Agenda of Strategy and Assets Committee

Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018

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

Time: 6.45pm

The following members were present:

Clr Bob Proudfoot - Chairperson

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Patricia White

Clr Annette Alldrick – left the meeting at 7.53pm

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr John Levett

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener – left the meeting at 9.59pm

Russ Pigg - General Manager

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Clr Wells and Clr Guile

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Gartner) MIN18.345

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee held on Tuesday 17 April 2018 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Declarations of Interest

Russ Pigg, General Manager - significant non pecuniary interest declaration – SA18.119 Operations – Tomerong Quarry – Lot 4 DP 775296 Parnell Rd Tomerong – when the initial motion was moved on that item he advised that as the current motion was calling for him to consider making an apology, he would declare a significant non pecuniary interest and leave the room.

Deputations and Presentations

SA18.100 - Notice of Motion - Footpath Construction Osborne Street Nowra - Incomplete Section

Mr Denis Hilaire spoke in favour of the recommendation.

SA18.119 - Operations - Tomerong Quarry - Lot 4 DP 775296 Parnell Rd Tomerong

Mr Pete Allison (Tomerong Community Forum) spoke against the recommendation.

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr White) MIN18.346

That the matter of items SA18.100 and SA18.119 be brought forward for consideration.

CARRIED

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

SA18.100 Notice of Motion - Footpath Construction - Osborne Street Nowra - Incomplete Section

HPERM Ref: D18/141066

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council include the remaining section of unpaved footpath in Osborne St Nowra, located between Hyam St and North St (Western side) in the operation plan for paving.

RESOLVED (Clr Watson / Clr Gash) MIN18.347

That Council include the remaining section of unpaved footpath in Osborne St Nowra, located between Hyam St and North St (Western side) in the operation plan for paving.

CARRIED

SA18.119 Operations - Tomerong Quarry - Lot 4 DP 775296 Parnell Rd Tomerong

HPERM Ref: D18/25617

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council receive the report and information.

Motion (Clr Levett / Clr Gartner)

That :

1. The report be received for information on the proviso that no assumptions are made in regard to its conclusions and adequacy.

2. That the General Manager consider making a public apology on behalf of Shoalhaven City Council to the Tomerong Community for the failure of his administration to adequately police the conditions of consent relating to DA90/1912 and Tomerong Quarry during the period June 1997 to April 2017.

The General Manager advised that as the current motion was calling for him to consider making an apology, he was declaring a significant non - pecuniary interest and would leave the room.

Note: Russ Pigg left the meeting at 7:33pm

Note : The Motion was amended during debate.

RESOLVED (Clr Levett / Clr Gartner) MIN18.348

That :

1. The report be received for information on the proviso that no assumptions are made in regard to its conclusions and adequacy.

2. The General Manager commission an independent external investigation into the issues that have been raised by the community in respect of the compliance action of Council and operation of Tomerong Quarry.

3. Further reports on the Quarry be provided to Council as the matter is further investigated.

CARRIED

Procedural Motion - Adjournment of Meeting

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr White) MIN18.349

That the meeting be adjourned until 8.15pm.

CARRIED

Note: The meeting adjourned, the time being 7.53pm

Note: The meeting reconvened, the time being 8.16pm

The following members were present:

Clr Bob Proudfoot - Chairperson

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Patricia White

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr John Levett

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Pakes) MIN18.350

That the matter of item SA18.112 be brought forward for consideration.

CARRIED

SA18.112 Proposed Sale - 76 Bridge Road Nowra

HPERM Ref: D18/126506

Recommendation

That Council

1. Advertise its intention to dispose of Lot E DP 39320 known as 76 Bridge Road, Nowra in accordance with Policy 16/256 and if no objections received, authorise the sale of the property by way of public auction;

2. Fund all costs associated with the sale from Job No 88809 and the net income be placed in the Strategic Property Reserve;

3. Authorise the General Manager to set the auction reserve price (based on valuation advice) and to finalise the terms of a sale on auction day or to finalise the terms of a sale based on the list price in the case of a private treaty sale if the property fails to sell at auction; and

4. Authorise the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documentation requiring to be sealed and delegate to the General Manager authority to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this Resolution.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Gash / Clr Pakes)

That Council

2. Fund all costs associated with the sale from Job No 88809 and the net income be placed in the Strategic Property Reserve;

carried

SA18.99 Notice of Motion - Beach Access Warrain Beach, Currarong

HPERM Ref: D18/138448

Recommendation

That

1. Council urgently fund the upgrade or replacement of two access points to Warrain Beach, Currarong (making the total of 5 beach access points).

2. Possible funding options, 2018/19 Operational Budget, Holiday Haven.

3. That Council consider some sand / beach nourishment to Currarong Beach if necessary.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Pakes / Clr White)

That Council

1. Urgently fund the upgrade or replacement of two access points to Warrain Beach, Currarong (making the total of 5 beach access points).

2. Consider funding the project from the 2018/19 Operational Budget, Holiday Haven.

3. Consider some sand / beach nourishment to Currarong Beach if necessary.

carried

SA18.100 Notice of Motion - Footpath Construction - Osborne Street Nowra - Incomplete Section

HPERM Ref: D18/141066

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting see MIN18.347

Report of the Shoalhaven Arts Board - 9 May 2018

AB18.11 Policy Changes - Shoalhaven City Art Collection - Acquisition & Management

HPERM Ref: D18/144102

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council reaffirm the Shoalhaven City Art Collection – Acquisition and Management Policy (POL18/23) with the proposed changes as outlined in the attachment.

1. Delete the requirement for the Acquisition Sub-Committee to include the Shoalhaven Arts Board Executive Officer as Convenor,

2. Amend the position title within the Acquisition Sub-Committee members from Shoalhaven Arts Manager to Manager – Arts and Culture, Shoalhaven City Council.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN18.351

That:

1. Council reaffirm the Shoalhaven City Art Collection – Acquisition and Management Policy (POL18/23) with the following proposed changes as outlined in the attachment.

a. Delete the requirement for the Acquisition Sub-Committee to include the Shoalhaven Arts Board Executive Officer as Convenor,

b. Amend the position title within the Acquisition Sub-Committee members from Shoalhaven Arts Manager to Manager – Arts and Culture, Shoalhaven City Council.

2. The adopted policy reflect the inclusion of two Arts Board representatives as nominated by the Board, one with a visual arts background.

CARRIED

AB18.12 Art Acquisition Subcommittee - Formation - Membership

HPERM Ref: D18/141858

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

1. That the Art Acquisition Subcommittee of the Shoalhaven Arts Board be established as per the Shoalhaven City Council Art Collection – Acquisition and Management Policy (POL18/23) with the following members:

i. Clr John Wells (as Councillor member nominated by Council),

ii. Alison Chiam (Arts Board representative as nominated by the Board),

iii. Barbara Dawson (Arts board representative as nominated by the Board),

iv. Manager – Arts and Culture as Convenor,

v. An invited / co-opted member of the arts community.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN18.352

i. Clr John Wells (as Councillor member nominated by Council),

ii. Alison Chiam (Arts Board representative as nominated by the Board),

iii. Barbara Dawson (Arts board representative as nominated by the Board),

iv. Manager – Arts and Culture as Convenor,

v. An invited / co-opted member of the arts community.

CARRIED

Reports

SA18.102 Review of Council policies

HPERM Ref: D18/124273

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council adopt the following policies, as amended:

1. POL18/12 Revenue – Stormwater Management Policy

2. POL18/19 Waiving of Development Application Fees and Other Fees for Charitable Organisations and Community Groups

3. POL16/183 Fee Waivers, Subsidies and Support Policy

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr White) MIN18.353

That Council adopt the following policies, as amended:

1. POL18/12 Revenue – Stormwater Management Policy

2. POL18/19 Waiving of Development Application Fees and Other Fees for Charitable Organisations and Community Groups, with an amendment to Section 2.1.a to retain reference to “a local or sporting group”

3. POL16/183 Fee Waivers, Subsidies and Support Policy

CARRIED

SA18.103 Requests for Donations - SeeChange Festival and Nowra Waterdragons Dragonboat and Outrigger Canoe Club

HPERM Ref: D18/142247

Recommendation

That Council declines the following requests for donations to:

1. Jervis Bay & Basin Arts Inc. for the SeeChange Festival, on the grounds that they will receive $15,000 from Shoalhaven Tourism and $20,000 from the NSW Government, the donations budget for 2017/2018 is in deficit and the request does not meet the requirements of Council’s Donations Policy; and

2. Nowra Waterdragons Dragonboat & Outrigger Canoe Club Inc, on the grounds that the donations budget for 2017/2018 is in deficit and the request does not meet the requirements of Council’s Donations Policy.

MOTION (RECOMMENDATION) (Clr White / Clr Gartner)

That Council declines the following requests for donations to:

Amendment (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson)

That Council:

1. Provide donations to the amount of $2000 to the Jervis Bay & Basin Arts Inc. and Nowra Waterdragons Dragonboat & Outrigger Canoe Club Inc.

2. Allocate the funding from next year’s unallocated donations budget.

For: Clr Pakes and Clr Watson

Against: Clr Gash, Clr Findley, Clr White, Clr Gartner, Clr Cheyne, Clr Levett, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

lost

motion was put and carried

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

Against: Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Kitchener

SA18.104 March 2018 Quarterly Budget Review

HPERM Ref: D18/149865

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive the March Quarterly Budget Review information

2. Adopt the adjustments, including movements to and from Reserves, as outlined in the March Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Gash / Clr Cheyne)

That Council:

1. Receive the March Quarterly Budget Review information

2. Adopt the adjustments, including movements to and from Reserves, as outlined in the March Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

3. That Councillors be provided with a list of revoted projects/ funding from the 2017-18 to 2018-19 Budget.

CARRIED

SA18.105 2018 Future of Local Government National Summit - The Game Has Changed

HPERM Ref: D18/152524

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Notes the details of the 2018 Future of Local Government National Summit scheduled for 30-31 May 2018 in Melbourne, VIC.

2. Authorises available Councillors to attend the conference and such attendance be deemed Council Business.

3. Travel, registration fees, accommodation and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses be met in accordance with its adopted policy.

4. Request Councillors attending the conference to provide a written report within 30 days of returning from the conference.

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Cheyne) MIN18.354

That Council

1. Notes the details of the 2018 Future of Local Government National Summit scheduled for 30-31 May 2018 in Melbourne, VIC.

2. Authorises available Councillors to attend the conference and such attendance be deemed Council Business.

3. Travel, registration fees, accommodation and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses be met in accordance with its adopted policy.

4. Request Councillors attending the conference to provide a written report within 30 days of returning from the conference.

CARRIED

SA18.106 Waste Reduction Management Strategy

HPERM Ref: D17/276381

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft Waste Reduction Management Strategy 2015/16 to 2020/21 and it be publicly exhibited for 28 days;

2. Review the feedback and submissions from the public exhibition in a further report. [Note: Adopting this strategy does not specifically commit any funding to the initiatives within. If the budget allocation is not in line with the strategy then the strategy will be reviewed to reflect this.]

Motion (Clr White / Clr Gartner)

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft Waste Reduction Management Strategy 2015/16 to 2020/21 and it be publicly exhibited for 28 days;

RESOLVED (AMENDMENT) (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson) MIN18.355

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft Waste Reduction Management Strategy 2015/16 to 2020/21 and it be publicly exhibited for 28 days;

3. As part of a formal review, Council review the operating hours of its waste transfer facilities, including reopening on public holidays.

For: Clr Levett, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Gash, Clr Findley, Clr White, Clr Gartner and Clr Cheyne

AMENDMENT CARRIED

The AMENDMENT became the MOTION and was CARRIED unanimously.

SA18.107 Shoalhaven River Pontoons

HPERM Ref: D18/141315

Recommendation

That Council proceeds with the Shoalhaven River special event pontoon project and the Greys Beach Boat launching ramp pontoon project minimising costs by using flexible anchorage. This will require approximately $178,000 (exc GST) in additional funding and that budget shortfall is to be addressed as part of the June 2018 budget quarterly review.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Cheyne / Clr Gash)

That Council

1. Not proceed with the additional pontoon project at Greys Beach.

2. Proceed with the Shoalhaven River special event pontoon project minimising costs by using flexible anchorage. This will require approximately $63,000 (exc GST) in additional funding and that budget shortfall is to be addressed as part of the June 2018 budget quarterly review.

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

Against: Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Proudfoot

carried

Note: Urgent briefing to be held prior to May 2018 Ordinary Council meeting.

SA18.108 Positive Covenant - Asset Protection Zone - Over Part Council Road - Park Way, Old Erowal Bay

HPERM Ref: D18/66652

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Resolve to approve the creation of a 3 metre wide by 47 metre length Asset Protection Zone over part of Council unmade road at Park Way, Old Erowal Bay adjoining the common north/eastern boundary of Lot 1 Sec C DP 12958 by way of Section 88E, Positive Covenant;

2. Require the adjoining land owner of Lot 1 Sec C DP12958, Mark Bentley and Emily Crosthwaite, to pay compensation to Council in the amount of $3,375.00 plus GST (if applicable);

3. Require that all costs associated with the creation of the positive covenant be met by Mark Bentley and Emily Crosthwaite; and

4. Grant authority to affix the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to any documents required to be sealed and the General Manager be authorised to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to the resolution.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Findley / Clr Levett)

That Council:

2. Require the adjoining land owner of Lot 1 Sec C DP12958, Mark Bentley and Emily Crosthwaite, to pay compensation to Council in the amount of $3,375.00 plus GST (if applicable);

3. Require that all costs associated with the creation of the positive covenant be met by Mark Bentley and Emily Crosthwaite; and

carried

SA18.109 Establishment of Feral Animal Control All Areas Parkcare Group and Waratah Park Parkcare Group

HPERM Ref: D18/102063

Recommendation

That Council endorse ‘Parkcare’ Plans for Feral Animal Control (All Areas) and Waratah Park and allocate ongoing annual funding of $400 (CPI adjusted and exc GST) per plan to cover safety PPE, miscellaneous materials, waste disposal, purchase of minor tools commencing in Financial Year 2018/19.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr White / Clr Findley)

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

Against: Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Kitchener

carried

SA18.110 Compulsory Acquisition of Right of Access for Bushfire Vehicles at Jerberra Estate - Lot 57 DP11629, Invermay Ave, Tomerong

HPERM Ref: D18/110179

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Resolve to compulsorily acquire a right of access for bushfire vehicles over part of Lot 57 DP 11629, known as Lot 57 Invermay Ave, Tomerong (Jerberra Estate).

2. Pay compensation for the acquisition including all ancillary costs, in accordance with the determination of the Valuer General under the terms and conditions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991 from job number 85291;

3. Approve the making of the necessary applications to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor; and

4. Approve that the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed and that otherwise the General Manager is authorised to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to the resolution.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Findley / Clr Gash)

That Council:

1. Resolve to compulsorily acquire a right of access for bushfire vehicles over part of Lot 57 DP 11629, known as Lot 57 Invermay Ave, Tomerong (Jerberra Estate).

3. Approve the making of the necessary applications to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor; and

carried

SA18.111 Land Classification Lot 159 DP 11629 - Rolfe Street, Tomerong

HPERM Ref: D18/122156

Recommendation

That Council resolve to classify the land described as Lot 159 DP 11629 - Rolfe Street, Tomerong as Operational Land.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Findley / Clr Gash)

That Council resolve to classify the land described as Lot 159 DP 11629 - Rolfe Street, Tomerong as Operational Land.

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

Against: Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Proudfoot

carried

SA18.112 Proposed Sale - 76 Bridge Road Nowra

HPERM Ref: D18/126506

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting.

SA18.113 Proposed Licence - R & B Packer Pty Limited - Mt Cambewarra Lookout Tearooms & Residence

HPERM Ref: D18/125929

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Enter into a licence agreement with R & B Packer Pty Limited for the use and occupation of Part Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 849185 known as 182 Cambewarra Lookout Rd, Beaumont for an initial term of three (3) years with two (2) option periods of three (3) years each (i.e. 3 + 3 + 3 year licence) with gross rent for the first three years as follows:

a. Year 1 - $21,635.37 + GST;

b. Year 2 - $33,757.00 + CPI + GST;

c. Year 3 – ($33,757.00 + CPI) + CPI + GST;

and with market rent review at end of year 3 and year 6, and with CPI increases annually from the commencement of the option period;

2. Approve the allocation of rent received under the licence agreement into the Property Reserve restricted account;

3. 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 Findley / Clr Cheyne)

That Council:

a. Year 1 - $21,635.37 + GST;

b. Year 2 - $33,757.00 + CPI + GST;

c. Year 3 – ($33,757.00 + CPI) + CPI + GST;

and with market rent review at end of year 3 and year 6, and with CPI increases annually from the commencement of the option period;

2. Approve the allocation of rent received under the licence agreement into the Property Reserve restricted account;

carried

SA18.114 Proposed Retail Lease of Shop 37a/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra

HPERM Ref: D18/129736

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Enter into a lease with Amie Gibson (trading as Beloved Scents and Beloved Boho) for two (2) years with a two (2) year option at a commencing gross rent of $21,000 (including outgoings) per annum, plus GST, with annual 3% fixed increases; 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 Pakes / Clr Findley)

That Council:

carried

Items marked with an * were resolved ‘en block’.

SA18.115 Tenders - Holiday Haven Tourist Parks - Management & Operation - Ulladulla Headland Holiday Park

HPERM Ref: D18/103178

RESOLVED* (Clr Gash / Clr Findley) MIN18.356

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

CARRIED

SA18.116 Tenders - Management & Operation of the Shoalhaven Heads Holiday Park

HPERM Ref: D18/135394

RESOLVED* (Clr Gash / Clr Findley) MIN18.357

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

CARRIED

SA18.117 Tenders - Management & Operation of the Bendalong Point Holiday Park

HPERM Ref: D18/140433

RESOLVED* (Clr Gash / Clr Findley) MIN18.358

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

CARRIED

SA18.118 Potential site for the Sanctuary Point Library

HPERM Ref: D18/137306

Recommendation

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

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Pakes / Clr Gartner)

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

carried

SA18.119 Operations - Tomerong Quarry - Lot 4 DP 775296 Parnell Rd Tomerong

HPERM Ref: D18/25617

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting see MIN18.348

Note: Clr Kitchener left the meeting at 9:59pm

Items marked with an * were resolved ‘en block’.

SA18.120 REMS Stage 1B Review of Environmental Factors - Proposed Modifications to Project Scope - Bomaderry to Nowra Transfer Main

HPERM Ref: D18/80717

RESOLVED* (Clr Gash / Clr Gartner) MIN18.359

That

1. After consideration of the REF for the REMS Stage 1B works, Proposed Modifications to Project Scope, March 2018, Council determine that it is unlikely that there will be any significant environmental impact as a result of the proposed work and an Environmental Impact Statement is therefore not required for the proposed activity.

2. The proposed mitigation measures and controls outlined in the REF addendum (and summarised in Sections 6.2, 7.2, 8.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2 and 15.2 ) be adopted and implemented.

CARRIED

SA18.121 Request for Connection to Town Water Supply - 230A Tannery Road, Cambewarra

HPERM Ref: D18/127259

RESOLVED* (Clr Gash / Clr Gartner) MIN18.360

That Council approve the connection to the town water supply, subject to the property owner:

1. Paying the Separate System Connection fee for water supply ($6,578.00/ET (2017/18)), and

2. Paying the 20mm metered service fee ($847.00 (2017/18)), and

3. Carrying out a backflow assessment and where required installing an approved backflow device, and

4. Providing an internal pressurised system to provide adequate flow and pressure to support the development upon the property at their own cost, and

5. Placing a Restriction As To User on the property (Lot 1 DP 719118) for water supply servicing as follows:

“Connection to the town water supply shall be by the installation of a private internal pressurised water supply system.

Such private internal pressurised system (or part of the system) shall be inspected and approved by Council.”

CARRIED

SA18.122 Milestone 6 Offer - REMS 1B - WP2.1: Transfer Main from Bomaderry to Nowra

HPERM Ref: D18/146579

RECOMMENDATION* (Clr Gash / Clr Gartner)

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

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 Gartner) MIN18.361

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.

CSA18.7 Tenders - Holiday Haven Tourist Parks - Management & Operation - Ulladulla Headland Holiday Park

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 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.

CSA18.8 Tenders – Management & Operation Shoalhaven Heads Holiday Park

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)

CSA18.9 Tenders – Management & Operation of the Bendalong Point Holiday Park

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)

CSA18.10 Potential site for the Sanctuary Point Library

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)

CSA18.11 Milestone 6 Offer - REMS 1B - WP2.1: Transfer Main from Bomaderry to Nowra

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)

CARRIED

The meeting moved into confidential the time being 10.05pm.

The meeting moved into open session, the time being 10.28pm.

Report from confidential session

The following resolutions of the meeting, whilst closed to the public, were made public.

CSA18.7 Tenders - Holiday Haven Tourist Parks - Management & Operation - Ulladulla Headland Holiday Park

HPERM Ref: D18/103501

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Gartner) MIN18.362C

That

1. Council not accept any of the tenders for Ulladulla Headland Holiday Park;

2. In accordance with Clause 173(3)(e) Council authorise the General Manager (Director Assets & Works), to negotiate with suitable contractors for the Management & Operation of the Ulladulla Headland Holiday Park; and

CARRIED

CSA18.8 Tenders – Management & Operation Shoalhaven Heads Holiday Park

HPERM Ref: D18/133527

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr White) MIN18.363C

That

1. Council accept the tender from Davann Pty Ltd for Management and Operation of the Shoalhaven Heads Holiday Park for a term of three (3) years + three (3) years + three (3) years commencing 15 July 2018 at 25% of gross profit.

2. The contract documents and any other associated documents be executed on behalf of the Council in accordance with cl165 of the Local Government Regulation by the Group Director.

CARRIED

CSA18.9 Tenders – Management & Operation of the Bendalong Point Holiday Park

HPERM Ref: D18/133524

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Gash) MIN18.364C

That

1. Council accept the Tender from Daron Seaton and Belinda Buckley for the Management and Operation of Bendalong Point Holiday Park for a term of three (3) years + three (3) years + three (3) years commencing 1 July 2018 at 29% of gross profit.

2. The contract documents and any other associated documents be executed on behalf of the Council in accordance with cl165 of the Local Government Regulation by the Assets & Works.

CARRIED

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 10.29pm.

Clr Proudfoot

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.129 Establishing a Boat Harbour within Jervis Bay - request for support

HPERM Ref: D18/185607

Group: General Manager's Group

Section: Economic Development

Attachments: 1. Letter from Callala Consulting Group - DPI Reply ⇩

2. Callala Community Strategic Plan Report 3 May 2012 (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Jervis Bay Marina - 26 April 2018 - Presentation to Councillors - Callala Consulting Group (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

On 1^st May 2018 the Callala Consulting Group wrote to Shoalhaven City Council requesting Council’s formal support to endorse the proposed location (being adjacent to Marine Parade, Callala Bay in Jervis Bay) as being the preferred site for a major boating facility and associated tourist facilities.

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of previous efforts that have been undertaken to entice government(s) to establish a boat harbour, and the siting of such a facility, within Jervis Bay.

Recommendation

That Council reaffirm its “in principle support” for the development of a boat harbour within Jervis Bay at a location that meets current sustainable economic, ecological, and engineering requirements and meets community expectations.

Options

1. Accept the recommendation as written

Implications: confirms council’s support for major facility within Jervis Bay but does not endorse Callala Bay as a “preferred site”.

2. Propose an alternate recommendation E.G. “That council support Callala Consulting Group and endorse their proposed location (being adjacent to Marine Parade, Callala Bay in Jervis Bay) as being the preferred site for a major boating facility and associated tourist facilities.”

Implications: This would effectively lock in council’s opinion on the most suitable location within Jervis Bay.

Introduction

The aim of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the history of efforts to progress the development of a boat harbour within Jervis Bay so council can make an informed decision.

Jervis Bay is unique, being one of Australia’s largest deep-water harbours which is relatively undeveloped. It is a unique natural resource under the various jurisdictions of Federal and State Governments as well as Shoalhaven City Council. Development proposals below mean high water mark are technically upon Crown Land and are outside of the City of Shoalhaven with the determining authority being the NSW Department of Planning.

Jervis Bay is approximately 16km long in the North-South direction and 8km wide with a 3.3km entrance between Bowen Island and Point Perpendicular.

The concept of a boat harbour within Jervis Bay has been investigated for at least 50 years. With the development of the port of Huskisson in the 1800’s and a strong boat building industry around the early 1900’s, the location was always seen as a natural safe harbour and marine support facility.

Under the Waterways programs of the Public Works Department in the late 1970’s and 1980’s, investigations were undertaken for a boat harbour within the Bay.

In the mid 1990’s Shoalhaven City Council in conjunction with the Shoalhaven Olma (Office of Labour Market Adjustment) Committee undertook several investigative studies to advance the provision of a boating facility somewhere in Jervis Bay. Like the preceding studies, the identified preferred location was at Shark Net Beach (at Huskisson).

Jervis Bay’s long fetches and exposure to ocean swell from the southerly and easterly sectors mean that, in all but calm conditions, wave protection is required to safely launch and retrieve trailable boats and to moor boats alongside pontoons or wharves without damage. Investigations undertaken concluded that floating breakwaters were not feasible due to wave conditions. A fixed full depth breakwater would be required for any boat harbour development.

Each of the studies identified Huskisson as the preferred site as it was away from the operational requirements of the Royal Australian Navy at Beecroft Peninsula (affecting Callala Bay), less influenced by the strong easterly/south easterly swells and its proximity to existing urban infrastructure.

Although all studies have identified Shark Net Beach as the preferred location it must be noted that as time has progressed situations affecting marina site selection have changed. For example, one of the reasons for the rejection of Callala Bay as a suitable site was that at that time (1997) there was limited services and utility provision (i.e. town sewer was not connected).

The development of a boatharbour in Jervis Bay is a complex undertaking. A number of approvals will be required and the project would need to address a number of issues including:

· Statutory – the project would need to satisfy a number of State and Federal legislative requirements and is made more complex as identified locations are within the Jervis Bay Marine Park and the Control of Naval Waters Act 1918 also affects the area.

· Environmental

· Cultural

· Heritage

· Transport (including car parking)

· Social and economic

· Visual impact

· Alienation of Crown Land

Numerous studies have indicated the need for more detailed project proposals in order to progress the development of a boat harbour. Three key pieces of initial work that must be undertaken are indicative project design, detailed economic analysis and extensive community consultation.

Project design is required to determine potential costings and will be needed for comprehensive community consultation. Part of indicative project design is site selection. The new Biodiversity Conservation Act will necessitate a full site selection study based on environmental grounds. Site selection will also have a significant impact on the ultimate cost of the project.

Economic analysis is required to determine the total cost of the project and to see if the project would be viable when all costs are included. All costs include cost of approvals, construction of the breakwall, traffic and other utility upgrades. These costings are required to determine if the project will deliver a return to the community, which is essential should the proponent be seeking public monies for any component of the development.

Finally, once indicative project design has been developed, and the costs and benefits to the community has been quantified, then it is imperative that the project has significant community support. This is best articulated in the 2012 Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd report, “Establishment of a Marina within Jervis Bay or its Environs – Preliminary Investigation into Statutory Processes.”

Possibly as part of the site selection process, an ongoing community consultation initiative should be devised and undertaken to ensure the broader community is involved in the formulation of the project. Early consultation may assist in engendering greater community ownership and acceptance of the project.

The success of any project approval process will be largely dependent upon the level of community acceptance.

Jervis Bay Marine Park was established in 1998. The NSW Government identified and selected Jervis Bay and surrounding areas as one of the first marine parks in the state for its values relating to high biodiversity, relatively natural, undeveloped coastal line and the general beauty of the area. Jervis Bay has a range of aspects valued by different people and can be grouped according to environmental, recreational, commercial, historical and other social values (Jervis Bay Marine Park Planning Issues and Options 1999). The foundation of effective community consultation is to determine who the community are. Jervis Bay is a place that is valued by many people and managed by numerous agencies, all of which will need to be consulted to determine level of project support.

Project design, economic analysis and community consultation is an iterative, expensive and time-consuming process that is required before a site can be selected.

The Shark Net Beach and South Huskisson sites have been the focus of numerous studies. These studies provide a good foundation on which to proceed in terms of economic analysis and community consultation. It is strongly suggested that any developer wishing to progress with either of these locations commence the process with community consultation to ensure that the community is supportive of such a project.

The Callala Bay site was rejected as a preferred location in 1987 and it wasn’t until 2012 that this was once again included as a potential site. Essentially for 25 years Callala Bay was not seriously considered as a boat harbour location in any studies, discussion or submissions. A thorough review of this site would be needed before its validity could be determined. Extensive community consultation and economic analysis of the potential of Callala Bay needs to be undertaken to determine if this is a viable location.

Shoalhaven City Council has spent over 35 years and significant funds in progressing the establishment of a boat harbour within Jervis Bay. The Shark Net Beach site has been identified in several studies as the preferred location though the South Huskisson site also has merit. Regardless, Council has yet to determine the most appropriate location. There are a number of reasons for this.

· The project is extremely complex and extensive community consultation by a project proponent (developer) needs to occur.

· Multi agency support is required especially from State Government agencies on whose land/water interface the project would be built and whose legislation, regulations, policies and plans would have to be adhered to.

· How much effort can Council invest when the project will ultimately be ‘owned’ by State government and private interests?

For these reasons it is recommended that Council reaffirm it’s “in principle support” for the development of a boat harbour in Jervis Bay and that Council defer identification of a preferred location until reviewing the outcomes of the appropriate level of studies and community consultation.

1979

Shoalhaven City Council submission to the Minister for Public Works

In 1979 Shoalhaven City Council made a submission to the Minister for Public Works highlighting the lack of shelter and wharf facilities within Jervis Bay. The purpose of the Shoalhaven City Council submission was ‘to interest the State Government, through the Minister of Public Works, in authorising a detailed evaluation of the Bay for these purposes and where and how the requisite works should be developed’.

The aim of the proposal was:

To provide a safe anchorage for recreational craft, fishing, commercial vessels and cruising craft, with the additional ancillary services like ship repairs and maintenance, marina operation service and retail outlets.

A number of studies were subsequently undertaken to further this proposal.

1980

NSW Department of Public Works (1980), Jervis Bay Boatharbour Preliminary Investigation

In response to the 1979 submission, the NSW Department of Public Works authored the Jervis Bay Boatharbour Preliminary Investigation (1980). This report concluded that “a boat harbour is necessary to enable Jervis Bay’s natural appeal as a recreational boating centre to be exploited….. It remains to determine the best location and size of such a facility and to assess the engineering and economic feasibility of the project”.

The report states that the development of a boat harbour would draw the majority of its users from the Shoalhaven City area and from the two capital cities of Canberra and Sydney. The users would most likely use their boats for a number of days at a time, such as on long weekends or during school holidays. The report cites three key benefits to the creation of a boat harbour in Jervis Bay being:

1. The creation of a boa harbour would result in improved community access to, and enjoyment of, Jervis Bay

2. That there would be a substantial increase in the number of people visiting the area with the resultant increases in money being spend on tourist-related activities

3. That the harbour would provide safe moorings and a place where reprovisioning and repairs could be undertaken.

The report concludes:

2.1 To cater for foreseeable demand a harbour of 150 moorings with capacity for expansion to 300 moorings is needed. This requires 6ha of sheltered waterway and 4ha of land for the necessary services but because of the nature of the boating industry, flexibility in planning should be maintained wherever possible.

2.2 Much of the Bay is unsuitable for the construction of a boat harbour for some or all of the following reasons.

· Exposure to ocean swell making breakwaters costly

· Lack of road access and basic services such as electricity and water

· Environmental restrictions (much of the foreshore is declared Nature Reserve)

· Occupation by the Navy

· Shallow depths and rocky seabed.

2.3 Preliminary investigation has identified 3 potential boat harbour sites, one at Callala Bay and two at Huskisson

2.4 The costs of the breakwaters and land reclamations for the three proposals are:

Callala Bay $2.5M

North Huskisson $3.5M

South Huskisson $2.8M

It should be noted that these costs are heavily dependent on the location of the quarry and the size of armour stone that can be quarried.

2.5 The mooring and shore facilities required to cater for 300 boats would cost an additional $1.5M. The installation of these facilities could be staged over a number of years once the breakwaters have been completed.

2.6 Based on factors such as the level of support facilities, the relative costs and the capacity for expansion, the South Huskisson site is the preferred alternative.

The report recommends that:

3.1 the views of the relevant government departments and the Shoalhaven City Council, representing the local community, be sought, in order that a final site selection can be made.

3.2 until a decision on the boat harbour location is made, Council should restrict any further development at the three potential sites.

3.3 the foreshore lands required for harbour usage at the chosen boat harbour site be specifically reserved for port purposes and the boat harbour be incorporated into Council’s local planning scheme.

3.4 the chosen boat harbour site be the subject of:

a) an hydraulic model study, to determine the best alignment of the breakwaters and to study any potential surge problems, and

b) a sediment transport study, to assess any possible siltation or erosion problems may occur.

3.5 the Department of Mineral Resources be requested to carry out detailed studies on the locations and feasibility of quarry sites in the area with regard to the proposed boat harbour site and that a suitable quarry be acquired as soon as possible

3.6 a detailed study of the relative economics and justification for an unloading wharf for fishing vessels be undertaken.

(In 1979 the population of the Shoalhaven was 38,000.)

1987

Guttering Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd (1987) Public Works Department of NSW Jervis Bay Boatharbour Huskisson Foreshore Environmental Study.

The aim of this study was to identify the planning, social and environmental issues pertinent to the boatharbour development and an indication of the relative importance of these issues. For the purposes of the study the following details were used as the basis of assessment:

· The capacity of the boatharbour will be initially for 150 wet berth moorings with a capacity for expansion to 300 moorings requiring 6ha of sheltered waterway for moorings and 4ha of land for the provision of services and parking.

· The size breakdown of the moorings would be:

o 50% for boats less than 10m in length

o 35% for boats between 10m and 12m in length

o 10% for boats between 12m and 15m in length

o 5% for boats between 15m and 20m in length

With boats greater than 20m in length or multi-hull vessels being accommodated at the ends of the main walkway pontoons.

· The minimum water depth required is 3.0m due to the rocky bed, with the harbour entrance, fairway and unloading wharf being 4.0m minimum depth at low water.

· The boatharbour would cater for cruising deep keeled yachts, pleasure launches, fishing vessels and other larger craft such as fisheries patrol and water police vessels.

· Other facilities provided could include a commercial fishing unloading wharf, hardstand area, parking for 400 vehicles, a dive store, boat dry storage and slipway, club buildings and ancillary commercial service areas.

· A services wharf would provide fuel, water, and sewerage pump-out. An amenities building would also be provided.

The study acknowledges that the Jervis Bay Boatharbour Preliminary Investigation (1980) looked at three potential sites being Callala Bay, North Huskisson and South Huskisson. Gettering Haskins and Davey (1987) concluded that ‘the Callala Bay site is no longer considered as a viable option due to restrictions on boat movement by naval regulations and reduced provision of services’.

The study identified the following planning issues:

· Both the north and south Huskisson sites lie below the high-water mark and it thus unzoned land out side the jurisdiction of Local Government and that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required

· Further study was needed on coastal processes

· Conflict with the Navy’s use of the bay

· Hauling break water material to the site

· Traffic impacts with an estimated increase of 700 traffic movements per day

From a preliminary assessment of issues related to construction and operation of a boatharbour at either Sailors Beach or Sharknet Beach it is concluded that:

1. Development of a boatharbour at the South Huskisson site (Sailors Beach) would lead to adverse environmental impact which may not easily be overcome by ameliorative measures of change in engineering design. The key issues would be: loss of the main swimming beach, loss of areas of sub-littoral rocky reef of high value, access conflicts with existing recreational uses, disturbance of an archaeological site and high value visual impact. It is felt that these cumulative impacts are sufficient to make the site inappropriate for the development of a boatharbour when compared with the North Huskisson site.

2. Development at the North Huskisson site seems more appropriate with respect to integration with existing commercial town infrastructure and current boating facilities within Currambene Creek. Development of this nature would provide a major stimulus to the town and in particular the adjoining locality, and provide real benefits in the way of a safe boatharbour allowing greater use of a high value waterway area.

3. However, major environmental issues are likely to arise at the North Huskisson site if the development proceeds as proposed. The key issues appear to be:

a. Destruction of a portion of Tapalla Point, a site of geological importance, and listed on the Register of the National Estate,

b. Possible impacts of Currambene Creek estuary through changes in the nature of flow and sediment transport,

c. Visual impact of the development related to high scenic qualities of the landscape, the poor visual absorption capacity of the surrounding area and the high visual prominence of such as development, and

d. Changes in the community structure and recreational leisure patterns within the foreshore area and town.

1995

Yachtmarinas Australia Pty Ltd & Scott Carver Pty Ltd (1995) Proposed Sail Boat Facility Jervis Bay

The aim of this study was to provide detailed advice to Council to enable it to determine the feasibility of a sailboat launching and rigging facility in Jervis Bay. Yachtmarinas Australia Pty Ltd looked at other equipment launching sites, liaised with boat builders for their requirements, liaised with regatta organisations on their infrastructure needs to hold regattas and considered appropriate onshore facilities to support a boat harbour at Jervis Bay.

Five potential sites were reviewed in this study being:

· Callala Bay

· Sharknet Beach, Huskisson (North Huskisson site)

· Plantation Point, Vincentia

· Green Point

· South Huskisson (or Sailors Beach)

Each site was assessed against a number of criteria being:

· Existing water depths

· Compliance with Marine Reserve Zoning Requirements

· Ease of Road Access

· Proximity to Existing Services (Power, Water, Telephone, Sewerage)

· Proximity to Tourist Infrastructure (Shops, Hotels, Clubs, Accommodation)

· Maintenance of Residents’ Amenity (Disruption of views, traffic, parking, noise)

· Haulage distance from quarry

· Proximity to sand source for foreshore reclaim.

The study determined that Shark Net Beach at Huskisson was the most suitable site for the boating facility. It best satisfied statutory planning, environmental and amenity considerations at that time.

The South Huskisson site, located to the north of the mouth of Moona Moona Creek, was identified as one of the preferred sites in the 1980 PWD Study on the basis of it being assessed as the lowest cost option at that time. This site shares many positive attributes in common with the Shark Net Beach site being appropriate water depth, compliance with marine zoning, ease of road access, proximity to a town centre and adequate service provision. Yachtmarinas Australia Pty Ltd felt that this site was not favourable as the Shark Net Beach site as a development at this location would impact on the views of some residences and the harbour is significantly smaller.

The study highlighted safety concerns with the Callala Bay site and noted that in times of bad weather boats are blown off moorings and washed up on the beach. Long period waves are prevalent from south to south-easterly swell conditions at this site. Due to the wave climate, floating breakwaters are not feasible and full depth breakwaters would need to be constructed.

Despite a number of safety concerns, the Callala Bay site was rejected on other grounds being lack of depth, marine reserve zoning impacts, poor public access via one winding road, lack of services (Callala Bay did not have sewerage connections at that time) and the impact on residential amenity. This site did score well in terms of access to rock (assuming Comberton Quarry could supply) and sand.

Plantation Point was rejected as the site has shallow water depths inshore over a rocky bottom and rock dredging would be required to develop a harbour of appropriate depth. There were also zoning concerns at this location.

Green Point was rejected due to limited vehicle access and that it is located within the Royal Australian Navy’s “Safety Zone” which requires all boats to be removed during naval bombardment of the Beecroft Peninsula Range.

1996

Resolution (MIN96.1248) adopted at Council meeting held on Tuesday 18^th June 1996

RECOMMENDED that:

b) Shoalhaven City Council engage consultants to further examine the economic feasibility of the Boat harbour proposal and undertake a Water Users Study to determine the use for a boating facility within Jervis Bay.

c) Shoalhaven City Council reaffirm its support in principle for the development of a controlled boating facility in Jervis Bay.

d) Shoalhaven City Council continue to act as the facilitator of the Jervis Bay Boat Harbour unless some other Government Department seeks to take control.

e) Council undertake some engineering hydraulic studies in relation to siltation of Currambene Creek with up to $50,000 funded from the 1996/97 Budget Savings or Strategic Projects Reserve.

(In regard to part e) above, Council commissioned Patterson Britton and Partners Pty Ltd to undertake a “Preliminary Assessment of Potential for Harbour Sedimentation – Proposed Shark Net Beach Boatharbour” and determined that “A boatharbour could be developed on the Shark Net Beach site just south of the Currambene Creek site without significant problems with sedimentation of sand or suspended sediments.”)

1998

Yachtmarinas Australia Pty Ltd, Scott Carver Pty Ltd and McAndrew & Associates Pty Ltd (1998) Proposed Boat Harbour Jervis Bay Preliminary Concept Planning Study”

This report describes previous investigation and planning work associated with a proposed multi-purpose boatharbour at Jervis Bay and had been prepared in response to the number of issues raised by the Council and the community following the release of the 1995 Yachtmarinas Australian Pty Ltd and Scott Carver Pty Ltd report.

The scope of this study was to:

· Undertake a desktop investigation of sediment processes adjacent to Currambene Creek to identify any impacts on the creek entrance and proposed harbour entrance, including assessment of the need for maintenance dredging

· Reassess both the Shark Net Beach and South Huskisson sites

· Prepare concept plans for both sites.

Shark Net Beach and South Huskisson were reassessed against additional criteria being:

· Impact on local coastal processes

· Impact on glendonite outcrops

· Land tenure of each site and surrounding areas

· Impact on existing usage of sites and surrounding areas

· Land use restrictions

· Impacts on character and amenity of the area

· Relative construction costs

· Operational sustainability of site.

The study concluded that:

· A boatharbour could be developed at the Shark Net Beach site without significant impacts on local coastal processes

· This development would improve the navigability of the Currambene Creek entrance by reducing the wave climate in the approach channel

· The Shark Net Beach and South Huskisson sites are both suitable locations for a multi-purpose boatharbour

· Both sites have specific advantages with the Shark Net Beach site offering potential cost savings over the South Huskisson site due to shallower water depths requiring less rock for the breakwater.

One of the suggested outcomes of the study was that it could form a basis for discussions between Shoalhaven City Council and the relevant government authorities concerning the tasks involved in planning the project, ensuring compliance with relevant policies and procedures, securing the necessary land with appropriate zonings, identifying the approvals and consents required and developing appropriate strategies for future work. In addition, it was recommended that:

· A detailed assessment by a suitable experienced quarry operator, including geotechnical investigation and testing to determine the suitability of the Comberton Grange Quarry as a source of breakwater material;

· A follow-up study of the local marine biology at both sites to identify any changes since the 1987 study which could affect the project.

1998

Resolution (MIN98.309) adopted at Council meeting held on Tuesday 17^th February 1998

RECOMMENDED that the Industrial Development and Employment Committee be asked to explore the possibility of providing two or three smaller facilities and how they can be integrated into the marine park and how they can be developed sensitively into the environment.

Resolution (MIN98.2384) adopted at Council meeting held on Tuesday 17^th November 1998

RECOMMENDED that:

b) To advance the boat harbour proposals further the following actions be endorsed:

i. Economic feasibility including the demand for services and the likely economic returns on investments

ii. Determination of the level of capital funding to be provided by Council to enable the project to commence

iii. Final determination of the preferred location and design of the marine following negotiations with Government agencies

iv. Determination of suitability of the Comberton Grange Quarry material for breakwall construction

v. Finalisation of the boundary for Glendonite with the Heritage Commission

Regarding part v) above, the task was completed on the 27^th October 1998.

Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd 1998 Preliminary Investigation into the Statutory Processes for Establishing a Boat Harbour within Jervis Bay.

The purpose of this report was to:

· Address the statutory approval process

· Identify issues that would need to be addressed and

· Outline an approach that could be adopted by Council in its pursuit of the boat harbour.

This report outlines numerous studies that will need to be undertaken to address a number of issues, including but not limited to: environmental, heritage, Native Title, amenity, social and economic outcomes etc. This is in addition to a number of statutory issues that are present within such a proposal.

Due to the complexity of the project the report acknowledges that the preparation of relevant studies and the approval process will take a number of years and, although the proposal may be technically feasible, community expectations will form an important role in the final determination process.

It is difficult to determine how much it will cost to construct the breakwater. Costs can fluctuate widely and are dependent on the proximity of suitable rock. For this reason, one of the recommendations is to undertake a comprehensive analysis to determine the economic viability of the project.

1999

Shoalhaven City Council, 1999, Draft Zoning and Operational Plans for Jervis Bay Marine Park submission

Boat Harbour Proposal

Council has for many years been concerned with the lack of a safe and controlled boat harbour within Jervis Bay. A previous proposal in Currambene Creek was not achievable and Council considers, following an evaluation of potential sites within the Bay and Currambene Creek, that an opportunity for such a project exists at either Shark Net Beach or the north of Moona Moona Creek entrance at Huskisson.

Shoalhaven is considered the leading sail boat manufacturing area within New South Wales and Council considers planning for such a facility now will provide the mechanism to assist in controlled access, safe mooring and pollution control. Planning provisions for the Marine Park need to allow for further evaluation of this proposal.

2002

Policy and Planning Committee 22^nd January 2002

Report re: Jervis Bay Marine Park – Draft Zoning and Operational Plans

Boat harbour - With the advent of a Marine Park, aquatic activities (recreational, commercial, administrative, research…) will increase. This will place pressure on existing facilities. Jervis Bay is capable of a great range of diverse and concurrent aquatic activity. To administer this and provide suitable response to major or emergency events, adequate facilities need to be provided.

In November 2001 the Shoalhaven Tourism Board was given a presentation on the draft zoning proposals by staff from MPA. The Board expressed its concerns that the sanctuary zone would preclude the provision of a future boat harbour. A boat harbour is seen by Council as essential in the effective management of Jervis Bay, particularly in regard to possible fuel spills with the refuelling of boats and the provision of pump out facilities for sewage from boats that are using Jervis Bay. Neither of these things is controlled at the moment and they occur in a haphazard manner. The fact that there has not been a major fuel spill in Jervis Bay from the haphazard way that boats are currently fuelled is a blessing, but is unlikely to continue into the future. Sooner or later a disaster will happen. Without proper environmental controls that only a boat harbour can give then there can only be doubt about the long-term protection of the Bay’s environment.

A number of studies have been conducted over the years by the NSW Government and/or Council to determine the most appropriate location for a boat harbour which could provide such facilities as well as a protected haven for private and commercial boats. /yachts. In each of the studies, the area around Huskisson has been recommended for further investigation because of its suitability and proximity to existing infrastructure and facilities. The operational aspects of the JBMP management plan require that certain activities will be administered and managed within the plan. Certain of these will require ready access to watercraft and quick response times. Boats on trailers will not provide this response time, however, appropriate craft could be stationed at the boat harbour that would provide far better response times.

The JBMP zoning and operational plans should acknowledge the possibility of a boat harbour here and, either by notation or hatching, recognise that the area between Currambene Creek and Moona Moona Creek is to be further investigated for the purposes of a boat harbour facility and that this activity will not be precluded because of any JBMP zone, but will be subject to the provisions of the relevant planning legislation.

The plan advocates that permits will be required for operating within the JBMP and the Huskisson wharf. This process could be restrictive on trade and place certain operators at a disadvantage given the current inadequacy of the existing facilities.

The recent redefinition (reduced area) of the Tapalla Point Glendonite geological feature on the National Estate listing needs to be taken into account with any development of a boat harbour facility in that location.

2007

Industrial Development and Employment Committee 5^th February 2007 – Boat Harbour Facilities in Jervis Bay

The alternative of establishing facilities within Currambene Creek has not been supported by the Industrial Development and Employment Committee (IDEC) in its recommendations to Council, based upon the feeling that any boat harbour in the creek would be too small and not deliver the potential benefits to the Shoalhaven and its community. Members of the Boat Owners Association (BOA) at both the local and state level have now become active on the issue. Their group sees the benefits to the local boating public, the wider NSW market and the cruising market which is growing both domestically and internationally.

At a recent meeting, the prospect of a facility at Callala Bay was canvassed. Callala Bay has been part of several earlier studies as an alternate location but has always been less preferred to a Huskisson site mainly because of the commercial and utility infrastructure available at Huskisson.

It has been generally regarded that an area within Jervis Bay at Callala Bay could be developed into a boat harbour facility however no formal costings or designs have been undertaken. To make the boat harbour facility work, a review of the zonings in and around Callala Bay adjacent to any such boat harbour would need to be reviewed to allow the commercial attraction/servicing for visiting craft.

To go down this path does require some discussion regarding these issues.

2007

Resolution (MIN07.179) adopted at Council meeting 27^th February 2007

Boat Harbour Facilities in Jervis Bay

RECOMMENDED that:

a) Council consider the formation of an Executive Marina Review Committee comprising Colin Waller as Chairperson and Clrs Kearney, Finkernagel, Kerr, Rudd and available Councillors as members;

b) This Committee have delegated authority to appoint independent advisors when needed;

c) The aims of objectives of this Committee be to review potential locations for development of Boat Harbours and Marinas in Jervis Bay and throughout the Shoalhaven;

d) The Executive Marina Review Committee report to the Industrial Development & Employment Committee with a strategy to advance development of Boat Harbours/Marinas throughout the Shoalhaven.

2008

Resolution adopted at Council meeting held on 8^th July 2008 (MIN08.933)

RECOMMENDED that Council give its full hearted support to the proposal from the Lands Department to the Jervis Bay Marine Park Authority for the establishment of a Marina in Jervis Bay.

2012

Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd Establishment of a Marina within Jervis Bay or its Environs – Preliminary Investigation into Statutory Processes.

This report provides the results of an investigation of the statutory approval processes that would need to be addressed in order to establish of boat harbour or marina within Jervis Bay, within the City of Shoalhaven. It is understood the marina would be a significant scale project involving more than 80 berths.

In 1998 Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd had been engaged by Shoalhaven City Council to undertake a similar investigation. The purpose of the current investigation is to essentially update this previous investigation.

At the time of preparing this report there was no identified preferred or selected site for the proposed marina development site. It was (and is) also unknown whether the proponent for the project will be a private group or entity or a public authority. The scale of the project is also unknown. Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd state that ‘given these circumstances it is not possible to provide any advice in relation to likely costs associated with relevant approval processes; or ascertaining the time frame for the critical approval path.’

As is evident from a review of this report the approval process for the project will be complex and protracted and will be dependent upon a range of factors including:

· whether the proponent is a public or private entity;

· the scale of the project;

· the location of the proposal.

All of which are currently unknown at this stage.

The report acknowledges that there is a need to identify a scale of project and a preferred location for the development. Work has been undertaken in the mid 1990s in evaluating several possible sites and it would be prudent for this work to be updated to ensure all possible sites within the Jervis Bay locality are considered and having regard to the range of statutory, environmental and social aspects that such a project is likely to raise.

Such a process should involve an extensive consultation approach involving both relevant government agencies as well as the broader community. Early consultation should be undertaken with a range of government agencies to resolve a range of key issues including confirming the approval process that the project would need to navigate. This approach would also assist with ensuring that key issues are resolved and addressed through any approval process.

The success of any project approval process will be largely dependent upon the level of community acceptance.

2012

Resolution adopted at Council meeting 24^th January 2012 (MIN12.81)

Report on Statutory Process - Jervis Bay Boat Harbour Facilities

RECOMMENDED that:

a) The report presenting the Cowman Stoddart consultant’s report on the Statutory Processes for Establishing a Marina within Jervis Bay or its environs be received for information by the Executive Marina Committee;

b) Council, subject to resources, continue a facilitation and advocacy role with regard to establishing a safe boat harbour and similar and related facilities within Jervis Bay and environs.

c) Council seek support from the Member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock MP, to make representations to the Premier seeking the establishment of a safe boat harbour at one of the four identified sites in Jervis Bay, ie. Callala Bay, Sharknet Beach, Currambene Creek and South Huskisson, and establishment of a critical path for moving forward.

2013

Resolution adopted at Council on 26^th February 2013 (MIN 13.94) following a Mayoral minute on Boating in Jervis Bay

That Council:

a) Make urgent representations to relevant insurance companies, with a view to having them continue insuring boats moored within Jervis Bay; and

b) Continue to lobby the State Government to inject funds in further investigations for the provision of safe boating facilities.

Resolution adopted at Council meeting 26^th March 2013 (MIN13.294) following a Forum on Boat Harbour Facilities

That Council:

a) Endorses the further development of marine industrial precincts at Ulladulla Harbour (operated by Crown Lands) and Numbaa (operated by Southern Cross Waterfronts) and provides practical support for their continuance and expansion;

b) Endorses the provision of additional commercial berths at Ulladulla Harbour (operated by Crown Lands), within Currambene Creek (operated by RMS) and at Numbaa (operated by Southern Cross Waterfronts);

c) Works with Crown Lands to accelerate berthing facilities at Ulladulla Harbour and Greenwell Point, and with Southern Cross Waterfronts for additional marina berths and drystack at Numbaa;

d) Seeks a NSW Government commitment to create and maintain channels to open water at Greenwell Point and Currambene Creek for deep drafted vessels;

e) Seeks a NSW Government commitment to create additional mooring facilities within Jervis Bay in the immediate future that reduce risk to boat owners in unfavourable sea conditions with suggested locations being in Currambene Creek and in the lee of Plantation Point;

f) Aim to achieve:

i) In the short term (within 3 years) additional mooring berths at Numbaa and Ulladulla Harbour, and additional moorings in Currambene Creek and off Collingwood Beach protected by Plantation Point;

ii) In the medium term (3-7 years) a commitment by the appropriate NSW agency to maintain a channel at Greenwell Point and Currambene Creek to connect mooring facilities with open waterways for deep drafted vessels;

iii) In the longer term investigate feasibility of potential sites along with community engagement for a safe boat harbour within Jervis Bay;

Community Engagement

Over the last 50 years there have been several periods of community consultation. The community of the Shoalhaven has changed continuously over the years and any new proposal would need a new community engagement process by the proponent.

Policy Implications

Council by resolving to support the establishment of a boat harbour within Jervis Bay will be reflecting a long term position of Shoalhaven Council. By doing so the Council does not preclude taking a similar or different position to a specific proposal, location or orientation for the boat harbour.

Financial Implications

By taking a position of “support”, Council does not necessarily need to expend future funds on advocacy for such a facility. Council may be required at some future time to become an associated developer to such a facility but this will be identified and articulated through an approval assessment process

Risk Implications

By not being specific with regard to location within Jervis Bay, the onus then falls onto the proponent and the relevant government agencies to assess the various risks associated with this project.

To become prescriptive with a location does open Council to possible risk considerations, one of which is failure of the project by being in an inferior locality against any of the key criteria.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.131 Hyams Beach - Peak Period Management- Progress Update

HPERM Ref: D18/190799

Group: General Manager's Group

Section: Executive Strategy

Attachments: 1. Actions from Resolution - 30 January 2018 ⇩

2. Traffic Data ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To update Council on the progress that has been undertaken for the Hyams Beach Peak Period Management and in response to previous resolutions of Council.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Agree to the proposed four step approach to finding a long-term solution for Hyams Beach which includes immediate actions, short term actions, long term actions (including revenue options, parking options, out of area parking options) and broader discussions on the overall management of tourism within the Shoalhaven.

2. Undertake a community engagement process with the whole Hyams Beach community on the proposed short-term actions and that these be provided to the community as a proposed package of projects. This package of projects to be shown as a concept plan (with maps) and include details such as traffic management, amenity upgrades, indicative timing and proposed budget allocations.

3. Continue to engage with the Stakeholder Working Group and Shoalhaven Tourism Advisory Group on potential revenue raising options including paid parking, out of area parking and other long-term solutions.

4. Dedicate a Project Officer to work on the Hyams Beach Project coordination to ensure oversight and project management of short and long-term actions and to continue to find sources of revenue (grants or other solutions) to fund projects.

5. Continue to undertake broader discussions relating to the 360 Tourism Model and overall management of tourism with the wider community.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation as printed.

Implications: This will allow continued work to occur on finding solutions to the management of peak periods of visitation to Hyams Beach.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: It is important that progress is made on several proposed actions and that Council starts to move towards implementation and broader community engagement. Any alternative recommendation should recognise the work to date and the discussions that have occurred within the Stakeholder meetings.

Background

On 30 January 2018 Council resolved (MIN18.38) a number of policy positions and recommendations for investigation. Since this time Council staff have been undertaking a number of discussions with key stakeholders. Comments relating to each of the items within this Minute are provided as Attachment 1. Each of the items within this Minute has been addressed within three Stakeholder Workshops and discussed with these stakeholders.

A report is also to be provided to the Shoalhaven Tourism Advisory Group (STAG) to seek their feedback on a number of initiatives, including revenue raising, that were contained within MIN18.38. This is expected to be reported to the next STAG meeting.

A further report was provided to Council on 20 March 2018 which outlined several resource requirements and Council decisions relating to immediate actions that were needed to support the Easter peak period. A number of these actions were implemented as part of an Easter Trial at Hyams Beach. An evaluation of these actions was provided in a report to Council on 24 April 2018. The contents of the report were adopted for information.

Since this report further discussions have been occurring both between Council and stakeholders and within the Hyams Beach Villagers Association (HBVA) CCB meetings. There have also been preliminary discussions held with the STAG with a further report to this Advisory Committee expected in June.

Three stakeholder meetings have been held with a group including residents, CCBs, business owners, state government representatives, Councillors and Council staff. Minutes of these meetings have been forwarded to the Stakeholder Group and to all Councillors. The meetings have covered a range of issues including revenue options and have talked about both long and short-term solutions.

It was determined at the stakeholder workshop held in May that a smaller working group would be formed to help progress several of the ideas and concepts that had been discussed in the larger stakeholder workshops. On Tuesday 5 June the first meeting of this smaller working group was held. The members of this group include:

· Lois Sparks

· Morgan Sant

· Chris Allison

· Dean Hargraves

· Chris McIntosh

· Jessica Rippon

· Amanda Findley (Mayor)

· Russ Pigg (as required)

· Daniel Duston (attended for traffic matters)

It is expected that staff will be involved in this group depending on the topics for discussion. Other staff may be required at times. The inclusion of members for the working group was drawn from the resolution of the HBVA and the inclusion of business representatives. It was determined by staff that the number in attendance would be a manageable number to work with given the stage of the process.

The first meeting was called to discuss:

· The contents of this report to Council

· Traffic matters and process to be followed;

· Project updates; and

· Resourcing and expectations.

This group is in place to discuss ideas and concepts. Any projects or ideas coming from this group will be provided to the broader community and to Council. It is essential that the working group are part of discussions which will lead to broader community consultation. The group are not in place to make final decisions or endorse recommendations. Broader consultation is required on all measures, as part of normal Council process.

The discussions to date have provided feedback about options that could be considered. Staff now understand some of the key priorities of the stakeholders and believe that an approach for short term solutions can be provided to the community for boarder consultation.

Actions and Solutions

The actions and discussions that have been undertaken to date centre around four distinct timeframes and priorities. The management of peak tourist periods is a complex issue with many stakeholders and various options and opinions. To break down the complex into more manageable pieces and to ensure that the policy directions of Council arising from MIN18.38 can be followed, a set of action types and priority areas have been established.

These have been broken down as follows:

1. Immediate Actions - considered temporary only and implemented as needed. These actions are not sustainable and are a drain on budgets and resources. Moving these actions into ongoing solutions is imperative.

2. Short term Actions - the focus of these actions is to create solutions to the need for ongoing temporary measures. Priorities here are to improve ongoing traffic flow and pedestrian safety. They seek to create a regulated space within the village to guide visitors in how they move through the village. They may require an up-front spend of budget but will create long term efficiencies and cost savings. They are confined within the village and focus on resolving immediate issues within the village area. These are the current priority area for consideration.

3. Long Term Actions - these are actions that will require significant investigation, studies and boarder consideration. Initial investigations into some of these solutions have shown large budget requirements and design and scoping work to be undertaken. They are part of the ongoing discussions and investigations but need to be considered longer term in their implementation.

4. Overarching Tourism Actions - these form part of the discussions around the 360 model and the overall management of tourism within the Shoalhaven. Further discussions and reporting on this will be provided to the STAG in the first instance.

It is proposed that these actions will be addressed in a three-stage process:

1. In the short term the need to focus on regulating traffic (vehicular and pedestrian and associated amenities) in the village;

2. Longer term solutions (such as overflow parking, paid parking, park and ride etc) will be addressed at a later stage; and

3. Major infrastructure upgrades to be part of broader funding package and consultation with other areas.

Status of Actions

Immediate Actions

A number of immediate actions were undertaken as part of the management of peak period of Easter. These were reported to Council and budget allocated. The trial showed that there were some temporary solutions which assisted in managing the influx of vehicles and visitors during the Easter period.

There have been discussions with the Stakeholder Group for the ongoing need for support during peak periods. It has been identified that there are some immediate actions that were implemented as part of the Easter trial that may need to be reactivated during peak periods, however these have not currently been costed.

It is acknowledged however that these temporary and immediate actions have a cost impost and that they are not sustainable in the long term. Therefore, focus has moved from immediate temporary actions to short term actions which may allow for some the temporary solutions to be in place on a more permanent basis. It is hoped that these will alleviate the budget and manpower needed to be implemented during peak periods for temporary measures.

Short Term Actions

There are several actions that can be undertaken to provide more permanent solutions to reduce the need for on ground temporary solutions during peak periods. Following the recent meeting of the working group several short-term actions have been discussed.

It was noted that some action was needed in the short term to ensure solutions were in place to deal with the commencement of the next “summer” peak season.

It is important that cost efficient solutions are found within tight budget conditions and that the policy position of Council relating to impact on ratepayers is adhered to.

It is proposed that the following ideas are provided to the broader community for consideration and feedback as a concept plan. This would form part of the normal process that would be undertaken for such proposed works. Reports to Traffic Committee and Council would also be required. The package of actions would include (but may not be limited to) the actions provided in Table 1 below.

It is estimated that the overall costs for these would be in the order of $160,000 and delivered over a 1-3 year period. Funding for these works could be drawn from existing budgets and in some cases is already scheduled within the works plan. It is also proposed that an application for RMS Roads Facilities Grant could be completed to assist in further funding the works proposed.

Table 1 Proposed Works/Actions

Proposed actions/works	Cost estimates and funding options
Permanent one-way flow for the northern end of the village to be implemented as per the Easter trial period. This would be proposed on a permanent basis to assist with traffic management, reduce costs of install in the long run and improve regulation of the village.	One-way kerb blister / threshold treatment – formal concrete blister needed at Hyam Rd / Cyrus St intersection - ~$10-15k subject to survey – could be done inhouse and from the minor capital roads budget.
Install of yellow line markings to improve identification of no stopping and no parking zones. This would also assist in regulating the parking within the village and clearly identify areas of non-compliance.	Approximately $2000 could form part of a grant for a number of works outlined in this table.
Locations for drop off zones – this may be within Seamans car park or alternative locations.	Costing TBA.
Pathway along Cyrus between Anemone and Aster Streets.	$107,200 – planned for the 19/20 FY 3 year footpath works program – reporting to June S&A – requires 1 way permanent controls.
Extension of fence at the far end of Cyrus - about 12 feet need to ensure there is protection from the cliff eroding at the northern end near existing temporary shade cloth.	TBA.
Solutions for Seamans Beach Car Park including restriction of access, toilet/shower improvements, timed or disabled parking.	Seamans car park – parking restrictions up to $5k depending on solution. Toilet improvements costing TBA is within works programs .
Design for improvements to the foreshore reserve.	Some initial work is occurring within Council- funding allocations to be determined.
Use of the VMS during peak periods.	Will be provided within allocated budget.
Closure of little Hyams Beach road during peak periods via a lockable gated access including signage.	Approx $8k.
Options for improved signage such as no camping etc.	Will be provided within allocated budget.

A visual representation of the works outlined in this table is provided below.

Traffic Data

Traffic counts were undertaken during the Easter trial period. These have been provided to Councillors and the Hyams Beach Villagers Association. They are also provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Council’s Traffic Unit staff arranged for tube counters to be installed at 7 locations in and surrounding Hyams Beach to capture the traffic movements over the Easter 2018 period. The data outlined in Attachment 2 contains hourly north/south or east/west traffic volumes from 10am - 4pm over the 4 days of Easter, as well as the total 24 hour two way daily traffic for each of the 4 days over the weekend.

The traffic data collected provides a general overview of traffic movements only and cannot be directly linked to parking capacity within the village. The counters cannot distinguish if vehicles were day visitors parking on street or residents and rental accommodation guests parking off street.

Discussions around this data within the Stakeholder Group included:

· The traffic data was only for the Easter period which wasn’t as busy as the Christmas period;

· The data does not capture influx of cars prior to the peak period or after the period;

· Peak car movements of 400+ was only achieved on the Easter Sunday in the middle of the day; and

· Requests for additional data have been made and this is being considered within the resourcing of the traffic unit however further analysis of data takes away from the ability to focus on priorities identified in the short term actions.

Longer Term Solutions:

Infrastructure improvements to Booderee and Naval College Rd - initial investigations have been undertaken into options for the widening of Booderee Ave, pedestrian improvements and roundabout options at Booderee and Naval College Rd. These could form part of a grant submission and also community projects, however there would be a need for any projects of this nature to be “shovel ready”. This would be a priority investigation following implementation of short term solutions.

Paid Parking - there is a clear process that needs to be undertaken for paid parking to be implemented in any location. This is a three-year investigation and requires a comprehensive traffic study and supportive traffic data. The cost of parking meters can be up to $150,000 each. Investigations into other areas has shown that the implementation can be complex and is costly. Paid parking can only be implemented for traffic control measures and cannot be implemented purely to raise revenue.

Out of Area Parking - a desktop analysis of options relating to out of area parking has been undertaken. There are very limited options for out of area parking. The only land that has been identified is the land which is owned by the Jerringa Local Aboriginal Land Council (JLALC). This will need further discussions and approaches will need to be made to JLALC. At this time these discussions have not been undertaken, as focus has been on implementing immediate actions and finding short term solutions.

Restricted Access - several case studies have been reviewed relating to restricted access into tourism “hot spots”; this has been implemented in several areas including National Parks and overseas locations. There are several options that could be considered but these would require significant and broad consultation which at this time is not resourced to be undertaken.

Shuttle Bus - this was investigated as part of the Easter Trial Period. There are some options in this regard, but these require further investigation and would need an initial resource allocation.

Overarching Tourism Model

Council and STAG are currently preparing a 360 tourism model which focuses on a range of measures for tourism and consideration of the impacts on a number of areas including the environment, economy, local residents etc. This is the subject of ongoing consultation.

A number of the long-term solutions and also the policy directions of Council regarding Hyams Beach have broader impacts on tourism infrastructure provision, management and the wider community. This will require extensive consultation and management and this needs to be appropriately resourced internally within Council.

Resource Needs

This is a complex and detailed situation which has several facets. As has previously been outlined this is a project which is being worked on, on top of normal staff activities. It does not have a dedicated resource and does not currently have a specific budget allocation.

There is a need for ongoing coordination of the actions, stakeholders and broader engagement. It has been effective to date to have the Executive Manager coordinating both the immediate actions and short-term actions and meeting with stakeholder groups. However, this arrangement is unsustainable with a number of other key priorities of Council not being achieved, due to this resource being utilised for the Hyams Beach project.

It is essential moving forward that at least in the short term additional support is provided within Council to coordinate the Hyams Beach communications, stakeholder engagements and project management. It is proposed that a project officer be established on a temporary basis to assist with finalising and coordinating actions and investigating revenue opportunities. This could be funded from the tourism budget or another allocation of Council.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.136 NSW Auditor-General’s Report on Local Government 2017

HPERM Ref: D18/172005

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Finance

Attachments: 1. GM Letter to AG re Report on Local Government 2017 - Financial Audit ⇩

2. AG response to GM re Report on Local Government 2017 - Financial Audit ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To provide an overview of the NSW Auditor-General’s Report on Local Government 2017 and commentary on Shoalhaven City Council’s status with regard to the report’s recommendations, observations and conclusions. This report was considered by the Risk and Audit Committee on 14 May 2018, and it was resolved to refer this to the Strategy and Assets Committee for information, together with correspondence with the Auditor-General.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Receive the report provided to the Risk and Audit Committee for information

2. Note the General Manager’s letter to the Director of the Office of the Auditor-General on the issue of reporting consolidated results and the inclusion of capital grants in operating results and the Auditor-General’s response on these matters.

Options

1. As recommended.

2. Receive this report for information, note Council staff’s commentary and request a further report providing additional information.

Implications: Staff will need to prepare an additional report.

Background

The NSW Auditor-General’s Report on Local Government 2017 covers five areas, following the audit of 139 councils’ 2016/17 financial statements and eight councils’ 2015/16 financial statements:

1. Financial reporting

2. Financial performance and sustainability

3. Asset management

4. Governance and internal controls

5. Information technology

Overall, the Auditor-General reported:

· Modified (qualified) audit opinions on the financial statements of three councils in 2016/17 and one council and one water authority in 2015/16

· 39 significant matters to 29 councils relating to

o Valuation of infrastructure, property, plant and equipment

o Valuation of community land and land under roads

o Asset accounting issues

o Internal control deficiencies

o Incorrect revenue recognition

· 22 councils required material adjustments to correct errors in previous audited financial statements, namely

o Failure to account for external restrictions on use of community land and land under roads

o Unrecorded assets

o Incorrect accounting for Crown reserves and investment properties

· Moderate risk issues identified in financial statement preparation processes for 43 councils

In addition, the report noted that regional councils borrow more heavily than metropolitan councils in order to deliver water and sewerage infrastructure and that rural councils have high-value infrastructure assets that cover large areas with small populations and less capacity to raise revenue from alternative sources.

The following is a snapshot of Shoalhaven City Council:

· One of 37 Regional councils

· Accounts were lodged by the statutory deadline of 31 October 2017

· Unmodified audit opinion on the consolidated financial statements

· No significant audit matters

· No moderate or high risk issues identified in financial statement preparation processes

· On a consolidated basis

o Reported to have a net operating result of $36m

o Met all audited OLG performance indicators

o Did not meet three of four unaudited performance indicators

§ Buildings and infrastructure renewals ratio

§ Infrastructure backlog ratio

§ Asset maintenance ratio

o Cost to bring assets to agreed service level has no benchmark

The Audit Office report specifically reports on the consolidated financial and performance results of councils. The Risk and Audit Committee noted the letter from the General Manager to the Director of the Office of the Auditor-General regarding:

1. The responsibility of non-metropolitan council for water and sewer services and the need to separate these activities to assist comparability;

2. The need to present operating results consistent with OLG performance indicators, that is, exclusive of capital grants.

In response, the Auditor-General acknowledged the unique characteristics of councils, that future reports will take account of these differences and that two appendices of the Audit Office report now include clarification regarding the operating result and performance indicators.

The correspondence is attached for the information of the Committee.

Recommendations and key observations from the Audit Office report are presented below together with commentary by Council staff.

Recommendations, observations and conclusions

Issue

Comment

Financial reporting

Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by reviewing their financial statements close processes to identify areas for improvements.

· Note disclosures

· Classification of balances

· Reporting of Council entities

· Cash flow statement and statement of changes in equity

Note disclosures were expanded in 2016/17 to provide additional information about useful lives. Reporting of Council entities is an area to be reviewed as part of the preparation of the 2017/18 financial statements. Finance will identify any other areas for improvement.

Councils can improve the quality of financial reporting by involving an audit, risk and improvement committee in the review of financial statements.

In place.

The Office of Local Government should release the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and the End of Year Financial Reporting Circular earlier in the audit cycle, ideally by 30 April each year.

Final Code released by OLG on 18 April 2018.

The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting should align with Australian Accounting Standards.

· RFS equipment

· Land under roads – valued in context of restrictions

Code retains option to not recognise land under roads acquired before 1 July 2008 in accordance with AASB 1051 Land Under Roads. This option will continue to be applied for Council.

Work is under way to value Crown reserves under Council’s care, control and management.

In contrast to the Audit Office position, the final Code allows councils to assess whether they control RFS equipment and recognise any material assets. Council is attempting to identify RFS equipment in order to include in its asset register.

The Office of Local Government should introduce early close procedures with an emphasis on asset valuations.

· Complete infrastructure, property plant and equipment valuations

· Prepare proforma financial statements and associated disclosures

· Prepare variance analysis and meaningful explanations for movements in financial balances

· Perform key account reconciliations

· Assess the impact of material, complex and one-off significant transactions

· Explain any unresolved prior year audit issues including the proposed action plan to resolve them

· Assess the impact of new and revised accounting standards effective in the current and future years

· Review of financial statements and processes by management and the audit, risk and improvement committee

Council is pursuing the early revaluation of operational land and buildings and valuation of Crown land under Council’s care, control and management.

Financial performance and sustainability

• operating performance

• own source operating revenue

• unrestricted current ratio

• debt service cover ratio

• rates and annual charges outstanding percentage

• cash expense cover ratio

On a consolidated basis, Council meets the targets for all audited performance measures.

Note 13b shows Council’s performance by Fund. Council’s General Fund does not meet the target of 0% for the operating performance ratio, a key Fit for the Future indicator.

• building and infrastructure renewals ratio

• infrastructure backlog ratio

• asset maintenance ratio

• cost to bring assets to agreed service level

On a consolidated basis, Council does not meet the targets for the three benchmarked asset management performance measures.

The results for General Fund, shown at Special Schedule 7, are even worse than the consolidated results and are a major part of the argument to IPART for a special variation.

In the Code, OLG has clarified that WIP is to be excluded from the building and infrastructure renewals ratio.

Asset management

The Office of Local Government should address the different practices across the local government sector in accounting for rural fire-fighting equipment before 30 June 2018. In doing so, the Office of Local Government should work with NSW Treasury to ensure there is a whole-of-government approach.

Councils should improve how they manage asset registers

The new corporate business system will further strengthen Council’s management of its asset register.

Councils need to improve their asset valuation processes by strengthening reviews, supporting valuations with robust documentation and commencing the revaluation process earlier in the financial year.

Council’s revaluation of operational land and buildings and Crown land under Council’s care, control and management has commenced and is expected to be completed by end May 2018. Community land revaluation will be finalised in time for the iinterim audit.

The useful lives of all assets need to be reviewed annually using current asset condition assessments.

Council’s procedures for the annual review of useful lives of assets need to be further improved by being brought into line with IPWEA’s Practice Note 12: ‘Useful Life of Infrastructure’.

All councils should meet the asset management planning requirements in OLG's Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework to help ensure they have a plan to manage assets efficiently over their life.

Asset management plans are being progressively developed.

Governance and internal controls

Councils should early adopt the proposed requirement to establish an audit, risk and improvement committee.

In place.

The Office of Local Government should introduce the requirement for councils to establish internal audit functions and update its 2010 Internal Audit Guidelines.

In place.

The Office of Local Government should maintain an accurate register of entities approved under section 358 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Council has only one S358 entity, Southern Water Services Pty Ltd.

The Office of Local Government should consider establishing a financial reporting framework for council entities. (ref S415)

N/A

Business and IT policies, standards and guidelines should be available to staff and contractors to provide direction for the day-to-day operations of a council, promote consistency in processes, clarify roles and responsibilities and support compliance with laws, regulations and codes.

· Policies and procedures are not always in place

· Councils need to improve practices to comply with key laws and regulations

Policies, procedures, standards and guidelines are subject to cyclical review.

Legislative compliance framework to be considered for Council.

Council is currently reviewing and updating its strategic and operational risk register.

Ensure segregation of responsibilities.

An external review of internal controls was conducted in 2017 and recommendations are being progressively implemented.

Strong controls over purchasing and payment practices are critical.

Revised risk-based tender assessment procedures are currently being reviewed by Council before their adoption.

Regular procurement training is offered to ensure compliance with the Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government.

Procurement policies and procedures are scheduled to be reviewed in 2018.

Reporting is in place to identify exceptions, such as purchase orders raised after invoice receipt. Corrective action is pursued on the basis of the exception reports.

Ensure effective payroll controls and manage excessive annual leave.

Segregation of responsibilities is in place.

Quarterly excess annual leave reports are presented to Group Directors.

Councils can improve internal controls for manual journals.

More complex manual journals are reviewed before being posted and supporting documentation is retained.

Councils should reconcile their accounts in a timely manner and review them independently.

Subsidiary ledgers are reconciled to the general ledger on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, depending on the account.

Information technology

Ensure there are adequate IT policies and controls around use access:

· User access controls

· Privileged access by staff and third-party contractors

· Review of access

· Retention and review of access logs

Councils need to adopt the principle of ‘least privilege’.

Council has an adopted IT Security Policy (POL17/48) that sets out the general requirements and responsibilities expected from Council staff in using ICT systems and equipment. This policy references a series of Information Services Standards that provide guidance and instruction on how to comply with these requirements.

Awareness of circumstances where there is reliance on user developed applications (UDAs) to limit risk and potential misuse.

Council is in the process of implementing Technology One’s enterprise software solution for local government ensuring there is no reliance on user developed applications.

IT governance is enhanced where there is:

· A fit-for-purpose IT strategy and operational plan

· Appropriate policies, standards and guidelines across all critical IT processes

· A formally defined process to support security and access to all systems.

Council has an adopted ‘ICT Strategic Plan 2015-2018’ (D15/117045) and an ICT Annual Business Plan 2017-18. Policies are in place, as described above.

Councils should have a documented plan for how critical business functions will be recovered in the event of a disaster, which is periodically reviewed and tested, together with the ability to restore backed-up data, which is periodically tested.

Council has an ‘IT Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plan’ which is reviewed regularly and tested every six months to ensure systems can be recovered within the identified timeframe.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.138 Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness - Asset Management Plan

HPERM Ref: D17/292050

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Asset Management

Attachments: 1. Draft Asset Management Plan - Aquatic Facilities (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To allow Council to consider the reviewed and updated Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness Asset Management Plan for use in strategic and financial planning.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. adopts the Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness Asset Management Plan noting that the estimated cost to renew and operate the swim and fitness assets over the next ten years is likely to be $50M (Renewal and Cost of Operation) and Council’s long term financial plan projects an expenditure of $37M (Capital Renewal and existing operating Budget), thus a funding shortfall of $13M exists.

2. notes that this plan will be further discussed and refined (in the context of other Council Assets) when considering Council’s Long Term Financial Plan for the 2019/2020 financial year and beyond.

Options

1. Council adopts the recommendation as written above.

Implications: Councillors and management are provided with information so that they are able to make informed decisions when planning strategically for Aquatics Services in the Shoalhaven in the short, medium and long term.

2. Council reject the above recommendation and resolves something along the following lines

“That the General Manger arrange a Councillor workshop to work through the details of the draft Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness Asset Management Plan and then bring the document back to Council for consideration”.

Implications: Councillors and management do not have the information available to them to make decisions when planning strategically for Aquatic Services in the short, medium and long term until the workshop is held and council determines a way forward.

Background

Council has adopted thirty-six Asset Management Plans which are all at different maturity levels (unaware to aware to basic to core to intermediate to advanced), and there are more being developed. This report focuses on the AMP for Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness (attachment 1).

There are twelve aquatic sites within the Shoalhaven, containing approximately seven hundred components ranging from ten to one hundred years expected life with replacement costs ranging from $5,000 to $10,000,000, all expiring at different dates. Seven of the twelve aquatic sites are between forty to fifty-five years of age and coming to the end of their useful life. This has been highlighted by recent works at the Nowra Aquatic Park, and more recently, the proposed works to replace filters at Ulladulla Leisure Centre, and discussions concerning the longevity of the Bomaderry facility. This AMP has been prioritised due to the strategic direction needed to make informed decisions when planning the future direction of services for Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness.

Shoalhaven City Council has an asset base replacement costs of $3.75billion.

Of this $3.75 billion, Shoalhaven Swim and Fitness assets represent 2% or $76 million.

The Asset management process considers the whole of life costing of infrastructure assets including asset purchase, maintenance, operations, refurbishment, replacement, and demolition costs.

The proposed Asset Management Plan includes analysis of specific expenditure needed over the next ten and twenty-year periods to renew existing asset components as they come to the end of their useful life. It also analyses utilisation of these assets and calculates the subsidy for each patronage for each site.

The table below shows the projected amount needed each year by Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness for the next twenty years.

Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness 20 Year Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure
Year (at 30 June??)	Renewal Required	Renewal Planned	Difference
2018	$943,000	$430,000
2019	$859,000	$547,000
2020	$1,233,000	$2, 753,000
2021	$4,786,000	$866,000
2022	$1,402,000	$450,000
2023	$1,674,000	$530,000
2024	$2,488,000	$551,000
2025	$1,787,000	$551,000
2026	$2,707,000	$551,000
2027	$3,191,000	$551,000
10 Year Subtotal	$21,070,000	$7,780,000	$13,290,000

2028	$3,080,050
2029	$2,915,150
2030	$2,041,344
2031	$1,626,465
2032	$1,634,190
2033	$2,268,284
2034	$1,673,330
2035	$2,055,640
2036	$1,990,468
2037	$1,700,162
10 Year Subtotal
Grand Total	$39,286,048

Risk Implications

Leaving ageing assets in their existing state of decline increases risks, financially, physically and to Council’s reputation. An overall strategic approach is needed so that future Aquatic services reflect community needs.

The following graphs outline how the Swim and Fitness Asset condition will change based on the current ten year funding cycle.

Financial Implications

Compared with what is currently budgeted in the Long Term Financial Plan, Shoalhaven Swim & Fitness only has 33% of funds needed for asset renewal. The funding gap equals $13m over the next 10 years.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.139 Potential sites for Sussex Inlet Library

HPERM Ref: D18/107756

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Proposed option 1, 2 & 4 ⇩

2. Proposed Option 3 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of suitable sites for the establishment of a local library in Sussex Inlet. The report also addresses the future relocation of the current Sanctuary Point library.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council note that;

1. possible sites for a library at Sussex Inlet (based on the 12 locational criteria outlined in the document “People Places: A Guide for Public Library Buildings in New South Wales”) include

a. 19 Thomson St Sussex Inlet

b. 29 Thomson St Sussex Inlet.

c. 175 Jacobs Dr Sussex Inlet

d. Thomson St Sporting Fields Sussex Inlet

2. based on population and service-based benchmarking standards from the “People Places: A Guide for Public Library Buildings in New South Wales”, Council’s Library Services Manager considers that if a library was provided at Sussex Inlet a library with a gross floor area of between 320m²and 460m²would be required.

3. the Sanctuary Point Library building is a temporary structure always intended for relocation. The current building has a gross floor area of approximately 140m²and that the gross floor area is below that identified for a library at Sussex Inlet.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Council receives information on potential sites for the future establishment of a local library in Sussex Inlet, and takes no further action at this time.

2. That the General Manger hold a Councillor workshop to explore the need and possible options for the development and possible timing of a library and Sussex Inlet.

Implications: If Council was keen to progress this issue in say the next 10 years this workshop would be a valuable first step in discovering and discussing the facts associated with such a development.

Background

At Council’s Strategy & Assets Committee meeting 20 February 2018 it was resolved under delegated authority (MIN 18.91):

“that Council staff prepare a report on suitable sites for the establishment of a local library in the township of Sussex Inlet. The report would also address the possibility of re-locating the current Sanctuary Point Library, once the district library had been completed in that community.”

“People Places: A Guide for Public Library Buildings in New South Wales” recommends that a needs assessment is conducted to provide a complete analysis of what types of services need to be provided when a library building is being considered. Based on population and service-based benchmarking standards from the “People Places: A Guide for Public Library Buildings in New South Wales”, Council’s Library Services Manager considers that a library with a gross floor area of between 320m²and 460m²would be required for the Sussex Inlet locality.

Currently, the Sussex Inlet area is serviced by the mobile library which visits the towns of Sussex Inlet, Berrara and Swanhaven on a fortnightly basis. The usage of the library has remained constant over the past few years with on average 900 customers accessing the mobile library on an annual basis with approximately 2,700 items borrowed each year. Council has not received any correspondence from community members since 2009 regarding the provision of a static branch in the Sussex Inlet area.

The current Sanctuary Point library at 46 Paradise Beach Rd, Sanctuary Point is located on land owned by the Department of Education (occupation is via an agreement which commenced in 1996 - current rent $3,800pa). The building is a temporary structure always intended for relocation. The current building has a gross floor area of approximately 140m²but increases to approximately 400m² of occupation if car parking, verandas and access ramps are included. By either measure, the gross floor area is below that identified for a library at Sussex Inlet.

Council’s adopted Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan notes the Sussex Inlet library is to be located to the Thomson Street complex:

“Once the Vincentia library is operational, is it recommended that Council upgrade the Sussex Inlet Community Centre and make it the home for the proposed library. Located ten minutes drive from Sussex Inlet Community Centre.

The future vision for planning area four is to develop one community hub in the area. The ideal location is Sussex Inlet where the Thomson Street Sporting Complex, Sussex Inlet Aquatic Centre and the Sussex Inlet Community Centre are all located on Thomson Street. As such, future financial investment is to focus on upgrading existing recreation and sports parks to increase passive and active recreation use and consolidating the network of community buildings into one community hub.”

Based on the above, there are three sites at Thompson Street that appear to be adequate to accommodate a local library with the recommended floor area. Additionally, one site in the Sussex Inlet CBD has been included for comparison purposes. In all instances, the sites are suitable for the construction of a new library or the relocated Sanctuary Point demountable.

An overview of suitable sites is below:

Option 1

Part - Lot 159 DP 42824	19 Thomson St Sussex Inlet (Refer to Attachment 1)
Owner	Crown Lands – SCC Trust Manager
Description	This site is the unformed car park at the rear (eastern side) of the Leisure Centre
Access	Direct access from Thomson Street
Zoning	SP2 – Infrastructure – Community Facility Libraries are permissible
Available Site Area	Approx. 2,500m²
Utilities	The land has existing water, sewer and power available for connection
Estimated Cost to Acquire	Nil
General	Existing development – Sussex Inlet Community Centre and Indoor Pool. The Library building could be integrated with/form an extension of the Community Centre. Proposed development – Telecommunication Tower The site is consistent with the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan.

Option 2

Part – Lot 2 DP 1062625	29 Thomson St Sussex Inlet. (Refer to Attachment 1)
Owner	Crown Lands – SCC Trust Manager.
Description	This site is part vegetated and part unformed car park located at the rear of the Ambulance Station.
Access	Access from internal road off Thomson Street.
Zoning	SP2 – Infrastructure – Community Facility. Libraries are permissible
Available Site Area	Approx. 2,000m²
Utilities	The land has existing water, sewer and power available for connection
Estimated Cost to Acquire	$Nil
General	Existing development within close proximity - Rural Fire Station and Garage, Ambulance Station, the Community Centre and Indoor Pool

Option 3

Part – Lot B DP 343373	175 Jacobs Dr Sussex Inlet (Refer to Attachment 2)
Owner	Uniting Church Australia.
Description	This site is the unformed car park at the rear of the Uniting Church
Access	Access from the existing carpark off Nielson Road.
Zoning	B2 – Business – Local Centre. (Community Facilities and therefore a Library is permissible under the B2 zoning) SP2 – Infrastructure – Place of Public Worship. (relates to the front portion of the land only where the church buildings are located)
Available Site Area	Approx. 550 m²
Utilities	The land has existing water, sewer and power available for connection
Estimated Cost to Acquire	$250,000
General	Existing development – Uniting Church. Council will be required to approach Uniting Church Australia and negotiate purchase or other form of occupancy agreement. The Uniting Church has development consent for Monthly Markets in this area. Located in Flood Planning Area. Contains Heritage Item – General (the church). Located in Sussex Inlet Town Centre. Contra to DCP 2014 Chapter S3 car parking plan

Option 4

Part – Lot 1 DP 870957	Thomson St Sussex Inlet. (Refer to Attachment 1)
Owner	Shoalhaven City Council.
Description	This site is located at the western end of Avocet Street and adjoining the skate park
Access	Legal access - via unformed Crown road reserve – no practical access. Access will need to be constructed.
Zoning	RE1 – Public Recreation. (Community Facilities and therefore a Library is permissible under the RE1 zoning)
Available Site Area	Approximately 2,000m²
Utilities	Currently not serviced.
Estimated Cost to Acquire	$Nil
General	Existing development - Skate Park, exercise facilities and viewing shelter, irrigation system, sporting fields.

For reference within the tables above “Community Facility” has the following meaning as defined within Shoalhaven LEP2014:

“a building or place:

a) Owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

b) Used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.”

A Library falls within the above definition of a community facility.

Council’s Section Manager – Recreation, Community and Culture has advised:

Notwithstanding the Sussex Inlet library would be a local library the following still have some relavance in the decision of siting a library.

“People Places recommends that, as a minimum, all 12 locational criteria be considered in determining the most appropriate site for a public library:

· Main street or shopping area location

· Highly visible location particularly from the shopping area

· Street frontage with library on ground floor and not hidden from the road by trees or another building

· High level of personal and property safety

· Fully accessible for people with limited mobility

· Close to and/or accessible from local schools and educational facilities

· Potential for an outdoor area to be attached to the library

· Priority pedestrian access which is safe and attractive, particularly for older residents, children and parents with prams

· Walking distance from public transport which is typically 400-500 metres with minimal gradient

· Access to convenient and safe car parking with priority for people with a disability, older residents, parents with prams, staff and night time users

· Accessible for community buses, mobile libraries, deliveries and other vehicles

· Site able to accommodate future expansion of the library if required”

Based on the above the four options noted in the tables have been ranked as follows:

a. 19 Thomson St Sussex Inlet

b. 29 Thomson St Sussex Inlet.

c. 175 Jacobs Dr Sussex Inlet

d. Thomson St Sporting Fields Sussex Inlet

Community Engagement

Notwithstanding community engagement is not required at this point, the Sussex Inlet Community Forum; the Thomson Street Management Committee; the Uniting Church Finance and Property Board (NSW) (as owner of the land) and a representative of the Sussex Inlet Community Church (as tenant of the church on the Uniting church site) have all been appraised of the report going to Council and its contents.

Financial Implications

No detailed costings have been considered at this point.

Sussex Inlet is located in Area 4 for Council’s Contribution Plan 2010. The current plan describes Sussex Inlet Branch Library (Sussex Inlet urban precinct) as needing a budget requirement of approximately $600,000 (the background to this figure has not been investigated), with approximately $32,000 currently allocated through S94 contributions.

Options 1, 2 & 4 would not require the purchase of land, however costs incurred to relocate the Sanctuary Point library would include building relocation and associated costs such as, but not limited to; Development Applications, disconnection/reconnection of services (Sanctuary Point and Sussex Inlet), traffic control and transport costs, site preparation including footings, piers and connection to services/utilities.

Option 3 would in addition to the costs for the items noted above, require additional funding to purchase the land from the Uniting Church and subdivision to allow such a sale.

Should Council wish to build a new library on any of the suitable sites noted above, based on costs itemised in “Rawlinson’s Australian Construction Handbook” a library with a gross floor area of 320 to 460m² would cost $900,000 to $1,300,000 plus fit out and loose fittings (this is typically 15–20% of construction costs).

This figure also does not include the book collection and resources, ongoing staff costs and asset renewal whole of life costs that will need to be estimated and then budgeted for, and indicative cost of these items is:

Book Collection and resources – Between $950k and $1.25m

Ongoing annual operating cost - $200k per annum

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.143 Outdoor Dining on Public Footpaths - Review of Fee Waiver

HPERM Ref: D18/142091

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Purpose / Summary

To provide Council with the opportunity to review the current practice of waiving the annual outdoor dining fees for users of public footpaths and gain additional revenue, which supports the financial sustainability of Council.

Recommendation

That Council reintroduce annual outdoor dining fees for the use and occupation of public footpaths across the Shoalhaven at the flat rate of $64.90/m²per annum commencing 1^st July 2018.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Council will gain a source of revenue to assist in supporting financial sustainability. This would be similar to other Council’s charging the users and occupiers of public footpaths, resulting in an increase to Council’s revenue base. The fee is currently in the Fees and Charges and has been advertised but is waived.

2. Not adopt the recommendation, and resolve along the following lines;

That Council continue to not charge annual fees for Outdoor Dining on public footpaths until 1 July 2019 and that a fee of $0 be adopted as Council Fee for the 2018/2019 financial year with the fee being set each year after that as part of Council annual review of fees and charges process.”

Implications: Will result in the status quo – continuation of not charging for the occupation and use of public footpaths with Council foregoing revenue generating opportunities. Service levels remain the same.

Background

Currently, Council grants approval for outdoor dining on public footpaths under Section 125 of the Roads Act 1993, and in accordance with the progression of the following Council resolutions:

At Council’s Ordinary meeting on Tuesday 9^th June 2009 it was resolved in part (MIN09.732) to:

“a) Council resolve to prepare a draft DCP for the Commercial Use of Public Footpaths and place this document on public exhibition in accordance with Clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Regulation 2000 and that this draft DCP be incorporated into Council’s draft citywide DCP 2009;

b) In the spirit of encouraging the uptake of future applications for alfresco dining in the Shoalhaven, Council set the current fee for the licencing component for alfresco dining on public footpaths as; no licence fees for the first two years, a 50% reduction for the life of the alfresco dining, and retains the 50% reduction in DA fees, but completely removes the Section 94 Developers Contribution component for off-street car parking in the assessment of DAs for out-door dining within Council’s footpath reserve”

Whilst the intention of the above MIN09.732 was to encourage the uptake of outdoor dining on public footpaths in the City, it did not produce the desired outcome. Informal feedback from businesses indicated the pricing system under MIN09.732, in particular exemptions and discounts, was confusing as was the need for a second approval after development consent and the fact that some businesses had been carrying out the activity for years without hindrance. Consequently, there were more non-compliant businesses occupying public footpaths for outdoor dining than compliant.

A report to Council’s Ordinary meeting on Tuesday 26^th March 2013 that looked to address the above noted issue and, in an attempt, to simplify the charging regime resulted in the resolution under MIN13.303 in part:

“c) A two-year trial on not charging licence fees be undertaken”

Subsequently a review was undertaken in March 2015 that resulted in a report to Council’s Property Steering Committee on the 3^rd March 2015 and a resolution under delegation to:

“…….continue not to charge annual fees for Outdoor Dining on public footpath subject to the following conditions:

a) Review be undertaken in 2 years; and

b) Council review the decision to charge fees if Outdoor Dining becomes difficult to manage in a particular footpath area.

c) That correspondence be sent to relevant Business Owners (food shops) in CBD areas to inform them of Councils Policy.”

Notwithstanding the review period had not expired, Council resolved in part at Council’s Ordinary meeting on the 15^th March 2016 (MIN16.196) as part of the adoption of the 2016/2017 list of fees, charges and rentals to:

“b) Continue to not charge annual fees for Outdoor Dining on public footpaths until 1 July 2017 and that this be subject to a further review as part of the 2017/18 budget process.”

A report was prepared for Council’s Ordinary meeting 23 May 2017, to review the current practice of waiving annual fees for outdoor dining on public footpaths. At this meeting Council resolved (MIN17.422):

“a) The report be received for information;

b) The waiving of the flat rate continues, and outdoor dining fees be reviewed within 12 months;

c) The application fee of $161.20 commence 1^st July 2017.”

Financial Implications

Council has 55 outdoor dining approvals in place across the Shoalhaven, where an initial application fee of $161.20 is charged (2017/2018 financial year). The table below shows the current level of outdoor dining approvals, listed by year:

Calendar Year	No. of Approvals Granted
Pre 2013	3
2013	7
2014	10
2015	16
2016	11
2017	4
2018 - May	4
Total	55

At the fixed rate of $62.40/m²Council is currently foregoing $26,950 to $32,340 pa in fees across the 55 approvals. Since the inception of fee waiving Council has foregone income of between approximately $107,843 and $129,411.

The table below shows a comparison to a cross section of other Councils fees and charges for outdoor dining applications and rate per m²compared to the Shoalhaven:

Council Area	Application fee $	Charge rate per m²	Comment
Sutherland	250	90 – 450	4 zones
Griffith	147	53	Flat rate
Port Macquarie	385	142 62	Port Macquarie CBD Non –CBD
Kiama	275		Charge per chair
Hornsby	270	270	Flat rate except Hornsby Mall at $539
Tweed	368	96 or 150	Two rates – other & CBD
Ballina	165	18 – 56	Multiple rates
Lake Macquarie	410	76 or 138	Two tiers
Wingecarribee	121	49 or 166	Other and premium
Eurobodalla	163	91 or 126	Other & Batemans Bay
Shoalhaven	161.20	0 Waived until 30/6/18 and subject to further review

Risk Implications

If outdoor dining fees are reintroduced, businesses may not continue to offer outdoor dining on the public footpath, restricting amenity and affecting the ability to encourage vibrant streetscapes. However, given that Shoalhaven has the highest tourism visitation outside metropolitan Sydney and similar fees are applied in other coastal council areas the risk seems minimal.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.144 Anzac Day Traffic Control – Costs

HPERM Ref: D18/143977

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Asset Management

Purpose / Summary

To consider the costs to Council associated with supporting ANZAC Day marches across the city.

Recommendation

That

1. Council receives the report (on Anzac Day traffic control costs) for information

2. Council continues to provide support to the local RSL sub-branches in the planning and implementation of local Anzac Day ceremonies in the Shoalhaven

3. Council initially establishes a 2018-19 budget of $15,000 to support local Anzac Day ceremonies (currently estimated to be 50% of the likely total budget required)

4. The General Manager (Director Assets & Works) writes to local members of parliament seeking “at least” 50% grant funding assistance ($15,000) to reduce the ongoing cost burden on Council in support of local ANZAC Day ceremonies

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

2. Not accept the recommendation

Implications: This will mean local Shoalhaven ratepayers may have to continue to provide 100% funding assistance in support of local RSL sub-branches in the planning and implementation of Anzac Day.

Background

ANZAC Day is one of the most revered in the Australian calendar of commemoration. The (Ex) service men and women’s clubs have done a sterling job in organising the commemorations and do so with the help of volunteers.

On 12 July 2017 the Unit Controller of the NSW State Emergency Service (SES) Nowra, Mark Kielly, wrote to local RSL sub-branches (with copies to Council, and local Police) advising that:

“After careful and lengthy consideration the Management team of NSW State Emergency Service Nowra Unit have resolved to cease all traffic management outside that which may be required while performing our combat role in response to request for assistance from the community during times of floods, storms, and tsunamis”

“As such we would like to give notice that we are no longer able to assist with traffic management associated with Anzac Day services. We would; however, welcome the opportunity to participate in Anzac Day services, to show our respect for fallen Defence personnel and to honour them by laying a floral tribute.”

The cessation of volunteer traffic control by Nowra SES affected the Greenwell Point, Nowra, Bomaderry, and Berry ANZAC Day marches.

Ulladulla SES have continued to provide traffic control for the Milton ANZAC Day March, and according to the Unit Controller of the NSW State Emergency Service (SES) Ulladulla, Glen Wran, have every intention of continuing to do so.

Following reciept of the letter from SES Nowra Unit, a meeting was arranged with local MP Shelley Hancock, local RSL sub-branch representatives, Mayor Amanda Findley, and Council staff. It was resolved to write to local RSL sub-branches and invite them to contact Council regarding their Anzac Day needs (training or otherwise).

On 3 November 2017 a joint letter (signed by Mayor Findley and MP Shelley Hancock) included the following statement;

Traffic Controllers play an important part on ANZAC Day and, like many jobs, need to undertake training to have a ticket to do so. Shoalhaven City Council has undertaken to coordinate the necessary training and we are seeking expressions of interest form those who would like to attend training and help on this all important day. The training commitment is for approximately two days and comes at no cost to participants. The training is valued at $250 per person and this cost will be bourne by Council. The training can be used for other community events.

Council further resolved at their Ordinary meeting on 27 February 2018 (MIN18.116):

That:

1. Council extend its assistance to those organising various ANZAC Services in our area. The assistance include, but not be limited to, traffic control and associated activities where required.

2. The operational budget be adjusted at the next quarterly financial review if necessary.

A debriefing meeting was held at Council on Thursday 31 May 2018 attended by staff, RSL sub branch representatives and an RMS representative. NSW Police were an apology. No major issues were identified following the running of the 2018 Anzac Day marches, however RSL sub branches are expecting a similar level of support from Council for the 2019 Anzac Day march. The only current unknown is the extent to which NSW Police may require additional vehicle blockades to ensure the safety of the 2019 march participants and crowds. A key issue is the likely increase in requests for training community volunteers to assist with traffic control which can be expected for the 2019 march, and going forward.

Anzac Day 2018 – Itemised Council costs throughout the 2017-18 year

Following the Mayoral letter and resolution of Council 27 February 2018, the total cost of Council assisting the RSL sub-branches for the planning and implementation of Anzac Day has been itemised and collated for Council’s information below;

· Cost of paid Council staff assisting with the set up and implementation of traffic control in Berry $1,197.90 (coordinated by Council’s Traffic & Transport Unit Manager)

(required to assist Berry RSL to ensure sufficient resources available to deliver safe and efficient traffic control, due to insufficient local volunteers. Up until 2018, Nowra SES used to provide volunteers however SES numbers were often inadequate and had to be bolstered by Berry Rotary volunteers or other Council volunteers coordinated by Council’s Traffic & Transport Unit Manager)

· Cost of paid Council staff assisting with the set up and implementation of traffic control in Nowra and Greenwell Point $3,484.85 (coordinated by Council’s Team Supervisor Building Management)

(required to assist Nowra RSL with sufficient signs, barricades, and ceremony setup)

· Cost of payment to Sight and Sound to assist with the ceremonies at Nowra and Greenwell Point $858 (coordinated by Council’s Team Supervisor Building Management)

(required to assist Nowra RSL)

· Cost of advertising road closures $276

· Cost of delivery/supply of signs and barricades (Woollamia Depot) $0 in 2018

Costs vary from year to year, $0 was the 2018 cost. Woollamia Depot did lend a couple of barricades and signs to the Huskisson RSL but the RSL picked them up and returned them undamaged without Council assistance. The RSL were initially after some trucks for barricading purposes but staff were investigating Council’s authority to provide trucks, the RSL sourced them from local businesses.

· Cost of setting up a community store (value $25,000 stock in 2017-18)

Advice from Council’s supply chain manager “We have created a “Community Equipment” store at Bomaderry and Ulladulla so that we can ensure there is sufficient equipment available for events. Any damaged items etc are reported to Council’s Community Events Co-Ordinator with a replacement value for them to invoice the community group. The only on-going costs would be due to lost/damaged barrier boards/signs, where event organisers are unable to pay.”

· Cost of lost/damaged barrier boards/signs ($59 in 2017-18, being for one sign)

Advice from Council’s logistics team supervisor “for the 2018 March we issued signs and barricades from the Bomaderry and Ulladulla community event stores. Ulladulla, St George Basin and Bomaderry were collected by the RSL’s. Signs and barricades for Greenwell Point and Nowra were collected by Warwick Beeston. Only one sign was returned damaged (Greenwell Point).”

Advice from Council’s Traffic & Transport Unit Manager regarding supply/delivery for the Berry march “Berry RSL were having trouble with making their own arrangements to pick up/drop off from Council depot so three years ago they approached the RMS depot in Bomaderry, and since that time RMS staff from Bomaderry have been arranging the supply/delivery/pick up of RMS signs and barricades for the Berry RSL now for the last 3 years.”

· Cost of delivery/supply of 3 trucks and associated labour (Northern Depot) for Bomaderry RSL $638.86 in 2018

· Cost of training of volunteers (16 volunteers at the current rate of $450 per head equates to $7,200 in 2017-18)

Advice from Council’s Traffic & Transport Unit Manager “$5,000 used to be made available through the Shoalhaven Tourism Board for the training of volunteers to assist with community events. This included, but was not limited to, training of volunteers to assist with Anzac Day traffic control. Approximately 90% of volunteers trained over the 17 year period to 2017 were SES volunteers, many of which would assist at Anzac Day and other local community events. SES have not put forward names for training for several years as they have slowly wound back on provision of traffic control services for communty events.The funding for the training of volunteers through the Shoalhven Tourism Board has also not been available for several years now, and no alternative budget was provided when that funding was removed. Council’s training and development staff have been assisting in recent years to train community volunteers (by putting them through on Council courses subject to places being available).”

Advice from Council’s Training staff “3 volunteers were trained in 2016-17, following the letter distributed by Shelley Hancock/Mayor Findley this has increased to 16 to date in 2017-18, and based on contact from the community following Anzac Day this is currently estimated to rise to some 50 volunteers in 2018-19, and is likely to be sufficient demand to be sustained at that level. Ie the $7,200 expenses so far in 2017-18 could rise to $22,500 in 2018-19 and beyond (at current 2018 rates).”

Anzac Day 2018 – Summary of Total Council costs throughout the 2017-18 year

Combined the above itemised costs sum to $38,714.61 in the 2017-18 year, of which $25,000 was a one off cost (value of stock assigned to the new community events store).

Because the community events store was a one off cost to set up the service for the community, based on 2017-18 costs and rates, the ongoing operational cost to Council is $13,714.61, or after indexation can be estimated to be approximately $14,000 in 2018-19.

If increased traffic control training demands and costs are realised (based on current estimation from training staff), this will add a further $15,300 + indexation costs to 2018-19, making a combined total estimated cost of $30,000 budget required to support Anzac Day in 2018-19.

There are a number of variables in the above assumptions of the estimated 2018-19 budget of $30,000, however the variables are likely to be minor in nature.

Community Engagement

Other than liaison directly with RSL sub-branch representatives, there has been no public consultation regarding Council’s provision of funding assistance for Anzac Day, nor of the cessation of traffic control services by SES Nowra Unit.

Policy Implications

N/A

Financial Implications

In the absence of grant funding, or a Council resolution stating otherwise, local Shoalhaven ratepayers may have to continue to provide 100% funding assistance in support of local RSL sub-branches in the planning and implementation of Anzac Day.

Based on the current mayoral letter 3 November 2017 (open invitation for Council to pay for traffic control training) and the current resolution of Council on 27 February 2018 (MIN18.116), there is currently no funding cap on Council’s financial contribution towards Anzac Day, and as outlined above the estimated cost to Council in 2018-19 is estimated to be in the order of $30,000.

It is recommended that Council establish a budget for Anzac Day so the costs can be more carefully identified and controlled, and to avoid the long-standing practice of costs being funded across numerous operational budgets across the organisation, which masks the true cost.

Risk Implications

N/A

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.149 Opportunity to join Federal Court Proceedings - South Coast People Native Title Claim

HPERM Ref: D18/173662

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Map - South Coast People Native Title claim area ⇩

2. Extract Section 23(B) Native Title Act 1993.pdf ⇩

3. Form 5 - Application to be a Party - Federal Court ⇩

4. Nowra Showground - Native Title Extinguishment Determination Worksheet.pdf ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To provide Council with the opportunity to consider becoming a party to the application lodged by the South Coast People in the Federal Court for determination of native title in relation to land in the Shoalhaven and the South Coast of New South Wales.

Recommendation

That Council resolves to:

1. Make application to become a party to Federal Court Application No NSD1331/2017 for a determination of native title lodged by the South Coast People; and

2. Approve 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.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendations.

Implications: Council will become a party to the Federal Court proceedings in the application for determination of native title across the Shoalhaven and the South Coast of New South Wales and provide information to the Court relating to Crown land under Council management.

2. Not adopt the recommendation and resolve along the following lines:

“That Council not make application to become a party to Federal Court Application No NSD1331/2017 for a determination of native title lodged by the South Coast People”

Implications: The Federal Court will make determinations regarding Native Title with no input from Council.

Background

An application seeking determination of Native Title across the claim area, being 16,808 sq km, extending south from Sydney to Eden, along the south coast of NSW (refer to Attachment 1) was lodged by the South Coast People on the 3^rd August 2017. The Native Title Registrar accepted the application for registration on the 31^st January 2018.

The rights and interests claimed are in two parts:

1. Where exclusive native title can be recognised, the South Coast People claim the right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the land and waters within the claim area to the exclusion of all others, subject to valid laws of the Commonwealth and the State of NSW; or

2. Where exclusive native title cannot be recognised, non-exclusive rights and interests to conduct the following activities:

· The right to access, to remain in and to use the land and waters for any purpose;

· The right to access and take resources from the land and waters for any purpose;

· The right to maintain and protect places and objects of significance;

· The right to be accompanied onto those areas by persons who, though not native title holders, are:

Ø Spouses, partners or parents of native title holders, together with their children, grandchilden, great grandchildren and their descendents;

Ø People required under traditional laws and customs for the performance of cultural activities, practices or ceremonies;

Ø People requested by native tile holders to assist in, observe or record cultural activities, practices or ceremonies.

Definition of Native Title

Native Title is defined in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) as the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in relation to land or waters. These rights and interests must be possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by those indigenous peoples.

What land is claimable

Land that is claimable under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) includes vacant Crown land, National Parks, State Forests, Crown reserves, indigenous freehold, some types of non-exclusive leases, land covered by permissive occupancies and licences, inland waters and the sea.

What land is excluded from the South Coast People claim

The area covered by the South Coast People application excludes:

· land and waters covered by past or present freehold title; or

· previous valid exclusive possession acts (as defined by S23B of the Act – refer to Attacment 2); or

· valid construction or establishment of any public work*, where the construction or establishment commenced on or before 23^rd December 1996; or

· land where native tile rights and interests have been otherwise extingished.

*A public work is defined under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) as any of the following that is constructed or established by or on behalf of the Crown, any local government body or other statutory authority of the Crown in any of its capacities:

· a building or other structure (including a memorial) that is a fixture;

· a road, railway or bridge;

· a well or bore, for obtaining water;

· any major earth work; and

· a building that is constructed with the authority of the Crown, other than on a lease.

Land under the management of Council subject to the South Coast People application

Council as Reserve trust manager is responsible for 456 parcels of Crown Land and a further 137 parcels of land under Care, Control and Manage responsibility.

The above numbers are inclusive of:

· 2 Coastal harbours;

· 113 Crown reserves under the trust management of Council;

· 59 Crown reserves under Council’s care, control and management;

· 12 holiday parks;

· 2 breakwalls;

· 11 cemeteries; and

· Approximately 800kms of Crown roads

Becoming a Party to Federal Court proceedings

Given the above, under Section 66(3)(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Council has been provided notice of the application and registration which provides Council the opportunity to become a party to the Federal Court proceedings that will determine the Native Title claim.

If Council wishes to become a party to the proceedings it must apply to the Federal Court on or before the 29^th August 2018, and request to become a party. This is achieved by lodging the Federal Court Form 5 (refer to Attachment 3). If a request is made after this date, Council would need to seek leave of the Federal Court for approval to do so.

It should be noted that all parties in proceedings before the Federal Court are required to act consistently with the Federal Court’s goal of resolving disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. All parties have a responsibility to participate in the proceedings when required, to comply with Federal Court orders affecting them and to maintain their knowledge of how a proceeding is progressing.

Following the submission of the Form 5, the Federal Court considers and decides on all applications to become a party.

If Council is not a party to the proceedings it cannot attend the initial case management hearing or be part of the mediation process to seek agreement conducted thereafter.

Information to be provided by Council in becoming a party to the Federal Court proceedings

Information required to be submitted by Council with the Form 5 application is a description of every Council interest and its location within the claim area and the manner in which that interest may be affected by a determination that native title exists. Given the time frame for lodgement of the application to become a party to the proceedings a desktop exercise will be undertaken to establish a spreadsheet of the information note above.

Notwithstanding this, should either a dispute arise during mediation, or as part of presenting evidence to the Court, additional information maybe submitted that proves events and activities occuring on the land under Council management is valid under the meaning of the Reserve purpose and such events and activities are wholly inconsistent with the rights, interests and existence of native title.

This would be an extensive exercise resulting in the creation of documentary evidence (the same as that found at Attachment 4 for Nowra Showground) supporting a position that native title has been extinguished for many of the Reserves under Council mangement due to previous exclusive possessionary acts inclusive of events, activities and public works.

The Federal Court Process for a determination

A determination of native title is a decision by the Court about whether or not native title exists in relation to a particular area of land or waters.

If the Court decides that native title does exist it will also make decisions about:

· who the people are who hold native title common or group rights;

· what the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests are in relation to the area;

· what the nature and extent of any other interests are in relation to the area;

· what the relationship is between the native title rights and interests and other interests; and

· whether the native title rights and interests allow the native title holders to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the land or waters to the exclusion of all others.

The Court can make a determination of native title when either:

· agreement is reached following negotiation between the parties (in this case the South Coast People and Council and possibly others who are approved as parties to the application) for a determination of native title; or

· parties are unable to reach agreement and the Court hears the evidence from each party and determines if native title exists.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications for Council in becoming a party to the Federal Court proceedings, however there maybe opportunities for native title holders, following a determination by the Court, to claim compensation. In such cases, which at this point are unknown, native title holders have the right to apply to the Federal Court for a determination of compensation.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 12 June 2018

Page 1

SA18.153 St Andrews Way Sewer Scheme - inclusion of 11 properties - Bolong Rd, Berry's Bay

HPERM Ref: D18/168645

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Environmental Services

Purpose / Summary

In accordance with Council resolution MIN16.865, Council’s Environment Section has carried out consultation with owners of the 11 affected properties along Bolong Road and is recommending that these properties be included in the sewer scheme extension that is proposed to be constructed by Shoalhaven Water in 2019/20.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Resolve to connect 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta (Berry’s Bay) to reticulated sewer and amend the Delivery Program and Operational Plan to include these properties in the capital project to sewer the residential subdivision at St Andrews Way (construction to be completed in 2019/20); and

2. The inclusion of 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta (Berry’s Bay) to the St Andrews Way sewerage scheme be fully funded by Council Sewer Fund.

3. Environmental Services to write to each of the property owners to advise them of Council’s decision.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: The inclusion of the 11 Berry’s Bay properties in the St Andrews Way Sewerage Scheme will provide an improved environmental and public health outcome for the Shoalhaven River and the oyster leases in Berry’s Bay. Fully funding the scheme is consistent with the approach taken for the St Andrews Way residential subdivision and Woollamia Village. The budget for funding of the scheme has been discussed with Shoalhaven Water.

2. Council resolve to include the 11 Berry’s Bay properties in the St Andrews Way sewerage scheme on a cost share basis. Council is to determine what percentage of the costs is to be funded by property owners.

Implications: Council would need to advise staff of its preferred cost sharing arrangements. Staff will need to carry out further consultation regarding the cost sharing and manage the administration of the decision. This would be inconsistent with the previous resolution of Council relating to St Andrew’s Way. This also has the potential to delay the project.

3. Council determine that the 11 properties numbered 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta (Berry’s Bay) not be included in the St Andrews Way Sewerage Scheme.

Implications: Continuing operation of on-site sewage systems increases the potential for failure that may cause environmental and health issues. The impact of any such failure is amplified in this location due to the proximity of the oyster leases in Berry’s Bay.

Background

Council has previously recognised problems with the operation of on-site sewage management systems in St Andrews Way, Coolangatta.

A review was completed by Environmental Services Staff of all the properties operating on-site sewage management systems within the same catchment as St Andrews Way, Coolangatta to determine whether these issues were more widespread than this one estate.

Whilst the same problems observed in St Andrews Way were not encountered elsewhere, the review identified the operation of on-site sewage systems at 11 properties located immediately adjacent to Berry’s Bay (No.’s 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta) represented a higher risk to public health and the environment.

The identified risk factors include:

Relatively small lot size (1,051 m² – 1, 644 m²) – Chapter G8 Shoalhaven DCP 2014 identifies that a minimum lot size of 2,500 m² is required for any new allotment with on-site sewage management. This size was determined after considering areas required for elements such as buildings, outbuildings, set-back distances and unimpeded open space for recreation. In this regard, two of the properties where dwelling additions and renovations are proposed are requesting to connect to pump-out, with one of the reasons being insufficient area for adequate on-site management of effluent;

Unfavourable soil profile – A review of relatively recent geotechnical reports completed on two of the Berry’s Bay properties has identified a loamy, silty soil profile. Whilst this type of soil is generally favourable for the application of effluent, the reports also identify that the soil profile is moist to wet and grey and mottled, which indicates periodic saturation. This is not suitable for the application of effluent as there is a risk that effluent may then enter the water table;

Close proximity to Berry’s Bay oyster lease area – The Berry’s Bay oyster lease area is less than 50 m to some of the Berry’s Bay properties. Operation of on-site sewage management systems in such close proximity is a potentially high risk to public health. The consumption of oysters that have been exposed to effluent can lead to severe impacts on human health. To prevent these impacts, oyster leases are closed when poor water quality is identified, but this is at a high financial cost; and

The properties being flood prone – In the event of flood, there is an increased risk of waters entering and flooding septic tanks and transporting effluent into waterways.

The poor and constrained site characteristics and the close proximity to the Berry’s Bay oyster lease area have led Council to seek alternative long-term management options to deal with the wastewater/effluent generated from the St Andrews Way subdivision and the Berry’s Bay properties.

Council has considered several reports and made a number of determinations on this issue in the past.

In April 2016, Council considered a report and resolved the following:

a) Council recognise in principle, that the long-term wastewater needs for St Andrews Way estate, Coolangatta; 99 Edward Wollstonecraft Lane, Coolangatta and No.’s 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta (Berry’s Bay) is to connect to pressurised reticulated sewer, pending Council approval of a financial plan to fund the scheme;

b) The financial plan will determine what, if any, additional contributions may be payable by existing residents; and

c) Options to fund the sewer scheme are to be reported to Council once the outcome of the potential merger with Kiama Council is determined, in accordance with section 23A of the Local Government Act (merger guidelines).

Further to this resolution, in November 2016, Council considered options to fund the scheme and resolved:

1. That Council support “in principle”, the provision of sewerage to residential lots in St Andrew’s Way, and Berry’s Bay, Coolangatta to allow Council staff to further consult with the affected owners in regard to timing, scope, extent of services.

2. That Council consider funding 100% of the cost of the scheme implementation in St Andrews Way and consult with the other property owners with respect to contributions.

3. That a report be provided by the General Manager on the Financial aspects of providing a Sewer Main System to St Andrews Way.

In accordance with the above resolution, in January 2017, a report on the financial aspects of providing a sewer main system to St Andrews Way was considered and approved by Council. Accordingly, the DPOP was amended to include the St Andrews Way Sewer Scheme:

· 2018/19 - design for the project; and

· 2019/20 – construction of the scheme.

Also, in accordance with Council’s resolution, the Sewer Availability Charge was increased in 2017/18 to fund the connection to sewer of 23 properties in the St Andrews Way Estate.

Community Engagement

In accordance with Council’s resolution in November 2016, further consultation was completed with affected property owners. There are nine owners (including joint owners) of the 11 properties in Berry’s Bay. In March 2017, property owners in Berry’s Bay participated in a written survey. The results of that survey were:

• 4 in favour of sewer, 4 against, 1 no response

• All respondents preferred a full Council-funded scheme

• 6/9 would consider a part Council/part owner funded scheme

• 3/9 would consider a full owner funded scheme

The following is a summary of comments received in support of connecting to the reticulated sewer:

• Sewer is better for the environment, periodic overload, flood risk for water contamination;

• Pleased something being done. Hopefully quickly;

• Current system needs to be pumped out; occasionally smells;

• Issues with existing system – costly to fix; and

• Septic systems do not work effectively when in flood.

A summary of concerns raised by property owners and comments from Council Staff may be viewed in the table below.

Concerns Raised	Comments
Current system operating well	2 systems recorded as failing in the past
Could there be a single pump out location for all properties?	Issues with large single tank, easements, not cost effective or efficient, potential overflows
Have paid rates that would have funded other sewerage schemes - only fair all rate payers should fund this one	Funded through sewer availability charges – this has not yet been applied to these properties, hence the properties have not contributed to other schemes.
Underneath the topsoil at Berry's Bay there is metres of sand	Relatively recent geotechnical reports completed on two of the Berry’s Bay properties identified a loamy, silty soil profile. Whilst this type of soil is generally favourable for the application of effluent, the reports also identify that the soil profile is moist to wet and grey and mottled, which indicates periodic saturation. This is not suitable for the application of effluent as there is a risk that effluent may then enter the water table
There are only a few permanent residents living at Berry's Bay, the remainder are holiday cottages	Owners may need to run 5L to 10L of water to flush wastewater through system.
Berry’s Bay is more likely affected by effluent from the sewage treatment plants and bird life than septic systems in Berry’s Bay	Higher risk for management of on-site effluent due to lot sizes less than 1,700m²(insufficient area for new systems should issues arise with existing systems or dwelling additions be required); flood prone (risk of waters flooding septic tanks and effluent subsequently entering watercourses) and close proximity to Berry's Bay Oyster Harvest Area. Although sewer isn’t fail safe, this is an opportunity to install lower risk system through the St Andrews Way scheme and at a relatively low coast through economies of scale.
Prefer gravity sewer	More expensive (pump station approx. $600,000) and higher risk of loss of effluent in pipework
Coolangatta Estate should be included in the scheme due to their high occupancy.	Council Staff liaising with Coolangatta Estate. Will be at full cost if included

In May 2018, one-on-one consultation was completed with eight of the nine owner(s) of the eleven properties in Berry’s Bay. The owner of one property was not available for consultation.

This engagement focussed on the process for connecting to sewer and the potential costs property owners will be responsible for, should Council decide to fund the scheme. If Council fully funds the major infrastructure for the scheme, property owners will still be responsible for the relevant connection costs (eg cleanout of existing tanks, any plumbing or electrical works to bring properties to appropriate standards, and possible trade waste requirements for a business operation).

All property owners consulted said they felt better informed.

Further concerns raised in regard to the scheme include:

· Not experiencing problems with existing systems;

· Can’t justify the expense if owners are forced to pay for the scheme;

· Owners have already invested a lot of money into the existing systems;

· Additional cost with little benefit for holiday houses; and

· Additional costs (per kL charges) for trade waste may not make connecting to sewer as financially viable (this owner intended to consult further with the relevant Shoalhaven Water Staff).

Following this process, all owners were still in the same position as at the time of the survey conducted in March 2017. That is, four in favour of connecting to sewer and four against. However, the four owners opposed to the scheme said that they understood the reasons for the scheme and should Council decide for the scheme to go ahead, they would cooperate with the connection.

It was strongly conveyed by owners that should the scheme go ahead, they felt it would be unfair for Council not to pay for their properties to be connected, considering Council is already paying for the properties in St Andrews Way (and Woollamia) to be connected.

Policy Implications

The view could be taken that this may set a precedent for owners of rural zoned properties to request to be connected to sewer.

However, staff considered this a unique circumstance due to the relatively small lot sizes, close proximity to oyster leases and the opportunity with a proposed sewer scheme in close proximity.

Financial Implications

Three funding models have been considered for Berry’s Bay inclusion in the St Andrews sewer scheme.

Option	Comments/Constraints
Council funded scheme - requires Council to commit funds from the sewerage fund and would result in the cost of the scheme being spread across all sewer customers in the City.	Due to the current sewer program, construction could not commence before the 2019/20 financial year, which is in line with the St Andrews Way Sewerage Scheme.
Property owner funded scheme– Council to determine the extent of owner share of funding.	Under Section 495 of the LG Act a council may make a special rate for or towards meeting the cost of any works, services, facilities or activities provided or undertaken, or proposed to be provided or undertaken, by the Council within the whole or any part of the Council’s area, other than domestic waste management services. The special rate is to be levied on such rateable land in the Council’s area as, in the Council’s opinion: (a) benefits or will benefit from the works, services, facilities or activities, or (b) contributes or will contribute to the need for the works, services, facilities or activities, or (c) has or will have access to the works, services, facilities or activities.
Properties not included in the scheme	No initial cost to Council. Management of onsite systems would continue as it currently stands, with the risks identified earlier in this report.

Shoalhaven Water have advised that the additional cost for the inclusion of the Berrys Bay properties in the St Andrews Way scheme is approximately $160,000. This would bring the total combined scheme cost to an estimated $1.1 million.

Equity implications now need to be considered in deciding whether Council should fund the connection of the 11 Berry’s Bay properties to the same sewerage scheme. Also worthy of consideration are potential economies of scale and additional costs that may arise if it is decided to connect the properties at a later date.

Metropolitan	Non-metropolitan
Principal CBD	Regional City
Major CBD	Regional Strategic Area
Metropolitan Large	Regional Rural
Metropolitan Medium	Rural
Metropolitan Small

CATEGORY	Councillor Annual Fee	Mayor Additional Fee*
Regional Rural	$19,310	$ 42,120

CATEGORY	Councillor Annual Fee		Mayor Additional Fee*
CATEGORY	Minimum	Maximum	Minimum	Maximum
Regional Rural	$8,970	$19,790	$19,100	$43,170

Lessee	Kangaroo Valley Tennis Club Incorporated ABN: 11 215 121 267 PO Box 6133, Kangaroo Valley NSW 2577 Tel: 02 4465 1688 Email: kangaroo.valley.tennis@gmail.com
Premises	The building, improvements and curtilage on Part Lot 1 DP775132 as depicted in plan annexed and marked “B” at Lot 1 DP775132 Corner Moss Vale Road and Broughton Street, Kangaroo Valley. The leased area consists of four tennis courts including wired enclosing fences, lighting posts, clubhouse, fenced children’s play area, electricity box and treed and grassed strip between the two western courts (courts 3 and 4).
Term	Five (5) Years
Commencement Date	1 July 2018
Termination Date	30 June 2023
Option	Not applicable
Rent	$7,210.67 plus GST per annum, payable annually in advance
Rent Review	Annually to 3%
Percentage of Outgoings	100%
Permitted Use	Tennis Courts and facilities ancillary to tennis courts for use of the Club and for hire.
Public Risk Insurance	Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00)
Security deposit	Not applicable