsidy made to the service by the general ratepayer.

These steps would include:-

· An increase in all associated fees,

· An increase in the number of educators maintained and operating

· An increase in the number of families/children using the service

· No increase in Coordination Unit costs thereby resulting in a lower level of service.

In order to achieve this the following assumptions/targets will need to be met from 1 July 2018.

In considering any of the options 2 – 4 the assumptions and their impacts need to be understood. When fees increased in 2015/16 by 14% there was a drop of utilisation of 7%. It can be expected that the proposed increases in fees will have a further impact on utilisation. The assumptions around increases in the levels of service and ratios of children and educators to the Coordination Unit resources are significant increases.

To achieve this position the actions outlined in Option 4 below will also need to be implemented.

Option 3 – Maintain the existing service including current/future subsidy levels

This option would see Council maintain its commitment to FDC with the view of undertaking steps to minimise the subsidy made to the service by the general ratepayer but maintaining a commitment to cover any subsidy.

In this instance the general ratepayer covers the cost of childcare for this specific group of families within this specific service. While Council does provide vehicles for the Central Shoalhaven Mobile Pre School and other support for some childcare services such as the provision of buildings questions could be asked as to why the general ratepayer should provide this direct support when they do not provide this level of support for other families using different forms of childcare. There are approximately 70 child care service providers in the Shoalhaven providing child care services to thousands of children each week.

To achieve this outcome a number of actions would need to be consider. These steps would include:-

· Possible increases in all/some associated fees,

· Possible increases in the number of educators maintained and operating

· Possible increases in in the number of families/children using the service

· Possible increase in Coordination Unit costs.

Option 4 – Performance targets met or transfer

This option would require the setting of targets for the service to achieve prior to 30 June 2018 to cover all costs associated with the service including the reduction of funding from the Federal Government.

Forecasting to cover these costs indicate that the following assumptions and actions would need to be met by 30 June 2018:-

If this option is chosen it is recommended that the following targets are met by the set dates

Targets
Utilisation	88% current
	89% by 30 September 2017
	90% by 30 March 2018

Educators	39 current
	44 by 30 September 2017
	49 by 30 March 2018

Fees	1.05 Current
	1.12 set from1 July 2017
	1.20 set from 1 July 2018

Should these forecasts not be substantially met a further report would be presented to Council to consider its options.

A number of actions will be undertaken in an effort to address these targets. These include:

· A new streamlined educator recruitment process

· The increased use of social media to market the service and seek educators

· The development of a FDC Website

· The use of technology to allow some meetings to occur with Educators via Skype/Facetime to maximise staff time working with educators and reduce time spent travelling

· The continued implementation of the Quality Improvement Plan

· Creating electronic files for Educator files reducing administration time and processes

· Transitioning the coordination unit to Harmony Web for the submission of time sheets

· Administration staff visiting new Educators to assist them setting up efficient administration processes, leading to long term time saving

· All Coordination Unit staff have been accessing councils professional learning opportunities to ensure they are multi skilled in the uses of various software e.g. TRIM, Excel to improve efficiencies

· Creating electronic files for Children’s files further reducing administration time and processes

· Introduce Harmony Web for Educators use which will see an end to the processing of hundreds of timesheets each week. All would be done electronically. We have been advised by another service time spent on this for them has reduced by 90% (from approximately 10hours per week to two). Educators will also be able to view the enrolment information and their payment information for their own service and will therefore have less need to contact the coordination unit with enquiries about these matters. Auditing of timesheets will be more efficient and will also be far less time consuming.

· In coming weeks staff will be doing training in Online Meetings Using Skype with the intention that this will be a way of meeting with groups of Educators, particularly in outlying areas, for professional development. It could also be used for discussions with individuals or small groups.

· The Educational Leader currently visits every Educator at least once a year to discuss their documentation (in addition to their monthly home visits). This needs to be done at rest time or out of care hours. We can see how by emailing their documentation then using Online Meeting travel time for these meetings could be reduced dramatically – particularly for Educators located outside of the Nowra area.

· Recruitment of more highly qualified Educators. Already 44% of our Educators hold or are completing a degree or diploma in early childhood education which surpasses the regulation requirement for them to hold (or be working towards) a Cert III. Those who are only commencing the Cert III need far more support than those already trained.

· Online enrolments with follow up from coordination unit staff introducing themselves.

· Educator portal attached to website

· Reviewing play session practices – initially changing from two staff attending to one. There could be occasions (monthly/fortnightly) where staff set up but Educators conduct the play session themselves and assist in packing up.

· Implementing improved data collection practices

In order to meet the demands place on the staff by the required increases the actions listed above will need to be implemented quickly. It is through these efficiency measures that staff time is freed up from administration areas to direct services to educators and families. These initiatives will see a reduction in the hours committed to administration and an increase in hours to the staff directly working with the Educators.

The use of technology such as skype etc will allow more time to directly communicate with the Educators and less time spent on the roads travelling.

Community Engagement

In line with the Council resolution staff have been consulted. Time for their feedback was also extended by three weeks.

Council has received 12 submissions about the proposal from 9 individuals. 5 from staff, 6 from Educators (3 from one educator, 2 from a second educator and one from a third educator) and one submission from a family. There are 40 educators and over 350 families using the service. The decision of Council received significant media coverage and social media coverage. All submissions are attached in full to this report.

The following main issues were raised:-

Issue Raised

Shocked/surprised/saddened to be informed of intention to seek alternative provider for Family Day Care (or way this was communicated)

Process of informing educators and families ie families and clients informed before educators or educators read about the decision on social media before receiving letter

Lack of Consultation and/or transparency - Why a meeting of educators was not called or why were educators/Coordinator/staff not consulted to prior sending letter

Council showing disregard and respect to traditionally female workforce

Request a meeting with educators to discuss issues

Uncertainty for future of Coordination unit staff and/or resulting stress on staff

Staff not approached for strategies to deal with financial changes

Family Day Care an affordable and flexible, quality care option Council should support

Systems are in place to limit liability and risk concerns

Coordination unit staff are professional, ethical, flexible, supportive, knowledgeable and cohesive

Details of current numbers of services supported by NSW Councils inaccurate

Concern transfer to another provider may not go smoothly or lead to a decrease in the number of educators or a reduction in childcare options

Children will suffer from the potential of not having access to a quality Family Day Care service

Future Federal funding. Questions of how to apply, who would apply

The submissions raised points such as the method of communication and consultation, uncertainty for staff, educators and families. There is nothing in any of the submissions that provides evidence that there will be detrimental impacts if Council follows the original proposal to seek EOIs from a suitably qualified provider for the coordination unit services.

One of the outcomes of the consultation process is that a group of educators have volunteered to assist in the development of the EOI documentation. As indicated in the original report the educators will be part of the assessment process should Council proceed along this path. In the EOI process Council would require all applicants to ensure they already meet the National Quality Framework (NQF) standards as required by the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA).

Risk Profile

There are a number of risks that Council needs to consider in relation to this matter.

· Risks associated with operating the business and the exposure of council staff were highlighted in the previous report. Systems are in place to manage and mitigate these risks.

· Should Council wish to proceed with operating the service at a zero subsidy level there are financial risks related to the ability of the service to maintain the required numbers of educators, children to educator ratios and utilisation levels. Associated with this is possible impact of the significant price rises on the utilisation level.

· Should council wish to proceed with operating the service with ratepayer subsidy there are risks that part of the general community would not agree that this is necessary or core business for the council.

· By going to an EOI process to seek another provider there are some risks that a suitable provider cannot be sourced. By maintaining the service as previously recommended throughout this process Council can mitigate the impact of this on children, families, educators and staff.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 21 March 2017

Page 60

SA17.70 Overview/Update - Shoalhaven Section 94 Contributions Plan Review

HPERM Ref: D17/67071

Group: Planning & Development Services Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Purpose / Summary

This report provides an overview of the review currently underway in regard to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 and the associated improvements to processes being undertaken.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That:

1. The report on the proposed reforms to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 be received for information

2. The funds from recoupment projects and identified deleted projects be transferred to a “recoupment fund” and used as Council’s apportionment to projects and to provide seed funding for community infrastructure projects identified in the revised Contributions Plan.

Options

1. The recommendation be accepted as written

Implications: The process to reform the Shoalhaven Section 94 Contributions Plan will continue.

2. The Committee makes an alternative recommendation

Implications: Council needs to be aware that any changes must be in line with legal requirements, and must be flexible to change with upcoming state legislative changes.

Background

The current Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 (the CP) is a highly detailed plan with a strong nexus and apportionment across many projects. However, the plan has become overly complicated through time with 178 active projects, and a large number of deleted and superseded projects that are required to be maintained in the system. There has also been, until recently, limited corporate ownership of the plan, and no explicit processes and procedures for all internal stakeholders in Council. There is also limited integration between the CP and the Capital Works Plan.

Currently, the total cost of the projects in the CP is approximately $283 million, of this Council is required to pay approximately $116 million which needs to be budgeted for in the Capital Works Plan. Therefore, while individual projects may have some funds sitting in each Section 94 project account, works may not have commenced as Council has not been in a position to budget the matching funds. For some of the CP projects, Council’s contribution is in excess of 80% of the total project cost.

Over time, this has led to a plan that is unsustainable in its current form and one that needs to be reformed (or replaced) and improved to make the plan more affordable and defendable. The potential new plan will also provide greater certainty and consistency to the development industry and ensure that it is able to keep up with changes to legislative reporting requirements through regular reviews.

It is also important to note that the NSW Government is also looking at reforming the Developer Contributions system as part of the ongoing reform of the State’ planning framework. However the detail of this has not yet been released, but two aspects that are likely to feature are stricter reporting requirements and narrower timeframes for spending money collected as development contributions.

Internal Development Contributions Panel

An internal staff ‘Development Contributions Panel’ has been established and is meeting monthly, with the aim of taking a ‘whole of Council’ approach to the establishment of a new Contributions Plan and actions are agreed on. Staff are also involved in a range of associated technical and administrative tasks including correcting databases errors and rectifying systems issues.

The Panel is chaired by the Director of Corporate & Community Services, and is attended by Council staff from the following Sections, who are stakeholders of the plan:

· Strategic Planning

· Finance

· Assets and Works

· Project Delivery

· Community Infrastructure

· Development Services

· Building and Compliance

· Information Technology

Current Section 94 Funds

The Developer Contributions account currently has approximately $30.8 million in its fund across all projects, both active and deleted. However, there is a negative balance of approximately $17 million across projects that have either been commenced or completed. This leaves a net amount of approximately $13.8 million.

The table below provides a summary of the balances across the project areas:

It is intended that following an analysis of projects, that available funds will be allocated to priority Section 94 projects identified in a new, revised CP. However, as indicated, contributions can only be used to fund a portion of the cost of providing new or augmented infrastructure, and Council will need to provide matching funds towards projects identified in the Plan.

Flexibility in Funding

As shown, Council currently has a substantial amount of funds in contributions accounts that can potentially be utilised to deliver new or improved infrastructure identified in the Plan. However, there is also an obligation for Council to fund a significant portion of the cost of providing new or improved infrastructure.

As part of the review of the CP, the Contributions Panel are investigating a number of options to increase flexibility and ‘free up’ the contributions funds to the delivery of priority infrastructure identified in the Plan.

There are two main options that are being considered to provide flexibility in funding infrastructure:

1. Pooling of funds – This would allow funding to be pooled and used to deliver priority community infrastructure projects sooner, rather than waiting for each individual project to collect sufficient funds to be delivered. While this provides a level of flexibility in spending contributions, Council will still be legally required to provide the necessary contribution for constructed projects.

2. Use of recoupment payments – Payments that Council receives for completed projects and identified deleted projects would be placed into a “recoupment fund” to be used as Council’s apportionment to projects and to provide ‘seed’ funding for community infrastructure projects identified in the new Contributions Plan. As outlined above, Council needs to provide matching funding to free up contributions funds and ensure that infrastructure in the Plan can be delivered in a timely manner.

Analysis of the above options is currently being undertaken to determine the best way forward taking into account sustainable infrastructure projects that would be tied to increases in demand associated with population growth.

Any future projects need to be identified via a needs analysis, and prioritised in the Plan, otherwise Council will be left in a similar position, with insufficient funding for identified infrastructure projects.

Financial Analysis/Review

A large amount of work has been undertaken to track and clean up past expenditure, with a dedicated Section 94 accountant focusing on analysing historic costings and ensuring that the current plan is ready to be transitioned to a new plan. This has also involved improving the Section 94 database.

Review of Projects

As part of the review of the CP, the list of projects in the Plan will change. There are a number of current projects that have been “active” for a number of years, with minimal accompanying development. As Section 94 projects must be associated with an increase in demand linked with population growth, this means that only small amounts of funding have been collected for certain projects, in areas where little to no growth is projected or has occurred.

The two key sections of Council who will play a role in setting the projects in the CP are Asset Management and Social & Infrastructure Planning. These sections are currently commencing/undertaking needs analyses to determine which projects in the current plan should be retained, and which should be discontinued. Projects will be prioritised based on need analyses such as the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan 2016-2036.

It should also be noted that Section 94 Developer Contributions are only one of the potential funding mechanisms available to Council to fund infrastructure associated with development. There may be others which may be more appropriate for some projects, on a case by case basis, such as Voluntary Panning Agreements (VPAs).

Section 94 Funded Projects

The following tables provide information in relation to projects that have been funded through Section 94 Contributions over the past few years.

The expenditures below occurred for the projects listed.

Next steps

A new stand-alone contributions plan will need to be adopted by Council. This will not rely on previous or historic information. Projects contained within it will be identified via needs analysis to ensure they line up with increased demand due to population growth. Council’s apportionment will also be calculated if applicable to each of the projects.

The new plan will be linked to Council’s Capital Works Plan to provide consistency and clarification to the project commencement and completion timelines.

It is pertinent to note that although Section 94 funding is an important revenue stream for the provision of community infrastructure, it is highly constrained. Funds are tied with identified projects, and projects can only be included if they are tied with increased demand from population growth. Section 94 funding cannot be used for any maintenance works over the life of a project, which must come from other revenue streams within Council.

Roles and responsibilities will be allocated to the necessary internal stakeholders, with clear processes established. This will be coupled with training and upskilling of staff where necessary.

It is anticipated that the Drat of the new plan will be completed by the end of June 2017.

Community Engagement

Any changes to the CP or a new CP will be publicly exhibited in consideration of legislative requirements and Council’s Community Engagement Policy. A report will be presented to Councillors prior to any community consultation.

Policy Implications

The reform of Council’s Section 94 Plan will lead to the current plan being repealed. The new plan will be a stand-alone plan, independent of previous plans, and will ensure projects are appropriately identified and apportioned. The CP will be better linked with the Capital Works Plan to provide more certainty around project commencement and completion timelines.

Financial Implications

As outlined above, the current CP is currently unsustainable and is a complex document. There are a number of deleted projects, and also active projects which are highly unlikely to be completed as there has been little to no development or projected growth in some areas. Any funds identified are to be transferred to a recoupment fund and used as Council’s apportionment to projects and to provide seed funding for community infrastructure projects identified in the new CP.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 21 March 2017

Page 78

SA17.74 Bomaderry Aquatic Centre & Nowra Aquatic Park - Winter Swimming in Northern Shoalhaven

HPERM Ref: D17/83607

Group: Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Combined Income Patronage Distribution ⇩

2. Attendance Bomaderry Aquatic Centre Versus Nowra Aquatic Park ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To provide Council with a detailed financial report following Nowra Aquatic Park’s first 12 month operations and to seek Council's direction on the future season lengths for both Nowra Aquatic Park and Bomaderry Aquatic Centre.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Within the Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness area, maintain the operation of:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre indoor pool – all year

b. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre outdoor pool – all year

c. Nowra Aquatic Park 50 metre outdoor pool - close 30 June 2017 until 1 November 2017

d. To be funded within existing 2016/17 budgets

2. Undertake a comprehensive Community Engagement Process to outline the proposed six (6) options for summer and winter swimming in the northern Shoalhaven (Bomaderry Aquatic Centre and Nowra Aquatic Park) as outlined in this report. That this consultation seek the community’s views on which is the preferred option taking into consideration all factors including service level provision and costs. This be undertaken as part of the DPOP consultation and be reported back to Council as part of the budget process.

3. Upon receipt of the feedback, determine which option of the six considered it will fund in future budgets.

Options

Option 1

As Recommended. This will result in the NAP closing at the end of June.

Implications

Unless funding is provided in the 2017/18 budget, the NAP will not be available for training squads or recreational swimming until November 2017. There are also costs associated with ‘holding’ the pool in a dormant state during this period, however this basically maintains the previous “level of service” for these facilities. This option does not however leverage the community benefits that could be gained from the investments made in improving the Nowra Aquatic Park.

Option 2

Council can choose to alter the recommendation as it deems fit.

Implications

Any decision of Council will need to consider the financial impact on the organisation.

There are 6 operational options that Council can consider for the ongoing operations of the aquatic facilities in the northern Shoalhaven and the level of service provided to the community. These are outlined below.

Facility Operating Scenarios

1. Operate:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre pool – summer and winter

b. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool – summer and winter

c. Nowra Aquatic Park 50 metre pool – summer and winter

d. Increase on Budget $158,904

Implications:

· Increases services available for the community.

· Most expensive option requiring additional operational expenditure

2. Operate:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre pool – summer and winter

b. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool – summer only

c. Nowra Aquatic Park 50 metre pool – summer only

d. Increase on Budget $50,387

Implications:

· Reduction in service at Bomaderry facility

· Likely impact on Learn to Swim families with more than one (1) child

· Some families required to travel to Nowra Aquatic Park

· Reduced access to 25 metre pool users - programming difficulties

· Programming issues

· Impact on hirers

· Impact on income

· No 50 metre pool open during winter

· Higher care and maintenance costs

3. Operate:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre pool – summer and winter

b. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool – summer only

c. Nowra Aquatic Park 50 metre pool – summer and winter

d. Increase on Budget $143,920

Implications:

· Reduction in service at Bomaderry facility

· Increase in service at Nowra facility

· Overall increase in net cost of services

· Only one (1) 50 metre pool open during winter

· Likely impact on Learn to Swim families with more than one (1) child

· Some families required to travel to Nowra Aquatic Park

· Programming issues

· Restricted access to 25 metre pool users - programming difficulties

· Reduces community consultation period and transition to closure time

· Likely impact on Learn to Swim families with more than one (1) child

· Impact on income

4. Operate – historic position:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre pool – summer and winter

b. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool – summer and winter

c. Nowra Aquatic Park 50 metre pool – summer only

d. Increase on Budget $NIL

Implications:

· Likely impact on both Learn to Swim and Squad families

· Only one (1) 50 metre pool open during winter

· Potentially no access for external hirers and resultant financial loss

· Likely impact on Learn to Swim families with more than one (1) child

· Higher care and maintenance costs

5. Operate:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre pool – summer and winter

b. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool – decommissioned – permanent closure

c. Nowra Aquatic Park 50 metre pool – summer only

d. Increase on Budget $19,013

Implications:

· Likely impact on Learn to Swim families with more than one (1) child

· Some families required to travel to Nowra Aquatic Park

· Reduction in service

· Impact on income

· All swimming carnivals required to be hosted at Nowra Aquatic Park

· Potentially no access for external hirers – resultant in reduced income rather than financial loss

· Higher care and maintenance costs

6. Operate:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre pool – summer and winter

b. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool – decommissioned – permanent closure

c. Nowra Aquatic Park 50 metre pool – summer and winter

d. Increase on Budget $122,629

Implications:

· Reduction in service

· Only one (1) 50 metre pool open during winter

· Likely impact on Learn to Swim families with more than one (1) child

· Some families required to travel to Nowra Aquatic Park

· Programming issues

· Restricted access to 25 metre pool users - programming difficulties

· Reduces community consultation period and transition to closure time

· Likely impact on Learn to Swim families with more than one (1) child

· Some families required to travel to Nowra Aquatic Park

· Impact on income

The table below provides Councillors with a visual aid on the potential operational scenarios.

FACILITY OPERATING SCENARIOS

BAC 25m indoor

√

BAC 50m outdoor

√

NAP 50m outdoor

√

BUDGET INCREASE

$158,904

$50,387

$143,920

Nil

$19,013

$122,629

Note – Option 4 is the historic / funded operation

S = Summer | W = Winter | √ = Open | D = Decommissioned

The figures above present Councillors with options to operate both facilities. It is important to remember that, where a pool may be closed for 6 months, there are still significant costs associated with expenditure and income, closing at season end, restarting and plant maintenance (care and maintenance costs). The figures are also impacted by significantly reduced income with the loss of revenue of hirers and memberships.

Unlike the old Nowra Olympic Pool, the new Nowra Aquatic Park was designed to operate all year round, therefore, a shutdown period will come with higher costs.

Background

At its meeting held on 9 December 2014, Council’s Policy & Resources Committee made the following resolution (D14/327890:

“RESOLVED that:

a) In accordance with the Committee’s delegated authority from Council, staff provide a further report on the social and financial implications of the condition and the level of services provided at the Bomaderry and Nowra Aquatic Centres in the context of Council’s future financial sustainability.

b) That the further report be provided after the opening of Nowra Aquatic Centre [Park]”

With more than 12 months elapsed since opening of Nowra Aquatic Park in October 2015, quantitative and qualitative information is now available for Council’s review and consideration in terms of management of summer and winter swimming in the Northern Shoalhaven.

Previously, Nowra Aquatic Park – formerly known as Nowra Olympic Pool - operated for only five (5) months of the year, generally from 1 November until 31 March each swimming season. The amenities and heating system of the old Nowra Olympic Pool were not conducive to or capable of 12 month operation.

Staff are seeking direction as to Council’s preferences for summer and winter swimming in the northern Shoalhaven.

The newly refurbished Nowra Aquatic Park is fitted with quality amenities and mechanical systems. These systems and amenities were designed to facilitate both winter and summer swimming. Currently, a quantum of budget exists only to operate Nowra Aquatic Park on a trial basis for the first 12 month operation.

As yet, Council has not made a determination on the future of winter swimming in the northern Shoalhaven. Consequently, budget provisions were made to operate Nowra Aquatic Park until 31 March 2017, which aligns with traditional winter hours of operation of the facility.

In considering the future direction of Bomaderry Aquatic Centre, the condition of the asset and, in light of Council’s recent adoption of the Bomaderry Nowra Regional Sports & Community Precinct Master Plan, Council will need to consider transitioning in preparation for development into the regional hub.

The Master Plan aims to improve the quality of facilities in the location, by integrating facilities and improving their utilisation and status for long term sustainability and growth of active and passive recreation and social activities, co-located to provide a community and tourism destination.

It should be noted that the Master Plan does not include a 50 metre outdoor pool and will affect the closure of the existing Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre outdoor pool. Whilst not including timeframes for design or construction, the scenarios within this report may assist Council in providing a transitional pathway towards closure of the Bomaderry 50 metre outdoor pool.

The Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre outdoor pool has been identified as being nearing the end of its serviceable life. Further, there are also works required to be undertaken to the indoor 25 metre pool and overall amenity of the indoor building structure.

A number of swim clubs outside of the Shoalhaven currently share pool facilities, including metropolitan swim clubs. Bomaderry Swimming Club itself has previously shared its facilities with both Shoalhaven Swimming Academy and Nowra Swimming Club during the winter months when Nowra Olympic Pool was previously closed and during the construction of Nowra Aquatic Park. The success of sharing facilities largely comes down to programming, which has been proactively undertaken by Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness Management.

The close proximity of Nowra Aquatic Park and Bomaderry Aquatic Centres, i.e., only 3.0 kilometres, would suggest that maintaining two (2) outdoor 50 metre heated pools so close together would be financially unsustainable.

Therefore, a single outdoor 50 metre pool in the northern Shoalhaven, particularly at least in the winter months, more than adequately meets the recreational training needs of the northern Shoalhaven community.

As stated earlier in this report, based on established planning and provision principles of one (1) local aquatic facility per 10,000 to 40,000 people and one (1) district aquatic facility per 40,000 to 70,000 people, the provision of one (1) 50 metre swimming pool is meeting the benchmarks and is capable of servicing and meeting the needs of the northern Shoalhaven community now and well into the future.

Throughout many Local Government Areas within NSW, there are few Councils which have invested as much as Shoalhaven in terms of social infrastructure, specifically aquatic / leisure facilities. Such large social and financial investments are rarely seen, even in metropolitan areas with much larger populations.

Nowra Aquatic Park Operating Figures – October 2015 to January 2017

The below figures provide Councillors with a budget position and a report, not only on the first 12 months of operation and year to date financial position, but also a projected budget for both Nowra Aquatic Park and Bomaderry Aquatic Centre for the current financial year.

NOWRA AQUATIC PARK – COST TO OPERATE
	YTD BUDGET Jul 2016 to Jan2017 $	YTD ACTUAL Jul2016 to Jan2017 $	ACTUAL COST FULL YEAR OPERATION Nov2015 to Oct2016 $	FULL YEAR BUDGET 2016/17 - 9 mths operation $	PROJECTED ACTUAL FULL YEAR RESULT Jul2016 to Jun2017 $
Income	207,017	261,897	393,879	306,957	452,089
Expenditure	619,356	469,960	827,541	803,562	867,530
Cost to Operate	412,339	208,063	433,662	496,605	415,441

The above savings and projected outcomes provide Council with the opportunity to operate Nowra Aquatic Park for the balance of 2016/17 financial year without additional funding resource allocation. For the above table:

1. Depreciation excluded

2. Nowra Aquatic Park was budgeted to operate (2016/17 year) for 9 months only – Nett Cost $496,605

3. Projected actual result to operate for 12 months - cost $415,441

4. A full year Budget for 2017/18 year would be very similar to projected current year’s actual result

BOMADERRY AQUATIC CENTRE – COST TO OPERATE
	YTD BUDGET Jul2016 to Jan2017 $	YTD ACTUAL Jul2016 to Jan2017 $	ACTUAL COST FULL YEAR OPERATION Nov2015 to Oct2016 $	FULL YEAR BUDGET 2016/17 $	PROJECTED ACTUAL FULL YEAR RESULT Jul2016 to Jun2017 $
Income	315,217	386,053	657,673	499,289	671,532
Expenditure	658,104	600,659	1,119,401	1,122,269	1,089,227
Cost to Operate	342,887	214,606	461,728	622,980	417,696

NOWRA AQUATIC PARK & BOMADERRY AQUATIC CENTRE – COST TO OPERATE
	YTD BUDGET Jul2016 to Jan2017 $	YTD ACTUAL Jul2016 to Jan2017 $	ACTUAL COST FULL YEARS OPERATION Nov2015 to Oct2016 $	FULL YEAR BUDGET 2016/17 $	PROJECTED ACTUAL FULL YEAR RESULT Jul2016 to Jun2017 $
Income	522,234	647,950	1,051,552	806,246	1,123,621
Expenditure	1,277,460	1,070,619	1,946,942	1,925,831	1,956,757
Cost to Operate	755,226	422,669	895,390	1,119,585	833,137

Impacts of Nowra Aquatic Park Re-Opening

Overall Income

· The initial forecast of the impact of Nowra Aquatic Park re-opening assumed a 45% reduction in income and attendance at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre.

· Overall income by end of 2015/16 delivered only a 7% reduction in overall Centre income for Bomaderry Aquatic Centre, as the Centre performed much better than expected through a 20% increase in Learn to Swim income and an increase in Water Fitness class attendance which assisted in offsetting the initial decrease in General Aquatics income.

General Aquatics – Casual Entry - Lane

· Bomaderry Aquatic Centre had an initial decrease in General Aquatics income when Nowra Aquatic Park re-opened in October 2015. The immediate decrease in the first 3 months of Nowra opening was 21%. This margin has improved from quarter to quarter over the last 12 months and, as at end of December 2016, is now only a decrease of 12%.

· As of January 2017, Bomaderry Aquatic Centre General Aquatics income is continuing to improve as general usage increases through pool bookings, general use of the Centre and a significant increase in Water Fitness programs. Overall, Centre income remains steady due to significant increases in Learn to Swim income.

Learn to Swim

· Bomaderry Aquatic Centre Learn to Swim continues to increase in enrolments from term to term, with Term 1 2017 currently catering to 725 enrolments – enjoying the highest enrolment ever in a term at this Centre.

· While the program increase can easily be facilitated via the 25 metre indoor and 50 metre outdoor collectively year round, potential closure of the 50 metre outdoor pool in Terms 2 and 3 may restrict the capacity of the program as it currently stands and any future growth.

· This ‘flow-on’ affect may impact Terms 1 and 4 on approximately 50 to 100 students if the Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool is closed year round. To counter the increased usage, there would need to be periods when the 25 metre pool was Learn to Swim and Squad only. This could also be alleviated by extension of operating hours. The additional costs could be covered by income from the extended program.

· Refer Attachment 1:

a. Bomaderry Aquatic Centre Patronage Vs Income Comparison – Current & Previous Financial Years

b. Nowra Aquatic Park Patronage Vs Income Comparison – Current & Previous Financial Years

· These attachments will show that that the highest number of users does not necessarily reflect the highest income group. This highlights the financial importance of Learn to Swim programming.

Usage Trends

· With the re-opening of Nowra Aquatic Park, two (2) long term lane hirers / professional external swim coaches moved from Bomaderry Aquatic Centre to Nowra Aquatic Park, resulting in a $6,500 per term decrease in group booking revenue for Bomaderry Aquatic Centre, along with a subsequent reduction in multi visit pass holders related to those hire groups.

· The removal of these groups from Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool, however, has allowed more pool space available for lap swimmers and growth of the in-house, i.e., Council’s, Squad program at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre.

· Since the re-opening of Nowra Aquatic Park in October 2015, Bomaderry Aquatic Centre and Nowra Aquatic Park combined now attract higher user numbers that those experienced by both Centres prior to refurbishment of Nowra Aquatic Park.

· In essence, rather than splitting user groups, both facilities are seeing an increase in repeat visitation and attracting new patrons. In 2015/16, there were over 224,000 users across both Centres and 2016/17 is currently tracking to increase on that figure with year-to-date users at 180,000 as of February 2017.

Group Bookings

· The current ‘split’ of school swimming carnivals is still approximately 50 / 50 hosted between Bomaderry Aquatic Centre and Nowra Aquatic Park.

· At present, during Regional and Zone swimming carnivals, schools from as far away as Snowy River Shire are travelling to Nowra Aquatic Park.

· Bomaderry Aquatic Centre has retained significant annual bookings, including hosting the Department of Education Swimming Scheme for eight (8) weeks each year between September and December. These will not be impacted by the proposed winter closure.

· Bomaderry Swim Club has increased its annual Club carnival from one (1) per year to two (2) per year in 2016/17.

· Although many of the schools which previously used Bomaderry Aquatic Centre have shifted across to Nowra Aquatic Park since re-opening, this has provided Bomaderry Aquatic Centre with more lane space to facilitate new school group users on a regular weekly basis which previously could not be accommodated, further increasing the Centre’s user base throughout 2016/17.

INDOOR POOL VS OUTDOOR POOL USAGE COMPARISON - BOMADERRY AQUATIC CENTRE OVER 12 MONTHS - JAN16 to DEC16
	25 metre Indoor Pool	50 metre Outdoor Pool
July – September (winter)	85%	15%
October – December (spring)	62%	38%
January – March (summer)	57%	43%
April – June (autumn)	80%	20%

Overall Usage

With the re-opening of Nowra Aquatic Park in October 2015, following an initial drop in overall patronage, patronage has steadily increased and has delivered an overall increase at both facilities.

Winter swimming at Nowra Aquatic Park has also exceeded expectations in terms of recreational swimmers. Whilst it is difficult to quantify the social benefits for the community, Nowra Aquatic Park has attracted new user groups, with seniors and parents with young families using the Park as a meeting point. Nowra Aquatic Park is enjoying this new patronage, it is does not appear to be at the detriment of any of Bomaderry Aquatic Centre programs or patronage. There is also evidence to suggest that Nowra Aquatic Park has become a destination point for ‘day-trippers’ travelling from outside the Shoalhaven.

It could be argued that Nowra Aquatic Park is still enjoying ‘a honeymoon period’. A conservative approach has been adopted with regard to budget allocation for the upcoming year. The 2016/17 has been a ‘bumper’ summer, which is reflected in visitation at both Nowra Aquatic Park and Bomaderry Aquatic Centre.

Future summer swimming seasons may not see the same level of patronage and this, therefore, will be reflected in income and also higher heating pool expenses.

Should the Shoalhaven experience a cooler / wetter summer, income and patronage figures would be reflected in a substantial downturn in income and patronage, particularly for outdoor facilities such as Nowra Aquatic Park and Bomaderry Aquatic Centre and an associated increase in energy costs to supplement solar heating systems in order to maintain pool water temperatures at required temperature.

Accordingly, budgets are developed to reflect average summer conditions.

Considerations for Summer Operation only at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre – 50 metre pool closed in Winter

Impact on Squad Program

Of the Squad enrolments, there are a total of 20 families and, of these, 13 have younger children also enrolled in either lower Squad levels and / or school age after-school Learn to Swim levels. Splitting the programs between Nowra Aquatic Park and Bomaderry Aquatic Centre could effect a family’s ability to have all children enrolled within these programs – Potential worse case financial impact - $24,000 per annum based on $6,000 per term.

Winter Hours

Between 3.30pm and 7.00pm, Monday to Friday, Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre indoor pool may require to be closed to the general public whilst these programs are running, affecting an average of 25 people per day who would have the choice to swim at Nowra Aquatic Park’s outdoor pool.

There will be no impact on school programs or Bomaderry Swim Club.

Complete Decommissioning of Bomaderry Aquatic Centre Outdoor 50 metre pool

· The complete decommissioning of the outdoor 50 metre pool may have a detrimental impact on Bomaderry Swim Club numbers. The Club will have the opportunity to utilise the indoor 25 metre pool, use the Nowra Aquatic Park or a combination of both. The Club’s annual development carnival will require to be hosted at Nowra Aquatic Park.

· School students on the northern side of the Shoalhaven River will face a very small increase in travel time and costs to Nowra Aquatic Park for ‘long course’, i.e., 50 metre pool training and swimming carnivals.

· With reduced indoor lane space, all external hirers may be required to move to Nowra Aquatic Park which can accommodate them.

· All school carnivals will require to be held at Nowra Aquatic Park, affecting the complete closure from 9am until 3pm Monday to Friday, each week for up to six (6) weeks. This is not considered as problematic as all carnivals were managed and hosted successfully at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre during the Nowra Aquatic Park construction period.

· During cooler inclement periods and winter months, the Bomaderry Aquatic Centre Squad program is normally moved from the outdoor 50 metre pool into the indoor 25 metre indoor pool at short notice. With the decommissioning of the Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre pool, all Squad programs from Bomaderry Aquatic Centre would be operated from Nowra Aquatic Park.

Implications for both Bomaderry Aquatic Centre and Nowra Aquatic Park if closed during winter:

· Bomaderry Aquatic Centre:

o Impact on Learn to Swim Program at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre – utilising 25 metre pool only, the Program will be unable to grow or retain numbers during April to October - numbers would require to be capped in order to allow for different user groups impacted by closure of the 50 metre pools

o Impacts significantly on Department of Education swimming program run from end of September each year - program is too large to operate in 25 metre pool only – Bomaderry Aquatic Centre

o Impacts Canoe Polo for 4 months – Bomaderry Aquatic Centre

· Nowra Aquatic Park:

o Impacts in excess of 37,000 users which utilised these facilities during same period last year – Nowra Aquatic Park

o Impacts in excess of 130 external squad group sessions – Nowra Aquatic Park

o Impacts our industry body Royal Life Saving Society Australia running essential courses – since reopening, Nowra Aquatic Park is the preferred training facility – in turn, less courses will be run in Shoalhaven

o Impacts Waterpolo for 2 months – Nowra Aquatic Park

o Impacts Nowra Swim Club for 2 months – Nowra Aquatic Park

· Both:

o No 50 metre pool in northern Shoalhaven region during this period

o Impacts in excess of 120 bookings (external squad groups excluded) – across both facilities

PATRONAGE AND USAGE DATA COMPARISON

Refer to Attachment 2 - Comparative User Group & Patronage Data showing sustained increase in patronage across both facilities

Asset Condition – Defect & Capital Considerations - Bomaderry Aquatic Centre

Future Capital – Outdoor Pool

Installed in 1999, the Bomaderry Aquatic Centre outdoor 50 metre pool heating has, over the past six (6) years, presented staff with operational difficulties and, as these systems continue to age, maintenance and servicing costs will continue to increase, reaching the point that these costs are no longer sustainable nor the systems reliable operationally or meeting the service levels expected by the community.

The Bomaderry Aquatic Centre outdoor 50 metre pool shell, the Plant Room, Kiosk and Amenities are 40 years old reaching the end of their useful life.

Additionally, these replacements to the facility will only allow for a ‘like-for-like’ refit. No replacements would be undertaken to improve the overall appearance or functionality of the facility and, in all likelihood, the general public would see minimal physical improvements at the completion of works.

This retrofit would increase the longevity of the mechanical services, however, will not provide for any enhancement of amenities nor guarantee longevity of the pool shell, which is also at the end of its economic life.

Future Capital – Indoor Pool

The Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 25 metre indoor pool was opened in 1986 and is now 31 years old. The overall building and amenities are best described as adequate. There have been some recent improvements such as painting, tiling and replacement of cubicle partitions, however, the whole facility is aged and tired.

The indoor pool filtration system is compliant, however, this is a highly used body of water in daily use for Learn to Swim lessons, gentle exercise programs and lane walking due to the favourable water temperature and accessibility. The demand for space to meet user needs is at capacity.

In 2014, the proposed rectification works, for works such as pool shell, mechanical services and heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, were costed at $2.12 million (total costs excluding interest payments), however, these costs would have also significantly increased since this time.

Whilst it could be argued that Bomaderry Aquatic Centre indoor and outdoor pools are nearing the end of their serviceable lives, both assets, although undergoing regular servicing and maintenance, do present staff with operational difficulties.

In all likelihood, these pools will not suffer any catastrophic failure effecting as immediate closure. The longer both pools at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre remain open, however, there is increased likelihood that expensive / reactive maintenance will be required in order to ensure compliance with NSW Department of Health standards and ensuring that the facility remains open to the public.

Bomaderry Aquatic Centre is reaching a point of criticality. Each asset component is depreciated at different rates dependent on the life expectancy of each component, i.e., pool blankets have a five (5) year life, whereas, buildings with 60 years of life. Whilst there is $3.66M remaining in Written Down Value, it is impractical to depreciate Bomaderry Aquatic Centre to Nil value.

Asset components move through their life expectancy of “Cradle to Grave” with the following conditioning: Excellent to Good to Fair to Poor to Very Poor and then Failure. Customers’ expectations are that they are unwilling to patronise assets that are in “poor” and especially “very poor” condition.

Replacing individual components at this stage may not be cost efficient, given the limited useful life remaining of other asset components.

The risk is increasing exponentially, especially risk to reputation and risk of non-value for outlay of funds.

The below Chart “Measure of Useful Life in Dollar Terms” makes measurements and comparisons between the two (2) facilities:

· The vertical axis indicates the dollar value of the accumulated depreciation and subsequent decrease in useful life, i.e., the ‘written down’ value.

· The blue bar represents the years of useful life which have been spent, while the red bar represents how much useful life is left on the asset – hence, it is apparent that Bomaderry Aquatic Centre is approximately 75% through its useful life compared to Nowra at 10%.

Council Assets are given a condition rating which evaluates the measure of their remaining life. The condition can vary depending on factors such as age, quality, utilisation and environment and is assessed by regular inspections of an asset throughout the period of its useful life.

The Chart below is indicative of how the level of risk increases as the remaining life of an asset diminishes.

· The blue line represents the life of an asset terms of straight line depreciation.

· The red line represents the life of an asset based on the condition rating assessed by regular inspections over the life of the asset.

· The green line represents the increase in risk as a facility progresses through its useful life.

Risk factors and community expectations go ‘hand in hand’ in dictating the level of service required for the aquatic facility. Where the green line crosses the red line approximately 75% through the assets useful life is the point at which the condition drops below the satisfactory level of service expected by the community for an Aquatic Facility and is deemed not fit for purpose.

Bomaderry Aquatic Centre & Nowra Aquatic Park

Remaining Life Vs Condition Assessment Vs Risk Levels

The below Chart represents the cost of replacement for asset components at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre annually over the next twenty (20) years.

Significant funding amounts are required throughout the next ten (10) years, with a sum of $674,000 being required before 2021. Further critical funding points are 2025 and 2027, totalling $5.2 million.

Replacement costs are accumulated in the Conquest Asset Management System and are estimated on historical data, the most recent replacement being the Nowra Aquatic Park construction, and are in line with Rawlinsons Construction Handbook 2016 and Scott Fullarton Valuations.

The total replacement cost of each component at Bomaderry Aquatic Centre as it comes to the end of its useful life is calculated to be $9,349,285. As specified above, this is only to replace components ‘like for like’ with no upgrade to the facility which would not be feasible.

To replace the outdoor pool shell will require replacement of existing subterranean hydraulics, plant and filtration equipment and the existing building in which these are housed, as has recently been experienced with Nowra Aquatic Park. Thus, in reality, the minimum cost of replacement and upgrade would be approximately $5.5 million for the outdoor facilities. To upgrade and replace the indoor facility, based on the 2004 construction of Sussex Inlet Aquatic Centre indoor Pool, would be in excess of $6.5 million.

At present, $2.0 million is allocated for rectification for the 2020/21 Budget. This allocation, based on today’s assumption of 3.5% annual loan payments of approximately $234,000 over ten (10) years, is $2.34 million. It could be argued that these funds would be better directed to the Bomaderry Community Hub, rather than channelled into an ageing asset.

Report Summary

The issues raised in this report are not insurmountable but present council with opportunities to continue to improve on their existing service levels and also to provide creative ways of developing our programs across both sites. Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness Management is comfortable that these changes can be facilitated without detriment to our programs and services to the community. Staff are comfortable that options can be presented which accommodate all patrons. Some recreational swimmers will become accustomed to the changes presented.

Community Engagement

Two (2) comprehensive community engagements have been undertaken.

1. Prior to the re-opening of Nowra Aquatic Park in October 2015, Council’s extensive community engagement undertaken on winter swimming in the northern Shoalhaven in 2014 provided opportunities for a wide range of stakeholders and community members to provide feedback on:

· previous pool usage

· likely future winter pool usage

· potential for winter swimming at both facilities

It is not unreasonable to assume that, following 12 months of operation, the survey weighting may change.

2. Recent Community Engagement Undertaken during Bomaderry Community Hub Consultation - a number of submissions received during the draft Bomaderry Nowra Regional Sports & Community Precinct Master Plan’s public exhibition period related to the community’s concern at the proposed removal of the Bomaderry Aquatic Centre 50 metre outdoor pool.

Although community engagement has occurred in the past regarding Nowra Aquatic Park and Bomaderry Aquatic Centre, it is important for the community to clearly understand the options outlined in this report and to provide specific feedback on the approach which Council may choose to take in this regard. The engagement will sit within the ‘Consult’ section of the IAP2 Community Engagement Spectrum and will require to utilise a variety of community engagement methods to ensure that the message is provided to key stakeholders and the stakeholders themselves are able to provide feedback. An important aspect is the opinion of the broader community i.e. is increasing service levels of the aquatic facilities acceptable within the context of needs across the City.

It is proposed that a Community Engagement Plan be developed to outline methods to be utilised, key stakeholders, resource allocation and funding implications, with a further report submitted to Council for its consideration at the conclusion of the community engagement process.

Financial Implications

The financial implications and current performance are provided earlier in this report.

The financial modelling provided is based on current usage levels and average winter and summer temperatures. Should these figures be affected by adverse weather conditions or additional service providers opening in the northern Shoalhaven, these figures will be impacted.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 21 March 2017

Page 132

SA17.86 June 2016 Storm Remediation Response

HPERM Ref: D16/400617

Group: Planning & Development Services Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. Report to Shoalhaven Natural Resources & Floodplain Management Committee 29 November 2016 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To provide Council with an update on remediation works undertaken since the June 2016 East Coast Low and outline the need for increased budget to manage coast and estuary assets.

All remediation works have been undertaken using Council emergency funding of $500,000, $350,000 for coastal management priority works and $150,000 for restoration works in the immediate vicinity of adjoining Holiday Haven Tourist Parks (MIN16.586).

Recommendation

1. Council consider funding the Coastal Management and Infrastructure Reserve (MIN16.998) by transferring $500,000 each year from the Strategic Projects Reserve or another source, to fund priority coast and estuary management and infrastructure projects commencing in 2017/18 financial year.

2. In 2017/18 Council allocate $400,000 to complete and implement the Currarong coastal erosion strategy and determine the source of funds during the consideration of the draft 2017/18 budget.

Options

1. Adopt the report as recommended.

Implications: This will enable Council to manage priority works at Currarong and subject to council future funding build Council’s capacity to be able to respond to erosion and natural disaster events.

2. Not adopt the report as recommended.

Implications: This is likely to result in continued uncertainty and inaction on priority coastal assets and not build Council’s capacity to respond to erosion and natural disaster events. Ad hoc decisions will be necessary to respond reactively as situations occur. Management of Coastal Assets will be unable to be planned and scheduled.

3. Council propose an alternative option.

Implications: Unknown

Background

Due to the cumulative impacts of sea level rise, increasing storm intensity and more frequent wave attack from the east and north east (as occurred during the June east coast low), the Shoalhaven coast will continue to suffer increasing impacts from storm damage.

Currently, the coastal maintenance budget stands at $180,000 per annum. This budget is required to service both maintenance and upgrades of coastal assets. For example, at Currarong Beach, a beach access staircase was replaced and upgraded. A cost benefit analysis triggered the decision to replace the former timber staircase with one manufactured using fibre reinforced polymer (FRP). This material has a life span of 50 years compared to treated pine with a life span of approximately 15 years. The significantly longer life span comes with an increased cost. The Currarong FRP staircase costs $57,000; a timber equivalent would have cost approximately $25,000. Applying a simple cost benefit analysis shows it is well worth the extra cost.

At the 40 beaches managed by SCC, there are approximately 240 beach access ways. Most were constructed in the 1980s and are now well and truly at the end of their life. For those access ways which have treated pine components (i.e. steps, stair cases and handrails), it’s proposed that future upgrades be largely undertaken using FRP. For example, a set of steps at Plantation Point (Vincentia) was replaced with FRP ‘risers and stringers’ at a cost of $12,000.

Headland staircases are particularly vulnerable to storm erosion and it is anticipated several stair replacements will be required on a priority basis, each valued at approximately at $100,000.

Beach access ways are considered ‘minor assets’. In addition to these, there are major assets such as foreshore protection structures. There are nearly 40 existing foreshore protection structures scattered throughout estuaries and in some coastal locations, many of which are in need of repair. Upgrades are expensive averaging approximately $50,000 per project. For example, the recent work at Ulladulla Harbour, to repair the rock protection structure and undertake beach scraping, cost $50,000 and in this case, no grant funding was available.

At south Mollymook Beach rock protection structures, stretching from the northern side of the Surf Club to the southern end of the Golf Club, are in urgent need of repair and upgrade to protect the road, sewer main and pump station, pathways, public space and the two clubs. A NSW Government grant (Coastal Program) of $50,000 has recently been secured to prepare a detailed design and cost benefit analysis for the upgrade. As with all Coastal Program grants, Council is require to provide matching dollars, making it a $100,000 project.

Construction of the redesigned foreshore protection is estimated at $3,000,000. Council would again apply to the Coastal Program for funding but 50% of the cost would need to be financed by Council. As with all grant programs, this is a competitive process, with no guarantee of securing the matching dollars.

Contributing to the financial challenges, is the fact that applications to the State Government for Disaster Relief funding have failed, confirming that bank erosion does not meet the criteria for State Government disaster support, leaving Local Government financially responsible for these high cost, vulnerable assets.

With the hundreds of minor coastal assets (pedestrian access ways, boardwalks, service vehicle accesses, viewing areas, some car parks and fishing platforms) and around 40 foreshore protection assets, the annual budget for coastal and estuary maintenance and upgrade / replacement needs to be substantially increased.

At its Ordinary meeting of 20 December 2016 Council resolved to establish a Coastal Management and Infrastructure Reserve to enable it to respond to storm damage and programmed maintenance and infrastructure development, in Shoalhaven’s coastal zone.

Council recognised that a fund needed to be established to address the significant shortfall in funding which limits Council’s capacity to replace foreshore protection structures and access ways and undertake restoration works in response to coastal erosion events like the June 2016 east coast low.

Based on the examples above, Council’s coast and estuary asset management plan and the costs of the work required for restoration works in response to the June 2016 east coast low, it is recommended that Council fund annually $500,000 to fund priority projects and provide a reserve fund to respond to coastal erosion events.

Section 94 contributions cannot be used to fund the reserve. The Strategic Projects Reserve could be utilised to fund the new reserve however council will need to analyse this in the context of its 10 year financial plan forward projections. Almost all works needed relates to additional maintenance or renewal/replacement of existing assets so funding from the SRV would be consistent with its purpose. Councillors need to provide direction on this important issue during the consideration of the 2017/18 DP/OP and budget.

Update of works undertaken at the most severely affected beaches since the report to the Shoalhaven Natural Resource & Floodplain Management Committee in November 2016. (Attachment 1) A summary of June 2016 east coast low technical information from Manly Hydraulics Laboratory is also provided at the end of the report.

1. Shoalhaven Heads – River Road

Royal Haskoning DHV engaged to provide report on erosion remediation design options. A public meeting was held on December 7 with the Shoalhaven Heads Forum to discuss progress of the erosion remediation design being prepared by the Water Research Laboratory (UNSW). The community conclusion is that the whole River Road frontage should be addressed as one priority project.

The preliminary cost estimate for remediation was discussed and is estimated at $750,000.

2. Culburra Beach

Inspections and repair works continue.

Replacement of beach access steps with FRP products is recommended. At approximately $10,000 per access the total cost is expected to be a minimum of $80,000.

3. Greenwell Point

Further structural assessment will be required during 2017 to establish the structural integrity of the rock protection and it is anticipated the remediation of existing rock protection would be in the order of $100,000. Protection of the heritage sand stone wharf, relocation of the shared pathway out of the hazard zone and remediation of Adelaide St and Haiser Road is expected to be in the order of $300,000.

4. Vincentia – Nelsons Beach

Following the June storm, the northern access to Nelsons Beach at Plantation Point became a public risk and was closed. In December 2016, a survey of visitors who were utilising Plantation Point and the two accesses to Nelsons Beach was conducted, to determine which access was most heavily used and whether it would be appropriate to permanently close the northern access. It was found that, by far, the southern access is most heavily utilised. The decision was taken to upgrade the southern access using FRP and to permanently close the northern access.

5. Currarong

Following the consultant’s presentation at the public meeting (14.10.2016), submissions were received regarding the proposed trial groyne at Currarong Beach. Information has been placed on Council’s website, utilising the new ‘Get Involved’ page and Council will continue to take comments about the trial groyne and the beach access way closure and replacement proposal until the end of March. http://getinvolved.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/currarong-beach-erosion

Before Christmas, the prefabricated FRP staircase was installed at the eastern end of Currarong Beach. The total cost, including installation, was $57,000.

A second FRP staircase will be installed in the middle of the beach in early March.

As a component of the sand nourishment works, a sand ramp was created to provide a temporary, safe beach access way in the mid-section of the beach, with a temporary timber ramp added just prior to Christmas.

The Peel Street access, at the western end of the beach remains safe and open.

Other unsafe beach accesses were closed off and extra signage was installed prior to Christmas directing people to the three safe options. Visitors continued to ignore signage and breach these access ways so further deterrents and signs have been installed to block access to the closed tracks.

Work will continue during early 2017 to prepare the Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP), the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and the detailed coastal engineering design for the trial groyne structure. Sand nourishment and protection works for the Beecroft Parade frontage also needs to be implemented. Total cost is expected to be in the order of $1 million.

6. Bendalong - Boat Harbour

Following preparation of an Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence report and REF, beach scraping works were successfully undertaken on 8 December 2016 at a cost of $10,000. See photos below.

An Aboriginal Heritage consultant has been engaged to undertake an AHIP (before further works can be implemented) and a coastal engineer will be engaged to prepare a coastal hazard assessment at an estimated cost of $25,000.

The draft Landscape Master Plan for Boat Harbour is being revised prior to going back to the community for further consultation.

7. Mollymook Beach

As discussed above, the grant application submitted by Council in August 2016 was successful, with Council unexpectedly receiving the letter of notification from OEH on 16 December 2016. Work is proceeding to engage a consultant to prepare the detailed design and cost benefit analysis for upgrade of the foreshore protection structures at south Mollymook Beach.

8. Ulladulla Harbour

Beach scraping and repair of the rock protection was completed on 23 November 2016 at a cost of $50,000. Photos below.

9. Lake Tabourie

Staff attended the 15 December 2016 meeting of the Lake Tabourie CCB, who confirmed that they expect the 80 meter, elevated boardwalk to be replaced in 2017. Estimated cost $100,000. There is currently no budget to undertake these works.

Community Engagement

Staff and councillors attended CCB/public meetings at Currarong, Shoalhaven Heads and Lake Tabourie as outlined in each relevant section above.

Policy Implications

Beach access

Council’s Coastal and Estuary Asset Management Plan guides the management of beach access ways in the Shoalhaven. Council has about 240 beach access ways, most of which were constructed in the 80’s under the NSW Government Beach Improvement Program that followed the devastating storms of the 1970’s.

All beach access ways are, of course, regularly maintained to keep them safe and useable. For simple sand accesses, this generally means just pruning back the vegetation. For accesses which have constructed components included in them (steps, stairs, boardwalks), maintenance and replacement is more costly, especially as most are now approaching the end of their asset life and are in need of major repair or replacement.

On average, a new access ways costs $25,000. This is a major budgetary challenge given that the annual budget for coastal access capital works is only $50,000. With many beach accesses being closed as a result of the June east coast low, we now have the opportunity to apply some adaptive strategies. Reducing the number of coastal access ways in areas that are ‘over serviced’ would allow savings to be channelled towards upgrading the retained assets. At beaches where this approach is appropriate, discussion and consultation with affected communities will occur.

Foreshore protection structures

In regard to foreshore protection, unlike beach accesses, we don’t have the option of removal. In fact, it’s likely that more structures will be needed and we know that many existing structures are in need of repair. Repair, replacement and construction of these structures is very costly and will continue to be an expanding budgetary need.

In addition, the increasing frequency and intensity of coastal storms introduces greater complexity and cost implications connected to estuary entrance intervention, coastal erosion and landslips.

Council has yet to develop an appropriate emergency response outside the Coastal Maintenance Program’s contractor base who provide this service. The proposal is for Council to have an emergency store of geo fabric bags (75m3 + filling frames) and Kyowa rock eco gabions (Japanese product new to Australia) stockpiled and available at the Bomaderry and Ulladulla stores for Council maintenance when emergency response is required.

Financial Implications

Council’s Environmental Services has a coastal foreshore access capital works budget of $88,000 ($39,000 Crown Trust contribution) and a coastal foreshore erosion capital works budget of $111,000 ($49,000 Crown Trust contribution).

Given that storms are becoming more intense and that Council manages 40 beaches, 8 of which are categorised as highly vulnerable to storm erosion, this amount is inadequate.

The Coastal Maintenance Program budget is $180,000 per annum. This also is inadequate given that, in the absence of other budgets, it’s also utilised for upgrades to the hundreds of minor assets and the 40 existing foreshore protection structures.

This is an unsustainable budgetary situation. An increased annual allocation of funds is required in order to properly manage emergency and strategic remediation programs at Council managed beaches and estuaries.

Risk Implications

Council is obliged to provide appropriate risk strategies and funding to prepare for, and respond to, coastal emergency scenarios.

Should council be unable to allocate sufficient funds for coastal management works then some areas are likely to become unusable by the public for safety & liability reasons.

Works are also required to protect the integrity of the interface between the beach and council assets, crown and private lands to mitigate risks of damage from high seas and surge.

Summary of June 2016 ECL technical information from Manly Hydraulics Laboratory.