Agenda of Strategy and Assets Committee

Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2019

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

Time: 5.00pm

The following members were present:

Clr John Wells - Chairperson

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Patricia White

Clr Kaye Gartner – arrived 5.04pm

Clr Nina Digiglio

Clr John Levett

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Mark Kitchener

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Stephen Dunshea - Chief Executive Officer

Apologies / Leave of Absence

An apology was received from Clr Watson, Clr Findley, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile.

Declarations of Interest

Nil

Call Over of the Business Paper

Note: Clr Gartner arrived at the meeting.

The following items were called up for debate:

SA19.116, SA19.117, SA19.118, SA19.120, SA19.121, SA19.123, SA19.125, SA19.128, SA19.130.

The remaining items were resolved en-bloc (Clr White / Clr Gash) at this time. They are marked with an asterisk (*) in these Minutes.

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Gartner) MIN19.546

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee held on Tuesday 23 July 2019 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Mayoral Minutes

Nil

Deputations and Presentations

SA19.117 - Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club Facility Update

Ms Dee Carrington, representing the Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club, addressed the meeting and spoke against the recommendation.

Mr Ken Leslie, representing the Milton Show Society, addressed the meeting and spoke in favour of the recommendation.

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN19.547

That the matter of item SA19.117 - Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club Facility Update be brought forward for consideration.

CARRIED

SA19.117 Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club Facility Update

HPERM Ref: D19/97008

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Accept the report for information.

2. Maintain status quo with the Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club continuing to use the court at the Milton Showground, whilst further investigating to confirm the possibility for 4 courts at the Ulladulla Sports Park.

3. Receive a further report on outcomes of environmental investigation at Ulladulla Sports Park with the aim to definitively confirm the possibility of 4 courts at the site under the current legislation requirements.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Proudfoot / Clr White)

That Council:

1. Accept the report for information.

3. Council receive a further report on outcomes of environmental investigation at Ulladulla Sports Park with the aim to definitively confirm the possibility of 4 courts at the site under the current legislation requirements.

4. Subject to funding, Council commence the construction of courts 1 and 2 at the Ulladulla Sports Park without delay.

5. Subject to consultation with the Croquet Club and following the on-site meeting a report be submitted to the September Strategy and Assets meeting.

CARRIED

Reports

SA19.116 Quarterly Progress Report - Councillors' Notices of Motion	HPERM Ref: D19/262044
Recommendation That the Progress report on Councillors’ Notices of Motion be received for information and given further consideration at the Ordinary Meeting, following the Councillor Briefing scheduled for 22 August 2019. CARRIED
(motion) RecommendatioN (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Pakes) That the Progress report on Councillors’ Notices of Motion be received for information and given further consideration at the Ordinary Meeting, following the Councillor Briefing scheduled for 22 August 2019. CARRIED
Procedural Motion – MOTION be put (Clr Gartner / Clr Digiglio) That the MOTION be PUT. For: Clr Gartner and Clr Digiglio Against: Clr Wells, Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Levett, Clr Pakes, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea PROCEDURAL MOTION lost
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED

SA19.117 Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club Facility Update

HPERM Ref: D19/97008

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting.

SA19.118 Council and local communities having greater access to School Facilities

HPERM Ref: D19/77626

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council receive the report on investigation into the greater use of public-school facilities for broader community access for information.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr White) MIN19.548

That Council receive the report on investigation into the greater use of public-school facilities for broader community access for information.

CARRIED

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

SA19.119 Waiving & Discounting of Fees for Open Space & Community Facilities

HPERM Ref: D19/226228

RESOLVED* (Clr White / Clr Gash) MIN19.549

That Council note that a total of $47,286.73 of fees were waived or discounted during the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 for the use of Council’s open space and community facilities.

CARRIED

SA19.120 Public adoption of Asset Accounting Policy

HPERM Ref: D19/254792

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council adopt the Asset Accounting Policy provided as an attachment to the report as a public policy.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Gartner) MIN19.550

That Council adopt the Asset Accounting Policy provided as an attachment to the report as a public policy.

CARRIED

SA19.121 IPART Final Report on the Review of the Local Government Rating System	HPERM Ref: D19/224937
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That Council approve the provision of the suggested feedback on the recommendations made by IPART via the feedback form on OLG’s website and as presented as Attachment 5.
motion (RESOLVEd) (Clr Proudfoot / Clr White) MIN19.551 That Council approve the provision of the suggested feedback on the recommendations made by IPART via the feedback form on OLG’s website and as presented as Attachment 5. CARRIED
Procedural Motion – MOTION be put (Clr Gartner / Clr Digiglio) That the MOTION be PUT. For: Clr Gartner and Clr Digiglio Against: Clr Wells, Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Levett, Clr Pakes, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea PROCEDURAL MOTION lost
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED

SA19.122 Donation Request - Salt Care RE-BOOT Program - Training Costs

HPERM Ref: D19/200517

RECOMMENDATION* (Clr White / Clr Gash)

That Council provide a donation of $2,000 to Salt Care to contribute to travel and accommodation costs of training in the delivery of a community reintegration service for people who are homeless, from the Unallocated Donations Budget.

CARRIED

SA19.123 Traineeship, Apprenticeship and Cadetship Programs

HPERM Ref: D19/227953

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council receive the report on Traineeship, Apprenticeship and Cadetship Programs for information.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Gash) MIN19.552

That:

1. Council receive the report on Traineeship, Apprenticeship and Cadetship Programs for information.

2. A report be submitted to Council on the implications of 10% of our workforces being made up of trainees, apprentices and cadets.

CARRIED

SA19.124 Local Government Parking Summit

HPERM Ref: D19/264137

RESOLVED* (Clr White / Clr Gash) MIN19.553

That Council

1. Notes the details of the Local Government Parking Summit scheduled for 6-8 November 2019 in Sydney.

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

SA19.125 Comerong Island Ferry - Service Review

HPERM Ref: D19/176914

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That

1. Council notes that the key aspects of the current Comerong Island Ferry arrangements are as follows:

a. The service operates between 6am and 10pm, 7 days a week, with afterhours call out service available to residents on the island. This call out fee is $120/hour, and this charge is not in Council’s “Fees and Charges Document”.

b. The Ferry has a design load limit of 36 tonnes but, given its age, has been operating at a 20-tonne limit since 2010. This limit is sufficient to service the maintenance needs of Council, the response needs of the Rural Fire Service (RFS) and general truck needs of residents (i.e. water delivery). Loads larger than 20 tonnes need to be broken down or special punt arrangements need to be made by the entity requiring the larger load.

c. The current ferry is approaching the end of its life and is due for replacement, preferably before the next “out of water service” which his due in November 2020.

d. The service is operated via a contract with Tono Group Pty Ltd which commenced on 19 July 2017 and will conclude on the 30 June 2022. The cost to operate and maintain the Ferry is approximately $420,000 per year (including depreciation).

e. The residents, their visitors and contractors travel at no cost. For other visitors to the island, the cost of a return ticket is $10, payable by EFTPOS only.

f. The income generated from the return ticket arrangement is approximately $19,000 (exc. GST) per year.

g. The residential property which used to be available to the operator at no cost is now available at “market rates”, and if the operator wants to utilise the residence they were required to build that into their costing structure.

2. Council endorse the current Comerong Island Ferry operating arrangements (described by the contract with Tono Group Pty Ltd) as being the preferred arrangements to operate the ferry and that the Chief Executive Officer (Director Assets and Works) take the necessary steps to replace the existing Comerong Island Ferry with a vessel that has a load limit of 20t and dimensions capable of carrying at least two passenger vehicles or a council grader, or a tipper truck or a 13 tonne fire truck, prior to November 2020.

3. The CEO (Director Assets and Works) look to make savings by reviewing the operating times and usage costs and report back to Council.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr White) MIN19.554

That:

1. Council notes that the key aspects of the current Comerong Island Ferry arrangements are as follows:

c. The current ferry is approaching the end of its life and is due for replacement, preferably before the next “out of water service” which his due in November 2020.

e. The residents, their visitors and contractors travel at no cost. For other visitors to the island, the cost of a return ticket is $10, payable by EFTPOS only.

f. The income generated from the return ticket arrangement is approximately $19,000 (exc. GST) per year.

3. The CEO (Director Assets and Works) look to make savings by reviewing the operating times and usage costs and report back to Council.

CARRIED

SA19.126 Far North Collector Road Network - Bangalee & Cambewarra

HPERM Ref: D19/249281

RESOLVED* (Clr White / Clr Gash) MIN19.555

That Council note:

1. The proposed Far North Collector Road preliminary alignment which provides for a 1 in 10-year flood access and design speed of 80km/h (Preliminary Alignment Drawing 5505.06 - Far North Collector Road)

2. That at this stage there appears to be a $0.5 million funding deficit, which will not be covered by the Commonwealth funding grant.

3. The detailed design, and thus a better assessment of the required budget, will be available in early 2020.

CARRIED

SA19.127 Classification of Land - Lot 1 DP797111, Lot 1 DP199958 and Lot 2 DP199958, 39-43 Bridge Road Nowra

HPERM Ref: D19/172316

RECOMMENDATION* (Clr White / Clr Gash)

That Council resolve to classify the land described as Lot 1 DP767111, Lot 1 DP199958 and Lot 2 DP199958, 39-43 Bridge Road, Nowra as Operational Land.

CARRIED

SA19.128 Classification of Land - Proposed Lot 23 DP in SF10380, Matron Porter Drive, Narawallee

HPERM Ref: D19/215026

Recommendation

That Council resolve to classify the land described as proposed Lot 23 of SF10380 Matron Porter Drive, Narawallee as Community Land.

RECOMMENDATION (Clr Proudfoot / Clr White)

That Council resolve to classify the land described as proposed Lot 23 of SF10380 Matron Porter Drive, Narawallee as Community Land.

CARRIED

SA19.129 Classification of Land - Lot 1 DP 1128146
111 Taylors Lane Cambewarra

HPERM Ref: D19/252567

RECOMMENDATION* (Clr White / Clr Gash)

That Council resolve to classify the land, Lot 1 DP 1128146, 111 Taylors Lane Cambewarra, as part Operational Land being 7604.41m² subject to survey, and part Community Land being 2,742m² identified as “open space”, subject to survey.

CARRIED

SA19.130 Proposed Acquisition of Land - Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area

HPERM Ref: D19/251045

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993, consider a separate confidential report in relation to property acquisition matters associated with Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr White) MIN19.556

CARRIED

Confidential Reports

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

No members of the public made representations.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr White) MIN19.557

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.

CSA19.8 Proposed Acquisition of Land - Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area

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

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

CARRIED

The meeting moved into confidential the time being 6.46pm.

The meeting moved into open session, the time being 6.48pm.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 6.48pm.

Clr Wells

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.132 June 2019 Quarterly Budget Review

HPERM Ref: D19/275447

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Finance

Attachments: 1. Quarterly Budget Review Statement June 2019 (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

In accordance with Regulation 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation (2005), the responsible accounting officer must prepare and submit to Council a budget review statement after the end of each quarter. This has been carried out for the fourth quarter of the 2018/19 financial year.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive and endorse the June Quarterly Budget Review and budget carry forwards (Works In Progress)

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

3. Adopt the Revotes (Committed), as recommended in the June Quarterly Budget Review document

4. Adopt the Revotes (Uncommitted), as recommended in the June Quarterly Budget Review document

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

Implications: Nil

2. Adopt parts 1-3 of the recommendation and change part 4 to critically review the uncommitted revotes to determine which projects are still required.

Implications: Staff will need to rework the quarterly budget review in accordance with the alternative resolution.

3. Not adopt the recommendation and make an alternative resolution

Implications: Staff will need to rework the quarterly budget review in accordance with the alternative resolution.

Introduction

The budget review involves an analysis of Council’s annual budget for each Group to confirm the revoting of funds to 2019/20. This process has been undertaken for the period to 30 June 2019 and the results presented in this report and the attached Quarterly Budget Review Document.

The report also analyses the progress of each Group in achieving their financial objectives.

2018/19 Budget Results

General Fund

The 2018/19 budget adopted by Council forecasted an operating profit of $13.5M after capital grants, an operating deficit before Capital Grants and Contributions of $2.9M, and a reduction in our cash and investments of $11M.

The following table presents a high-level summary of the preliminary (un-audited) result for General Fund for 2018/19.

The preliminary results for the June Quarterly Budget Review indicate a reduction in Council’s unrestricted cash position for the year of $1.545M. In reporting the March Quarterly Budget Review as at 31 March 2019, the projected result was an unrestricted cash deficit of $56K at year end. This change in position is due to reduced operating income and additional operational expenditure due, predominantly, to the following factors:

· Additional electricity costs due to a change in contract negotiations

· Change in the timing of the contract managers payment in Holiday Haven

· Maintenance costs across Swim and Fitness were higher than originally forecast, with all sites requiring maintenance to be brought forward

· The season at the sea pools was also extended by Council Resolution.

· Reduced income for the Entertainment Centre, Shoalhaven Bereavement Services, Building and Compliance area and changes to the application of Floodlighting fees by Council resolution.

These and other factors are commented on in further detail in the Income and Operating Expenditure Summary below, and in the Group Overviews. Further detailed information is presented in the Quarterly Budget Review Document presented as Attachment 1.

Summary of General Fund - 2018/19 Adjusted Budget Result

The following table provides a summary of the preliminary (un-audited) 2018/19 results for:

1. Income Statement

2. Non-Operating (Capital)Expenditure

3. Movements for the year in Total Cash & Cash Equivalents

It is important to note that the $118M in total cash and investments at year-end presented in these preminary results includes provision for restricted reserves and the general fund component of the carry forwards and revotes. Final balances for these provisions and the resultant unrestricted cash position will be determine through the completion of the audit and presented to Council at a future meeting along with the Draft Financial Statements for 30 June 2019.

Income

As at 30 June, General Fund achieved 93.1% of the Adjusted Budget at June, after revotes and carry forwards. There are $16M of Grants and Contributions that are being carried over to the 19/20 financial year, consistent with the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice.

Factors that have contributed to the lower than expected revenue result are as follows: patronage at the Entertainment Centre didn’t increase (it was consistent with prior years) despite the increased offering of performances throughout the year. Increased competition relating to cremation services has impacted Bereavement Services. No longer charging for floodlight usage for Sports Groups has negatively impacted on the Parks result. The adoption by Regulatory Services of an increased educatory approach also led to a decrease in fine income, consistent with Council Resolutions.

Operating Expenditure

General Fund ended the year at 99.8% of the June Adjusted Budget, after revotes & carry forwards. Prior to revotes and carry forwards, the operating expenditure was at 101.1%.

A range of factors have contributed to this result, particularly a change in the timing of the contract managers payment in Holiday Haven, resulting in additional costs in the 2018/19 financial year that would normally have been paid the following year. This improvement in accounting practice has resulted in payments for the year in which the activity was undertaken being reflected in the budget.

Electricity costs across the organisation were higher than forecast. This was due to a contractual dispute being resolved, and a number of sites experiencing 14 months’ worth of electricity bills, when the normal forecast cycle was for 12 months.

Maintenance costs across Swim and Fitness were higher than originally forecast, with all sites requiring maintenance to be brought forward to ensure smooth operations of all facilities. The season at the sea pools was also extended by Council Resolution.

Non-Operating Expenditure

Capital Expenditure as at 30 June is 57% of the June Adjusted Budget (excluding commitments). A full listing of Capital Works is in the main Quarterly Budget Review document. This low completion percent is due to some larger projects being spread across financial years, they are listed below in Works and Progress and additional comments are in the Asset and Works Group.

Works in Progress – 2018/19

Carry forward projects are works spanning more than one financial year and that were substantially commenced in 2018/19. These projects only need to be noted by Council.

The net carry forwards for General Fund for 2018/19 total $21.8M.

Some of the major projects being carried forward are:

Project	Carry forward $	Comment
Acquisitions Funding	$5M	Acquisition of proposed open space related to Moss Vale Road South URA
Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Centre Fitout	$2.2M	Fitout has a number of commitments with an estimated completion of Q2 19/20.
Artie Smith Oval - Platform	$1.18M	Platform - estimated completion of Q2
Jerberra Estate Construction	$2.2M	Fire trail easement to be completed
Verons Estate Construction	$1.4M	Construction to adjusted schedule, due to the outcome of the threatened orchids surveys, power lines & subsequent redesign
Shoalhaven Heads River Rock Protection	$1.3M	MIN18.323 – Grant funded project continuing into 19/20
Ulladulla Harbour Berthing Facility	$1.09M	Awaiting determination of NSW Grant under Growing Local Economies in order to progress works further
Crookhaven River Bridge Upgrade	$1.03M	Tender was let in May 2019. Works have commenced in August 2019
Greenwell Point Marina	$1.03M	Awaiting advice from RMS regarding the future of existing wharf at Greenwell Point, in order to progress works further

A full list of the projects being carried forward can be found in the main Quarterly Budget Review document.

Asset Sales

Asset sales are at 100% of the June Adjusted Budget, with sales of industrial lands exceeding forecast but partly offset by less than expected asset sales associated with landfill and transfer station operations.

Revotes – 2018/19

Revoted projects are to be considered in two different categories. Revotes (Committed Projects) and Revotes (Uncommitted). The committed revotes are those projects with no (or minimal expenditure) where a contractual obligation has been entered into by Council. Minimal expenditure is due to plans and studies being carried out with the projects yet to transition to the construction stage.

Some of the larger Revotes (Committed Projects) are as follows:

Project	Committed $	Comment
Huskisson Service Lanes	$1.6M	Loan funded, to be recouped by future Developer Contributions per MIN16.1005
Boongaree Park	$1.1M	Funding is from Council, two grants and community contributions. Community Consultation has taken place, and further designs undertaken. Delivery to begin in early 2020.
Berry Bypass Remediation Grant	$1.1M	Fully grant funded from RMS
The Lake Circuit	$747K	As at 30 June, project was out to tender, with physical works expected to commence Q1 19/20. Balance of project budget is in 2019/20
Sanctuary Point Library	$700K	Concept plans are being created, to be returned to Council for further discussion. Funding is from Developer Contributions.
Bay and Basin Regional Skate Park	$645K	Consultant is working on concept design as at 30 June, per MIN18.807.

The Uncommitted projects (below) do not have a contractual obligation. If Option 1 is chosen, all of these projects will be revoted into the 2019/20 financial year. If Option 2 is chosen, Council may determine which projects are still required and only these will be revoted into the 2019/20 financial year.

There are five projects classified as Revotes (Uncommitted Projects). The projects and financial implications are as follows:

Project	Not Committed $	Comment
Resource Recovery Park	$287K	As at 30 June, no contract had been entered into. Should a revote be rejected, the funds will be returned to the Waste Reserve.
Land Acquisitions	$84K	Related to a Grant funded project. Source of funds is Developer Contributions and Property Reserve. Should a revote be rejected, the funds will be returned to reserves.
Administration Building – Computer Room	$59K	A contract was entered into during July 2019, and the goods have been received into Council in August. This project is for Computer Safety Requirements. Should a revote be rejected, this will place strain on the IT budget.
Bicycle Racks	$6K	MIN19.219 approves revote of funds into 2019/20. No contractual arrangement in place as at 30 June.
Kerb Ramps	$5K	MIN19.219 approves revote of funds into 19/20. No contractual arrangement in place as at 30 June.

A full list of the projects being revoted (both committed and uncommitted) can be found in the main Quarterly Budget Review document.

Water Fund

Summary of Water Fund 2018/19 Budget Result

The budget adopted by Council produced an operating profit of $2.4M, an operating profit before Capital Grants and Contributions of $1.4M and a reduction in cash and investments of $5.2M. The preliminary results at year end are favourable with the operating result exceeding original budget.

The Water Fund’s actual spend on capital works has reduced in the current year. This is mainly due to new projects entering the design stage in preparation for construction in the following years and a focus of staff resources to the REMS project in the Sewer Fund.

Income

As at 30 June, the Water Fund has achieved 100% of the adjusted budget. The adjusted budget includes a June Quarterly Review adjustment of $437K. This relates to interest income, section 64 and plant hire income exceeding forecast in the last quarter.

The variance of $185K is mainly due to the drier weather conditions resulting in increased water usage.

Operating Expenditure

Water Fund is on target with operating expenditure at 102% of the revised budget. The adjustment relates to the return of budget to reserves.

Non-Operating Expenditure

Capital Expenditure as at 30 June is 70% of the revised budget (excluding commitments).

The original Water Fund capital budget was $16.835M. This was revised during the year to $13.787M. The final expenditure for the financial year was $9.59M.

Large projects undertaken this year include: the upgrade of the digital telemetry & SCADA network; replacement of the Bolong Road TM7 water main and the mains replacement program.

Works in Progress – 2018-19

Carry forward projects are works spanning more than one financial year that were substantially commenced in 2018-19. The carry forwards for the Water Fund have been:

2017/18 2018/19

Non-Operating Expenditure $1.527M $3.194M

Some of the major projects being carried forward are:

Project	Amount	Comment
Bolong Road TM7 water main replacement	$319K	Works nearing completion
Digital telemetry & SCADA network	$601K	Multiple year contract
Water billing system	$417K	Multiple year contract

A full list of projects being carried forward can be found in the main Quarterly Budget Review document.

Asset Sales

Asset sales is at 100% of the revised budget. A small adjustment of $5K is recommended to the Water Fleet Reserve due to sale proceeds falling short of forecasts.

Sewer Fund

Summary of Sewer Fund 2018/19 Budget Result

The budget adopted by Council produced an operating profit of $11M, an operating profit before Capital Grants and Contributions of $9.5M and a reduction in cash and investments of $27.5M. The preliminary results at year-end are favourable with the operating result exceeding the March adjusted budget.

The Sewer Fund’s actual spend on capital works has significantly decreased in the current year. This is mainly due to the substantial completion of the REMS project in 2018-19.

Income

As at 30 June, Sewer Fund has achieved 101% of the revised budget. This variance of $701K is mainly due to an increase in availability income combined with an increase in usage, resulting from new assessments.

An increase of $201K is recommended for this review. This adjustment mainly relates to interest income exceeding forecasts in the last quarter.

Operating Expenditure

Operating Expenditure as at 30 June is 97%. This variance of $1.346M is largely reflected in the operations and maintenance of mains, pumping stations and treatment works.

Non-Operating Expenditure

Capital Expenditure as at 30 June is 62% of the revised budget (excluding commitments).

The original Sewer Fund capital budget was $42.216M. This was revised during the year to $55.162M. The final expenditure for the financial year was $34.203M.

Large projects undertaken this year includes the REMS project.

Works in Progress – 2018-19

Carry forward projects are works spanning more than one financial year that were substantially commenced in 2018-19. The carry forwards for the Sewer Fund have been:

2017/18 2018/19

Non-Operating Expenditure $17.992M $19.504M

The major project being carried forward is REMS, in the amount of $18.262M.

Asset Sales

Asset sales are at 100% of the revised budget. An adjustment of $8K is recommended, to the Sewer Fleet Reserve as sales proceeds exceeded the forecast.

Council’s Groups

General Manager’s Group

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the General Manager’s Group are summarised below; details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

General Manager’s Comments:

Significant projects proposed to carry forward to 19/20 include:

· Ulladulla Harbour Berthing Facility

· Woollamia Boat Lift Facility

· Greenwell Point Marina

· Economic Development Promotion Grant

Adjustments in the Quarterly Review primarily relate to Industrial Land.

Other variations to the 2018/19 budget are minimal

Finance, Corporate and Community Services

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Finance, Corporate and Community Services Group are summarised below; details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

Although the revenue target was realised, a number of unforeseen and one-off expenses occurred during 18/19 financial year, which have impacted on the Group’s result.

The main areas impacted were Swim, Sport and Fitness, the Entertainment Centre and, to a lesser extent, the Shoalhaven Libraries. Staff training on new computer systems has impacted on Swim, Sport and Fitness and corporate training has impacted on all front line centre operations, due to backfilling of front line staff along with the need to provide backfill for operational staff to maintain frontline services during periods of leave (sickness, injury and annual leave).

Larger one-off costs have occurred during the year related to system implementations; timing differences on large utility contracts have also occurred this financial year, support for volunteer management committees, the trial to extend the operation of the sea pools during the winter months, changes in charges for use of floodlighting at sports and showgrounds and changes in external contractual arrangements in the Finance area and prior years’ billing from third parties for communication links.

Higher than expected reactive maintenance costs at all four major aquatic and leisure facilities, the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre, and Nowra Youth Hall have also contributed to operational costs.

Additional projects costs have also been incurred in the Tourism area and land use planning which are supported by Council resolutions, for which funds have not yet been allocated and where work has commenced. Increase in workload has also resulted in increased costs in the corporate services area.

There are a number of key projects being carried forward where the works and funding are either spread across multiple financial years, or where grant funding has been received, some of which is late in the financial year. These projects are either in the planning or early commencement stage; they include the Corporate Software project, Learning Management System, Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Centre construction and fitout, Boongaree Park Berry, and Nowra Showground upgrades. A full listing of the projects is in the Attachment.

Planning, Environment and Development Services

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Planning, Environment and Development Services Group are summarised below; details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

There were a number of factors that have impacted on the revenue result for the Group.

A shortfall in car parking revenue of approx. $160K was as a result of a shift to more cautions and a resourcing issue that stopped dedicated parking officers visiting the Ulladulla area. There was also a period where infringements could not be issued due to the Council resolution to reduce penalty notices for some offences and the automated system not recognising these reductions. There was an estimated loss of $80K for this period.

The Building Section was down by $300K, mainly attributable to the downturn in the number of applications received by Council’s certifiers. Drainage and Plumbing was also down on revenue by $210K. The increase was made to offset the additional staff required to complete drainage diagrams, which became mandatory under the Conveyancing Act. Building Compliance area was also down compared to previous years. Part of this is attributed to Council resolving to issue more cautions as opposed to penalties.

There are also 14 grant funded projects that are carrying forward to 2019/20, all at various stages of commencement and completion. Some grants are paid when milestones are reached, and others are paid at completion of the project. The largest grant funded project that was undertaken during the year was the Shoalhaven River Flood Levee Restoration project. This project commenced when Council resolved to proceed with MIN17.603. The project was to repair damages that occurred during flood damages in 2015 and 2016. There have been a number of reports to Council detailing the financial risks and implications of not proceeding with the project. To date, Council has provided funding of $700K towards this project for costs that are not claimable from other agencies. The total project cost is $2.46M. Council has received $593K from other agencies and claims totalling $1.23M are still pending.

Small Lot Rural Subdivision

Nebraska Estate: $65,240 remains for progressing rezoning investigations.

Verons Estate: The $150,000 borrowed in 2006 to fund the rezoning investigations has been fully spent. A total of $25,000 has now been transferred from the Strategic Planning Consultants budget. This will need to be recouped from the landowners at a later date. $1,413 has also been transferred from road construction to rezoning investigations. Further transfer(s) may be necessary to complete the project.

Road investigations and construction: The balance of the roadwork design budget for Nebraska Estate for 2017/2018 is $10,646. The balance of the construction budgets for Jerberra, Verons and Nebraska Estates for 2019/20 are $2.2M, $1.2M and $12,853 respectively

Assets and Works

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Assets and Works Group are summarised below; details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

There were a number of factors that have impacted on the operational expenditure result for the Group.

Tree Management was 110% expended. The higher than forecast expenditure was due to a number of wind events throughout the year and the subsequent risk management that was undertaken.

There were one off expenses associated with the eviction of a tenant, with Council acting under instruction of the RSPCA. Subsequent expenses relating to restoration of property, costs associated with livestock, and legal fees have all been incurred. As the matter is currently before the courts, with Council seeking full costs, there are no further comments that can be made publicly at this time.

Cleaning expenses were also higher than forecast. This is due to a combination of using external contractors and out of hours cleaning associated with office refits and kitchen refurbishments.

Tourist Parks operational expenditure was 107% of forecast. A change in the timing relating to the treatment of Park Manager payments meant that two years’ worth of contract adjustments were paid during the 2018/19 financial year (additional $250K). The final contract payment had previously been calculated the following year, this change now brings the full contractor payment in line with the financial year that it is applicable to. Increases in payments to Department of Lands, combined with additional electricity expenses also contributed to this result.

Capital works are progressing in the Group. As at 30 June 2019, the expenditure percentage was at 62%. When adjusted for ‘Special Projects’ and larger projects that were awarded during the final quarter of the financial year, the Groups adjusted expenditure rate is 76%.

At the Shoalhaven Indoor Sporting Complex, all of the construction trade packages have been completed, bar some minor items. Completion of the integrated fit out is on track for a soft opening in October.

Construction of the adjacent platform to encapsulate asbestos containing material has commenced. There is an anticipated budget shortfall due to these additional works, which could be as high as $825K.

The Chris Creek shared user path bridge contract is in the design stage. The pedestrian crossing component has been completed. The contract for Archgate Bridge has been awarded and detailed design is in progress. Road works on Tannery Road are 90% complete, delayed by water ingress. The roundabout at Illaroo Road and Page Avenue, North Nowra is complete and construction is in progress at the intersections of Green & Warden Street, Ulladulla and at Mitchell Parade & Donlan Avenue, Mollymook as at the end of June 2019.

The importation and stockpiling of embankment fill material has commenced at the Far North Collector Road. It is on track for adoption of preferred alignment during August 2019. Optioneering is in progress at Taylor’s Lane, Cambewarra. ENSA Geotech, fauna and connections optioneering work is also in progress. Funding will be required to continue with the designs and investigations in the 2019/20 financial year. Further information on this will be reported to Council as work progresses.

Stormwater Levy

Spending against the Stormwater Levy is 37% of budget.

Group Director’s Comments:

Expenditure of stormwater levy as at 30 June is 37%, and including commitments, is at 51% spent.

11 projects funded from the levy have been completed, with a further 10 projects now at the construction stage. There are four remaining projects at the preliminary stages, and land matters are a factor in these projects remaining in this stage.

Special Rate Variations

Spending & commitments against the Special Rate Variation from 2013/14 is 85% of budget.

Group Director’s Comments:

All projects have been completed with the exception of St Anns Street, which commenced in May and The Lake Circuit which was tendered late in the financial year. These projects have been carried forward into the 2019/20 financial year.

Spending and commitments against the Special Rate Variation from 2018/19 is 85% of budget.

Group Director’s Comments:

The Nowra Showground Buildings & the Sportsgrounds upgrades are being delivered as part of a wider grant funded package for delivery in the 2019/20 financial year. A range of projects are rolling out at Sports Grounds and SRV funding has been used to leverage additional grant funding for irrigation and drainage works which will be delivered in 2019/20. Weed treatments, fertilising, aeration, and top dressing are occurring at selected sports ground sites in the downtime between winter and summer sports.

The streetscape renewal works identified six locations for either project design, or project works. Works on Jervis Bay and Wool Roads have been completed, with the concrete apron and planting. Owen Street design will be going out to public consultation. Works at Boree Street are nearing completion and works at Vincentia Burton Street Mall are tied with Grant funding from Building Better Regions. The funding from the Special Rate will enable Council to continue to liaise with the community, shopkeepers and consultants and for the Grant funding to be, ultimately, expended in line with project milestones.

Shoalhaven Water

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Shoalhaven Water (General Fund) Group are summarised below; details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

The Shoalhaven Water General Group is operating on target, with revenue at 103% of budget and operational expenditure at 93% of budget. The recommended adjustments relate to the return of budget to the tower reserves.

Water Fund

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Shoalhaven Water (Water Fund) Group are summarised below; details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

The Water Fund result was positive for Council, with the operational expenditure at 102% and revenue at 101% of the projected year end result. The adjustment to revenue relates to Section 64 income tracking higher than expected with the increased developer activity and interest income higher due to the timing of capital expenditure. The variance in income of $185K is reflective of the increased water usage due to drier weather conditions this year. The capital program is at 70% of budget and requires an adjustment of $21K this quarter. This adjustment mainly relates to the transfer of funds to the plant reserve. A carry forward of $3.194M is required.

Sewer Fund

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Shoalhaven Water (Sewer Fund) Group are summarised below; details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

The Sewer Fund result was positive for Council, with operational expenditure at 96% of budget and revenue slightly above the projected year end result. The adjustment to revenue relates mainly to interest income tracking higher than expected due to the timing of capital projects. The variance in income of $698K is mainly due to the increase in assessments resulting in higher usage and availability income. The capital program is at 62% of budget and requires a downwards adjustment of $711K this quarter. This adjustment mainly relates to the transfer of funds to the Sewer Fund plant reserve. A carry forward of $19.504M is required.

Current status of Council Resolution Project Funding Requests

The following Council resolutions and reports are noted as priority items for consideration / inclusion in future budgets and quarterly budget reviews as funds become available:

Conclusion

This report has presented the preliminary (un-audited) year-end budget results to Council in order for consideration to be given to the carry forward and re-votes from 2018/19 into the 2019/20 budget.

A further report will be presented following the completion of the audit which will include presentation of the 30 June 2019 Financial Statements to Council.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.133 Recycled Product - General Procurement Strategy

HPERM Ref: D19/276914

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Finance

Purpose / Summary

To report to Council how sustainability is included in Council’s corporate Procurement Policy (POL18/74) and Procurement Procedure (PRD17/8) and provide Council with suggestions to encourage the incorporation of more recycled product into Council’s general procurement.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Receive and note the report in response to MIN18.560.

2. Request the CEO (Finance, Corporate and Community Services) develop and include a Sustainable Procurement Strategy as an appendix to the corporate Procurement Procedure (PRD17/8) to provide guidance and resources for staff to consider recycled products and services in organisational procurement.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: The Sustainable Procurement Strategy will provide staff with a consistent and structured approach to the identification, evaluation and procurement of sustainable products and services.

2. The recommendation is adopted with amendments.

Implications: Staff will need to rework the Sustainable Procurement Strategy in accordance with the alternative resolution.

3. Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Without a sustainable procurement strategy Council will continue to purchase in accordance with current procurement policies and procedures

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting of 31 July 2018, Council adopted a Mayoral Minute18.14/ MIN18.560:

That the General Manager:

1. Report back to Council on a process for incorporating more recycled product into Council’s general procurement.

2. Discuss with Hume Council the success of using 10% recycled product in bitumen (plastic and rubber crumb reportedly providing ‘better’ surfaces) and the cost difference between regular and recycled product and report back on the cost differentiation to Council.

Response (Part 1)

The latest review of Council’s corporate Procurement Policy (POL18/74) and Procurement Procedure (PRD17/8) in 2018 identified Responsible Procurement (social, sustainable and ethical sourcing) as one of six core procurement principles. The Procurement Procedure elaborates on this principle, as follows:

Sustainable and Ethical Sourcing

Council is committed to continually measure and reduce the environmental impact of its supply chain and encourages its service providers to have similar objectives. It is committed to protecting the environment and doing business with ethical and socially responsible suppliers.

When buying goods, services, infrastructure and capital works, Council officers will evaluate (subject to costs and other considerations):

· Strategies to avoid unnecessary consumption and manage demand

· Minimising environmental impacts of the goods and services over the whole-of-life of the goods and services

· Suppliers’ socially responsible practices including compliance with legislative obligations to employees

· Value for money over the whole-of-life of the goods and services, rather than just initial cost

As stated, Council is committed to continually measure and reduce the environmental impact of its supply chain and encourages its service providers to have similar objectives. These impacts must be considered from a whole-of-life perspective, including considering the sourcing of raw materials, manufacturing processes, packaging, distribution and transport, storage, operation and maintenance, disposal and potential for life extension through reuse or recycling. In addition to sustainability impacts directly associated with the good or service, the sustainability credentials of the supplier organisation must also be considered to ensure that they are ethically, socially and environmentally responsible.

The use of recycled-content material is included in the Social and Sustainable Procurement Checklist included as an Attachment to the Procurement Procedure.

To support staff in achieving best practice, Council is a member of ‘Sustainable Choice’, a membership-based program administered by Local Government Procurement (a wholly owned subsidiary of LGNSW). Membership of Sustainable Choice provides Council officers with the ability to access suppliers under Panel Contracts, as well as attend sustainability workshops and training and information sessions, and access online product/service databases and other resources/references.

Sustainable Choice has published short-form ‘Tendering Sustainability Guidelines’ for Councils and developed templates for inclusion in tendering documentation. These templates are now embedded into Council’s suite of documents for tendering and provide the framework by which information can be collected from suppliers and can be considered as part of the tender evaluation.

As part of the 2019 update to the NSW Government Resource Efficiency Policy,

“[agencies] are encouraged to help drive growth and innovation in the market for recycled and sustainably sourced material by purchasing:

· Construction materials with recycled content to comply with relevant EPA exemptions and reference design specifications for re-use (such as the specifications from the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia for pavements, earthworks and drainage)

· Copy, stationery and print publication paper with post-consumer recycled content as defined under AS14021 or certified as lifecycle carbon reduced under the National Carbon Offset Standard

· Non-recycled paper from sustainable sources accredited under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or equivalent”

Though not an agency captured by this policy, the proposals listed above provide some guidance as to how Council can enhance its use of recycled product.

Some recent examples of how Council officers are incorporating sustainable and ethical sourcing into our operations are noted below:

· At present, streetscaping and landscaping projects consider sustainable products where they are suited to design and performance requirements. Seating, decking and bollards incorporating recycled products, which are in high exposure areas like beach fronts and coastal parks, provide greater durability and resistance to the environment in comparison to traditional timber furniture.

· In the first quarter of 2019/2020, 35% of Council’s purchased office supplies and equipment was on products with an EarthSaver classification, that is, products that are carbon neutral, biodegradable, ethically sourced and include recycled content.

However, Council does not have a standalone sustainable procurement strategy to provide guidance and resources for staff to consider recycled products and services in general procurement. To address this gap, Council staff propose that:

1. A sustainable procurement strategy be developed to support the existing corporate Procurement Policy and Procedure. This strategy will commit Council to progressing to a strategic organisational whole-of-life approach in its procurement decisions

2. Council staff be engaged through the implementation of an organisational education program supporting the adopted sustainable procurement strategy and identifying the tools and resources available

It is intended to incorporate the development of the sustainable procurement strategy with the review of the Procurement Policy and Procurement Procedures documents. These documents are currently being reviewed to address recent changes in the NSW Local Government Act and the actions identified from the Audit Office of NSW Management Letter July 2019. The Sustainable Procurement Strategy will be presented to Council in early 2020.

Response Part 2

Discussion with Hume Council about their use of plastic and rubber crumb in bitumen reveals that they, like Shoalhaven, have been using both crumbed rubber and plastic for some time in sprayed bitumen surfacing and asphalt works.

The plastic and crumbed rubber improves the durability of the bitumen (as determined in laboratory tests) which extends its life or makes it more resilient when applying over cracked surfaces. The extra benefit however is very difficult to quantify in terms of dollars.

The cost difference varies pending a series of factors but for sprayed bitumen seal the additional cost is approximately 30% while for asphalt it is approximately 20%.

Currently practice of Shoalhaven Council:

· Utilises plastic addition for asphalt surfacing of roundabouts and high stress areas

· Plastic in ‘high stress’ seals such as over cracked pavements or in areas such as tight curves

· Crumbed rubber as a small percentage when sealing weather is not ideal to improve stone retention

This current year it is planned to trial the use of a proprietary product (Recnophalt) from the Downer company which utilises a higher % of recycled plastic (printer cartridges, bottles and hard plastics) in pavement replacement works in Plunkett Street. This trial will be pre-empted with a detailed briefing to Councillors.

Policy Implications

The current Procurement Policy and Procurement Procedure provide principles/guidelines for staff to follow to meet legislative requirements and best practice. It is proposed to develop a Sustainable Procurement Strategy as an appendix to the Procurement Procedure to support and formalise Council’s approach to the use of recycled products and best value procurement.

Financial Implications

The implementation of a Sustainable Procurement Strategy is not expected to place additional financial burden on Council. In the procurement process, Council needs to address the quadruple bottom line – social, environmental, economic and governance. A successful procurement strategy will be measured through best value for money and this may not necessarily be based exclusively on the lowest price.

Risk Implications

The procurement function is a high risk in terms of corruption. The adopted corporate Procurement Policy and Procedure address governance requirements by containing strict rules and processes to minimise risk and guide staff in correct behaviour and practice. Council’s procurement is an opportunity to meet the needs of the community by delivering goods and services that are sustainable fiscally, environmentally and socially.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.134 Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts - Future Use

HPERM Ref: D19/216182

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Community Survey Results - Future use of the Tennis Courts ⇩

2. Additional Feedback Received Prior to Community Consultation Period ⇩

3. Grant Application Form - Community Sport Infrastructure 2018 - Sport Aus - Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 & 4 - Shoalhaven Heads Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Inc (councillors information folder) ⇨

4. Grant Sponsor Endorsement - My Community Project Application (councillors information folder) ⇨

5. Financial Report - Estimated Costings (councillors information folder) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To report outcomes of the community consultation and seek direction regarding the future use of Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4.

Recommendation

That the Chief Executive Officer (Finance Corporate & Community Services) undertake the following action for Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4:

1. As the concrete slab does not require reinstallation for synthetic resurfacing, Council support the local community to install and manage synthetic grass multipurpose courts on Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4, conditional on available grant funding.

2. Council and the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Court Management Committee work with the Shoalhaven Heads Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Inc. to develop new procedures for operation of the multipurpose facility.

3. Council invite respondents to the recent Community Survey to join the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee.

Options

1. Resurface courts in multipurpose synthetic grass – as recommended

As the concrete slab does not require reinstallation for synthetic surfacing, Council support the local community to install and manage synthetic grass multipurpose courts on Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4, conditional on available grant funding.

Implications:

· Multipurpose activation of the facility aligns with Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan, and supports local tourism and business

· Aligns with feedback from the community survey

· Provides additional recreational space for basketball, netball and tennis in the local community

· Aligns with grant funding applications submitted by the Shoalhaven Heads Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Inc (The Chamber) currently in progress

· Works will progress once The Chamber and Community have secured enough funding to undertake the works

2. Resurface courts in multipurpose acrylic hard court

Reinstall Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4 concrete slabs in order to resurface for acrylic hard courts, when funding becomes available. This has a greater cost to undertake and complete. Investigation be undertaken to identify costings to undertake the work, and funding opportunities be sought in partnership with The Chamber and Community.

Implications:

· High-cost capital option with lowest ongoing operational costs

· An additional budget allocation would be required for this project - either through an allocation from Council or successfully securing additional grant funding

· Multipurpose activation of the facility aligns with Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan and supports local tourism and business

· Aligns with feedback from the recent Community Survey

· Acrylic surface is more resilient to water damage

· Acrylic surface will enable local competition tennis to be played across all four (4) courts

· Increases overall longevity of the asset

· A time delay in bringing the courts back into service until funding is sourced

3. Courts remain decommissioned and made into open hard surface space

Council proceed with status quo and in accordance with the current resolution / adopted position of Council. This will leave the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4 decommissioned: Council will remove fencing and tennis net posts, and repair surface cracks for use of the hard surface area by the public.

Implications:

· Minimal cost to remove fencing and make safe

· Not within expectations of some of community members

· Lowest ongoing operational cost

· This can proceed straight away

· The grant funding already received by The Chamber cannot be used for this purpose

4. Courts are upgraded to be tennis courts only

The Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee and Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Club’s expressed preference for tennis only courts.

Implications:

· Unlikely to receive grant funding

· Does not align with Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan as multipurpose is identified as a priority. Currently the facility has low usage and does not warrant increase of infrastructure

· This option aligns with majority feedback from the recent Community Survey

· This is the preference of the existing Management Committee, which has advised it is happy to continue volunteering with this option

· The grant funding already received by The Chamber cannot be used for this purpose

5. Council provide alternative direction.

Background

Councillors will recall that, in 2018, the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4 were identified as unsafe and, therefore, closed. Subsequently, a report was presented to Council’s Strategy & Assets Meeting held on 16 October 2018. The report advised that no comments had been received regarding the closure and recommended that Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4 be decommissioned. Council subsequently resolved (MIN18.854):

“That Council

1. Waive the outstanding loan amount of $7,500 to Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee

2. Proceed to decommission Courts 3 & 4 at Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts

3. That community consultation be undertaken regarding the future use of the site”

Council resolved to decommission Courts 3 and 4 at this location and to waive the outstanding loan balance of $7,500 used to resurface the courts in 2009, as the asset’s condition was placing an undue financial burden on the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee. The Resolution also included that community consultation be undertaken regarding future use of the site.

In September 2018, Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee advised that usage rates were unlikely to provide enough income to fund ongoing maintenance of 4 courts.

Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 1 and 2 were used on average for a total usage across the two (2) courts for seven (7) hours per week during the 2017/18 financial year. During 2018/19, the tennis courts have had one (1) additional booking for one (1) to two (2) hours for two (2) days per week, resulting in an overall increase to nine (9) to ten (10) hours per week.

Tennis NSW has advised that Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts is not identified as a competition venue, with the competition needs of the Shoalhaven being sufficiently met by Berry, Bomaderry and Ulladulla Tennis Complexes.

Tennis NSW further advises they require a minimum of six (6) courts for accredited competitions, and competitions cannot be played on mixed surfaces (i.e., three (3) hard, three (3) synthetic) or on multipurpose courts; however, the competition needs of the Shoalhaven are being sufficiently met by Berry, Bomaderry and Ulladulla Tennis Complexes.

The Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Club currently has thirty-five (35) active members. There are currently ten (10) volunteers on the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee.

Currently, there is one (1) multipurpose tennis / netball court at Shoalhaven Heads Primary School (this is not made available for public use by the Education Department), and a half-court basketball hoop at Jerry Bailey Reserve. There is no Shoalhaven Heads team in either basketball or netball competition currently.

Future Use

Community consultation was conducted during May / June 2019 regarding the future use of Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4. An overview of this consultation is provided below. Please refer Attachment 1 for the full community consultation summary. Whilst not part of the recent consultation process, additional unsolicited feedback was received from the community prior to the consultation period this is included in Attachment 2.

Council Survey Outcomes - May / June 2019

The community consultation indicates a strong preference that these courts be reinstated for use as tennis courts (103 responses) or for basketball / netball / tennis multipurpose courts (62 responses).

Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee and Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Club have formally responded, stating that a multipurpose option is not preferred, some of the reasons being:

· Increase in work required of volunteers – the existing Management Committee is happy to continue to manage Courts 3 and 4 as tennis courts only, but feels that it is not resourced to manage multipurpose courts – the existing tennis courts have comparatively low work requirements in contrast to the multipurpose option which may require additional co-ordination

· Concerns were raised that players would find the additional line marking visually confusing and that the non-removable goal posts would be a risk to tennis players, as they are not removable for tennis matches

· Synthetic court maintenance costs are greater than for hard courts – the extra potential income may be insufficient for ongoing maintenance requirements

An increased number of sports may attract additional volunteers for the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee. The community consultation indicates strong support for the multipurpose option, and twenty-eight (28) respondents identified that they would be willing to volunteer to fundraise or to assist in multipurpose court management.

With regard to safety / accessibility concerns about multipurpose courts, the proposed layout is identified as an appropriate option for low-usage facilities by Tennis NSW and will comply with Australian Standards for operational safety.

Current Asset Condition - Subsurface and Concrete Slab – Playing Surface

Council officers sought independent technical advice on the subsurface below Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4. A Shallow Geotechnical Investigation was commissioned by Council to establish the subsurface condition. This identifies that resurfacing with a synthetic surface could occur if all cracks are sealed prior to installing the synthetic surface to reduce localised infiltration.

The existing Fibrecrete concrete slab is fractured in multiple places, with large visible cracks which have allowed water to penetrate. Advice received indicates that it would be difficult to cut out sections and replace for repair. It is noteworthy that the construction method of Courts 1 and 2 differs from that employed for Courts 3 and 4. Courts 1 and 2 have no subsurface or concrete slab issues, and the concrete slab for Courts 1 and 2 contains adequate steel reinforcement.

Reinstallation of the concrete slab and surfacing with hard court acrylic – refer to Option 2

All advice indicates that cracks in the current concrete slab render it unsuitable for resurfacing with hard court acrylic. To pursue the hard-court option, full demolition and reinstallation of the concrete slab is required.

Estimated costs for the reinstallation of the concrete slab are considerable and are not covered by either of the two (2) grant applications that have been submitted by The Chamber. A formal tender process would be required to identify the actual cost to undertake these works when put to the market. There is no certainty that the market tested quote will align with the cost estimate.

Resurfacing the existing concrete slab with synthetic grass courts – refer to Option 1

As geotechnical advice has confirmed that further movement in the concrete slab is unlikely, it is possible to fill the existing cracks and resurface with synthetic grass.

Resurfacing with synthetic grass is, consequently, the most cost-effective option as it requires the least work and does not require costly reinstallation of the subsurface and concrete playing surface. This is the option identified by The Chamber in two (2) grant applications identified below, and further information in Attachment 3, 4 and Attachment 5 (in the Councillors Information Folder).

Update on Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 1 and 2 – currently operating

Whilst not directly related to the current community consultation and plans for Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4, it is important to note that there are plans in place for upgrades to Courts 1 and 2. These will be resurfaced in acrylic hard court and re-fenced during 2019/20, funded by a Stronger Country Communities Fund grant with matching Council contribution, at a cost of $33,895 for resurfacing, and $33,000 for re-fencing (total value of the works $66,895). Courts 3 and 4 were not included in the Stronger Country Communities Fund project as they had been out of use for two (2) years and decommissioned at time of the funding application.

Community Engagement

Staff are maintaining regular contact with the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee, Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Club and The Chamber, pending Council’s Resolution of this report. At an onsite meeting held on 2 August 2019 with representatives of these stakeholder groups, comment was provided on the following:

· The Tennis Court Management Committee:

o Concerns that young players are training at Bomaderry because Shoalhaven Heads facilities are not enough

o Informal advice from a contractor that trees surrounding the facility may need to be removed if synthetic resurfacing occurs

· The Tennis Club:

o Membership has declined since Courts 3 and 4 became unusable and Club competitions are restricted due to wait times on Courts 1 and 2

o They are of the view that there is a deficiency of hard courts in the Shoalhaven and the Club’s preference is for the reinstallation of hard courts – supported by the Management Committee

o Club competitions could increase on mixed surfaces (two (2) synthetic, two (2) hard)

· The Chamber:

o A proposed donation from a community member – identified for matching funding in the grant application – is currently unconfirmed – Council have not received this advice formally

o Veterans Competitions could be played on mixed surfaces (two (2) synthetic, two (2) hard)

o The Chamber’s commitment to an annual contribution for a total of 3 years towards maintenance costs of synthetic multipurpose courts

o Quotes for resurfacing provided by the Chamber may have their total reduced by the amount required to clean the surface as these works have been undertaken voluntarily by the Chamber

o They are of the view that Courts 3 and 4 were installed by Council using a methodology and materials which were later found to be substandard

· Access to the courts is currently overseen by the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Court Management Committee which provides access to the Tennis Club, and through a local shop which provides keys and collects fees for casual users. Although this is a common procedure with smaller courts, The Chamber believes that it is restrictive, results in limited usage and, therefore, proposes a key card system to increase utilisation

Policy Implications

Council is Trust Manager of the Crown Land occupied by Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4 – the land has allocated purposes of “Public Reserve” and “Community Purposes”, which allow all uses considered during the community consultation, including resurfacing of Courts 3 and 4.

The Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan identifies Council’s strategic direction to increase activation of community facilities by encouraging multipurpose use.

Financial Implications

Resurfacing works were initially proposed to be funded by grant monies. All quotes were sourced in late 2018 and are for both Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4.

See a detailed breakdown of costings in Attachment 5 (Councillors Information Folder).

Grant Applications – these relate to Option 1

Two (2) grant applications have been submitted by the Chamber for multipurpose resurfacing of Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4, supported by a commitment for sponsorship / co-contributions by the Chamber:

· SportAus Federal Government Grant - See Attachment 3 (Councillors Information Folder)

· My Community Projects State Government grants – See Attachment 4 (Councillors Information Folder)

· Additional Grant information with financial comments – See Attachment 5 (Councillors Information Folder)

Other Works

In order to support best management practice of the courts, additional potential works to the facility have been identified:

· Council has received advice of drainage issues caused by water flow from Courts 1 and 2, which is thought to have played a role in the differential settlement in the subsurface of Courts 3 and 4 - drainage works will be required to ameliorate these issues, and can be funded from Council’s Minor Improvements Budget 2019 / 20 if resurfacing proceeds

· The surrounding trees may need assessing if synthetic surfaces are installed as shade and falling debris can increase maintenance requirements.

Asset Management Costs

Projected costs for synthetic court maintenance for Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts 3 and 4 over 10 years to 2030 have been estimated; these are detailed in Attachment 6 (Councillors Information Folder).

At a cost of $12 per hour for synthetic court hire, it would require usage of, on average, fourteen (14) hours per week to meet these costs. This is in addition to the current ten (10) hours of usage per week on Courts 1 and 2 which meets basic maintenance costs on those courts. A minimum of twenty-four (24) hours paid usage per week is required in total, to cover the annual maintenance costs across all four (4) courts.

Should resurfacing proceed, income from facility hire will be reviewed after twelve (12) months in collaboration with the Shoalhaven Heads Tennis Courts Management Committee, to review funding with an aim to meet the asset’s maintenance and replacement costs over the 10 year period to 2030.

Risk Implications

Insufficient Funding

Grant Funds

If insufficient grant funds have been allocated through the grant funding sourced by the Chamber - including Chamber co-contributions – there may be expectations within the community that Council should fund the shortfall balance.

Operational Costs and potential income

There will be an additional financial cost for the Tennis Court Management Committee which may not be met if Courts 3 and 4 are reinstated and usage rates for tennis do not increase, including:

· Resurfacing of courts is required within ten (10) to twenty (20) years, depending on surface type

· Courts require ongoing cleaning and maintenance as infrastructure deteriorates, e.g., fences are frequently vandalised and require repair

If the courts are multipurpose, and used for basketball and netball, Council does not currently charge local clubs for use of outdoor courts for these sports. This may also raise questions from the community on equity with application of user fees. This could be addressed by the addition of a Shoalhaven Heads-only hire fee for use of these courts, given that they are fenced. There is potential for an access control system to be installed by Council as part of the transition to the on-line booking system.

Insufficient Volunteers

Providing a multipurpose facility may result in existing volunteers being discouraged. As noted above, twenty-eight (28) respondents identified that they would be willing to volunteer to fundraise or to assist in multipurpose courts management. Council will invite respondents to the community survey to join the Management Committee.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.135 Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club Facility Update

HPERM Ref: D19/288932

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Information provided by MUCC after the onsite meeting - August 2019 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

1. This Report is presented to provide an update to Council following the onsite meeting with Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club (MUCC) on 21 August 2019.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive and note the report regarding the onsite meeting with Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club for information.

2. Note that staff will proceed with previous resolution MIN19.583 Parts 2, 3 and 4, being:

a. Maintain status quo with the Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club continuing to use the court at the Milton Showground, whilst further investigating to confirm the possibility for 4 courts at the Ulladulla Sports Park, following an on-site meeting.

b. Council receive a further report on outcomes of environmental investigation at Ulladulla Sports Park with the aim to definitively confirm the possibility of 4 courts at the site under the current legislation requirements.

c. Subject to funding, Council commence the construction of courts 1 and 2 at the Ulladulla Sports Park without delay.

Options

Option 1 – This is recommended

That Council accept the report for information

Implications:

· The REF including Heritage Assessment (which may take up to 15 months including 12 months of environmental observation if required) has commenced for courts 3 and 4. This will ensure that the site has potential to deliver 4 courts in line with the expectations of MUCC and a report will be provided to Council when the outcomes are known.

· MUCC will continue to use the croquet court at Milton Showground until such time as a new facility is built.

· Subject to identification of additional funding, this will deliver courts 1 & 2 and associated infrastructure, excluding the clubhouse. This does not meet the needs of MUCC who have indicated that the clubhouse is essential.

· This will continue to have an impact on the users of Milton Showground, including the Show Society, with reduced space until the new croquet facility comes on line.

Option 2

That Council provide an alternative recommendation

Implications:

Unknown at this stage.

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council in August, Council resolved the following (MIN 19.583):

That Council:

1. Accept the report for information.

4. Subject to funding, Council commence the construction of courts 1 and 2 at the Ulladulla Sports Park without delay.

5. Subject to consultation with the Croquet Club and following the on-site meeting a report be submitted to the September Strategy and Assets meeting.

This report responds to Part 5 of this resolution.

Update - On Site Meeting – 21 August 2019

An onsite meeting was held at Ulladulla Sports Park on Wednesday 21 August. In attendance were six (6) representatives from the executive of the Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club (MUCC), four (4) Council staff, and two (2) Councillors from Ward 3. An apology was received from a Ward 2 Councillor. The meeting covered the following key areas with staff following up.

The proposed location, site constraints and potential design changes

· Potential changes in the design and the orientation of the courts where raised by MUCC. These aimed to minimise potential environmental impacts. Staff made comment on time and financial impacts.

· Subsequent advice from MUCC has indicated that delivery of the existing Stage 1 is a priority (Attachment 1) without design changes.

Car Park, times of use and floodlighting requirements

· MUCC clarified their usage and playing times, being predominantly weekdays during the daylight hours which may influence the car parking requirements.

· MUCC advised they do not believe that additional car parking is required. This was also provided in additional written feedback (Attachment 1).

· MUCC have advised that although lighting is not needed in the next 12 months, it is a priority to begin night matches in the future. This will require floodlighting the field.

Subsequent investigations by staff:

· Staff have completed some additional investigations with the Duty Planners. This identified that this project will require a Development Application (DA). Part of the process will consider car parking requirements and compliance with the DCP 2014.

· If the Clubhouse is built on a slab, as opposed to piers, a DA is required.

· Preparation, submission and consideration of the DA will impact on the delivery timeline.

· In the review of costs, there is the option to install the lighting infrastructure up front and defer the floodlighting for courts 1 and 2. This will require future funding for floodlights, current estimate - $20,000.

Clarification on design, costing and purpose of use for the Club House

· MUCC advised on site that the current design option is their preference.

· MUCC quotes for the club house included a ‘lock up shell’ only and did not include fixtures or connection of services.

· At the time of writing this report, MUCC have not provided the cost estimates to Council.

Subsequent investigations by staff:

· Staff were able to review the costings for the club house and have made changes in the estimates in the value management review – detailed below.

Options for delivery of the project

Options for a staged approach and the implications of this on the MUCC’s ability to operate in both the short and long term were discussed:

· Staff advised that a staged delivery approach, with courts 1 & 2 including associated services infrastructure and the club house including storage and amenities, separated into 2 stages (Stage 1a and Stage 1b respectively).

· MUCC advised this was not preferred and will not support delivery of courts without the provision of a club house that can accommodate a tea break for 20 indoors, storage and amenities. This was also provided in additional written feedback (Attachment 1).

Financial Implications

Review of Financial Estimates / Value Management Review

A value management review on the current design has identified potential savings estimated to be $291,110 from the original scope of works to deliver Stage 1 in the following areas:

· Club house design and construction

· Contaminated land costs

· Deferment of flood light instillation

Revised Summary of Costs and Funding Requirements

Stage 1a	Stage 1b
Courts 1 & 2 including associated services infrastructure	Clubhouse including storage, amenities
Estimated cost - $866,404	Estimated cost - $200,000
Additional Funding requirement - $153,049	Additional Funding requirement - $200,000

Overall, MUCC do not support a staged approach, advising that the courts cannot be used without a club house. A staged approach would allow a DA and ensuing Request for Tender (RFT) to proceed for Stage 1a subject to funding of $153,049 being identified.

To proceed with Stage 1 in its entirety (i.e. 1a & 1b) to meet MUCC requirements will require additional funding of $353,049. All work is still subject to market testing through the RFT process.

Subject to Council’s decision in respect of this report, staff will continue to explore funding opportunities in consultation with the MUCC to enable construction of courts 1 & 2 to commence at the Ulladulla Sports Park in accordance with Council’s resolution (Part 4) in MIN19.853.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.136 2019/2020 Conferences

HPERM Ref: D19/290224

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Human Resources, Governance & Risk

Purpose / Summary

To consider Councillor attendance at various conferences from September 2019 to December 2020.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Authorises available Councillors to attend the following conferences and such attendance be deemed Council Business.

a. 2019 NSW Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference

b. 28^th NSW Coastal Conference

c. 19^th International Cities and Town Centres Conference

d. 2019 National Local Roads & Transport Congress

e. Local Government Parking Summit 2019

f. 2019 Global Eco Asia-Pacific Tourism Conference

g. 2020 Australian Coastal Councils Conference

h. 2020 Australian Local Government Women’s Association NSW State Conference

i. 2020 OzWater Conference

j. 2020 National Australian Women’s Association Conference

k. 10^th Australian Small Bridges Conference

l. 2020 National General Assembly of Local Government

m. Local Government Planning & Environmental Law Conference 2020

n. 2020 LGNSW Water Management Conference

o. 2020 NSW Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference

p. 2020 LGNSW Annual Conference

q. 20^th International Cities and Town Centres Conference

r. Local Government Parking Summit 2020

s. 2020 National Local Roads & Transport Congress

t. 2020 Global Eco Asia-Pacific Tourism Conference

2. Require that travel, registration fees, accommodation and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses be met in accordance with Council Members – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy.

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

Options

1. As per the recommendation. Additional information on conferences which is not available at the time of publication of the report will be provided to the Councillors.

2. That Council receive an individual report for each conference.

3. That Council not approve Councillor attendance at one or more of the listed Conferences as Council Business.

Background

In order for Councillors’ registration and associated expenses for attendance at Conferences outside the local government area to be covered by the Council Members – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy, a resolution of the Council is required to determine the attendance as ‘Council Business’.

In previous years a separate report has been written for Councillor attendance at each of the conferences listed in the recommendation. To reduce administration and inform Councillors of conferences available for attendance in advance it is proposed that Council authorise attendance at all of the following conferences in this one report. Additional reports will be provided to the Council when there is a need to appoint voting delegates and endorse motions from the Council for inclusion in the business paper of a conference.

The details of the Conferences available to the Council currently are as follows:

a. 2019 NSW Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference

Dates: 9-11 October 2019

Location: Sydney, NSW

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

b. 28^th NSW Coastal Conference

Dates: 30 October to 1 November 2019

Location: Terrigal, NSW

Costs of Registration: up to $895

c. 19^th International Cities and Town Centres Conference

Dates: 23-27 October 2019

Location: Townsville, QLD

Costs of Registration: up to $1300

d. 2019 National Local Roads & Transport Congress

Dates: 18-20 November 2019

Location: Hahndorf, SA

Costs of Registration: Up to $990

e. Local Government Parking Summit 2019

Dates: 6-8 November 2019

Location: Manly, NSW

Costs of Registration: Up to $2,995

f. 2019 Global Eco Asia-Pacific Tourism Conference

Dates: 2-4 December 2019

Location: Cairns, QLD

Costs of Registration: up to $1295

g. 2020 Australian Coastal Councils Conference

Dates: Not known – last event was 6-8 March 2019

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

h. 2020 Australian Local Government Women’s Association NSW State Conference

Dates: 26-28 March 2020

Location: Shellharbour City, NSW

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

i. Waste 2020 Conference

Dates: 5-7 May 2020

Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

j. 2020 OzWater Conference

Dates: 5-7 May 2020

Location: Adelaide, SA

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

k. 2020 National Australian Women’s Association Conference

Dates: Not confirmed – last event was 15-17 May 2019

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

l. 10^th Australian Small Bridges Conference

Dates: 2-3 June 2020

Location: Surfers Paradise, QLD

Costs of Registration: Up to $1200

m. 2020 National General Assembly of Local Government

Dates: 14-17 June 2020

Location: Canberra ACT

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

n. Local Government Planning & Environmental Law Conference 2020

Dates: Not confirmed – last event was 21 June 2019

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

o. 2020 LGNSW Water Management Conference

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 2-4 September)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

p. 2020 NSW Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 9-11 October 2019)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

q. 2020 LGNSW Annual Conference

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 14-16 October)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

r. 29^th NSW Coastal Conference

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 30 Oct to 1 Nov)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

s. 20^th International Cities and Town Centres Conference

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 23-27 October)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

t. Local Government Parking Summit 2020

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 6-8 November)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

u. 2020 National Local Roads & Transport Congress

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 18-20 November)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

v. 2020 Global Eco Asia-Pacific Tourism Conference

Dates: 2020 date not confirmed (2019 date 2-4 December)

Location: Not yet available

Costs of Registration: Not yet available

For those conferences where details of the Conferences were not available at the time of this report, Councillors will be advised by email of the specific details. Councillors will also be advised further in relation to the above conference as conference dates get closer.

It is acknowledged that the above list may not include all conferences which may be available in the upcoming year. Conferences additional to those listed above which warrant consideration of attendance by Councillors will be reported individually to the Council once their details are advertised.

Policy Implications

The Council Members – Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy limits attendance at conferences to three per annum per councillor exclusive of any conference arranged by either the State or National Local Government Associations.

Financial Implications:

Funds are available for Councillors to attend these conferences.

The expenses relating to Councillors’ attendance at conferences and other expenses are published annually on the Council’s Website.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.137 Hyams Beach Community Hall

HPERM Ref: D19/257794

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Technical Services

Attachments: 1. Hyams Beach Villagers Association - community hall request ⇩

2. Hyams Beach RFS - site plan ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To inform Council of the issues and outcomes needed that result in the community’s use of the former RFS building at Hyams Beach.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That:

1 Council note that a portion of the Hyams Beach Community Hall site is on land that is part of a successful Aboriginal land claim by the Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council (JLAC) and the land is also subject to a Native Title claim. This means that the JLAC cannot conduct any dealings on the land until Native Title matters are resolved. In the interim Council is seeking to negotiate a licence to operate the facility so an action plan for repairs can be developed and implemented. Based on recent inspections of the building it’s estimated that extensive repairs will cost in the order of $135,000 and demolition of the building would be approximately $60,000.

2 Staff continue to make representations to Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council to negotiate an agreement for use and occupation of the building.

3 An update report be provided to Council at the November 2019 Strategy and Assets Committee.

Options

1. Council Adopt the recommendation

Implications: Council will receive an update on the issues associated with the former RFS building; continue to make representations to Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council to negotiate an agreement for use and occupation of the building; and provide a further report to Council.

2. Not adopt the recommendation

Implications: Council will not receive an update on the issues associated with the former RFS building.

Background

On 23 July 2019 Council resolved (MIN19.475), in part 2.h., that:

2. Council note that given the complexity and expertise required to progress the following “long-term solutions”, separate reports to future Strategy & Assets meetings are being prepared, and that the outcomes of deliberations on those further reports will be consolidated into the Draft Hyams Beach Access and Management Master Plan:

h. Community Hall: Community requests for access to the hall, identified challenges and associated costs.

This report is in response to the resolution, part 2.h.

On 25 October 2018 Council staff provided a briefing to Councillors which raised issues associated with the land Claim and additional items to overcome, inclusive of:

• Asset Protection Zone (not achievable given adjoining NPWS land)

• Zoning (currently SP2 Emergency Services)

• Asbestos

• Encroachment of building (Ownership)

• Cost of building Compliance (e.g. carparking, accessibility, construction to flame zone)

• Condition of the building to enable community occupation

The subject land consists of two adjoining lots, those being Lot 79 (Council Land), identified blue, and Lot 78 (Jerrinja LALC) identified red and yellow in Attachment 2.

The use of the building by the community has been an ongoing issue since the RFS moved to the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre site in 2013. Following on from this, in November 2013 Council undertook a detailed building inspection to provide costings associated with required upgrades prior to any community occupation. Two options were provided, firstly $115,000 to upgrade, including asbestos removal, and secondly $60,000 to demolish. No action was taken at the time in respect of either option and the building sat idle.

It was not until early 2016, following a request to formalise occupation from the Hyams Beach Villagers Association (HBVA) and a Notice of Motion being submitted to the January 2016 Ordinary meeting, that opportunities relating to the building were raised, where it was resolved that (MIN16.71):

(a) The General Manager provide a status report for the old Hyams Beach Fire Station. Such report to include the costs required to make the building usable.

(b) The status report detail other steps that may be necessary to enable rental or use by community groups.

(c) All reports be provided to Council at an appropriate meeting in order that Councillors might determine whether further discussions with HBVA is worthwhile.

As a result of the above, an inspection of the building determined extensive repairs were needed with the cost of the works escalating to $135,000 and demolition remaining at $60,000.

The other major factor this inspection revealed was the need for bush fire protection. The building is surrounded by heavy vegetation and adjoins National Parks and Wildlife land. A bushfire assessment report would need to be undertaken in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979; the Rural Fires Act 1997; Rural Fires Regulation 2013; and Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. It was estimated the APZ around the building would need to be approximately 40 metres, however given the ownership of the adjoining land it was considered that an approval would never be obtained, resulting in other fire protection methods being implemented that would add significantly to the cost of repairs as stated above.

Given both the asbestos issues and inadequate fire protection, the community’s access has been removed and continues to be removed for health and safety reasons.

The following background information in relation to this matter was provided in the report to the Strategy & Assets Committee on 23 July 2019 (from page 25 of the Agenda: https://shoalhaven.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/SA_20190723_AGN_15988_AT.PDF):

Access to the Hyams Beach Community Hall

Members of the HBVA have expressed frustration that the community has not been able to access the community hall for several years.

A portion of the land that the hall sits on is part of a successful Aboriginal land claim by Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council. The land is also subject to a Native Title claim. This means that Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council cannot conduct any dealings on the land until Native Title matters are resolved. This is expected to take a number of years.

Council staff have made representations to open discussions with Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council to enter into a licence agreement. At the time of this report, Council staff have not yet met with Jerrinja LALC.

In the event a licence is negotiated, Council can then determine what needs to be done to make the building safe and develop an action plan.

Front elevation of the former RFS building

Rear elevation of the former RFS building

Community Engagement

The CEO, Tourism Manager and Tourism Project Officer met with representatives of the HBVA on 13 May 2019. The President of the Association expressed significant frustration that Council had changed the locks to stop the community from accessing the hall. He also asked that the community be given access to the hall again.

At its meeting on 8 June 2019 the HBVA unanimously voted to request that “Council use its best endeavours to enter into a license agreement with the Jerrinja Land Council concerning use/upgrade of the fire Shed by end of July 2019”

The Tourism Project Officer met with representatives of the HBVA and business representatives on 22 July 2019. The President of HBVA expressed frustration from the community regarding being denied access to the shed and again asked that Council allow the community to access the hall.

Given that asbestos and fire protection issues remain and that no agreement currently exists with Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council, legal occupation cannot occur.

Council will continue to liaise with Jerrinja LALC to resolve the licence issue as quickly as possible. Once this is achieved the other issues can be considered and costed.

Policy Implications

Nil.

Financial Implications

As a result of the above, an inspection of the building determined extensive repairs are needed which will cost $135,000 or demolition remaining at $60,000.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.138 Hyams Beach - Seamans Beach Carpark - Illegal Camping and Noise Complaints

HPERM Ref: D19/233337

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Technical Services

Attachments: 1. Letter from Hyams Beach Villagers Association - Seamans Beach carpark gate ⇩

2. Plan - Lockable Gate Concept - Seamans Beach Carpark ⇩

Purpose / Summary

The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider an option to control access to the Seamans beach carpark and toilet facility with the aim of restricting unauthorised overnight camping at the location and provide additional disabled parking.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That in respect to Seamans Carpark, Hyams Beach, Council:

1. Install a lockable gate at the entrance in accordance with the (D19/275486) sketch at an estimated installation cost of $12,000 to be funded from the Coastal Villages Traffic Management fund for the 2019/2020 financial year.

2. Engage commercial security to lock the toilets and carpark at 7pm and volunteers sought to unlock the gate at 6am during Christmas and Easter school holiday periods (including the weekends either side of these periods), the cost of $26,075 to be funded from the Coastal Villages Traffic Management fund for the 2019/2020 financial year and then after from a specific operating budget to be determined during Council 2020/2021 budget deliberations

3. Not install additional disabled spaces due to non‑compliant grades or accessible paths of travel currently exist in the carpark and given the demand for such access is considered to be low.

4. Not install a CCTV system to monitor illegal activity at the carpark.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: Illegal parking will be prevented, and thus overnight camping will be deterred.

2. Some minor variation to the recommendation (i.e. different opening or closing times)

Implications: Illegal parking will be prevented, and thus overnight camping will be deterred to a more or less extend depending on the actual changes.

3. Do nothing

Recommendation: That after considering the costs and potential benefits associated with locking the carpark and toilet block Council take no further action in relation to installing locks, engaging security, installing CCTV and creating disabled carpark spots.

Implications: Illegal parking will continue to be managed as with every other unlocked carpark.

Background

At the Strategy and Assets Committee meeting on 23 July 2019 the Committee resolved as follows (under delegated authority from Council, MIN19.475):

https://shoalhaven.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/SA_20190723_AGN_15988_AT.PDF).

b. Illegal Camping and installation of a gate at Seamans Beach carpark: Installation of a gate on Seamans Beach carpark with associated options and costings, including locking toilets, additional disabled parking and additional line-marking.

This report is in response to the resolution, part 2.b.

Extensive background in relation to this matter is provided in the above report (page 25 of the agenda) and the Micromex Research Consultation Document, both of which are available on Council’s website via the following links:

1. https://shoalhaven.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/SA_20190723_AGN_15988_AT.PDF

2. https://getinvolved.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/39719/documents/94901

As part of Council’s community engagement process, Council conducted a survey from 3 October to 13 November 2018 on various short and long-term options at Hyams Beach. Options presented were broad to gauge the level of support for the options in principle. Some options require additional consultation with the community if Council decides to proceed.

There were 95 survey responses and 45 written submissions. Some of the respondents completed both the survey and submitted a written submission.

Micromex Research analysed both the survey responses and written submissions and prepared a report for Council on 10 December 2018 (“the Micromex Report”), published on Council’s website at: https://getinvolved.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/39719/documents/94901.

Additional disabled parking facilities at Seamans Beach carpark

Respondents to the survey were generally supportive of extra disabled parking facilities in Seamans Beach carpark, with the breakdown of responses as follows:

23% “love it”, 40% “Ok idea”, 15% “I don’t care either way”, 14% “don’t like it” & 8% “hate it”.

The written submissions in relation to disabled parking facilities in Seamans Beach carpark:

“commented on wanting more disabled parking/access, [and] they also discussed how there is not currently sufficient facilities/ramps at Seamans Carpark for disabled people to access the beach.

Comments varied from wanting to convert the whole of Seamans Carpark into disabled parking, to not wanting to remove any parking spots that everyone can use.”

Specific comments on this option are published on page 21 of the Micromex Report.

Despite the apparent community support for this option, the carpark itself does not provide the necessary grades or accessible paths of travel to provide disabled parking that is compliant to the standards and there is currently no disabled access to the beach. Presently there is one non‑compliant disabled space in the carpark and upon analysis of the demand and compliance with Council’s Development Control Plan chapter G21 Carparking and Traffic there is no identified need for additional disabled carparking spaces at this location.

Locking the toilets and gate to Seamans Beach carpark

The resolution of Council to trial of locking the toilets overnight (26 March 2019 – MIN19.162) was discussed with representatives of the Hyams Beach Villagers Association on 15 April 2019. Representatives suggested to delay the trial until a gate is in place to close the carpark.

A letter from the Hyams Beach Villagers Association dated 17 June 2019 is at Attachment 1. At their general meeting on 8 June 2019 members voted to “request that, if an alternative approach cannot be implemented quickly, Council move to implement the trial of a gate at the Seamans Beach carpark to prevent unauthorised stays and unruly behaviour at night. The design and build of the gate should be appropriate to the spirit of a trial. The HBVA supports that the gate be in place by the October long weekend 2019.”

Installation of a gate on Seamans Beach carpark

As alluded to above, to control access to the carpark (and thus try to eliminate/manage illegal camping), the community consultation processes have suggested installing a gate that can be locked.

There are a number of ways to “gate” a carpark; some of the most common are:

Type	Comment	Approx. Cost
Chain across the entrance	This was not explored in detail as chains have proven to be dangerous with children swinging on them and they become heavy to drag open and closed and are not too difficult to cut.	$6,000
Boom Gate (manual)	Manually lifted and lowered booms can be awkward/dangerous to operate, and not very robust, thus most likely ineffective without being staffed.	$10,000
Boom Gate (motorised)	Not very robust, thus most likely ineffective without being staffed. May have ongoing maintenance issues.	In excess of $30,000
Removable Bollards	Bollards that are fixed to the ground and removed then replaced. They can be difficult to lift out and into place, issues arise with storage, they are relatively easy to nudge over with a four-wheel drive.	$12,000
Retractable Bollards (manual)	Bollards that are socketed into the ground and can be pulled up to lock the carpark or lowered into the pavement to open it. They are more resistant to being nudged over with a four-wheel drive than removable bollards but only have to be slightly pushed off centre or vandalised and they may not retract.	$22,000
Retractable Bollards (motorised)	Not explored in detail given the cost and reliability	In excess of $30,000
Swinging Gate	Sweep path of the gate can impact on surrounds. Generally, the easiest and safe to operate and very robust.	$12,000

Note: Given the advantages of the swinging gate and the disadvantages of other options only the swinging gate has been considered further.

The characteristics of the proposal include;

1.Installtion of kerb stops (or bollards) with line marking within the access to delineate entry and exit points

2(i) the installation of one gate across the whole access, or

2(ii) two gates with the installation of a central median island in the entrance

(actual arrangement will be determined at the quoting stage)

3. a locking mechanism installed

It is estimated that to manufacture and install a gate, traffic facilities and line marking will cost approximately $12,000.

The installation of a gate (be it one or two gates with an island) would mean that the gates could not be closed if a car was parked in space 1 (double gate) and space 1 and 2 (single gate); however a double gate with part slide rail could be a design feature that may successfully eliminate this issue.

It then remains to resolve the locking/unlocking of the gate which is proposed to be part of the locking of the toilet block.

Locking Seamans Beach toilets overnight

Currently the toilets can be locked. With negotiation the portaloos can also be locked.

Two arrangements have been considered: locking using volunteers, and locking using a security firm. Given that the drive for the locking arrangement is to prevent illegal activity it is foreseeable that the locking activity is likely to be confrontational.

A combination of the two seems desirable as the unlocking of the gate would not likely be a risky activity.

The cost for locking of the public amenity (toilet) and carpark is $110 per visit ($220 per day – morning and night). The annual amounts to $80,300.

Other options include:

1. Locking over the October to April Day light saving months, estimated cost $40,150 ($20,075 if unlocking by volunteers in the morning)

2. Only locking during peak seasons (Christmas, Easter etc.) estimated cost $12,000 ($6,000 if unlocking by volunteers in the morning)

It should be noted that during peak seasons the facilities are supplemented with portaloos which do present issues with respect to locking. Issues related to this activity include “clearing” the carpark, signage, timing of opening/closing and surveillance.

With respect to timing, for simplicity it is proposed to close the area from 7pm through to 6am.

Signage to this effect will be erected about the carpark, advised through Council’s media outlets and advised to the local community.

Investigate the ability to issue higher dollar infringements for illegal camping

The current fines remain unless changed by a resolution of Council in line with State Government guidelines. The current cost of the infringement is approximately $110. Typically, the enforcement of this matter is difficult as “illegal campers” do not arrive until later in the evening and leave before restrictions are in place. The locking of the carpark may still not reduce the number of free-stay campers, as they may still be able to park on‑street.

Install CCTV cameras for the carpark security

Installation of CCTV camera system for the carpark has been investigated by Council officers. For the size of the carpark, it is estimated that the carpark would require 4 × cameras with lights installed on new posts. However, as there is no supporting communications infrastructure (fibre or microwave link), any proposed system would have to be a closed network with local recording and therefore require personnel to download and retrieve the information.

The cost for installation for this system would be in the order of approximately $80,000 but would also require additional servicing fee to employ a technician to attend the site and download the data. Alternatively, Council could seek to install the necessary infrastructure to support a live CCTV system, but the cost of this infrastructure in such a remote location would be in the vicinity of approx. $960,000.

Furthermore, installation of a CCTV network would do little to prevent the issue of illegal campers; instead Council would be required to pursue any offender individually, which may be difficult with the transient nature of holiday makers and backpackers who would be drawn to the location, particularly international travellers.

Community Engagement

There was extensive consultation to arrive at the decision to explore installing a “gate” arrangement. However, the detailed design attached to the report has not been the subject of any consultation with the Hyams Beach Village Association.

If Council resolves to use volunteers to open (and or close) the gates and they cannot be reliably found the locking arrangements would need to be reconsidered by Council.

Financial Implications

The current balance of the Coastal Villages Traffic Management fund is $153,750. As these items are additional to the original scope of this allocation it is very likely that this allocation will need to be topped up at an appropriate budget quarterly review.

The proposed works are currently unfunded and are to be sourced from the Coastal Villages Traffic Management fund for the 2019/20 financial year.

The most likely source for locking costs this 2019/20 financial year would be the Coastal Villages Traffic Management fund. An appropriate funding source would need to be determined to provide for the ongoing operation of a lockable gate and to lock the existing amenities building.

Risk Implications

There is a risk that the proposed solutions will move people and noise onto the street. There is also a possibility that locking the toilets will lead to more people using the sand dunes and bush areas behind the toilet block.

Should the locking of the carpark prove to be unnecessary in the future the operating arrangements can cease, and the gate could be salvaged for another location at minimal cost, while the remaining kerbs and concrete island (two-gate scenario) can safely remain in place.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.139 Hyams Beach Additional Parking - Long Term Solutions

HPERM Ref: D19/233738

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Technical Services

Attachments: 1. Hyams Beach Villagers Association letter - 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street/foreshore ⇩

2. Hyams Beach Bushcare letter - 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street/Foreshore ⇩

3. Concept - 45 Degree Parking with Tree Clearing - Aster Street - Hyams Beach ⇩

4. Concept - 30 Degree Parking & Partial One-Way Treatment - Cyrus & Aster Street, Hyams Beach ⇩

Purpose / Summary

The purpose of this report is to further develop current ideas and identify any additional permanent parking arrangements in Hyams Beach, in order to allow Council to consider the feasibility of such, prior to broader community consultation.

Note a park and ride from Vincentia options report is being prepared for a future Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting.

Note a paid parking options report is being prepared for a future Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting.

The report contains conceptual plans and ballpark costing, comment about feasibility and priorities for each arrangement.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That:

1. Council allocate $55,000 in the draft Capital Listing 2020/21 for detailed design of permanent parking arrangements on Cyrus Street and Aster Street, Hyams Beach to achieve approximately 149 car spaces.

2. The CEO (Director Assets & Works) present a future report following detailed design, investigations, cost estimates and community consultation on permanent parking arrangements on Cyrus Street and Aster Street, Hyams Beach prior to proceeding with the construction of permanent parking within the Village.

3. Council reserve $400,000 in the draft Capital Listing 2021/22 to implement permanent parking arrangements in Hyams Beach, with final value to be determined following detailed design and investigations and include these items in the Draft Hyams Beach Master Plan.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: This option provides Council the opportunity to undertake much more detailed investigations into the feasibility of the permanent parking options on Cyrus St and Aster St, in order to be shovel ready and with the community better engaged on the options.

2. Council move design/investigation forward to the current 2019/20 financial year

New Item 1: At the first quarterly review of the 2019/2020 budget Council allocate $55,000 for detailed design of permanent parking arrangements on Cyrus Street and Aster Street, Hyams Beach to achieve approximately 149 car spaces.

Items 2 and 3 as per option 1

Implications: This would potentially bring any proposed permanent parking options forward, however the budget for 2019/20 has already been adopted by Council and this project is currently unfunded, a quarterly review would be required.

3. Not proceed with investigating permanent parking options on Cyrus St and Aster St

Recommendation: That after considering the costs and potential benefits associated with providing additional permanent parking options on Cyrus St and Aster St Council take no further action.

Implications: The existing issues with parking and traffic management will continue at Hyams Beach.

Background

Extensive background in relation to this matter is provided in the report to the Strategy & Assets Committee on 23 July 2019 (from page 25 of the Agenda:

https://shoalhaven.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/SA_20190723_AGN_15988_AT.PDF).

Council resolved (MIN19.475), in part 2.e. that:

e. Additional parking in the village: There is mixed feedback about carparking and various options that have been discussed.

This report is in response to the resolution, part 2.e.

Following the extensive community consultation on short- and long-term options, outlined in more detail under the heading “Community Engagement” below, the following proposals have been identified for further investigation:

· Increased 90-degree parking on Aster Street;

· Increased 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street; and

· Bus parking or drop off points within the village.

In addition, staff have identified the following option:

· Partial one-way solution with 30-degree on street parking

A summary of the parking possibilities as outlined in attachment 4 is as follows;

Location	Spaces
Aster St (Tulip to Cyrus)	23 (16 angled + 7 parallel)
Cyrus St (Aster to Anemone)	40 (parallel)
Cyrus St (Anemone to Bamboo)	37 (27 angled + 10 parallel)
Cyrus St (Bamboo to Hyams)	49 (30 angled + 19 parallel)
Total	149

Increased 90-degree parking on Aster Street

In the existing arrangement, the 90-degree parking along Aster Street is not compliant with the Australian Standards for on-street parking, and due to the lack of formalisation if the precedence of parallel parking is set by early parkers the parking capacity of the site is greatly diminished.

There is, however, the potential to provide up to 40 car and 3 motorcycle parking spaces along the northern side of Aster Street in a 45-degree arrangement within the existing road reserve (see attachment 3). This work would require the removal of several trees and tree branches currently encroaching on the road reserve, formalisation of existing stormwater outlets at the subject site and changes to line marking and road widths particularly at the intersection of Cyrus Street.

It should also be noted that the proposed arrangement would also prevent the opportunity for any future footpath on the northern side of Aster Street without encroaching onto National Park. Instead, pedestrians will be encouraged to utilise the existing grassed verge fronting the properties along Aster Street (southern side).

NB reducing angled parking to 30 degree does not yield sufficient space to provide a footpath along the northern road reserve boundary but would reduce parking numbers by 20% when compared to a 45-degree arrangement.

NB if parallel parking was provided on the northern side of Auster Street approximately 20 car spaces would be catered for and a footpath along the northern side could be provided. Given that carparking is the main issue and the speed of the traffic at this location is not high this option has not been pursued further.

The cost of implementing this solution could be in the order of $200,000, which would consist of the clearing and creation of pavement for approx. 397sqm of land within the road reserve, including delineation and signposting. Detailed design and environmental investigations would be in the order of $25,000.

Increased 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street

In the existing arrangement, formalisation of the 90-degree parking along Cyrus Street would be able to increase the number of parking spaces. However, it is to be noted that this proposal would require the removal of parking on one side of Cyrus Street and/or require widening along the eastern side of Cyrus Street, impacting of the passive recreation area in order to be compliant. A much more economical option is provided in the Partial one-way solution with 30 degree on‑street parking option presented below.

Partial one-way solution with 30 degree on‑street parking

With the implementation of one-way traffic flow between Aster Street and Cyrus Street until the intersection of Hyam Street (see attachment 4) it is estimated that there will be a 30% increase in the amount of on‑street parking with minimal requirement of further road widening or tree clearing.

This option would further tie into the parking options on Aster Street and allow for compliant 45-degree parking (between Cyrus Street and Tulip Street) without the need for further widening or tree removal on Aster Street. Furthermore, this option allows for the provision of a 1.5m wide footpath on Cyrus Street between Aster Street and Hyam Street.

The conceptual plans (attachment 4) show where the different parking space types would be located and how the traffic would flow through the northern section of Hyams Beach Village.

It is to be noted that this option is a concept and subject to further analysis and would require the implementation of signage, line marking and kerb and gutter adjustments.

With minimal pavement works necessary to achieve this option (over a larger distance than the Aster Street works), the cost of this option to implement is considered to be in the order of $200,000. Detailed design and environmental investigations would be in the order of $30,000.

It is to be noted that in the existing arrangement, without the removal of parking on one side of Cyrus Street and/or widening along the eastern side of Cyrus Street, the potential 90-degree parking option on Cyrus Street would be non-compliant.

Bus parking/drop off points within the village

The inclusion of a bus parking/drop off point can be easily accommodated along Cyrus Street. The location should be positioned ideally where parallel parking is proposed (as opposed to 90 degree or angled parking) to minimise impacts on parking spaces – a compliant bus stop (30m long) would cost 5 × parallel parking spaces vs up to 12 × 30-degree spaces. Therefore, a location on the eastern side of Cyrus St at the intersection of Anemone Ave is proposed in combination with the proposed footpath considered in a separate Council report.

Community Engagement

As part of Council’s community engagement process, Council conducted a survey from 3 October to 13 November 2018 on various short and long-term options at Hyams Beach. Options presented were broad to gauge the level of support for the options in-principle. Some options require additional consultation with the community if Council decides to proceed.

There were 95 survey responses and 45 written submissions. Some of the respondents completed both the survey and submitted a written submission.

Additional 90-degree angle parking

One of the short-term management options presented for consultation was additional 90-degree parking on Aster Street, resulting in 80 carparks, and the introduction of 80 90-degree carparks along Cyrus Street.

The breakdown of responses into 90-degree angled parking is as follows, and shows that the respondents were divided in opinions on 90-degree parking on Aster Street (50% supportive) and 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street was less popular (55% not supportive):

Increased 90-degree parking on Aster Street:

28% “hate it”, 16% “don’t like it”, 5% “I don’t care either way”, 42% “Ok idea” & 8% “love it”.

Increased 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street:

43% “hate it”, 12% “don’t like it”, 9% “I don’t care either way”, 26% “Ok idea” & 9% “love it”.

The report noted that “ratings for increased 90-degree parking on Aster Street was moderately low. Comments discussed the narrowness of the street leading to more congestion whilst vehicles park and safety issues. Concerns were also raised in regard to the need to encroach on the natural vegetation along the road in order to accommodate more parking.”

Additional comments on 90-degree parking on Aster Street are published on page 26 of the Micromex Report.

The report also noted that “opinions on increased 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street was low. Similar to concerns over 90-degree parking on Aster Street, respondents discussed Cyrus Street being too narrow to accommodate this type of parking without the need to destroy some of the reserve – land that contains important flora and fauna.”

Additional comments on 90-degree parking on Cyrus Street are published on page 29 of the Micromex Report.

Additional community representations opposing 90-degree parking along Cyrus Street

In addition to the responses analysed as part of the report, more recently the Hyams Beach Villagers Association wrote to Council on 17 June 2019 (attachment 1) expressing concerns that the option of 90-degree parking along Cyrus Street might result in encroachment on the public reserve. The Hyams Beach Villagers Association request that “an explicit land management planning process be commenced for this land.”

Council has also received a separate letter from the Coordinator of Hyams Beach Bushcare, Ms Gillian Souter, on 18 July 2019 (attachment 2) concerned about possible encroachment on the reserve. Ms Souter notes that Bangalay sand forests are an endangered ecological community. She also requests that Council obtain an independent assessment of the environmental values of the foreshore reserve before taking any action.

On 2 August 2019 the Hyams Beach Parkcare Coordinator, Ms Lesley Hoskins, met with Council staff and expressed concerns about losing part of the foreshore reserve to accommodate 90-degree parking. In particular, she was concerned about protecting the Bangalay Eucalypts in the reserve and the only open space in the village. Ms Hoskins requested a specific Plan of Management for the foreshore reserve.

Bus parking / drop-offs in the village

Among the Key Findings, the Report noted that:

- The three short term options that relate to bus parking and drop offs in the village were rated the lowest of all proposals. The presence of buses/large vehicles in the village was discussed as being inappropriate due to the narrow streets and increase in congestion that they cause.

- Any action by Council to pursue these options, especially on Rose Street, will most certainly be met with strong opposition from residents as the street is currently very quiet and the presence of buses/passengers will greatly impact the ambience, natural environment and congestion of the street. Any bus drop-off points were discussed as being more appropriate if they were on the beach, rather than the other side of the village.

Potential actions noted in the Report suggested that “based on the survey results, comments and written submissions, Council should consider implementing some or a combination of the following actions: … set up bus drop off points close to the beach/places of high tourist interest, rather than establishing bus parking stations within the village.”

The breakdown of responses on bus drop off points and bus parking are as follows and demonstrate the bus parking/drop off options are the most unpopular short-term proposals:

Bus drop off point on Cyrus Street south of Seamans Beach carpark:

37% “hate it”, 18% “don’t like it”, 18% “I don’t care either way”, 23% “Ok idea” & 4% “love it”.

Bus drop off point on Rose Street:

54% “hate it”, 13% “don’t like it”, 8% “I don’t care either way”, 22% “Ok idea” & 3% “love it”.

Bus parking on Rose Street:

59% “hate it”, 13% “don’t like it”, 4% “I don’t care either way”, 22% “Ok idea” & 2% “love it”.

Permanent one-way traffic in the north of the village

The Micromex report noted in the key findings that:

- Whilst proposals to address congestion within the village via one way traffic permanently in the north of the village or on short road between turning circle on the southern end of Cyrus Street and Lister Court received moderately low ratings, exploring these options through the written comments identified that opposition to them were largely based on them being permanent systems.

- As congestion only occurs in the village during short peak periods, permanent one-way systems will cause unnecessary inconvenience to residents. Instead setting up temporary one-way systems at peak times should help to ease congestion, as long as they are policed/monitored to ensure the rules are followed.

The breakdown of responses for one-way traffic permanently in the north of the village are:

31% “hate it”, 24% “don’t like it”, 7% “I don’t care either way”, 27% “Ok idea” & 11% “love it”.

Written comments on this proposal are published on page 27 of the report.

The detailed design phase will allow for much more specific and meaningful public consultation to occur.

The adopted position from this report will allow staff to update future Long-Term Financial Plans and prepare a Draft Master Plan for Hyams Beach with confidence.

Both of these documents will then have a consultation process associated with their adoption.

Financial Implications

The cost of implementing angled parking in Aster Street could be in the order of $200,000, which would consist of the clearing and creation of approx. 397sqm of land within the road reserve, including delineation and signposting. Detailed design and environmental investigations would be in the order of $25,000.

The cost of implementing a partial one-way solution with 30 degree on‑street parking on Cyrus Street is considered to be in the order of $200,000. Detailed design and environmental investigations would be in the order of $30,000.

90-degree parking on Cyrus Street would cost significantly more than the partial one-way with 30-degree option, for minimally higher parking numbers.

Risk Implications

Controlling parking arrangements in accordance with standards will better reduce the risk of vehicle collisions and risk to pedestrians in the village; particularly in peak holiday periods.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.140 Hyams Beach - Pedestrian Access and Safety - Footpaths

HPERM Ref: D19/234111

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Technical Services

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Conceptual Footpath Alignment Options ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To provide Council with options for footpaths around Hyams Beach Village (in response to feedback from the community).

Note a park and ride from Vincentia options report is being prepared for a future Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting.

Recommendation

That Council amends the 10 Year Capital Listing and the current 2019/2020 budget as follows and include these items in the Draft Hyams Beach Master Plan, noting that any addition to the 2019/2020 budget will need to be formalised at the first quarterly budget review.

Project	LTFP	Description	Est Cost	Fin Yr
Cyrus St Path		Eastern side of road - Aster Street to Hyam Road
	$7,300 (19/20)	Detailed Design	$25,000 (additional $17,700)	19/20
	$100,000 (20/21)	Construction	$250,000	20/21
Booderee Ave Path	Nil	Southern side of road – Naval College Road to Cyrus Street
		Detailed Design	$60,000	22/23
		Construction	$1,500,000	23/24
	$107,300		$1,835,000

Note: LTFP = Long Term Financial Plan

Net increase to the LTFP is $1,727,700

Options

1. Council adopts the recommendation.

Implications: The net increase to the LTFP will be $1,727,700. Staff will complete the detailed design work in consultation with the local community and report back to Council for adoption of detailed designs.

A park and walk option commencing at Navel College Road would be considered and reported to a future Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting.

2. Council does not adopt the recommendation and defers this matter to a Councillor Briefing.

Implications: This option may generate negative public sentiment given the extensiveness of the consultation to date.

3. Council endorses the Cyrus Street Path only.

a. That Council amends the current 2019/2020 budget as follows and include these items in the Draft Hyams Beach Master Plan, noting that any addition to the 2019/2020 budget will need to be formalised at the first quarterly budget review.

Project	LTFP	Description	Est Cost	Fin Yr
Cyrus St Path		Eastern side of road - Aster Street to Hyam Road
	$7,300 (19/20)	Detailed Design	$25,000 (additional $17,700)	19/20
	$100,000 (20/21)	Construction	$250,000	20/21
	$107,300		$275,000

b. That Council takes no further action to progress a pathway along Booderee Ave Hyams Beach (Naval College Road to Cyrus Street).

Implications: This option may generate negative public sentiment and would prevent consideration of a park and walk option commencing at Navel College Road.

Background

At the Strategy and Assets Committee meeting on 23 July 2019 the Committee resolved as follows (under delegated authority from Council, MIN19.475):

https://shoalhaven.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/SA_20190723_AGN_15988_AT.PDF

That:

1. Council:

b. Explore all funding opportunities…to establish a footpath along Booderee Avenue…

g. Footpaths and pedestrian access around the village: options and associated costs.

This report is in response to the resolution, part 1.b. and 2.g.

In 2017 the community has constructed a section of footpath, from the boat ramp to the Seamans Beach carpark.

The footpath option presented as part of this survey was extending the footpath along Cyrus Street, from Hyam Road to Aster Street (Chinamans Beach).

There were 95 survey responses and 45 written submissions. Some of the respondents completed both the survey and submitted a written submission.

Continuing the footpath opposite Hyam Road to Chinamans Beach was rated the fifth highest short-term option out of the 14 short term options presented. It was supported by 71% of respondents to the survey. The breakdown of responses was as follows:

15% “love it”, 56% “Ok idea”, 7% “I don’t care either way”, 8% “don’t like it” & 14% “hate it”.

The Micromex Report noted that “respondents discussed walkways increasing pedestrian safety, but also that it will reduce parking spaces in the area so it may not be the most suitable long-term plan especially as pedestrians could walk on the grass verge instead.” Additional written comments are published on page 22 of the Micromex Report.

The following footpath and pedestrian access routes around the Hyams Beach village have been identified for further analysis within this report

1. Cyrus Street, Hyams Beach (Aster Street to Hyam Road) – eastern side of road (See Attachment 1)

a. Purpose: to provide a safe off-road path for pedestrians linking Hyams Beach Village to Chinamans Beach via Cyrus Street reserve.

b. Length: approximately 525m.

c. Brief History: the proposed path was not included in the original adopted PAMP or Bike Plans - but has been indicated by the community as a desirable footpath during the 2018 community surveys.

d. Items to be considered: the proposed path location presents a number of site constraints which will need to be considered via a thorough detailed design, including some challenging grades near the boat ramp access; grade issues in some locations through the Cyrus Street reserve; and the existing narrow road reserve, particularly at the pinch‑point east of Aster Street.

e. Estimated Cost: subject to a detailed design which may identify some further unknown issues to be resolved, the cost to construct this option could be in the order of $250,000. To undertake a detailed design of this option, a further $25,000 should be allowed for.

2. Booderee Avenue, Hyams Beach (Naval College Rd to Cyrus St) – southern side of road (see Attachment 1)

a. Purpose: to provide a safe off‑road path for pedestrians who are required to park remotely and walk into Hyams Beach in times of higher seasonal demand.

b.   Length: Cyrus Street to Illowra Lane – approximately 595m
                        Illowra Lane to Naval College Road – approximately 830m
                        Total length approximately 1425m

c. Brief History: The proposed path was not included in the original adopted PAMP or Bike Plans. It was also not one of the options considered on in the 2018 community surveys, nor was it suggested in the Micromex report. It was, however, specified in the Council resolution of 23 July 2019.

d. Items to be considered: The length of road that this path is proposed presents a number of significant constraints. For this option to be properly considered a detailed engineering design and environmental study will need to be undertaken to assess the topography and grades achievable for the path, impacts to private property accesses (driveways etc.), impacts to drainage, and overall environmental impacts. The environmental study will need to include a biodiversity assessment to consider the impacts on threatened species. Depending upon the nature and scale of the impact on biodiversity the requirement for a biodiversity development assessment report (BDAR). In order for Council to be successful in any future grant funding opportunity the project would need to be assessed as feasible and shovel ready. The environmental assessments and studies should be undertaken as part of the initial design phase to identify any potential red flags because the potential environmental impacts and costs of these studies are to be determined.

e. Estimated Cost: The final cost of construction of this option is currently unknown, until more detailed investigations and a design is resolved. However, preliminary estimates are likely to be in the order of $1M for the most critical section (Cyrus Street to Illowra Lane) and could be in the order of $500,000 for the remaining section (Illowra Lane to Naval College Road). Detailed design and investigations for this project could be in the order of $60,000. It must be emphasised however that these are very preliminary estimates only for the purpose of responding to the previous Council resolution.

Given the above the following strategy is proposed

Project	LTFP	Description	Est Cost	Fin Yr
Cyrus St Path		Eastern side of road - Aster Street to Hyam Road
	$7,300 (19/20)	Detailed Design	$25,000 (additional $17,700)	19/20
	$100,000 (20/21)	Construction	$250,000	20/21
Booderee Ave Path	Nil	Southern side of road – Naval College Road to Cyrus Street
		Detailed Design	$60,000	22/23
		Construction	$1,500,000	23/24
	$107,300		$1,835,000

Note: LTFP = Long Term Financial Plan

Net increase to the LTFP is $1,727,700

Survey and design of the footpath linking Aster Street (commencing at the top of the stairway to Chinamans Beach and extending to the boat ramp opposite Hyam Road), would be undertaken in a way that allows staging of the project, along all parts of the Cyrus Street road reserve. The design of the footpath will accommodate future angled car parking, to ensure that option is protected and won’t require a costly realignment of the path in future if Council want to pursue that option (recognising that there is a potentially significant stock of future car parking in Hyams Beach including along Cyrus and Aster Streets if Council wanted to consider increasing parking in Hyams Beach village).

The community be consulted once a design has been prepared.

The path would form part of “around the bay” network of paths, which aim to establish 2.5m wide paths. However, in recognition the path width will need to be reduced to 1.5m in order to not permanently impact on parking, which is already limited in Hyams Beach.

A 1.5m path will be satisfactory for most of the year, in times of higher seasonal demand (when traffic control is required for the village), additional path width can be provided by placement of traffic cones further out into the road space) which has been occurring as part of current peak season traffic control measures.

Community Engagement

The detailed design phase will allow for much more specific and meaningful public consultation to occur.

The adopted position from this report will allow staff to update future Long Term Financial Plans and prepare a Draft Master Plan for Hyams Beach with confidence.

Both of these documents will then have a consultation process associated with their adoption.

Financial Implications

Council has included $7,300 in its 2019/20 budget for survey/design of the Cyrus Street footpath, however this is insufficient to complete the design all the way between Aster Street and the boat ramp, as requested by the community. As recommended, Council will need to increase its design funding to $25,000 (i.e. by $17,700) to complete the footpath design.

This would be best sourced from savings in the current 19/20 footpath program.

All other items in the proposed strategy within this report do not impact on the current 2019/2020 budget and will find their way into the budget deliberation process for 2020/2021 and beyond.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.141 Hyams Beach - Public Amenities (toilets)

HPERM Ref: D19/253025

Group: Assets & Works Group

Attachments: 1. Submission - Hyams Beach Villagers Association Strategic Plan 2017 - Hyams Beach Villagers Association ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Extract - Capital Works 2020/30 Working Document - Public Amenities - Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2019-20 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Summary Map - Current Situation & Locations - Public Amenities - Hyams Beach ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Priority Listing - Public Amenities ⇩

5. Moona Moona Creek Public Amenities ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To allow Council to reconsider the current strategy for public amenities (toilets) in Hyams Beach.

Recommendation

That Council endorses the current strategy for the public amenities (toilets) in the Hyams Beach Village noting that all these items are in Council’s Adopted 10 Year Capital Listing and includes these items in the Draft Hyams Beach Master Plan.

Job Name	Description	Budget	Financial Year
Hyams Beach – Seaman’s Beach – Extended 2 unisex facilities	Extend the existing facility to provide 2 more unisex disabled facilities that are capable of being locked. Complete detailed design and construct	$157,000 ($100,000 is provide from the Stronger Community Grant	2019-2020
Hyams Beach – Chinamans Beach – Four Unisex facilities	Provide a new facility that contains four unisex facilities (two disabled facilities) that are capable of being locked, at Hyams Beach Reserve to cater for Chinamans Beach via a connected pathway Conceptual design Construct replacement	$20,000 $300,000	2021-2022 2022-2023
Hyams Beach – Boat Ramp- four unisex facilities	Replace the existing facility with a new facility that contains four unisex facilities (two disabled facilities) that are capable of being locked Conceptual design Construct replacement	$56,000 $333,000	2022-2023 2023-2024
Hyams Beach Reserve.	See Chinamans Beach above
Total Capital Expenditure		$866,000

Options

1. Council adopts the recommendation.

Implications: Nil, as the recommendation is in accordance with the adopted DPOP and 2019-2020 annual budget. Staff will complete the detailed design work in consultation with the local community and report back to Council for adoption of detailed designs.

2. Council does not adopt the proposed Public Amenity Strategy for Hyams Beach and defers this matter to a Councillor Briefing.

Implications: This option may generate negative public sentiment given the extensiveness of the consultation to date.

Background

In 2015 Council officers commenced discussions with the resident group, the Hyams Beach Villagers Association (HBVA). Many options and ideas were investigated in relation to the public amenities (toilets) in the town and these discussions concluded with the Hyams Beach public amenity (toilet) strategy.

In September 2017 the Hyams Beach Villagers Association (HBVA) adopted a Strategic Plan for the Village which identified their priorities for all types of infrastructure based on four theme areas (refer to Attachment 1).

During the summer beach season of 2017/2018, the HBVA conducted a survey and concluded that beach utilisation is approximately as follows. Council has not verified these results but from a holistic view they seem to reflect the beach attendance practice.

South - (Seamans) Hyams Beach	70%
Boat Ramp – Hyams Beach	15%
Chinaman’s Beach – Hyams Beach	15%

In June 2018 Council adopted a Top 20 priority list for public amenities. This involved community engagement through Council’s Get Involved webpage, newspaper advertisement and requests from all Councils resident groups. This enabled Council to review the Asset Management Plan for public amenities (toilets). Attachment 4 is the priority list that was adopted out of that process. The adopted priority list saw no changes in the strategy for public amenities (toilets) at Hyams Beach.

*****

As part of Council’s community engagement process, Council conducted a survey from 3 October to 13 November 2018 on various short and long-term options at Hyams Beach, which included public amenities (toilets). Options presented were broad to gauge the level of support for the options in principle. Some options require additional consultation with the community if Council decides to proceed.

There were 95 survey responses and 45 written submissions. Some of the respondents completed both the survey and submitted a written submission.

Among the key findings of the report, “increased toilet and shower facilities in Seamans Carpark was rated the highest of all short-term options”, with 74% of respondents to the survey stated that increased toilet and shower facilities in Seamans Beach carpark was an “ok idea” or they “love it”.

“Respondents acknowledged the shortfall in facilities currently during peak periods, but also discussed the possibility of these needs being met via temporary port-a-loos, rather than permanent structures – suggestions were also put forward for the option of temporary toilet facilities in the foreshore reserve to minimise any permanent negative environmental and visual impacts.”

The Micromex Report noted that “respondents want reassurance… that there is no environmental damage from their construction or usage…” Additional comments on this option are published on page 18 of the Report.

Toilet facilities in the foreshore reserve were rated 7^th out of the 14 short term options presented in the survey, with 63% of respondents in favour. The Report notes that “concerns were raised regarding the visual impact of toilet facilities in the area, their attraction to illegal campers and the environmental degradation they may cause.” Additional comments are published on page 24 of the Report.

Since the survey Council has installed a double shower and two taps on the existing pole outside of the public amenity (toilet) in the Seamans beach carpark to allow people to wash off saltwater and sand.

On 23 July 2019 a report to the Strategy & Assets Committee Council resolved (MIN19.475), in part 2.f. that:

f. Amenities: Planned upgrades, timeframes and additional opportunities for improvements.

This report is in response to the resolution, part 2.f.

A summary map of the current situation and locations is provided at (Attachment 3)

Current Situation

1. South – In Carpark that accesses (Seamans Beach) Hyams Beach

a. Top 20 Priority List for public amenities (toilets) number 7

b. The facility was constructed in 1996 and comprises of two unisex single use compliant toilets for persons with disabilities and an external double shower and double tap – condition good.

c. HBVA concerned that water from shower and tap used by patrons of beach to shower/wash saltwater and sand off their bodies is entering the creek to the south. Council is investigating signage.

d. Two (2) port-a-loos are provided over summer, Easter and October holidays and placed in the carpark adjacent the public amenity (toilet). This has occurred since Easter 2018. Previously there was one (1) port-a-loo.

e. The public amenities (toilets) have a lock on each single use unisex facility and can be locked overnight if required.

f. Current operating budget annually is

Port-a-loo’s	$5,000
Water & sewer	$2,000
Electricity	$ 400
Building Insurance	$ 100
Building Maintenance	$2,000
Cleaning	$6,000
Total Budget	$15,500

2. Boat Ramp – (Middle) Hyams Beach

a. Top 20 Priority List for public amenities (toilets) number 13

b. The Facility was constructed in 1974 and consist of a separate male and separate female toilet buildings, the facility does not cater for persons with disabilities and condition fair to poor.

c. The public amenity (toilets) do not have a lock or gates on entry to the facilities and are not able to be currently locked overnight.

d. Current operating budget annually is

Port-a-loo’s	$ Nil
Water & sewer	$1,500
Electricity	$ 400
Building Insurance	$ 100
Building Maintenance	$2,000
Cleaning	$6,000
Total Budget	$10,000

North - Chinaman’s Beach – Hyams Beach

a. Two (2) port-a-loos are provided over summer, Easter and October holidays and placed on the access road to a sewer pump station, which adjoins the National Park land and has a beach access which is not owned or maintained by Council. The port-a-loos do not cater for persons with disabilities and the beach access does not cater for persons with disabilities.

b. There is not enough land owned or managed by Council to build a public amenity (toilet) at the beach access to Chinaman’s Beach. Greater good has been determined to investigate a public amenity to be constructed in Hyams Beach Reserve to cater for patrons of reserve and be linked by path to cater for patrons of Chinaman’s Beach.

c. Current budget annually is

Port-a-loo’s	$5,000
Total Budget	$5,000

3. Hyams Beach Reserve. (Proposed site for Port-a-Loo)

a. A new facility is at number 9 in the top 20 Priority List for public amenities (toilets)

b. This Reserve is on Eastern side of Cyrus Street between number 19 and 49 or cross streets of Anemone Avenue and Hyams Road.

c. Council has not previously provided Porta loos at this site but following recent community engagement has received requested for a Port a loo service at this site, which is proposed to start from this October school holidays.

Proposed Port-a-loo’s	$2,500
Total Budget	$2,500

Total Annual Operating Budget for Public amenities (toilets) for Hyams Beach Precinct is $33,000. And is summarised in the following table:

Location	Annual Operating Budget
South – In Carpark that accesses (Seaman’s Beach) Hyams Beach	$15,500
Boat Ramp – (Middle) Hyams Beach	$10,000
North - Chinaman's Beach – Hyams Beach Signage & Port-a-loo’s	$5,000
Hyams Beach Reserve. Proposed Portaloo	$2,500
Total Operating cost annually	$33,000

Proposed Future strategies

1. South – In Carpark that accesses (Seamans Beach) Hyams Beach

a. Conceptual design undertaken to extend the eastern end of the existing facility two additional single use unisex ambulant toilets for general use. Challenges in an extension are waterway to rear, thus the facility may extend to the north into existing car park. (a separate report on car park is being prepared). The building may not be able to be extended to the west as there is an underground sewer pipe under pressure to the sewer pump station in the car park.

b. Grant funding of $100,000 has been received from Stronger Country Communities Fund for design and construction and must be acquitted by November 2020.

c. Proposed design to occur 2019/20 and any extension works will be planned to occur in winter of 2020 in order to achieve the grant conditions and minimise the impact on beach users.

d. the current facility can be locked at any time and any extension will be constructed with similar locking ability. The security of this facility and access to the carpark will be the subject of a separate report.

2. Boat Ramp – (Middle) Hyams Beach

a. The concept here is to demolish the existing facility and provide a similar public amenity (toilet) to the one at Moona Moona Creek, Huskisson. This facility contains 4 single use unisex toilet facilities (see Attachment 5). Two (2) cater for persons with disabilities and are also able to be used as change rooms by patrons of the beach.

b. The road access to this facility is currently permanently closed with a gate to eliminate vehicles form the area given the lack of space at the lower level and to prevent access to the beach via the boatramp. The roadway is now exclusively used by pedestrians.

c. Given that this facility must have a disability toilet (i.e. DDA compliance) a Disabled Car Space is required to be provided and a path linking to the toilet facilities to this car space. The gate and parking arrangement will need to be modified to allow this facility to be DDA compliant.

d. If car access is not available for disability use at this site the facilities will not be accessible to people with disabilities, and another site may need to be provided at “street level”; see Hyams Beach Reserve Facility (point 4). However, there have been significant community concerns raised about having toilet facilities in that location and the impact on the amenity of the park and neighbours.

e. The new facilities will be constructed with the ability to lock them up.

3. North -Chinaman’s Beach – Hyams Beach

a. It is not proposed to construct a toilet facility at this location; instead the concept here is to construct a footpath linking Chinaman’s Beach to proposed public amenity (toilet) in Hyams Beach reserve (300m to the south). This will require substantial roadworks and changes to traffic flows and thus a separate report to Council will allow this arrangement to be considered.

4. Hyams Beach Reserve

a. The concept here is to provide a similar public amenity (toilet) to the one at Moona Moona Creek, Huskisson. This facility contains 4 single use unisex toilet facilities (see Attachment 5). Two (2) cater for persons with disabilities and are also able to be used as change rooms by patrons of the beach, for use by patrons that are picnicking and enjoying the reserve that overlooks the Bay.

b. Given that this facility must have a disability toilet (i.e. DDA compliance) a car space is required to be provided and a path linking to the toilet facilities to this carpark, and this is not a complicated construction exercise. Additionally, the facility will be connected to the Cyrus Street via a DDA compliant pathway.

c. The new facilities will be constructed with the ability to lock them up.

d. It is acknowledged that this location is quite controversial and extensive consultation and architectural design will be required if a solution acceptable to the local residents is to be agreed to.

The current strategy to implement the above concepts is as follows and this has been captured in Council 10-year capital listing:

Job Name	Description	Budget	Financial Year
Hyams Beach – Seaman’s Beach – Extended 2 unisex facilities	Extend the existing facility to provide 2 more unisex disabled facilities that are capable of being locked. Complete detailed design and construct	$157,000 ($100,000 is provide from the Stronger Community Grant	2019-2020
Hyams Beach – Chinamans Beach – Four Unisex facilities	Provide a new facility that contains four unisex facilities (two disabled facilities) that are capable of being locked, at Hyams Beach Reserve to cater for Chainman’s Beach via a connected pathway Conceptual design Construct replacement	$20,000 $300,000	2021-2022 2022-2023
Hyams Beach – Boat Ramp- four unisex facilities	Replace the existing facility with a new facility that contains four unisex facilities (two disabled facilities) that are capable of being locked Conceptual design Construct replacement	$56,000 $333,000	2022-2023 2023-2024
Hyams Beach Reserve.	See Chinamans Beach above
Total Capital Expenditure		$866,000

Community Engagement

There will be further consultation with the community when these projects are in the design stages and if required that feedback will be reported back to Council.

Policy Implications

Council has an adopted Top 20 public amenity (toilet) priority List from June 2018 and has reviewed the Asset Management Plan (AMP) for public amenities (toilets). The Hyams Beach Public amenity (toilet) strategy above is aligned with these plans/policies.

Financial Implications

The current Delivery Program Operational Plan (DP/OP) & Budgets for 2019/20 contain the above capital spend strategy.

The $33,000 annual operating budget has been funded in the 2019-2020 financial year.

Risk Implications

Reputation risk to tourism is a consideration with patrons of the public amenities (toilets) identifying their needs are not being adequately meet.

Port-a-loos may not meet some of the needs of persons with disabilities and may be interpreted as a cheap solution.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.143 NSW Government CPTIGS Program 2015-17 (Proposed Bus Shelter - Kangaroo Valley) - Request for Clear Direction

HPERM Ref: D19/272416

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Technical Services

Attachments: 1. Conceptual Bus Shelter Arrangement ⇩

2. Bus Shelter Options Consultation Letter (21/03/2019) (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Turning Movement Council Carpark ⇩

4. Turning Movement Broughton Street ⇩

Purpose / Summary

The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider recently received community feedback in relation to the Council Resolution to install a bus shelter at 167 Moss Vale Road, Kangaroo Valley (MIN19.397).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council note the recent objections to the proposal to install a bus shelter at 167 Moss Vale Road, Kangaroo Valley and that the CEO (Director Assets & Works) proceed with the installation as previously resolved in MIN19.397 to meet approved grant funding requirements under the CPTIGS 2015-17 program.

Options

1. As recommended, that Council proceed with the installation of the proposed shelter in the frontage of 167 Moss Vale Road, as previously resolved on 11 June 2019 – SA19.87.

Implications:

The proposed location of the shelter is in a similar location to the existing bus stop; it is the most optimal location for accessibility, it is the preferred location for the bus operators, and will allow Council to meet the objectives of the Country Passenger Infrastructure Grant Scheme (CPTIGS) funding requirements. However, there are still members of the community opposed to the proposed location.

2. That Council abandon the Kangaroo Valley location in lieu of another location in the Shoalhaven.

Recommendation:

That in response to the recent objections to the proposal to install a bus shelter at 167 Moss Vale Road, Kangaroo Valley, Council store the procured bus shelter at the Council depot whilst investigating an alternative location in the Shoalhaven (noting that Council staff are currently consulting with the community to determine a list of potential locations for consideration in the upcoming, and future rounds of the CPTIGS program).

Implications:

Council has already purchased a bus shelter for the Kangaroo Valley project (procured at cost of $10,800).

Council would have to return the initial $3,000 that was paid to Council by the State Government as a deposit for the Kangaroo Valley bus shelter project. Furthermore, no additional funding could be claimed for the project if it is abandoned and the approved funds are not transferrable to another location. In regard to the shelter that has already been procured, Council would have to make a new application for an alternative location under the new round of CPTIGS funding, with no guarantee of State Government approval.

Background

Council originally received a request from the transport service provider (Kennedy’s Bus & Coach) for the installation of a bus shelter to accommodate Kangaroo Valley residents and visitors to the area. Subsequently, Council secured conditional approval for funding under the Country Passenger Transport Infrastructure Grant Scheme (CPTIGS) for the installation of a bus shelter subject to compliance with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (2002) (DSAPT). Following this, Council staff investigated options for the location of the potential shelter and engaged in community consultation providing several options to the community for their comment.

The original consultation letter is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

The aim of the original consultation was to determine the location of the shelter based on the feedback received from the community. Following this process, the matter was considered by the Council

At the Strategy and Assets meeting of the 11 of June 2019 the committee resolved as follows (MIN19.397);

That:

1. Council proceed to install a bus shelter in the road reserve fronting 167 Moss Vale Road (Option 1 of the recent community consultation); and

2. The General Manager (Director Assets & Works) advise the community of the outcome of the community consultation process, and of Council’s decision

Attachment 1 shows the shelter placed in the proposed location. It is to be noted that the colour of the shelter will be black rather than grey as depicted.

Following the 11 June 2019 resolution, Council staff advised the community members of the Council decision. Subsequently there has been further discussion regarding the Council decision with Kennedy’s Bus & Coach and various members of the community, including the Kangaroo Valley Chamber of Tourism and Commerce.

Kennedy’s Bus & Coach identified that they require a location as close as possible to the current bus zone location (in the town centre) to meet current and future service demands.

Kennedy’s have advised that the Broughton Street option is too far removed from the centre of Kangaroo Valley Village and as such wouldn’t be supported, or used by their service, and further cited other parking conflicts associated with the use of Broughton Street that would prevent practical bus access.

Correspondence from the community was also received following a Facebook post on the “Kangaroo Valley Community” about the resolution of the Strategy and Assets Committee MIN19.397.

The community’s concerns expressed since Council has resolved its position in June 2019 are related to the following:

Lack of community consultation/lack of sufficient time regarding consultation

In accordance with Council’s policies and guidelines for community consultation, Council staff sent out a number of consultation letters detailing several potential options for Kangaroo Valley, outlining both their positive and negative impacts on the streetscape of the Town. The letters were sent on 21 March 2019 and gave the community a period of four weeks to provide responses from affected individuals. This letter has also been enclosed as (Attachment 2).

Further requests for another, broader round of consultation have been received from the community. However, another round of widespread consultation would certainly impact on the final deadline issued by Transport for New South Wales (30 November 2019 was an extended and final deadline) and risk the funding altogether.

Loss of on street parking and loss of pedestrian manoeuvrability

Council staff investigated several locations throughout Kangaroo Valley. The option proposed to the community and subsequently resolved by Council was determined to have minimal impact on pedestrians due to the ample space between the kerb and the shelter, allowing sufficient pedestrian manoeuvrability around the shelter. Pedestrian manoeuvrability is one of the factors taken into consideration as it is required as part of the Disability standards for accessible Public Transport.

Parking along Moss Vale Road was also a key factor as part of the investigations into the proposed options. As the existing bus zone (20m east of the proposed location) will be relocated, there is no net loss of parking in the immediate vicinity, notwithstanding, the community continue to raise parking impacts as an issue.

Concerns were also raised regarding the removal of parking in peak periods such as weekends or when events are held within the region. The existing bus stop already has time restrictions imposed between 7:30am–9:45am and 2:30pm–4:45pm, from Monday to Friday only, which serve to accommodate the scheduled bus / transport activities during weekdays and remain open for the area to be utilised as parking for the remaining times of weekdays and all weekends. Additionally, the location of the proposed bus zone (being in close proximity to the showground and various businesses) is advantageous for tourism in the area as it can be used during events as a pickup and drop off zone with minimal risks (relative to the existing location).

Proximity to the Council carpark

Concerns were expressed regarding the bus shelter’s proximity to the Kangaroo Valley public carpark. It is to be noted that under the current proposal it is not intended to install an additional bus zone, the intention is to move the existing bus zone (including time restriction as stated above) from the eastern side of the carpark (adjacent to the exit) to the western side (adjacent to the entrance). This change provides the following benefits:

· Increased sight distance toward the near lane (eastbound) when exiting the carpark except of course for the short periods of time when the bus is stopped at the stop. Note: the speed past a bus is reduced to 40km/h, which slows eastbound traffic when the bus is stopped.

· Reduced conflict between pedestrians and the carpark exit point as most bus users head west (across the carpark driveway) when they exit the bus;

Why/what other locations were not presented as options

Council staff investigated various locations within the Kangaroo Valley village and three options were presented to the community:

1. Within the road reserve fronting 167 Moss Vale Road

2. Within the road reserve fronting 5 Broughton Street

3. Within the road reserve fronting 175 Moss Vale Road (existing bus zone)

4. No bus shelters

Options 1 and 2 were deemed to be the most viable options from an engineering and compliance perspective. Option 3, while non-compliant with the disability access standards, was added to the list of options for community consultation due to feedback from the community in the initial round of consultation held in 2018. To be eligible for CPTIGS funding of this option the grades would need to be adjusted with Council’s funds to comply with disability access standards

The following locations were investigated and assessed but not progressed to community consultation:

Location	Reason it was not chosen for community consultation
The Council carpark near 167 Moss Vale Road	Lack of manoeuvrability (see more detail below)
	Removal of parking required to achieve minimum requirements
	Disproportionate amount of works required to achieve compliance
Broughton Street Carpark	Lack of manoeuvrability (see more detail below)
	Removal of parking required to achieve minimum requirements
	Disproportionate amount of works required to achieve compliance
	Transport service provider (Kennedy’s Bus & Coach do not support and would not use this location
The road reserve fronting 155 Moss Vale Road	Potential conflicts with ongoing development
The road reserve fronting 155 Moss Vale Road	Not enough space for pedestrian diversion (hence non-compliant with the disability standards for accessible public transport.)
The road reserve fronting 165 Moss Vale Road	Minimal space for pedestrian diversion (hence non-compliant with the disability standards for accessible public transport.)
The road reserve fronting 179 Moss Vale Road	Grade not compliant with the disability standards for accessible public transport.
The road reserve fronting 179 Moss Vale Road	Location non-compliant with approach sight distance requirements

Council Carpark at 167 Moss Vale Road (see Attachment 3)

Kennedy’s Bus & Coach operate a 14.5m long rigid bus in Kangaroo Valley and a significant amount of existing car parking spaces would need to be removed to allow for the safe turnaround and manoeuvrability of the bus. In order to minimise the impact to car parking in Kangaroo Valley this option was not assessed further.

Broughton Street (see Attachment 4)

While there is a turning circle within Broughton Street, the existing turning circle cannot accommodate the swept path of a 14.5m long rigid bus; this location would require a potentially hazardous 3-point turn.

Furthermore,

· a significant amount of works would be required to provide disabled compliance compliant access to a shelter as there is no existing footpath facility.

· a shelter would require the potential removal of trees and additional foliage.

Consequently, this option was not assessed further.

Loss of the “heritage feel” due to the shelter

Correspondence received following the post on Facebook raised concerns regarding the loss of the “heritage feel” within the streetscape of Kangaroo Valley if this bus shelter were to be installed. It is to be noted that the shelter, having clear side and back panels, was assessed to have minimal impact on the streetscape of Kangaroo Valley by Council’s City Design Unit, having been designed to blend into the existing environment.

Community Engagement

The following is a summary of the results from the original consultation letter sent out on the 21 March 2019 as reported to the Strategy and Assets Committee on the 11 of June 2019.

	Support	Object
Option 1:	12	9
Option 2:	13	3
Option 3:	10	4
Option 4:	5	2
Other:	5

The following is a breakdown of the ‘other’ suggestions:

Utilising the existing tourism shelter within the Moss Vale Road carpark:	1
Bus Zone and shelter be relocated to Broughton Street:	4

It is noted that some members of the community have also reached out and expressed their support of the resolution and other members of the community have expressed their support for option 2 of the community consultation (21 March 2019), which was the Broughton Street option.

Pending a review of the 11 June 2019 Council decision, the following minimum consultation is likely to be required for each option;

1. Continue with 167 Moss Vale Road: Council staff will inform the Kangaroo Valley Community of the outcome of the review and summarise the points raised by the community (which have been outlined in this report).

2. Another location in LGA: Council staff will inform the Kangaroo Valley Community of the outcome and consider a list of alternate locations which is currently being developed by Council staff (in conjunction with the community), prepare community consultation for the installation of a bus shelter in an alternative location following the current consultation process.

Policy Implications

Nil.

Financial Implications

The following financial implications apply to the Options:

1. 167 Moss Vale Road, as previously resolved in SA19.87:

Total cost = $13,200 (supply and install) with $10,000 approved by the State Government under the CPTIGS program, and so far $10,800 outlaid.

· $3,000 deposit has already been paid to Council

· Balance of the approved grant ($7,000) can be claimed upon completion of the works, as long as the work is completed prior to 30 November 2019

· $3,200 from Council’s Traffic Facilities budget.

2. Abandon the Kangaroo Valley location in lieu of another location in the Shoalhaven:

· The $3,000 deposit already been paid to Council will have to be returned to the State Government

· Balance of the approved grant ($7,000) cannot be claimed (not transferrable to another location)

· Council would have to fund the $10,800 already expended when the bus shelter was procured for the Kangaroo Valley project

· Regarding the bus shelter already procured, unless Council wanted to fully purchase and installation elsewhere, the shelter could be stored at the depot until a revised location is approved under a new round of CPTIGS (not guaranteed)

· Under the upcoming new round of CPTIGS, Council could make a new application to use the existing shelter in an alternative location (subject to approval by the State Government, with no guarantee, and if approved is not likely to be able to be implemented until the 2020/21 financial year).

Risk Implications

If the shelter is too far removed from the town centre (like Option 2, the Broughton Street Option), Kennedy’s Bus & Coach have advised the location would not be used which has the potential to increase hail and ride services. Due to the parking lanes along Moss Vale Road the hail and ride system may require a bus to “stop and prop” in the travel lane which may cause confusion and frustration for drivers and potentially create unsafe conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

There is a financial risk to Council (if the project is abandoned) of which the details are outlined in the Financial section above.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.144 Kinghorne Street and North Street Nowra Traffic lights – Proposed Time Parking Moss Street Nowra

HPERM Ref: D19/274619

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Technical Services

Attachments: 1. Map showing extent of Community Consultation Undertaken ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To allow Council to consider the outcome of the community consultation undertaken in regards to additional timed parking in Moss Street, Nowra (which closed 2 August, 2019), and reaffirm (or otherwise) the indication to the CEO on 30 July 2019 that Council is not prepared to proceed with the proposed traffic lights at Kinghorne and North Streets.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That after considering the final community consultation process (proposed timed parking in Moss Street); Council does not proceed with the proposed traffic lights at Kinghorne and North Streets as indicated at the 30 July 2019 Ordinary Meeting (MIN19.500).

Options

1. As recommended (given Council’s indication 30 July 2019)

Implications: Responds to community concerns regarding the parking impacts of the project but will not address the crash history, nor improve traffic and pedestrian safety at the intersection of North Street and Kinghorn Street, Nowra. The effect of this decision would be temporary, given that the traffic signals are required anyway, consistent with the adopted Nowra CBD strategy, and will be brought forward in the near future by Council’s ENSA (East Nowra Sub-Arterial) road project.

2. Recommit to the project.

Recommendation:

That after considering the final community consultation process (proposed timed parking in Moss Street); Council

1. Reconfirm its commitment to the traffic signals project at North Street and Kinghorne Street, Nowra, recognising the crash history and the support of the community for the traffic signals, and the Australian Government funding for the project.

2. Convert 15 angled car parking spaces in Moss Street, Nowra, to timed parking, to compensate for the lost timed parking spaces in North Street and Kinghorne Street, Nowra.

Implications: Will allow important safety improvements to be delivered at the intersection of North Street and Kinghorne Street, Nowra, whilst responding to community concerns regarding the parking impacts of the project. Will impact “all day” parking in Moss Street which will have to be offset elsewhere throughout the Nowra CBD (subject of a separate future report to Council).

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting on 26 March 2019, Council received the following petition containing 594 signatures which states:

“Businesses like Hyper have been informed of a proposal to reduce up to 15 car park spaces along North Street. We urge Council to save the commercial aspect of Moss and North Streets businesses servicing the life and soul of Nowra’s CBD.

We ask for the reallocation of “all day” parking times on the South side of Moss Street, 45-degree parking, to be made shorter times.

I the undersigned, being a patron of Hyper Hyper Coffee, North Street, Nowra, state that:

I personally use the present parking in North Street to visit Hyper Hyper Coffee and that it is the only reason I visit this part of the CBD. Should the existing available parking be reduced from what it is presently I would reconsider my visit to Nowra.”

In addition, a further petition containing 17 signatures was presented at the meeting which stated:

“I/we the undersigned, being a business operator in/in the immediate vicinity of Moss/North Streets rely to some extent on car parking for our business operation. I/we will be directly and negatively affected (sic) by the proposed loss of spaces in North Street.

Should these proposed spaces be lost, I support re-locating the 25 all day 45-degree car parking spaces on the south side of Moss Street to existing and presently contemplated all day car parks on the outer fringe of the CBD and to replace these spaces timed to benefit commercial use of Moss Street, retain viability and increase tourism within the CBD of Nowra.

I/we support; From the West, 5x 15-minutes, 5x 30-minutes, 10x 1-hour, 5 x 2-hour parking. This would in my opinion benefit community commerce and tourism.”

At the Strategy & Assets meeting on 11 June, 2019, after considering the above petitions, the following was resolved (MIN19.395):

That in response to two petitions presented to the Ordinary Meeting on the 26 March 2019, the General Manager (Director, Assets & Works) carry out community consultation on a proposal to time restrict three (3) all day parking spaces to 2P (2 hour) on the southern side of Moss St, Nowra (immediately east of Kinghorne St), prior to consideration of the proposal by the Shoalhaven Traffic Committee and subsequent consideration by Council.

On 30 July 2019, Council resolved at its Ordinary meeting, as follows:

RESOLVED MIN19.500

That Council:

1. Receive a deputation from Mr Pip de Pulford at the July Council meeting regarding his concerns in relation to parking impacts from Council’s proposed North Street - Kinghorne Street traffic signals project.

2. Indicate to the CEO that it is not prepared to proceed with the proposed traffic lights at Kinghorne and North streets.

The following is a summary of the key points (including consultation) relating to the proposed traffic lights at Kinghorne and North Streets:

1. The Traffic signals form part of the Nowra CBD Transport Strategy (adopted by Council in July 2007) and the signals have been supported by the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee. The current plans for traffic lights locates them in the long-term position with kerb widening planned to commence east of the traffic lights, to allow a fifth lane being added to the north of North Street. This additional lane will provide for turning manoeuvres after passing through the lights.

2. Community Consultation was undertaken as follows:

a. 15 August 2017 – Letter to nearby property owners and CBD Revitalisation advising of project nomination and

b. 14 December 2018 – Letter to adjoining property owners and business operators (plus Business Chamber, Nowra Revitalisation) advising of the project and showing proposed parking restriction on a concept design and

c. 2 July 2019 – Letter to adjoining owners and business operators (plus Business Chamber, Nowra Revitalisation) consultation on 3 x 2 hour parking spaces in Moss St.

Submissions in support of the Traffic signals with the suggestion to convert untimed to timed parking on the south side of Moss Street were received.

No submissions were received opposing the project.

3. The current consultation (2c above) in specifically converting the number of “all day parking” to “timed parking” spaces in Moss Street only. Closes 2 August 2019.

4. The Lessee of Lot no1 North Street Nowra, Hyper Hyper entered into a 10-year lease across the three carparking spots in November 2014 which included 6 off street parking spaces. If Council saw fit, Council could interpret the traffic light issue as extenuating circumstances and renegotiate the lease.

5. Council entered into a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) with RMS on the 16^th April 2019 to deliver the Traffic signals. Terminating the deed appears not to impose an additional penalty to Council. The essence of the Deed is to define the “rules of engagement” during construction.

6. Council has been allocated $330K Federal Blackspot Funding (administered by RMS) towards this project. Eligibility for the funding is based on Crash Statistics (the signals are an important safety improvement, and consistent with the adopted Transport Strategy, the recent crash history has simply allowed the project to be brought forward, with Government funding assistance).

7. Tenders for the work have been called and closed on the 7 August 2019.

8. Shoalwater are currently updating assets to the intersection to avoid future disturbance. The cost of this work is being funded by Shoalwater. The current reinstatement of the footpaths is temporary as this was to be completed and enhanced as part of the traffic signal project.

9. When the $330k approved grant funding is returned to the Federal Government they are likely to then redistribute the funds to other blackspot priorities across the nation. Council staff could make a suggestion that the funds be reallocated to another project(s) within Shoalhaven City; however, the program objectives are based on crash reduction performance, not geographical or political boundaries.

10. Given the social media response to Council’s 30 July decision, staff notified the RMS of the 30 July Council decision, so they weren’t surprised.

11. The $75,298 expenditure to date is broken down as follows, which if the project does not proceed, will have to be paid back from the General Fund at the next quarterly Review.

· $32,047 RMS Upfront Supervision Charge (there may be a “part refund” from the RMS given the RMS will not incur all these costs if the project is withdrawn)

· $ 7,565 Commitment to Telstra to adjust assets

· $ 6,560 Design Consultants

· $29,126 SCC Survey, Services search, Project Management, Civil, Lighting and Landscape Design.

12. The “permanent” footpath restoration (resulting from the watermain relocation) will be prioritised in future budget allocations, (in the order of around $20,000).

Community Engagement

Subsequently a consultation letter was sent out 2 July 2019, giving effect to Council’s resolution on the proposal to time restrict 3 spaces.

A map showing the extent of the consultation area is attachment to this report (has been consistent for all of the consultations undertaken on the project).

Submissions received

D19/248618, D19/261522, D19/253092 – Pip de Pulford (Hyper Hyper Coffee)

D19/258962, D19/261830 – Moss St Medical Practice (Moss Street, Nowra)

D19/262082 – Red Orchid Wellness Clinic (3 Moss Street, Nowra)

D19/248618 - Pip de Pulford (Hyper Hyper Coffee)

Submission suggests that any parking lost as part of the traffic signals project needs to be relocated on a like for like basis in close proximity to where they have been lost (the westernmost end of Moss St). The submission requests to understand the technical analysis undertaken to determine how 20 parking spaces can be replaced with 3. Indicates that timed parking should be paramount within the CBD for use by customers of retailers. Indicates that Council should not be providing any parking shortfalls for staff parking within the CBD precinct, and indicates its full support for the Nowra CBD parking strategy, in particular identifying that all day parking should be best provided around the periphery of the CBD, not directly fronting businesses (like in Moss Street). Submission requests Council to reconsider its position on the number of timed spaces on a like for like basis.

D19/261522 - Pip de Pulford (Hyper Hyper Coffee)

Further submission questions the justification for the traffic signals at the intersection, noting that they witnessed one of the 4 crashes and believe it was due to human error, not due to the intersection configuration. Notes that if the traffic signal project is still being considered, Council should address the petitions previously sent requesting the 25 all day parking spaces on the southern side of Moss St be time restricted. Should the lost parking associated with the traffic signal project only be replaced with 3 timed spaces that the lease from the Council owned property be terminated. Indicates that the loss of 20 spaces results in the loss of $600,000 to the CBD.

D19/253092 - Pip de Pulford (Hyper Hyper Coffee)

An additional 225 signatures were forwarded to Council to supplement the original Hyper Hyper Petition (making in total 819 signatures), in addition to the separate petition of 17 signatures originally submitted.

D19/258962 - Moss St Medical Practice (Moss Street, Nowra)

Supports the petition to change the all-day parking on Moss St to timed parking of varying duration.

D19/261830 - Moss St Medical Practice (Moss Street, Nowra)

Concerned with the ‘through’ arrangement of Moss St, and further reiterates that all of the all-day parking in Moss St be time restricted.

D19/262082 - Red Orchid Wellness Clinic (3 Moss Street, Nowra)

The all-day parking in Moss St does not currently support their business and request the all-day parking is changed to 2-4hour parking with 3 x 15-minute parking spaces (i.e. all time restricted).

Policy Implications

Terminating the traffic signals project is not working towards the adopted Nowra CBD strategy, nor the subsequently adopted Nowra CBD Urban Design Masterplan nor Council’s ENSA (East Nowra Sub-Arterial) road project. The Nowra CBD strategy will be presented to council at a future committee meeting.

Financial Implications

If the traffic signals project is terminated the $75,298 expenditure to date on the traffic signals project will have to be funded from the General Fund at the next quarterly budget review.

In addition, if the project is terminated, the $45,000 Council has already received as an advance on the project (the approved 2018/19 funding allocation towards the project paid on 21 June 2019) will also have to be paid back to the RMS.

Risk Implications

Given the proposed traffic signals are consistent with the Nowra CBD strategy, terminating the project will most likely mean Council won’t be able to apply again for grant funding for the same project in future (meaning, the traffic signals will have to be fully funded by Council).

Terminating the project will also mean the likelihood of ongoing safety issues at the intersection of North Street and Kinghorne Street, Nowra, which the successful blackspot application was approved to address.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 10 September 2019

Page 0

SA19.146 Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - community engagement

HPERM Ref: D19/298881

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Environmental Services

Purpose / Summary

Following a report provided to the Shoalhaven Coast and Estuary Management Committee on 20 August, a recommendation was adopted to:

“Suggest Council review the resourcing and delivery of the community engagement strategy for the Citywide Scoping Study”.

This report addresses this recommendation along with the need for additional budget to hold any additional stakeholder focus group workshops and drop-in sessions that may be approved by Council. If approved it is envisaged that, as part of the coastal management program citywide Scoping Study, additional community consultation sessions be held at Shoalhaven Heads, Sussex Inlet and Lake Conjola in addition to Nowra, St Georges Basin and Ulladulla.

Recommendation

That Council endorse:

1. The holding of three (3) additional focus group workshops and drop-in sessions for the coastal management program citywide Scoping Study at Shoalhaven Heads, Sussex Inlet and Lake Conjola in addition to those planned for Nowra, St Georges Basin and Ulladulla; also the overall framework for community consultation as outlined in this report in regard to the preparation of the city wide scoping study,

2. The allocation of additional budget of $19,228 from the September 2019 quarterly budget review to job number 15885.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: Allows for greater community engagement; however, additional budget will need to be allocated to the Scoping Study. The final draft of the Scoping Study report may be delayed allowing for the additional engagement sessions to be held.

2. Not adopt the recommendation and continue with the proposed community engagement sessions at Nowra, St Georges Basin and Ulladulla and the on-line survey.

Implications: Allows for community engagement within existing budget and grant agreements.

3. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Unknown.

Background

At the Ordinary meeting of Council on 30 July 2019 Council resolved the following.

That Council:

1. Adopt the proposed coast, estuary and floodplain advisory management committee structure and functions as described in this report to establish:

a. Three advisory Floodplain Risk Management Committees (northern, central and southern) to meet on an as needs basis during development and implementation of floodplain risk management studies and plans in accordance with the NSW Floodplain Development Manual; and

b. An interim advisory Shoalhaven Coast and Estuary Management Committee until the completion of the citywide Coastal Management Program Scoping Study (for the open coast and all estuaries), during which community feedback will be sought on the future final model for the coast and estuary advisory committee or group.

2. During the development of the citywide Scoping Study hold north, central and southern community engagement sessions that will scope the Open Coast and St Georges Basin, Lake Conjola and the Lower Shoalhaven River Coastal Management Programs as well as the future strategic coastal management program approach for all other estuaries.

3. Following completion of the citywide Scoping Study, establish Working Groups for the preparation of the Open Coast and St Georges Basin, Lake Conjola and the Lower Shoalhaven River Coastal Management Programs.

At the meeting of the Shoalhaven Coast & Estuary Management Committee on 20 August 2019 the Committee considered a report on community engagement for the CMP Scoping Study. The key elements of the proposed engagement included a stakeholder 2-hour workshop and a 2-hour community drop-in session following the workshop at Nowra, St Georges Basin or Vincentia and Ulladulla. An on-line survey is also being developed to engage with those in the community that cannot attend one of these face to face sessions or who prefer to engage on-line. Also, a video containing common questions and answers along with a FAQ sheet are proposed to be prepared along with other forms of online engagement.

The Committee considered the number and locations of community engagement sessions and resolved to make the following recommendation to Council (item number CE19.4).

That the Committee:

1. Receive the Shoalhaven Citywide Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - Community Engagement report for information, and

2. Suggest Council review the resourcing and delivery of the community engagement strategy for the Citywide Scoping Study.

The general view put by the Committee was that the citywide Scoping Study community engagement sessions should be extended to Shoalhaven Heads, Sussex Inlet and Lake Conjola in addition to those planned for Nowra, St Georges Basin and Ulladulla.

Council has engaged RPS Group, a community engagement specialist consultancy to design and implement the community engagement activities for the Scoping Study. A further quotation was sought from RPS Group for the additional workshop and drop-in sessions at Shoalhaven Heads, Sussex Inlet and Lake Conjola. The additional cost is $19,228 (including GST). The cost of delivering the completed scoping study has been estimated at approx. $103K, with this amount including the existing community consultation program. This amount is being funded proportionately from the existing CMP budgets for the Open Coast and St Georges Basin, Lower Shoalhaven River and Lake Conjola.

The cost of additional community consultation is sought to be allocated as part of the budget review process, as other grant and matching funds are tied to the preparation of the relevant draft Coastal Management Plans. Council will also investigate seeking a grant funding variation from the NSW Department of Primary Industries and Environment (DPIE).

Community Engagement

The identification of the scope of a proposed coastal management program (scoping study) is the first stage of a 5-stage process outlined in the NSW Coastal Management Manual for the adoption of a Coastal Management Plan. Whilst the manual does not focus on community consultation at this scoping study stage, Council has taken the position that community input at this stage is a critical component of the overall process.

The basis for this position is Council’s view that community input is vital at this early stage in order to identify the issues, priorities and aspirations of relevant stakeholders along with items identified in the Management Manual.

As highlighted above, Council has engaged RPS to carry out and document specialised community consultation sessions. The results of these sessions and other engagement initiatives will be passed onto Advisian, who have been contracted to provide the overall city-wide Scoping Study.

It is important to note that no consultants have been appointed at this time regarding subsequent stages of the process for the adoption of a Coastal Management Plan.

The use of independent consultants for the major components of the scoping study will facilitate input from as many community sectors as possible and provide a consistent and equitable approach across the study area, whilst endeavouring to maintain a completion date for the scoping study of December this year.

Preliminary feedback from coastal groups and individuals regarding the above approach has been generally positive. However, specific discussions with some members of the Lake Conjola Community Association and Red Head Villages Association raised concerns regarding independence and timeliness of the process along with apportionment of costs.

Having regard to the methodology put forward above, and the fact that consultation will be documented and readily available to community members, it is considered that all who wish to have input will be able to do so and the results will be independently put forward. The final city-wide scoping study, whilst being presented as a document, will be broken into chapters recognising each distinct management plan area. This will allow individual management plans to progress individually without reliance on other plans. In a similar manner, the recognition of individual elements will assist in the proportional allocation of actual costs.

This approach has been explained to representatives of the Lake Conjola Community Association and Red Head Villages Association and most recently with them in a meeting with Council’s Director Planning & Development and the Chief Executive Officer.

Key stakeholder focus group workshops

It is proposed that the following themes be covered in these workshops.

Theme 1: Program Context

· What are the requirements for a new CMP?

· What stage of the process are we at and what decisions are being made now?

· What is the difference between a local CMP, a citywide CMP, and Estuary Plan etc?

· What we have heard in previous consultations?

Theme 2: Understanding the priority issues in your region

· What plans or programs already exists and how are they performing?

· What are the key issues that need to be considered? (now and future)

· Are there any issues where information is missing or inadequate?

Theme 3: How do we work together?

· Structure of previous Floodplain Management Committees – what worked and what didn’t?

· How should consultation and engagement take place moving forward into the Coastal management Plan process and further into the future?

What is a community information drop in session?

A community information drop in session typically runs for a few hours and is held at a prominent location, such as a council building, park or hall.

The community and stakeholders are invited to view displayed material, written and graphical, about the project and their specific location. It affords the opportunity to provide verbal and/or written feedback on an individual basis to members of the project team. Information is presented on large storyboards, with additional material available for the community to take home for further reading.

The session has no formal presentation but provides an opportunity for project team members to interact with people informally on a one to one basis. This allows for a personal connection and conversation about specific issues.

The expected engagement outcome of the session is to raise awareness of the process of developing a CMP and to listen to community issues and concerns. Comments will be recorded and captured. Participants will also be invited to make a submission in person or through the ‘Get Involved’ online platform.

Policy Implications

The information gathered from this community engagement program will feed into the development of Council’s citywide CMP Scoping Study, stage 1 of the coastal management process.

Financial Implications

The cost of these additional workshops $19,228 (including GST). All costs associated with the CMP Scoping study will be apportioned; however, this additional amount is outside current grant and matching funding allocations.

Risk Implications

It was originally proposed to hold the community engagement sessions at 3 locations, north, central and south in the last week of September 2019. However, as this report will not be considered by Council until 10September 2019 it is recommended that the sessions are delayed to ensure there is sufficient preparation time and adequate notification time to invite community members and property owners and obtain grant variation approval from NSW DPIE if required.

Council has engaged Advisian (Worley Group) to prepare the citywide Coastal Management program Scoping Study. The Scoping Study final draft is due in December 2019. Delaying community engagement may impact on the preparation of the Scoping Study timeframes and therefore delay its completion.