14 October 2009

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 19 October 2009 at 7:30PM.

Attention is directed to the statement accompanying this notice of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting.

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Kaylene Allison - 29 September 2009 to 1 November 2009 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 14 September 2009.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant and Less than Significant (The Code of Conduct requires Councillors who declare a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

8.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

9.           URGENT REPORTS (to be dealt with in the delivery program to which the item relates)

 

10.         CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 19 October 2009

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


 

2009 MEETING CALENDAR

February 2009 - December 2009

(adopted by Council 8/09/08 and amended by Council 6/4/09)

 

 

TIME

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meetings

7.30 pm

2

 

6

4v

 

20

3

7ü

12

9

14

23

23

 

25

29*

 

24

28^

 

30

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30 pm

 

9

 

 

15

13

 

14@

19

 

7

16#+

30@

27

18#

 

27

17

 

21

16#

 

 

 

 

#    Meetings at which the Management Plan 1/4ly reviews are presented

 

^  Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor (meeting to commence at 7:00 pm)

<    Briefing to consider Draft Management Plan for 2009/2010

@  Strategic Program progress reports [only business]

v  Meeting at which the Draft Management Plan is adopted for exhibition

ü  Meeting at which the 2008/2009 Annual Statements are presented

*    Meeting at which the Management Plan for 2009/2010 is adopted.

Y  Management Plan Councillor Briefings/Public Forum (June)

 

 

 

 

-                 Council’s Ordinary Meetings are held on a three-week cycle where practicable.

-                 Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-                 Policy Review Meetings are held on a three-week cycle where practicable.

-                 Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee). Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Public Officer, Glenn McCarthy on 4732 7649.

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE PASSADENA ROOM, PENRITH

ON MONDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2009 AT 7:32PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill (arrived 7:34pm), Greg Davies, Mark Davies (arrived 7:43pm), Tanya Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM for the period 11 September 2009 to 19 September 2009 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Ross Fowler OAM for the period 4 September 2009 to 16 September 2009 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously requested by Councillor Marko Malkoc for the period 11 September 2009 to 19 September 2009 inclusive.

PRC 66  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Greg Davies that Leave of Absence be granted for Councillor Marko Malkoc for the period 11 September 2009 to 19 September 2009 inclusive.

 

APOLOGIES

PRC 67  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Greg Davies that an apology be received for Councillor Prue Guillaume.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 17 August 2009

PRC 68  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Kaylene Allison that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 17 August 2009 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

   

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

3        Neighbourhood Action Plans 2009 - Londonderry and Oxley Park

The Acting Community & Cultural Development Manager, Jeni Pollard and the Community Engagement Officer, Heather Chaffey gave a presentation on the development process for the Neighbourhood Action Plans for both Londonderry and Oxley Park..                                                                                   

PRC 69  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Tanya Davies

That the information contained in the report on Neighbourhood Action Plans 2009 - Londonderry and Oxley Park be received.

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors                                                                                                       

 PRC 70  A MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Mark Davies

          That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors be received.

2.     Council advertise for 28 days’ a public notice of its intention to adopt the amended Policy.

3.     Council investigate options for providing increased in-house training and become a regional training centre for other local government councils.

4.     A motion be put forward to the Local Government Association Conference seeking that provision be made in the Director- General’s Guidelines issued in relation to the “Payment of expenses and provision of facilities to councillors” under section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993, to allow Councils to make a daily payment to Councillors attending Conferences and training related to their civic duty to compensate them for loss of income due to their absence from work, with the daily payment being capped in terms of both amount and days per year.

 

An AMENDMENT was MOVED by Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

 

          That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors be received

2.     Council advertise for 28 days’ a public notice of its intention to adopt the amended Policy

3.     Council write to the Department of Local Government, requesting reconsideration of its previous decision in relation to the “Payment of expenses and provision of facilities to councillors” under section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993, to allow Councils to make a daily payment to Councillors attending Conferences and training related to their civic duty to compensate them for loss of income due to their absence from work, with the daily payment being capped in terms of both amount and days per year.

4.     A motion be put forward to the Local Government Association Conference seeking that provision be made in the Director- General’s Guidelines issued in relation to the “Payment of expenses and provision of facilities to councillors” under section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993, to allow Councils to make a daily payment to Councillors attending Conferences and training related to their civic duty to compensate them for loss of income due to their absence from work, with the daily payment being capped in terms of both amount and days per year.

 

On being PUT to the meeting the AMENDMENT was CARRIED, and on being PUT to the meeting as the MOTION, was CARRIED.

       

 

 

2        The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's Draft Report into the Revenue Framework for Local Government                                                                                    

PRC 71  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's Draft Report into the Revenue Framework for Local Government be received

2.     Council endorse the sending of the submission to IPART, in the terms identified in this report.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:32pm.

    



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Annual Report 2008-09

 

2        "Celebrate Penrith City 09" Final Report

 

3        Penrith City Council Customer Survey 2009

 

A City of Opportunities

 

4        Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association 2009-2010 Business Plans

 

5        South Penrith Branch Library Location

 

A Green City

 

6        Glenmore Park Shopping Centre - Draft DCP amendment to Glenmore Park Town Centre Chapter of the Penrith DCP 2006

 

A Liveable City

 

7        Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review

 

8        New Region 1 Bus Network

  

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Annual Report 2008-09

 

2        "Celebrate Penrith City 09" Final Report

 

3        Penrith City Council Customer Survey 2009

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Annual Report 2008-09   

 

Compiled by:                Rachel Pagitz, Communications Officer

Authorised by:             Brian Steffen, Group Manager - Information & Customer Relations   

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Strategic Direction:  We champion responsible and ethical behaviour

     

 

Executive Summary

To seek Council’s endorsement of the 2008-09 Annual Report. The report recommends that the draft Annual Report be endorsed and submitted to the Department of Local Government. Copies of the draft Annual Report have been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

Background

Section 428 of the Local Government Act requires councils to submit an Annual Report to the Minister for Local Government within five months of the end of the financial year. The Act, Regulations and other legislation sets out which information must be included in the Annual Report.

 

These requirements include a copy of the council’s audited financial statements, a report on the actual performance of the council’s principal activities during that year (measured in accordance with the management plan) and additional information about a number of prescribed matters.

 

The Act also specifies that councils prepare a comprehensive report on the State of the Environment (SoE) of the Local Government Area following each election year. As in previous years, Council has incorporated the reporting requirements of the SoE within the Annual Report, presented as a complete sustainability report of the organisation. Council’s 2006-07 and 2007-08 Annual Reports featured a suite of indicators showing what we want to achieve and how we are progressing towards our goals. These indicators provide a tangible account of where we currently stand and establish a baseline from which we can track our progress towards a more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable City and organisation. Each indicator is allocated a status; On track, Stable, Challenge or Not Yet Reporting.

 

Current Situation

 

Council has continued to streamline its reporting process and look at ways to improve both the reporting method, and our ability to communicate this information internally and to the broader community. As a document, an Annual Report is widely regarded as the first port of call for people seeking information about the organisation. Therefore it is vital Council’s Annual Report presents an accurate reflection of both the City and Council, both currently and in the future.

 

Council’s 2007-08 Annual Report was recognised at the annual Australasian Reporting Awards (ARA) as a finalist in the Communication (public sector) category. Council also picked up a Silver Award having met all ARA criteria. Feedback from ARA adjudicators has aided Council’s efforts to improve this year’s Annual Report.

 

In addition, the extensive community consultation undertaken during the 2008-09 period to guide preparation of Council’s Strategic Plan 2031, has been used to enhance the focus of the Annual Report. In developing the Strategic Plan, five key themes were identified. These themes - Leading, Opportunities, Liveable, Green and Vibrant - have directed the structure of information into this year’s Report.

 

Further, independent consultants were engaged to undertake a materiality review of Council and community issues to verify the outcomes of the community engagement and help direct reporting. This review helped prioritise the large amount of information available about Council’s operations to be included within the Annual Report. The process identified key areas of concern and enabled the number of indicators reported in hard copy to be reduced from 79 to 47. To maintain integrity and transparency, all indicators are reported in an online version and contained on CD in the back of each hard copy report.

 

The following 10 issues were identified by the consultants and closely aligned those developed in the Strategic Plan. These have been termed ‘Shared Priorities’ in the Report:

·    Responsible Planning & Development

·    Transport, Pathways, Traffic & Parking

·    Community Engagement & Participation

·    Jobs & Economy

·    Parks & Open Spaces

·    Community Safety

·    Workforce Sustainability

·    Sound Financial Management

·    Services & Facilities

·    Environmental Footprint

 

For more information on this process, please see page 22 of the draft Annual Report.

 

The Report’s theme; People, Places, Possibilities, has allowed us to showcase Council and Penrith City as a vibrant, progressive City, largely different to the perception often held by those outside the City, cleverly balancing the rural and natural environments with growth and investment. Council’s workforce is also celebrated in the document as our greatest asset in the Our People chapter, as well as photos throughout the document. A new chapter has been added, reflecting our strong commitment to good governance and respect for our responsibility to the community.

 

An innovation this year has been the inclusion of interactive links as well as supplementary content in electronic versions of the report (and included on CDs with the hard copy document) providing additional, up to date content at the click of a mouse where this icon is displayed.

 

The comprehensive CD also enables Council to reduce environmental and financial costs, as the Annual Report will be distributed predominantly on CD as well as hosted on Council’s website. The full statutory report is provided as an Appendix on CD as are Council’s full financial statements and other information about Council’s operations. Notably, for the first time the entire document has been printed in-house by Council staff on 100% recycled paper.

 

Council has committed to apply the principles of sustainability in all of its operations, and aims to ensure that Council’s decisions, policies and actions should maintain, or better still, improve environmental, social and economic outcomes for future generations, leaving a lasting legacy. Since Council’s adoption of Sustainability Principles in 2003, a great deal of effort has ensured sustainability has been embedded into all facets of the organisation. The original 10 principles have since been integrated in the City’s five themes and Strategic Plan 2031, and the Annual Report reflects this achievement and demonstrated commitment.

 

The 2008-09 Annual Report has been dedicated to former Sustainability Coordinator Louise Petchell with an acknowledgement of her efforts on the inside cover. It was Louise’s vision to transform Council’s Annual Report, which had traditionally been a compliance-based document, into a Sustainability Report, highlighting the organisation’s successes and challenges in delivering a sustainable Penrith.

 

Ensuring the Annual Report meets legislative requirements through the Statutory Report component has involved the compilation of direct commentary from relevant departments and/or references to other parts of the document, where appropriate.

 

Council will, through the Annual Report submitted for endorsement tonight, meet all of the present statutory requirements, while continuing formal reporting which supports the mainstreaming of sustainability in the organisation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Annual Report 2008-09 be received

2.     The Annual Report be endorsed by Council and forwarded to the Department of Local Government as required under the Act.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

"Celebrate Penrith City 09" Final Report   

 

Compiled by:                Colin Dickson, Marketing, Partnerships & Events Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Brian Steffen, Group Manager - Information & Customer Relations   

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate leadership, and plan responsibly for now and the future

Strategic Direction: We demonstrate our leadership, and encourage innovation

     

 

Executive Summary

In November 2008 Council endorsed a program of anniversary celebrations in November 2009 that commemorate a number of significant milestones in the history of Penrith City. There are three separate but linked components to the 2009 celebrations:

 

1.   Celebration of significant anniversaries with international partners - 25th anniversary with Fujieda, Japan, 20th anniversary with Hakusan, Japan and Penrith, England, and the 15th anniversary with Gangseo gu, Korea

2.   Celebration of the 50th anniversary of Penrith’s proclamation as a City

3.   Celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Penrith Weir 

 

These have all been brought together in the form of a cultural and visual program of events titled “Celebrate Penrith City 09” and have been developed under the guidance of the Working Party established by Council. This report updates Council on the progress of each of the ten discrete programs that comprise the “Celebrate Penrith City 09” program between 11-15 November, 2009 and consists of:

 

·    International cultural performances at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre by performers from Council’s international links

·    International visual arts exhibition at the Penrith Regional Gallery

·    Program of sightseeing/civic events for community/official delegates

·    International concert in St  Marys at the St Marys Memorial Hall

·    50th anniversary civic reception at the Museum of Fire

·    International school student art collaboration

·    Heritage exhibition - The Makings of a City

·    Community writing competitions

·    Rock at the Weir community festival at Weir Reserve

·    Annual Mayoral Charity Ball at St Marys Band Club

 

Final preparations for the delivery of this diverse range of activities continue and are on track and have included significant input from a broad cross section of the local community. Five of the six international cities with which Penrith City has a relationship will be attending these celebrations (only Penrith in England will not) with approximately 110 delegates (including performers) attending.

 

The report recommends that the information contained in the report “Celebrate Penrith City 09” Final Report be received.

Background

This report has been prepared as a final update on the preparations for the “Celebrate Penrith City 09” celebrations that are taking place between 11-15 November, 2009 and is presented to tonight’s Policy Review Committee meeting as there are no available dates for the working party to meet prior to the celebrations.

 

Ten discrete projects were developed under the guidance of the Working Party that comprised Councillors Aitken, Crameri, Davies, Fowler, Goldfinch, Greenow, Malkoc and McKeown. The Working Party has met already on three occasions and an update on the progress of each follows. All projects remain on track and in the next few weeks as final details are confirmed with each of our international partners, all Councillors will receive a comprehensive package of information regarding the celebrations. This package will contain detailed itineraries, orders of proceedings and other general information pertaining to the celebrations.

 

Project 1: International Cultural Performances

 

As a key part of their contribution to our City’s celebrations each of our five participating international links have selected “iconic” performers from their cities to perform for the people of Penrith City in a series of concerts that will be staged at the Q Theatre. This cultural festival based on percussion with the title “Beat Magic” will also feature local Samoan and indigenous performers complementing the impressive international line-up.

 

The performance program has been arranged in close consultation with technical staff from the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre and will feature a total of four performances:

 

·    Friday AM -  school performance

·    Friday PM - general public performance - tickets have been available from the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre from 12 October

·    Saturday AM - general public performance at St Marys

·    Saturday PM - performance for invited guests

 

Project 2: International Visual Arts Exhibition

 

Penrith Regional Art Gallery will be given over to four exhibitions dedicated to Japan/Australia. The main feature will be an exhibition by Harold David, a celebrated fashion and portrait photographer titled “Uniform”.  The exhibition will include photos of Fujieda and Hakusan municipal workers in uniform. The exhibition will return to Fujieda and Hakusan later in 2010.  Other galleries will feature work by a renowned Fujieda printmaker, a Hakusan sculptor and a Hakusan tatami mat artisan - all internationally respected artists. The exhibition will be officially launched on Saturday afternoon 14 November.

 

 

 

 

 

Project 3: Program of sightseeing and civic events for international civic and community delegates/program for the international performers

 

The program for the international delegates that currently number 110, runs mostly in two parallel streams, one for the performers within their constraints, the other for the civic and any community delegates.

 

Highlights of the program include:

 

§  civic dinner for international partners at St Marys Leagues Club. 

§  official opening of the international photographic exhibition at the Gallery

§  BBQ breakfast at SIRC

§  lunch cruise on Nepean Belle

§  activities at Muru Mittigar

§  afternoon tea at Glenleigh Homestead

 

The civic dinner - the major function for the international celebrations - will feature performances by acclaimed local opera singers Lorenzo Rositano and Nicholas Gentile.  It will also feature a slideshow on the large screens in the function room that captures the history of Penrith City’s international program since 1984.

 

Project 4: International Concert in St Marys (Saturday 14 November)

 

The concert in St Marys will be now held at Coachmans Park in the heart of Queen Street. Previous advice had indicated that the refurbished Memorial Hall in the new

Penrith Valley Cultural Precinct would be completed in time for the concert to be held at this venue, however, recent advice has indicated that there could be no guarantees that construction would be completed in time so the decision was made to move the concert. This decision allows organisers to commence publicity to promote the new venue.

 

The concert will still feature international and local performers and will certainly prove an attraction to the passing traffic and shoppers on Saturday morning. The starting time for the concert will remain at 9.00 am.

 

Project 5: 50th Anniversary civic reception (Saturday 14 November)

 

The Civic Reception to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Penrith’s proclamation as a City is another significant component of the “Celebrate Penrith City 09” program. The Museum of Fire, for its uniqueness to Penrith and its long association with Japanese fire trucks is the venue for this reception.  Previous Penrith City Councillors, senior long-serving officers, international and Lachlan Shire delegates and prize winners of the writing competitions will be invited.

 

Project 6: International school student art collaboration

 

International students from Council’s sister and friendship cities have combined with local schools which have an international partner and those celebrating their 50th anniversary in 2009 to compose an Aboriginal Dreamtime mural of the legend creature, “The Rainbow Serpent”.

 

The mural is a compilation of small four inch x four inch paper squares on a large eight metre long paper snake, which students have decorated in their own unique way to form an internationally flavoured collage of art and design.

 

This art collaboration will be displayed in the Civic Centre, the central library as well as Westfield Penrith.

 

Project 7: Heritage exhibition - The Makings of a City

 

The idea of a heritage exhibition that showcased the long and proud history of Penrith was seen as a keynote component to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Penrith’s proclamation as a City.

 

“The Makings of a City” exhibition has gone beyond the last 50 years to encompass the period 1809 to the present day and has been put together in close consultation with local historical societies as well as contributions from the local community.

 

Comprising around 15 showcases that house priceless memorabilia and artefacts and a similar number of displays, the exhibition focuses on five distinct time periods:

 

1789 - 1869 - Our Early Years

1870 - 1909 - Municipal Culture

1909 - 1949 - War and Peace

1950 - 1969 - Birth of a City

1970 - 2009 - The Modern Era

 

and paints a comprehensive picture that goes from our earliest beginnings to the present day.

 

The exhibition will run for approximately seven weeks on a rotating basis across a range of venues throughout the City of Penrith so that a broad cross section of the local community has the opportunity to view the exhibition. It can be seen at the following locations:

 

Civic Centre,                  Thursday 22/10/09 - Sunday 22/11/09

Penrith                  

 

St Marys                         Wednesday 25/11/09 - Wednesday 2/12/09

(venue to be confirmed)

 

Castlereagh Hall             Saturday 5/12/09 - Monday 7/12/09

         

Mulgoa Hall           Friday 11/12/09 (pm only) - Saturday 12/12/09

 

Project 8: Community Writing competitions

 

A number of writing competitions were held over the course of the year to generate interest for the “Celebrate Penrith City 09” program. This included an essay competition  - “Memories of Penrith”  and a student family history project called a “A Conversation with my Grandparents”. Details of the essay competition were publicised throughout NSW via the Cumberland and Fairfax newspaper networks.

 

Entries for the essay competition were judged by Gail Jones, Professor of Writing at the University of Western Sydney with winners being acknowledged at the 50th anniversary civic reception at the Museum of Fire on Saturday 14 November.

 

Project 9: Festival to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of Penrith Weir at Weir Reserve (Sunday 15 November)

 

Titled “Rock at the Weir”, this festival will have several themes including a 1959 component (rock and roll bands, hula hoops and Barbie dolls) to go hand in hand with the 50th anniversary celebrations of Penrith’s proclamation as a City. There will also be activities and games of the era for children such as three legged races, egg and spoon races etc and others popular during that era as well as a Punch & Judy Show plus displays from a variety of vintage cars from that time period. A special competition and sure to be a highlight on the day will be to find Mr and Miss Penrith and this is being done in conjunction with one of our special guests, the well known June Dally Watkins. She will judge the entrants on the day and select the winners who will receive as their prize one of her acclaimed modelling and deportment courses.

 

The highlight of the entertainment program will be a concert by David Cazalet, a renowned Elvis impersonator who will have performed two nights before at the Mayoral Ball and an outside broadcast by local radio station Vintage FM 87.6.

 

The festival will also focus on the river and the weir’s centenary as well as presenting an international flavour (near the Japanese garden area of Weir Reserve) in recognition of the presence of Penrith’s international links for this important occasion and feature a Japanese children’s blessing festival.

 

Project 10: Annual Mayoral Charity Ball (Friday 13 November)

 

The 2009 Mayoral Ball has been moved from its normal time of late August so that it can be held as another keynote component of the “Celebrate Penrith City 09” celebrations. In keeping with the 50 years as a City theme, the Ball will have a distinctive 1959 flavour.

 

To be held at the St Marys Band Club, the Ball will feature 1959 decorations and entertainment highlighted by acclaimed Elvis impersonator, David Cazalet and Johnny O’Keefe impersonator, Rikki Organ.

 

The two charities nominated to be the beneficiaries of proceeds raised this year are the Thorndale Foundation and Little by Little Inc - the philanthropic arm of Kurambee Special School.

 

Mr Ross Sinclair, AM of the Sinclair Group has been secured as the $25,000 Major Sponsor for the Ball.

 

Promotion

 

Extensive promotion of all the events has already occurred and will continue to occur up until the event:

 

To date the promotion has included:

 

·    July Community newsletter - 60,000 homes

·    Penrith City Council Fun Day  - August

·    Penrith Show - August

·    St Marys Spring Festival - September

·    General Promotional brochures - overall event, Rock at the Weir and Mr & Miss Penrith competition

·    Banner signage on Civic Centre building (internal and external)

·    Banner signage on various bridges throughout the City

·    Banner signage for Rock at the Weir

·    “Celebrate Penrith City 09” drink coasters in local pubs/clubs

·    Ten week schedule of messages for Mayoral columns in newspapers

·    Media Releases

·    Event logo on Council page of local paper each week

·    Promotional flyers in Council buildings/shopping centres

·    Other general media coverage in newspapers and on radio

 

Additional promotional opportunities occurring over the next few weeks include:

 

·    Special Edition - Penrith Community Newsletter (dedicated to the celebrations) - 60,000 homes

·    Newspaper supplement (wrap around) with Western Weekender - 30 October

·    An advertising program on local radio station Vintage FM 87.6

·    Advertising in other local newspapers. 

 

Conclusion

 

The “Celebrate Penrith City 09” program has been developed with considerable input from the Working Party and has provided for significant community involvement. This has seen a diverse range of community groups and organisations, schools and historical societies become involved across the range of activities.

 

Additionally, involvement of five of the city’s six international partners in these celebrations has given added significance to this historically significant year in the history of Penrith City.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on "Celebrate Penrith City 09" Final Report be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

3

Penrith City Council Customer Survey 2009   

 

Compiled by:                Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Vicki O’Kelly, Group Manager - Finance   

Strategic Objective: We demonstrate leadership, and plan responsibly for now and the future

Strategic Direction: We deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability

 

Presenters:                   Simon Pomfret  - IRIS Research  - Penrith City Council Customer Survey Results for 2009       

 

Executive Summary

Since 2003, Council has conducted four biennial city-wide telephone surveys with over 600 households each time measuring resident perceptions about the importance of and satisfaction with external services and facilities provided by Penrith City Council. The 2009 survey was completed in July this year with the results presented to Council tonight for its consideration.

The results suggest that Council has not only maintained a high level of satisfaction with its residents but has improved its performance in a number of areas since the last survey in 2007. A summary of highlights is provided below:

n   Residents rated the overall satisfaction with Council Performance for 2009 as 7.16 out of 10 (compared 6.43 in 2007 and 6.28 in 2005). Another way to look at this is the percentage of  residents who rated Council as providing ‘medium’ to’ high’ satisfaction was 97% in 2009 compared to 92.2% in 2007. This represents a 4.8% increase.

n   Compared to other NSW councils, Penrith City Council’s satisfaction score has stood above the benchmark. Council’s overall satisfaction score for 2009 of 7.16 (out of 10) exceeds the NSW council average of 5.58 (out of 10) and the NSW metropolitan council average of 5.68 (out of 10).

n   Residents (who had contact with staff during the last 12 months) rated overall satisfaction with Staff Performance as 7.74 (out of 10) compared to 7.58 in 2007. Another way to look at this is, the percentage of residents who rated satisfaction with Council staff performance as ‘medium’ to ‘high’ was 91.5% in 2009 compared to 89.1% in 2007. This represents a 2.4% increase.

n   Residents rated overall satisfaction with Value for Rates Dollar as 6.72 (out of 10) compared to 5.98 in 2007. Another way to look at this is the percentage of  residents who rated satisfaction with Value for Rates Dollar as ‘medium’ to’ high’ was 89% in 2009 compared to 80.5% in 2007. This represents an 8.5% increase.

n   Residents said the 10 most important Council services/facilities are:

1.     Health and Hygiene of Local Food Outlets

2.     Domestic Garbage Collection

3.     Encouraging Local Industry and Jobs

4.     Maintenance of Local Roads

5.     Clean Creeks and Waterways

6.     Recycling Services

7.     Provision of Parking for Shoppers

8.     Litter Control

9.     Lighting of Public Places

10.   Regulation of traffic flow

n   Residents said the top 10 Council services/facilities that they were most satisfied with are:

1.     Domestic Garbage Collection

2.     Recycling Services

3.     Provision of Library Services

4.     Council’s Immunisation Clinics

5.     Kerbside Clean-up Collection

6.     Condition of Public Swimming Pools

7.     Provision of Sports grounds & Playing Fields

8.     Condition of Cemeteries

9.     Condition of Sports grounds & Playing Fields

10.   Street Cleaning

 

n   Based on the 2009 results the following services/facilities are priorities requiring ongoing attention:

·      Maintenance of Local Roads

·      Condition of public toilets

·      Clean creeks and waterways

·      Provision of parking for shoppers

·      Encouraging local industry and jobs

·      Regulating traffic flow

·      Lighting of public places

·      Graffiti removal

·      Litter control

·      Maintenance of footpaths

·      Provision of services and facilities for older people

·      Provision of services and facilities for youth

·      Maintenance of public drains

 

The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

 

Background

 

Since 2003 Council’s Management Plan has consistently identified the need to “conduct and review systematic customer and analytical research into service needs and priorities through the customer research program”.  In response to this and as part of the customer research program, Council has conducted a city-wide telephone survey of residents within the Penrith LGA every 2 years.

 

Council’s first telephone customer survey of 623 households in Penrith was conducted in April 2003 with the assistance of IRIS Research. The same methodology was applied in 2005, 2007 and 2009 to ensure that meaningful comparisons could be drawn across all four sets of results.

 

A sample target of adult respondents from a minimum of 600 households was chosen to provide accurate survey results that could be applied to the broader population. When analysing results for the entire sample, the maximum error rate will be about + or – 4.1% at the 95% confidence level. That is, we are confident that if the survey was repeated there are 95 chances in 100 that the new results would be within + or – 4.1% of the result achieved in this survey. This provides a sound statistical methodology.

 

The aim of the survey is to provide Council with an understanding of the perceptions and needs of the local community with respect to a broad range of services and facilities and in particular, provide the following :-

·        Measurement of the importance of and satisfaction with external services and facilities provided by Council

·        Measurement of perceived performance of Council staff

·        Establishment of benchmark levels of satisfaction for Council services and facilities and customer service

·        Identification of key drivers of resident satisfaction and dissatisfaction

·        Information to help Council identify service use priorities for the Community

·        Comparison of Penrith City Council’s overall satisfaction ratings with other councils.

 

The 2003, 2005 and 2007 survey results are all available to the public on Council’s website.

Given the size of the document, the 2009 survey report produced by the external consultants (IRIS Research) was separately provided to Councillors under memorandum earlier. The consultant’s report is referred to at various points of the present report for a more detailed examination of findings.

 

Survey Methodology

606 completed telephone surveys were collected from a random sample of residents throughout the Penrith LGA. Strict sampling procedures ensured that characteristics of selected respondents mirrored the overall adult population with a representative distribution across age, gender, ward and defined land areas (eg rural, new release and established urban areas). A statistically valid sample was specified for each ward (minimum of 200 interviews per Ward). The survey was conducted in the last week of July 2009.

 

The telephone survey covered 48 Council services and facility types to which respondents were asked to give both an importance and satisfaction rating (ie “Not Important”/“Very Dissatisfied” = 1 to “Very Important”/“Very Satisfied” = 5 or  “Can’t Say” = Non Response). Results from these ratings form the basis of much of the analysis of the results.

 

The questionnaire used for the survey can be found on pages 79 to 81 of the survey report.

 

The services and facilities covered in the survey are ones directly provided to the public. However, it is most important to note that not all these services are exclusively provided by local government. As previously discussed with Council in terms of the previous surveys, respondents cannot be expected to distinguish in all cases the respective contributions of other levels of government.

 

This survey methodology targets residents’ perception of service provision and Council staff performance. Importantly, respondents are not limited to users of the particular services and facilities. Rather, this research tool provides a vehicle for residents (represented by an appropriate random sample) to express their views and priorities. User surveys of particular key services are an appropriate supplement to this broad City-wide survey.

 


The (external) services and facilities included in the survey were:

 

§ Building & Development Application Assessment

§ Clean Creeks & Waterways

§ Condition of Cemeteries

§ Condition of Community Halls & Community Centres

§ Condition of Parks & Playgrounds

§ Condition of Public Swimming Pools

§ Condition of Public Toilets

§ Condition of Sportsgrounds & Playing Fields

§ Consultation with the Community by Council

§ Council's Community Safety Programs

§ Council's Immunisation Clinics

§ Domestic Animal Control

§ Domestic Garbage Collection

§ Encouraging Local Industry & Jobs

§ Environmental Education

§ Graffiti Removal

§ Health & Hygiene of Local Restaurants & Takeaway

§ Information on Council Services & Activities

§ Kerbside Clean-Up Collection

§ Lighting of Public Places

§ Litter Control

§ Maintenance of Facilities around the River

§ Maintenance of Footpaths

§ Maintenance of Local Roads

§ Maintenance of Public Drains

§ Overall Appearance of the City

§ Parking Enforcement

§ Protection of Heritage Sites

§ Protection of the Natural Environment

§ Provision of Bus Shelters

§ Provision of Community Halls & Community Centres

§ Provision of Commuter Parking

§ Provision of Cycle Ways

§ Provision of Footpaths

§ Provision of Library Services

§ Provision of Parking for Shoppers

§ Provision of Parks & Playgrounds

§ Provision of Public Toilets

§ Provision of Services & Facilities for Children

§ Provision of Services & Facilities for Older People

§ Provision of Services & Facilities for Youth

§ Provision of Sportsgrounds & Playing Fields

§ Provision of Tourist Information

§ Recycling Services

§ Regulation of Traffic Flow

§ Street Cleaning

§ Tree Preservation

§ Urban & Rural Planning

 

Survey Alignment to Council’s Services

 

The identification of 48 external services/facilities was derived from what other councils have used in similar surveys with IRIS Research. These service questions have been maintained over the 4 years in order for comparisons to be made over the survey periods and with other councils. They do not correspond precisely to Council’s service plans but can be easily linked. The relationship between the above list and Council’s 46 external services as detailed in the 2008-2009 Management Plan is illustrated in Appendix 1.

 

A Change in Survey Ratings for 2009 (5 point scale to 11 point scale)

 

Although the survey questions have remained essentially the same since the first Council survey in 2003, a change to the rating scale was introduced this year. For the 2003, 2005 and 2007 surveys respondents rated the importance of and satisfaction with Council services and facilities from a 6 point rating scale from 1 to 5 (where 0 = Not at all Important or Very Dissatisfied to 5 = Very Important or Very Satisfied). This year, an 11 point scale (where 0 = Not at all Important or Very Dissatisfied to 10 = Very Important or Very Satisfied) was employed so that benchmarking could be done with other councils using the same scale. The number of IRIS client councils who now use this 11 point scale is increasing.

 

 

 

The impact of this change is that :

§  In order for meaningful comparisons to be done, the survey results for 2003, 2005 and 2007 surveys were converted from the 6 point scale (scores from 1 to 5) to the 11 point scale (scores from 0 to 10).

§  future customer surveys would continue to use the 11 point rating scale so that comparisons with the 2009 results would be consistent.

 

Measurement Methodology

Range of Scores

Survey Response

Low

Medium

High

2009 Survey Scale [11 Point Scale]

0-3

4-6

7-10

2003-2007 Survey Scale [5 Point Scale]

1-2

3

4-5

 

 

Summary of Key Results

The survey findings provide indicators of resident perceptions and satisfaction with Council’s current services and facilities and by comparing previous surveys results, Council’s performance since 2003.

 

The key results from the 2009 survey are summarised into 6 headings :-

1.   Overall Council Performance

2.   Staff Performance

3.   Drivers of Satisfaction

4.   Drivers of Dissatisfaction

5.   Resident Prioritisation of Council Services and Facilities

6.   Value for Money

 

Each following section of this report will briefly explain the results and provide a brief commentary as to implications for Council. Further discussion will be provided through today’s presentation by Simon Pomfret from IRIS Research.

 

1.      
Overall Council Performance

Respondents were asked, “how would you rate overall satisfaction with the performance of Penrith City Council?” The results in the table below are broken down by age, gender and location of respondent.

 

Demographic Breakdown

2009 Satisfaction Rating

(% of Respondents)

Mean Scores (out of 10)

No

Response

Low

(0-3)

Medium

(4-5)

High

(7-10)

2009

Overall

0.4%

1.9%

24.9%

72.7%

7.16

Age Ranges

18-24

0.0%

2.7%

15.6%

81.7%

7.56

25-44

0.0%

1.9%

29.7%

68.4%

6.98

45-65

0.9%

1.8%

26.9%

70.3%

7.04

65+

1.3%

1.4%

12.2%

85.1%

7.65

Gender

Males

0.0%

2.5%

27.6%

69.9%

7.04

Females

0.8%

1.4%

22.4%

75.5%

7.27

Ward

North

0.7%

3.3%

27.3%

68.7%

6.95

South

0.5%

0.9%

23.8%

74.8%

7.26

East

0.0%

1.1%

23.1%

75.8%

7.31

Area Type

Rural

1.9%

8.6%

43.8%

45.7%

6.05

Established

0.4%

1.7%

22.3%

75.6%

7.26

New Release

0.0%

0.0%

29.2%

70.8%

7.16

 

The above figures show that:

§  Residents aged between18-24 and 65+ are more likely to be highly satisfied with Council’s overall performance compared to those aged between 24-65

§  Residents living in the Established and New Release Areas are more likely to be  satisfied than those living in the Rural Areas within Penrith LGA [8.6% of Rural residents rated overall Council performance as low]

Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance

(% of residents rating ‘medium’ to’ high’ satisfaction in the city-wide telephone survey)


Overall Satisfaction with Council Performance ~ 2003-2009 Comparison Scores

(Mean Scores - out of 10)

Performance Comparisons with Other Councils

Councils

Satisfaction Rating

(% of Respondents)

Mean Score (out of 10)

Low

Medium

High

Penrith              (Survey 2009)

2%

25%

73%

7.16

NSW Metro Councils    (Average)

15%

35%

49%

5.90

NSW councils              (Average)

15%

35%

50%

5.95

Blue Mountains    (Survey 2009)

14%

36%

50%

5.90

Warringah            (Survey 2009)

4%

37%

56%

6.45

Baulkham Hills      (Survey 2008)

8%

39%

52%

6.25

Wollongong           (Survey 2008)

44%

33%

22%

3.95

Newcastle             (Survey 2008)

27%

36%

36%

5.13

[Note : Penrith City Council survey results compared to other NSW Councils using the IRIS database. PCC is also compared with urban councils in the metropolitan areas of NSW – DLG Group 2 and 3 councils]

 

Commentary

 

Council continues to maintain an extremely high level of resident satisfaction, with mean scores increasing from 6.43 in 2003 to 7.16 in 2009.  Another way to look at this is that in 98% of all residents in the Penrith LGA rated Council’s overall performance as “medium” or “high” versus only 2% of residents who rated it as “low”. As the above table shows Council satisfaction ratings have not only improved since 2007 but it has continued to outperform the average satisfaction scores for NSW Metropolitan and NSW councils, as a whole.

 

 

2.       Staff Performance

Apart from an overall Council performance score, the survey sought to measure resident satisfaction with staff performance. A distinction was made between residents who had a recent interaction with Council staff (during the last 12 months) and those that had not. The results are summarised in the tables below :-

 

Resident Satisfaction with Council Staff Performance ~ 2009 Survey

Contact with Council Staff

in the last 12 months?

Resident Satisfaction Ratings

Mean Scores (out of 10)

2007 Survey

2009 Survey

Contact in last 12 months

7.58

7.74

No contact in last 12 months

6.88

7.43

Commentary

 

The 2009 results show that residents who have contact with Council staff continue to be more satisfied with their performance than those that have not, as evidenced by the 13% difference in the “high” satisfaction rating for those residents who have had contact versus those who have not .

 

The 2009 result of 81.5% of residents who have had contact with staff and rate performance as “high” is the highest percentage score ever achieved since city-wide surveying began in 2003. This also means that the highest mean score given by residents for staff performance occurred this year with 7.74 (out of 10) compared to 7.58 (converted core out of 10) in 2007.

 

It is important to note that only 8% of residents who had contact with Council staff in 2009 rated staff performance as “low”. This is consistent with the results in 2003, 2005 and 2007.

 

 

Key Methods of Contact (Survey Report ~ Table 4.1, page 64)

 

The 2009 survey results show that of the 290 people that had contact with Council staff, 51.2% made contact by telephone (46.2% in 2007), 21.5% visited Council Offices (22.3% in 2007), 12.3% spoke to staff at a local library (13.7% in 2007) and 4% had a home visit in some form (5% in 2007). These results are fairly consistent with the 2007 results.

 

Main Reasons for Contacting Council (Survey Report ~ Table 4.2, page 66)

 

The main reasons for contacting Council include :-

n   a garbage collection service matter (25%)

n   a library enquiry (12%)

n   making a property, DA or zoning enquiry (10%)

n   a tree removal enquiry (8%) or

n   an enquiry about or payment of rates/fees (8%).

 

 

3.       Drivers of Satisfaction

In an attempt to explore key drivers of resident satisfaction respondents were given an ‘open ended’ question to provide reasons for their ratings. Of the 606 completed surveys the following results were gathered.

Of the 441 highly satisfied residents the following five most frequent  reasons were given:

§ Doing a good job/Council delivers results (91 responses)

§ Clean and tidy  (46 responses)

§ Good provision of services and facilities (26 responses)

§ Room for improvement

(25 responses)

§ Roads/Traffic

(23 responses)

Commentary

Results indicate that for the majority of cases residents perceive that Council is doing a good job and delivering results, providing good services and facilities especially in keeping the city clean and tidy and in addressing roads and traffic issues, however there is still room for improvement.

 

 

4.       Drivers of Dissatisfaction

A new component was added to the survey in 2007, in order to better understand key drivers of resident dissatisfaction where these were identified. Two techniques were employed in the survey design. The first approach identified dissatisfaction with Council’s performance as a whole. The second identified dissatisfaction at an individual service level.

 

 

 

 

·        Council Level

 

Only 12 respondents out of 606 respondents indicated significant dissatisfaction with Council overall. Some of the reasons given included:

§ Lack of communication/consultation

(2 responses)

§ Building Approvals

    (1 response)

§ Appearance of Penrith area

                                 (1 responses)

§ Garbage Collection    (1 response)

§ Footpaths                  (1 response)

Commentary

 

Although there were relatively few dissatisfied respondents, the results identified the main driver for this dissatisfaction was a lack of communication/consultation; however what this relates to was not provided. Unfortunately the numbers are too small to accurately identify key service areas requiring attention.

 

·        Dissatisfaction with Individual Services

 

In addition to the survey question about dissatisfaction with Council overall, respondents were asked to briefly explain the reasons for their low rating of satisfaction (0 to 3, out of 10) with any particular service or facility type. Respondents were asked why they gave the rating that they did, in an open-ended question.

These results are provided in the addendum to the draft survey report and provide readers with:

·        the survey questions asked for each service or facility (e.g. You said you were dissatisfied with the provision of community halls and centres. Why?)

·        a summary table of grouped responses

·        the verbatim responses provided by respondents.

 

This data will be provided to managers to assist in identifying the key drivers of customer dissatisfaction for particular services under their care, highlighting issues requiring further investigation or response. This will be helpful in identifying service areas requiring improvement.

 

5.       Resident Prioritisation of Council Services and Facilities

Section 3 of the survey report presents the responses of residents who were asked to rate the importance of 48 key services and facilities provided by Council and then to rate their satisfaction with those same services and facilities.

 


·           Importance Ratings

A summary of the Importance ratings (ranked highest to the lowest score) is provided in Table 3.9 of the Survey Report (page 35-36). The top 10 most important and the 10 least important services and facilities are provided in the tables below. Comparative scores (converted to mean scores out of 10) and ranking from the 2007 survey results are also provided.

 

Top Ten Council Services/Facilities rated as Most Important)

2009

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score (out of 10)

2007 Ranking

2009

2007

1st

Health and Hygiene of Local Food Outlets

9.34

9.20

3rd

2nd

Domestic Garbage Collection

9.33

9.45

1st

3rd

Encouraging Local Industry and Jobs

9.26

9.10

5th

4th

Maintenance of Local Roads

9.18

9.25

2nd

5th

Clean Creeks and Waterways

9.13

9.15

4th

6th

Recycling Services

9.05

9.00

=6th

7th

Provision of Parking for Shoppers

8.91

8.83

12th

8th

Litter Control

8.88

8.93

9th

9th

Lighting of Public Places

8.86

8.85

11th

=10th

Overall Appearance of the City

8.78

8.95

8th

=10th

Regulation of traffic flow

8.78

9.00

=6th

 

Ten Council Services/Facilities rated as Least Important

2009

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score (out of 10)

2007 Ranking

2009

2007

39th

Tree Preservation

8.03

7.78

38th

40th

Information on Council Services and Activities

7.93

8.00

41st

41st

Provision of Bus Shelters

7.82

7.25

44th

42nd

Provision of Library Services

7.60

8.13

30th

43rd

Provision of Tourist Information

7.43

6.98

47th

44th

Building and Development Application Assessment

7.33

7.23

45th

45th

Provision of Cycle ways

7.12

6.98

46th

46th

Parking Enforcement

6.77

6.35

48th

47th

Condition of Community Halls and Centres

6.73

7.35

43rd

48th

Provision of Community Halls and Centres

5.26

7.43

42nd

 


Commentary

Although the top 10 most important services have varied little over the past two years the order of importance has changed. Health and Hygiene of Local Food Outlets is now first in 2009 compared to third in 2007. Domestic Garbage Collection which was the top service in 2007 is now second in 2009 and Provision of Parking for Shoppers has now made it into the top 10 for 2009 (as 7th) compared to 12th place in 2007, highlighting it now as an important service.

 

At the other end of the scale, the majority of the 10 least important services are still there from 2007 albeit with a few changes in order. The notable inclusion of the Provision of Library Services as 42nd in 2009 compared to 30th in 2007 signifies that this service is seen a slightly less important compared to 2 years ago, dropping 12 places.

 

It should be noted that importance ratings are affected by the number of users of that service or facility. Accordingly, some services may be seen as less important by residents where they are only used by relatively number of people within the City.

·        Satisfaction Ratings

A summary of Satisfaction ratings (ranked highest to the lowest score out of 10) is provided in Table 3.18 of the report (pages 55-56). The 10 services and facilities with the highest satisfaction and 10 services and facilities with the lowest satisfaction scores are provided in the next two tables below. Also provided in Appendix 2 is a table comparing the percentage of residents who rated satisfaction as either “Medium” or “High” over the 4 survey periods (from 2003 to 2009).

 

Top 10 Satisfaction Scores for Council Services/Facilities (Mean Scores out of 10)

2009

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score

(out of 10)

2007 Ranking

2009

2007

1st

Domestic Garbage Collection

8.11

7.98

1st

2nd

Recycling Services

7.74

7.50

3rd

3rd

Provision of Library Services

8.04

7.15

2nd

4th

Council’s Immunisation Clinics

7.72

6.95

4th

5th

Kerbside Clean-up Collection

7.61

6.68

5th

7th

Condition of Public Swimming Pools

7.24

6.50

6th

6th

Provision of Sports grounds and Playing Fields

7.19

6.55

7th

8th

Condition of Cemeteries

7.16

6.30

=8th

9th

Condition of Sports grounds and Playing Fields

7.01

6.10

14th

10th

Street Cleaning

7.00

5.93

20th

 

Commentary

 

Of the services with the top 10 satisfaction scores, three related to Council’s waste management services which are used by all residents with the Domestic Garbage Collection service topping the list again in 2009 followed by Recycling and the Kerbside cleanup collection service coming 2nd and 5th respectively. Library services continue to score highly as the number 3 service and Council’s Immunisation Clinics as fourth (bearing in mind the smaller number of direct users).

 

The two services that have improved are the Condition of Sports grounds and Playing Fields and Street Cleaning which were 14th and 20th respectively in the 2007 survey. The table in Appendix 2 supports this view with resident satisfaction percentages increasing by 4.7% (from 84.7% in 2003 to 89.4% in 2009) for the Condition of Sports grounds and Playing Fields and by 10.2% for Street Cleaning (from 79.1% in 2003 to 89.3% in 2009) over the four survey periods. It could be argued that this improvement reflects the increase in resources directed to these areas since 2003.

 

Lowest 10 Satisfaction Scores for Council Services/Facilities (descending order)

 

2009

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score

(out of 5)

2007 Ranking

2009

2007

39th

Regulation of Traffic Flow

6.13

4.78

44th

40th

Consultation with the Community by Council

6.12

5.10

41st

41st

Parking Enforcement

6.04

5.38

32nd

42nd

Provision of Bus Shelters

5.86

5.05

42nd

43rd

Provision of Cycle Ways

5.81

5.25

37th

44th

Building & Development Application Assessment

5.80

5.30

35th

45th

Maintenance of Local Roads

5.71

4.93

43rd

46th

Provision of Commuter Parking

5.66

4.58

47th

47th

Provision of Public Toilets

5.29

4.68

=45th

48th

Condition of Public Toilets

5.02

4.38

48th

 

Commentary

 

The condition and provision of public toilets again rated as the services providing the lowest satisfaction ratings. Despite this being the case when comparing the resident satisfaction percentages over the last 4 surveys (as per Appendix 2), (medium to high) satisfaction has increased by 17% (from 49% in 2003 to 66% in 2009) for condition of public toilets and by 16% for provision of public toilets (from 56% in 2003 to 72% in 2009).

 

According to IRIS Research, the provision and condition of public toilets are a common problem for local councils. Even with a significant injection of funds, there are no guarantees that a marked improvement in resident satisfaction will result given its relative position against the 47 other services and facilities provided by Council. However, Council’s efforts over the last 3 years in terms of refurbishment of public toilets in the CBD and new maintenance regimes have translated into measurable gains. Council recognised the importance of this service by increasing the service levels and funding of public toilet maintenance in the 2005-06 Management Plan.

 

Provision of Commuter Parking had the third lowest satisfaction scores for 2009 and continues to be growing issue for the City. Page 48 of the survey report states that :

the main reasons for dissatisfaction with the provision of commuter parking were that there is not enough parking available and that the areas in which parking is provided are not safe”.

 

It is important to note that when analysing the feedback from residents there appears to be very little awareness that commuter parking is not primarily the responsibility of Council. Council is well aware of this growing issue and is addressing it strategically through the City Centres Strategies, the Integrated Transport and Land Use Study and ongoing lobbying of the Department of Transport and other agencies.

 

According to Appendix 2 there are two services where resident satisfaction has significantly fallen this year. These are the Condition of Community Halls and Centres which has decreased by 9% since 2003 and the Provision of Community Halls and Centres which has decreased by 11% since 2003.

 

For these two services page 39 of the draft Report states that :

The main reasons for dissatisfaction with the condition of community halls and community centres were the lack of these facilities or that they were usually closed, that keys are only provided two hours before use, and that the halls and centres are dirty, dated, poorly maintained and covered in graffiti

 

Residents dissatisfied with the provision of community halls and community centres stated that they felt there was a lack of these facilities or they were usually closed, they don’t know where such facilities are located, and they are poorly maintained. Some residents also indicated that they don’t use community halls and centres

 

Further analysis of this feedback needs to be done in the light of the recent review into Neighbour Facilities Management which may address many of these issues raised.

 

·        Prioritising Services and Facilities

Section 3 of the survey report analyses the results of the importance and satisfaction scores to arrive at an indicative priority rating for services and facilities. While further analysis of the priority ratings needs to be carried out, they can provide a guide to the allocation of resources and identification of areas for further investigation. This in-depth analysis of the importance and satisfaction scores was carried out by overlapping the results of two techniques, that is, Quadrant Analysis (QA) and Gap Analysis (GA).

 

In the Quadrant Analysis (QA), satisfaction scores are compared to importance scores for each of the 48 identified services and facilities. This analysis allocates individual services/facilities to a particular quadrant by comparing single service scores against the entire population of 48 services/facilities. The QA results (otherwise known as the Opportunity Matrix) is provided in the table below and is also found on page 58 of the survey report. Where an arrow follows a service (¬ ¯ ® ­), it shows that it has moved quadrant since the last survey in 2007. NC represents ‘no change from 2007’.


 

Quadrant (Matrix) Analysis for Council Services and Facilities

[Legend : NC = No change from 2007;      ¬ ¯ ® ­  = Movement in Quadrant from 2007 Survey]

§

§ Often interpreted as representing services where effort exceeds expectations.

§

·     Condition of Cemeteries (NC)

·     Condition of Community Halls and Community Centres (NC)

·     Protection of Heritage Sites (NC)

·     Tree Preservation (NC)

·     Provision of Tourist Information (NC)

·     Domestic Animal Control (NC)

·      Provision of Library Services (NC)

§

§ Not an issue for majority of population (ie minority user groups only)

§ Not considered a problem at the moment but may need investigation

§

·     Information on Council Services and Activities (â)

·     Provision of Community Halls and Community Centres (â)

·     Parking Enforcement (NC)

·     Council's Community Safety Programs (NC)

·     Consultation with the Community by Council (NC)

·     Urban and Rural Planning (NC)

·     Provision of Cycleways (NC)

·     Provision of Bus Shelters (NC)

·     Building and Development Application Assessment (NC)

·     Provision of Commuter Parking (NC)

Low Þ              Satisfaction               Þ High

Quadrant 2.

LOWER IMPORTANCE

HIGHER SATISFACTION

Quadrant 1.

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

HIGHER SATISFACTION

§ Indicates doing an excellent job for those users who are interested

§ Represents current Council strengths

§ Areas are working well and delivering high value

§ Models for other Services to capitalise on.

·     Condition of Public Swimming Pools (NC)

·      Environmental Education (à)

·      Condition of Parks and Playgrounds (á)

·      Condition of Sportsgrounds and Playing Fields (NC)

·      Council’s Immunisation Clinics (NC)

·      Domestic Garbage Collection (NC)

·      Health and Hygiene of Local Restaurants and Takeaway (NC)

·      Kerbside Cleanup Collection (NC)

·      Maintenance of Facilities around the River (NC)

·      Overall Appearance of the City (NC)

·      Protection of the Natural Environment (NC)

·      Provision of Parks and Playgrounds (NC)

·      Provision of Services & Facilities for Children (NC)

·      Provision of Sports Grounds & Playing Fields (NC)

·      Condition of Sports Grounds & Playing Fields (NC)

·      Recycling Services (NC)

·      Street Cleaning (NC)

Quadrant 3.

LOWER IMPORTANCE

LOWER SATISFACTION

Quadrant 4.

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER SATISFACTION

§ Represents lower priority services

§ Denotes services where satisfaction should be improved as areas not delivering expected value.

§ Indicates need for more immediate attention

·     Provision of Public Toilets (ß)

·      Litter Control (NC)

·      Encouraging Local Industry and Jobs (NC)

·      Provision of Parking for Shoppers (NC)

·      Maintenance of Public Drains (NC)

·      Provision of Footpaths (NC)

·      Graffiti Removal (NC)

·      Lighting of Public Places (NC)

·      Maintenance of Local Roads (NC)

·      Clean creeks and waterways (NC)

·      Regulation of Traffic Flow (NC)

·      Condition of Public Toilets (NC)

·      Condition of Footpaths (NC)

·      Provision of Services and Facilities for Older People (NC)

·     Provision of Services and Facilities for Youth (NC)

 

Low Þ              Importance               Þ High

 

 

 

 

The Gap Analysis (GA) involves the measurement of the gap between importance and satisfaction. Gap measures are calculated by subtracting the mean satisfaction score from the mean importance score for each service/facility.

 

Usually the larger the gap between importance and satisfaction, the larger the gap between Council’s performance in provision of a service and residents’ expectations. The larger the performance gap, the higher the priority for each Council service and greater attention required. It is important to note that these gap scores come only from users of the services identified.

 

The following table is an extract from the Gap Analysis (Table 3.19) on page 62 of the survey report and includes only the priority 1 services.

 

Gap Analysis for Council Services and Facilities ~ 2009 Survey Results

Council Services and Facilities

Performance Gap

Priority Level

Change from 2007

1.  Maintenance of local roads

3.4796

1

NC

2.  Condition of public toilets

3.8158

1

NC

3.  Provision of public toilets

3.1438

1

NC

4.  Clean creeks and waterways

2.9162

1

NC

5.  Provision of commuter parking

2.8214

1

NC

6.  Provision of parking for shoppers

2.8129

1

NC

7.  Encouraging local industry and jobs

2.8039

1

NC

8.  Regulating traffic flow

2.7135

1

NC

9.  Health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaways

2.6971

1

NC

10.     Lighting of public places

2.6124

1

NC

11.     Graffiti removal

2.6050

1

NC

12.     Litter control

2.4067

1

NC

13.     Maintenance of footpaths

2.3893

1

NC

14.     Provision of services and facilities for older people

2.3861

1

2à1

15.     Provision of services and facilities for youth

2.3235

1

NC

16.     Provision of bus shelters

2.1849

1

3à1

17.     Condition of parks and playgrounds

2.1482

1

NC

18.     Maintenance of public drains

2.1268

1

NC

[Note : Performance Gaps scores are calculated by subtracting Satisfaction scores from Importance scores for each respondent]

Priority Analysis

 

A key outcome from the customer survey is the identification of services and facilities which may require extra attention.

 

This is achieved by combining the results from the Quadrant and Gap Analysis. It is then possible to compare both the services and facilities which have higher importance and lower satisfaction ratings (Quadrant 4 in the Opportunity Matrix) and larger performance gaps between service provision and resident’s expectations.

 

The results, as shown in the table below, indicate the priority order suggested by this survey (without bringing into account existing Council responses) for further investigation.

Combined Results Table ~ Quadrant Analysis and Gap Analysis

Council Service / Facility

Quadrant

Analysis

Gap

Analysis

Maintenance of Local Roads

Quadrant 4

(Higher Importance/

Lower Satisfaction)

Priority 1

Condition of public toilets

Clean creeks and waterways

Provision of parking for shoppers

Encouraging local industry and jobs

Regulating traffic flow

Lighting of public places

Graffiti removal

Litter control

Maintenance of footpaths

Provision of services and facilities for older people

Provision of services and facilities for youth

Maintenance of public drains

 

Commentary

 

Based on the combined analysis, 13 services and facilities in this group require attention to improve satisfaction. Resident satisfaction for these services and facilities are low while importance is high comparatively. The gap between importance and satisfaction is significantly large enough to warrant a priority status.

 

Importantly, 11 out of the 13 services indicated by this analysis were previously identified as priorities in the 2007 customer survey. For these services Council has in most instances already responded through the provision of additional resources (for the maintenance of roads, footpaths and public toilets) and strategies and actions embedded within Council’s Strategic Plan 2031+ and the 4-Year Delivery Program.

 

Council’s Service Review program will continue to provide more in-depth examinations of service delivery and service levels, addressing many of the areas identified in the survey as possibly requiring further attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.      Value for Money

The survey asked respondents to rate whether the services provided by Council were good value for the rate dollar, where a score of 0 represented very poor value and 10 represented very good value. The results are detailed in the following table.

 

Residents’ Views on Value for Money of Rates

Demographic

Breakdown

2009 Value Ratings (%)

(% of Respondents)

Mean Scores

(out of 10)

No

Response

Low

(0-3)

Medium

(4-6)

High

(7-10)

Overall

6.5%

4.5%

31.2%

57.8%

6.72

Age Group

18-24

20.2%

0.0%

20.9%

58.9%

7.36

25-44

4.4%

5.6%

33.6%

56.4%

6.58

45-65

2.7%

5.9%

34.7%

56.6%

6.54

65+

5.4%

2.7%

25.7%

66.2%

7.01

Gender

Males

7.3%

3.6%

34.2%

54.9%

6.67

Females

5.6%

5.4%

28.3%

60.7%

6.76

Ward

North

6.5%

5.4%

31.5%

56.6%

6.54

South

7.6%

3.0%

34.3%

55.1%

6.72

East

5.3%

5.0%

27.8%

61.9%

6.93

Area Type

Rural

4.8%

14.3%

48.7%

32.2%

5.55

Established

7.4%

3.3%

27.7%

61.6%

6.89

New Release

2.9%

5.9%

40.0%

51.2%

6.44

 

Overall Satisfaction with Value for Rates Dollar- 2003 to 2009 Comparison Scores

(Mean Scores - out of 10)

Commentary

The results show that Council continues to deliver good value for money with mean scores increasing from 5.95 in 2003 to 6.72 in 2009. Respondents aged 65+ years continue to be the most positive (66%) towards the value they received for their Council rates and those aged between 25 and 64 continue to be the least satisfied. Residents living in the established areas reported the highest satisfaction (62%) with the services they received for their rate dollar, whilst the rural areas reported the least satisfaction with 14% of respondents providing a “low” score.

 

In general, these results indicate that residents perceive that the amount of rates charged by Council is commensurate with the services or facilities they receive.

 

Benefits of this Survey

The survey results continue to provide useful information on resident perceptions and satisfaction regarding Council services and facilities as well as indications of where further investigations and analysis should be undertaken. As a supporting body of work to Council’s Service Specification and Review program and Operational Planning, the survey assists in providing a basis for considering possible service adjustments and enhancements. The satisfaction ratings are a useful performance monitoring tool and are already included in adopted service specifications and current and future Operational Plans.

 

Conclusion

In comparison with the 2007 resident survey, Council has, in general, been able to maintain a consistently high level of satisfaction in the following areas :

·        Overall performance of Council service and facilities and in comparison with other councils

·        Overall performance of Council’s staff

Results show that Penrith residents do perceive they are getting value from the amount of rates charged by Council and that these are commensurate with the services or facilities they received.

 

In terms of priorities, residents continue to rate domestic garbage collection, maintenance of local roads, the health and hygiene of local food outlets, clean creeks and waterways and encouraging local industry and jobs as highly important.

 

In regard to resident customer satisfaction Council has achieved very high ratings for domestic waste collection, provision of library services, recycling services, kerbside clean-up collection, provision of sports and playing fields and the condition of public swimming pools.

 

The results generally confirm the positions previously identified by Council in 2007 in areas of relatively low satisfaction, which are and will be addressed through Council’s 4 year Delivery Program and annual Operational Plan. The effectiveness of these actions and Council’s performance will be further assessed in future resident surveys.

 

The ongoing program of customer research will further inform Council and management of priorities and performance on each service areas and will continue to assist in focusing Council operations on continuous improvement and benchmarking.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Penrith City Council Customer Survey 2009 be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Customer Survey Link to Council Services

2 Pages

Appendix

2. View

Percentage of Residents Satisfied 2003-2009

1 Page

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

Appendix 1 - Customer Survey Link to Council Services

 

 

 

Appendix A ~ Customer Survey Link Alignment to Council Services

 

1. 

1. 

1. 

1. 

1. 

1. 

1.   

Service / Facility

(as listed in the 2009 Customer Survey)

Council’s External Services

(as listed in the 2008-2009 Management Plan)

Resp.

Mgr

1.  Building & Development Application Assessment

Building Approvals & Certificates

DSM

Development Applications

DSM

2.  Clean Creeks & Waterways

Environmental Protection

EHM

3.  Condition of  Cemeteries

Cemeteries

PDASM

4.  Condition of Community Halls & Centres

Building Maintenance

CWM

Neighbourhood Facilities Management

PDASM

5.  Condition of Parks & Playgrounds

Parks Management & Maintenance

PCMM

6.  Condition of Public Swimming Pools

Leisure Facilities Management

RM

7.  Condition of Public Toilets

Building Maintenance

CWM

8.  Condition of Sports Grounds & Playing Fields

Parks Management & Maintenance

PCMM

9.  Consultation with the Community by Council

Note: All Council Services contribute to this

All Mgrs

10.     Council’s Community Safety Programs

Community Safety

PDASM

11.     Council’s Immunization Clinics

Health Services

EHM

12.     Domestic Animal Control

Animal Control

WCPM

13.     Domestic Garbage Collection

Waste Management

WCPM

14.     Encouraging Local Industry & Jobs

Economic Development

LEDPM

15.     Environmental Education

Environmental Protection

EHM

16.     Graffiti Removal

Public Domain Maintenance

PDASM

17.     Health & Hygiene of Local Food Outlets

Health Services

EHM

18.     Information provided on Council Services & Activities

Customer Service

IMTM

19.     Kerbside Clean-Up Collection

Waste Management

WCPM

20.     Lighting of Public Places

Community Safety

PDASM

21.     Litter Control

Public Domain Maintenance

PDASM

22.     Maintenance of Facilities around the River

Parks Management & Maintenance

PCMM

23.     Maintenance of Footpaths

Roads & Footpaths Maintenance

CWM

24.     Maintenance of Local Roads

25.     Maintenance of Public Drains

Drainage Maintenance

CWM

26.     Overall Appearance of the City

Public Domain Maintenance

PDASM

Design

MPM

27.     Parking Enforcement

Regulatory Control

WCPM

28.     Protection of Heritage Sites

Planning Policy & Places

LPM

29.     Protection of the Natural Environment

Environmental Protection

EHM

Bushland Management

PCMM

RID Squad

WCPM

30.     Provision of  Parking for Shoppers

Traffic &Parking Management

DTAM

31.     Provision of Bus Shelters

Building Maintenance

CWM

32.     Provision of Community Halls & Centres

Neighbourhood Facilities Management

PDASM

33.     Provision of Commuter Parking

Traffic & Parking Management

DTAM

34.     Provision of Cycle Ways

Roads, Footpaths & Drainage Construction

CWM

35.     Provision of Footpaths

Roads, Footpaths & Drainage Construction

CWM

36.     Provision of Library Services

Libraries

LSM

37.     Provision of Parks & Playgrounds

Parks Construction

PCMM

38.     Provision of Public Toilets

Building Maintenance

CWM

39.     Provision of Services & Facilities for Children

Children’s Services

CSMO

40.     Provision of Services & Facilities for Older People

Community & Cultural Development

CCDM

41.     Provision of Services & Facilities for Youth

42.     Provision of Sports Grounds & Playing Fields

Parks Construction

PCMM

43.     Provision of Tourist Information

Marketing

EDCMM

44.     Recycling Services

Waste Management

WCPM

45.     Regulation of Traffic Flow

Traffic & Parking Management

DTAM

Transport Planning & Advocacy

DTAM

46.     Street Cleaning

Public Domain Maintenance

PDASM

47.     Tree Preservation

Parks Management & Maintenance

PCMM

48.     Urban & Rural Planning

Release Area Planning

EPM

Planning Policy & Places

LPM

 

 


Appendix B - Percentage of Penrith Residents Satisfied ~ “Medium” or “High” ratings (2003-2009)

 

Service / Facility

2009*

2007

2005

2003

Recycling services

95.1%

88.2%

89.2%

91.0%

Overall appearance of the city

94.4%

87.4%

88.6%

89.0%

Domestic garbage collection

94.4%

93.8%

94.0%

93.1%

Provision of sports grounds and playing fields

92.8%

86.2%

86.7%

88.8%

Protection of the natural environment

91.8%

84.8%

79.9%

82.4%

Provision of parks and playgrounds

91.0%

82.4%

81.5%

81.6%

Condition of parks and playgrounds

90.4%

77.5%

77.7%

81.1%

Health and Hygiene of local food outlets

89.8%

85.3%

83.5%

83.9%

Maintenance of sports grounds and playing fields

89.4%

82.4%

80.5%

84.7%

Street cleaning

89.3%

82.8%

82.4%

79.1%

Litter Control

89.0%

79.6%

79.5%

79.7%

Kerbside clean-up collection

89.0%

82.8%

81.9%

75.8%

Tree preservation

88.8%

82.4%

82.9%

81.0%

Maintenance of facilities around the river

88.4%

80.7%

79.9%

80.2%

Provision of footpaths

88.2%

77.5%

70.8%

71.7%

Information on Council services and activities

88.1%

82.4%

81.9%

75.6%

Environmental Education

87.2%

83.1%

78.3%

78.0%

Lighting of public places

86.9%

74.6%

70.0%

71.7%

Provision of tourist information

86.7%

83.2%

79.8%

76.4%

Protection of heritage sites

86.7%

84.1%

83.9%

81.9%

Regulation of traffic flow

86.5%

66.9%

63.5%

70.1%

Maintenance of footpaths

86.1%

75.5%

N/A

N/A

Encouraging local industry and jobs

85.8%

77.2%

77.9%

78.2%

Domestic Animal Control

85.5%

80.3%

77.8%

78.3%

Maintenance of public drains

85.3%

73.3%

76.2%

76.2%

Clean creeks and waterways

84.8%

65.3%

64.0%

67.8%

Provision of library services

84.7%

90.5%

91.9%

85.5%

Provision of  parking for shoppers

84.7%

71.6%

74.0%

76.9%

Provision of services and facilities for children

84.2%

78.0%

80.9%

70.9%

Graffiti Removal

83.6%

71.8%

71.0%

70.6%

Maintenance of local roads

81.9%

68.2%

64.5%

65.8%

Consultation with the community by Council

81.4%

72.5%

70.3%

67.8%

Urban and rural planning

81.2%

71.7%

69.8%

70.4%

Condition of public swimming pools

81.2%

81.2%

80.4%

76.9%

Parking enforcement

81.1%

72.9%

73.7%

75.2%

Condition of cemeteries

80.2%

79.9%

76.1%

74.4%

Provision of services and facilities for youth

79.3%

68.0%

75.4%

65.9%

Provision of bus shelters

77.2%

66.4%

65.4%

62.7%

Provision of services and facilities for older people

77.0%

72.1%

71.9%

68.4%

Provision of commuter parking

77.0%

57.9%

66.5%

69.6%

Community safety programs

75.4%

70.7%

71.8%

69.0%

Council's Immunisation clinics

75.2%

67.6%

76.8%

68.3%

Provision of cycle ways

75.1%

67.0%

66.2%

62.4%

Condition of community halls and centres

72.7%

82.9%

84.2%

81.5%

Provision of community halls and centres

72.6%

87.1%

86.6%

83.7%

Building and development application assessment

72.0%

67.1%

63.6%

65.2%

Provision of public toilets

71.6%

63.7%

61.3%

55.6%

Condition of public toilets

66.0%

57.6%

55.6%

49.2%

* 2009 raw scores (out of 10) were converted to the 5 point scale so that comparisons could be done.

 

  

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association 2009-2010 Business Plans

 

5        South Penrith Branch Library Location

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

4

Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association 2009-2010 Business Plans   

 

Compiled by:                Terry Agar, Acting Centres Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Roger Nethercote, Group Manager - People and Places   

Strategic Objective: We play an active role in our communities

Strategic Direction: Our capacity and wellbeing is enhanced through the support of collaborative networks and partnerships

 

Presenters:                   Gladys Reed - Penrith City Centre Association - Business Plan

                                      Peter Jackson-Calway - St Marys Town Centre Association - Business Plan    

 

Executive Summary:

The Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Associations have been established to actively promote business activity in the City’s two principal centres and to work with stakeholders to increase community patronage of the centres.  The Associations’ activities are funded through a sub-category rate supported by local business in each centre. 

 

The report outlines the Associations’ 2009-10 Business Plans and their 2008-09 key achievements.  The report and the accompanying association reports detail the program and budget expenditure for the 2009-10 year. 

 

The report recommends that funding be endorsed for the Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association of $296,814 and $222,670 respectively.

 

The Centre Manager from each Association will give a short presentation on their respective plans and achievements. 

Background

The Associations were established in the late 1990s as incorporated bodies to fundamentally work to promote the Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre.  The Associations have operated to improve business activities as well as the experience for visitors when shopping in the City and to enhance the vitality and appearance of the Centres.

 

The Associations are overseen by executive management committees made up of representatives of land owners, retailers, businesses and Council along with the Centre Manager.  Council staff liaise with the Associations from time to time on specific issues including safety and security matters, street cleaning programs, Centre strategies and special events and the identification of capital works improvements that enhance the physical appearance of the Centres and emphasise what they have to offer.

 

Regular management and community meetings are co-ordinated by the Associations to ensure a range of stakeholder inputs and the sharing of information.

 

 

 

 

The Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association are required to prepare an annual Business Plan for Council’s endorsement and report on key performance indicators.  Copies of the 2009-10 Business Plans for each association are attached to this report. 

 

This report summarises the key achievements of each association during the 08-09 financial year and outlines their Business Plans for the 2009-10 year.

 

Representatives from both Associations will tonight each give a short presentation on their achievements during the 2008-09 financial year and their proposed business plans for the current year.

 

2008-09 Key Achievements

 

Penrith City Centre Association

 

During the 2008-09 year the Penrith City Centre Association achievements include the following:

·    2009 Penrith City Centre Festival

·    Penrith CBD Street Watch Program

·    Sunday High Street Markets

·    Free Christmas Shuttle Bus service

·    Ulyssees Club 2009 AGM Welcome Program

St Marys Town Centre Association

 

During the 2008-09 year the St Marys Town Centre Association achievements include the following:

·    Regular Newsletters

·    Shop locally promotions

·    Shopping survey

·    Shopfront shutter art initiative

2009-10 Business Plans

 

The Business Plans provide information on Management Committee membership, key objectives, 2008/09 highlights, promotion and marketing activities, business and economic development initiatives, centre improvement initiatives and key performance indicators.

 

Penrith City Centre Association (PCCA)

 

The principle objective of the PCCA 2009-10 Business Plan is:

 

“To improve business in the Penrith City Centre and the experience of people shopping in, and visiting the City.”

 

The 2009/10 business sub-category rate allocation for the PCCA is $296,814.

 

The PCCA’s Business Plan intends to deliver a range of programs and activities for the improvement of the physical environment and the fostering of business enterprise in the City centre.

 

There are four programs within the Plan:

1.   Promotions and Marketing

2.   Business Development

3.   CBD Physical Environment & Services

4.   Services

 

Each of these programs identifies a range of proposed activities and a range of performance indicators to measure their achievement.  A budget is allocated to each program.

 

Key focus areas for 2009/10 include:

·    Supporting the continued operation of the Sunday High Street Markets

·    Attract more business to participate in the CBD street watch program

·    Stating monthly retail promotions that feature red balloon sales, live entertainment and other promotional mediums

·    Installing music speakers in High Street to improve the ambience for shoppers in the day and to deter anti-social behaviour at night

·    Working in partnership with PVEDC to provide economic benefits for stakeholders in the CBD.

 

St Marys Town Centre Association (SMTCA)

 

The objective of the SMTCA is to revitalise the Town Centre through engagement with businesses and the community.

 

The 2009/10 business sub-category rate allocation for the SMTCA is $222,670.

 

The SMTCA’s Business Plan intends to deliver a range of activities for the improvement of Queen Street and the fostering of business enterprise.

 

There are three programs within the Plan:

1.   Promotions and Marketing

2.   Business Development

3.   Queen Street Enhancement

 

Key focus areas for 2009/10 include:

 

·    Continue to seek desirable new businesses and retail mix which in turn increases employment opportunities

·    Continue to support existing businesses and maintaining the current high occupancy rate

·    Continue developing the customer service program

·    Communication with major stakeholders via regular newsletters

·    Continue to upgrade our website with links to Council and other sites that are relevant and facilitate web management

·    Continue to conduct seminars and forums on marketing, advertising and encourage attendance at relevant conferences

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

Council’s adopted 2009-10 Operational Plan has provision for contributions to the Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association of $296,814 and $222,670 respectively.  These contributions are raised through two business sub-category rates which encompass businesses within the Penrith CBD and St Marys Town Centre. The rate is specifically levied for the above mentioned purposes and can be advanced according to the agreed quarterly schedule.

 

Conclusion

 

The Associations’ have prepared ambitious business plans to meet their objectives for the 2009-10 financial year.   The initiatives outlined in the Business Plans appear to be appropriately directed and will contribute towards meeting the broad objective of actively promoting business activity in the Centres and in ensuring they are attractive places to visit.  Accordingly it is recommended that Council endorse the required funding allocations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association 2009-2010 Business Plans be received

2.     Funding for the Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association in the amounts of $296,814 and $222,670 be endorsed to be paid in four equal instalments at the beginning of each quarter.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Penrith City Centre Association Business Plan

11 Pages

Attachment

2.  

St Marys Town Centre Management Business Plan and Report

14 Pages

Attachment

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

5

South Penrith Branch Library Location   

 

Compiled by:                Colin Stevenson, Library Services Manager

Authorised by:             Brian Steffen, Group Manager - Information & Customer Relations   

Strategic Objective: We have access to what we need

Strategic Direction: Our City’s services and facilities are provided equitably, and can be accessed by those in need

     

 

Executive Summary

At the Policy and Review meeting of 17 August 2009, a report was tabled on the South Penrith Branch location issue. This report pointed out that a decision was required soon as to whether Council enters into a new lease with the owners of the redeveloped Southlands Shopping Centre to accommodate the South Penrith Library Branch. This report noted that there were several issues that had major financial and service implications.

 

The previous Report recommended that Council should not take up the option of the lease in the redeveloped Southlands Shopping Centre and that St Clair Library continues its current extended hours of operations. St Clair’s continuing growth in loans, membership and Internet use has justified that decision regarding St Clair’s hours of operation.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 24th August Council resolved that “Council not take up the option of the lease for the South Penrith Branch Library in the redeveloped Southlands Shopping Centre under the current offer”.

 

It was recently brought to attention that the Development Approval (resolved in March 2007) for the Southlands Shopping imposed contained a Special Condition – 3.4 as follows;

 

“The tenancy nominated as “Library” is to remain as a public library for the life of the development or as required by Council”

 

This condition could be modified on the request of the Applicant / land owner. In the circumstances, it is considered that such a request would be supported.

 

Since this Council meeting, Council officers have been approached by the owners of the Southlands Shopping Centre with a new lease offer, details of which are commercial in confidence and will be detailed in a paper to be considered in tonight’s confidential business.

 

Notwithstanding the substantially reduced lease offer, the strategic issues outlined previously should still take precedence over the shorter term issue of the reduced lease. It is therefore recommended that Council not take up the option of the revised lease offer in the redeveloped Southlands Shopping Centre.

 

As in the previous Report, it is also recommended that other innovative options for decentralised delivery of library services, including branch locations, should be evaluated as part of the current longer term review planning processes.

Current Position

Since the Council meeting of 24th August, the owners of the Southlands Shopping Centre have approached Council officers with a new lease offer at a reduced rent. The details of the new offer are commercial in confidence and will be detailed in a paper to be considered in tonight’s confidential business.

 

Financial and resource implications:

1. Rental costs

 

Whilst the new offer is a reduction there will still be an additional cost to the 09/10 and forward budgets if the decision was made to re-open the branch in the redeveloped Southlands Shopping Centre. An annual CPI review would also occur each year over the next 2 years. The Lessor has also offered (as in the previous offer) commercial grade carpet, painted walls, air conditioning, suspended tile ceiling and power. In this new offer, the Lessor has also included an accessible unisex toilet, which was not included in the previous offer.

 

2. Staff costs

 

Additional staff costs of $111,000 per annum (two FTE staff) would be still required to ensure safety and security of customers. Previous South Penrith staff capacity has already been relocated to St Clair Library due to the confirmed extended operating hours.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

An amount of $95,000 (1 Staff member and Rental) has been included in the current 2009-10 budget.  At the time of the budget development for the current financial year the new rental figures for the South Penrith library were unavailable.  The revised rental proposal coupled with the additional staffing costs have an additional impact of $122,000 per annum ($57,000 in 2009-10).  No funding for this additional cost has been able to be identified.

 

The Library Directions Working Party is currently undertaking a review of the delivery of Library Facilities to the City. The placement and funding of branch locations is being considered as part of that process.

 

Conclusion

 

Notwithstanding the substantially reduced lease offer, the strategic issues outlined previously should still take precedence over the shorter term issue of the reduced lease. It is therefore recommended that Council not take up the option of the revised lease offer in the redeveloped Southlands Shopping Centre.

 

As in the previous Report, it is also recommended that other innovative options for decentralised delivery of library services, including branch locations, should be evaluated as part of the current longer term review planning processes.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on South Penrith Branch Library Location be received

2.     Council not take up the option of the revised lease offer for the South Penrith Branch Library in the redeveloped Southlands Shopping Centre.

3.     Other innovative options for decentralised delivery of library services be evaluated as part of the current longer term review planning process.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

6        Glenmore Park Shopping Centre - Draft DCP amendment to Glenmore Park Town Centre Chapter of the Penrith DCP 2006

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A Green City

 

 

 

6

Glenmore Park Shopping Centre - Draft DCP amendment to Glenmore Park Town Centre Chapter of the Penrith DCP 2006   

 

Compiled by:                Greg Hall, Principal Planner

Authorised by:             Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

Strategic Objective: We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Strategic Direction:  We respond to the impacts of climate change, and support the principles of sustainability

     

 

Executive Summary

The current Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Glenmore Park Town Centre was adopted at a time when the Town Centre was identified as a Village Centre.  The DCP nominated building footprints and floor space blends which reflected the Town Centre’s position in the retail hierarchy of the City.  Some minor changes have been made to the DCP to reflect the supermarket development.  For the most part the DCP’s key principles have remained constant from its adoption date.

 

The DCP now forms a chapter in the Citywide Penrith DCP 2006.  With the growth in Glenmore Park area and the changing needs of the community it has become apparent that development opportunities for the vacant parcel of land and the Town Centre generally may not be adequately captured by the current DCP.

 

The owners of the Glenmore Park Shopping Centre have lodged a Development Application to expand the existing shopping centre. The ability to assess the development application relies on the exiting DCP being amended to reflect the key principles of the proposal and the Town Centre. The decision to amend a DCP rests with Council, although in this instance it has been prompted by the owners of the site advocating a new retail opportunity.

 

The chapter in the Penrith DCP 2006 that relates to the Glenmore Park Town Centre needs to be amended and a new DCP chapter prepared in order to facilitate the proposed expansion to the existing shopping centre.

 

A Briefing session with the South Ward Councillors and representatives of AMP Capital was held on the 17 July 2009 and another briefing session with all Councillors and AMP Capital was held on the 10 August 2009.

 

The role of the DCP is to provide the statutory and design framework, around which future developments of the Glenmore Park Town Centre can be assessed against a range of requirements.

 

The Development Application will be determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) because its development costs exceed $10M.

 

The adoption of the Draft DCP will be determined by Council and not the JRPP.

Introduction

The Glenmore Park Town Centre is bounded by Glenmore Parkway, Luttrell St, the Ched Towns Reserve on the east and residential development to the north, south and west.

 

The applicant AMP Capital Investors has lodged a request to amend the current Glenmore Park Town Centre Development Control Plan (DCP) as well as a Development Application for the expansion of the existing shopping centre.

 

The report will discuss the request to amend the Glenmore Park Town Centre DCP.

 

The report seeks Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit the draft amendment to the Glenmore Park Town Centre DCP.

Background

Planning for the Centre commenced in 1993 following the release of land in 1990.

The preparation of the original DCP for Glenmore Park arose through community and stakeholder engagement.

 

Some of the principles articulated at this time were:

 

·    The desire for a Town Centre with a heart

·    Town Centre needs to have it’s own identity

·    Town Centre is the hub or focus for the local community

·    Provide facilities sufficient to serve its residents

 

Glenmore Park Town Centre opened in 2000 and currently contains a Woolworths Supermarket and 19 specialty shops on a single level.

 

The site also has several stand alone commercial operations around its perimeter (KFC, Service Station and McDonalds Restaurant).

 

In order to commence discussions with AMP Council formed a Working Party which comprised of a number of Senior Council officers from a large number of departments who had an interest in the proposed expansion.

 

AMP Capital and their consultant have undertaken several meetings since late last year with the Working Party to discuss the proposed expansion to the Glenmore Park Town Centre.

The meetings were aimed at identifying all the issues that needed to be addressed as well as a range of urban design principles to be incorporated into the proposed extension.

 

A briefing session with the South Ward Councillors and representatives of AMP Capital was held on the 17 July 2009 and another briefing session with all Councillors was held on the 10 August 2009.

 

The Councillors raised the following matters at the briefing sessions:

 

·    Traffic and Pedestrian access and movements (both within and external to the site)

·    Floor space proposed for the future development beyond what is currently proposed to be constructed

 

These matters have been incorporated into the revised ‘draft’ of the DCP.

Current Situation

The site is currently zoned “Zone No. 2 (Urban zone)” under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 188. The current DCP for the Glenmore Park Town Centre is included as a chapter contained in Penrith DCP 2006.

 

The current DCP for the Glenmore Park Town Centre has been an evolving document responding to the growth and changing demands of the community over a period of time. The current DCP chapter needs to be amended and a new DCP chapter prepared for the Glenmore Park Town Centre in order to facilitate the proposed and any future expansion as proposed.

 

In March 2007 Council adopted the “Penrith City Centres Hierarchy Interim Policy” where

Glenmore Park Town Centre was identified as a Village Centre together with other shopping centres (Southlands, Lennox, and St Clair).  The 2005 Metropolitan Strategy that informed the Hierarchy Interim Policy included typologies for Local Centres, for which this site would be categorised as a Village.  The proposed amendment to the DCP would not alter this categorisation.

 

The State Government has recently released a Draft Centres Policy to provide a clear planning framework for the development of all new and existing retail and commercial centres across the state.  A key principle of the draft policy is that centres need to grow and evolve over time to meet market and community demands.

 

The proposed CP amendment has been referred to Council’s Local Planning Section and they have indicated:

 

“Council is currently preparing Stage 2 of the LEP process which will include the residential and commercial areas of the city.

 

This process is only in the initial stages and is likely to take at least a year before it is gazetted. The Applicant and Council officers have agreed that the proposed expansion of the Glenmore Park Town Centre is something that can precede the gazettal of Stage 2 as it involves an amendment to the DCP and no alteration to the LEP. The DCP alterations will become part of the adopted suit of planning documentation that accompanies the Stage 2 LEP process.”

 

The table below shows a comparison of the existing floor space control of the DCP to what is now being proposed in the Draft DCP.

 

Activity

Current Controls

Proposed

Supermarket

4,500

5,850

Specialist retail/commercial

18,875

15,268

PAD sites (KFC, McDonalds) redevelopment and mixed uses (office and residential)

N/A

15,000

Total

23,375

36,118

Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Amendment

A draft amendment to Part 6 Section 6.15 of the adopted Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 for the Glenmore Park Town Centre has been prepared and will be provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

The main purpose of the draft amendment is to provide a comprehensive range of controls around which future developments of the Glenmore Park Town Centre can be assessed against.

 

The draft DCP amendment establishes a comprehensive range of objectives and controls relating to the following matters:

 

·    Built form

o Setbacks and building alignment

o Floor space controls

o Building height controls

o Interface with residential areas

o Landscape design

 

·    Public Domain

o Pedestrian amenity and weather protection

o Pedestrian access and mobility

o Active street frontages

o Internal building circulation spaces

 

·    Car parking and access

o Vehicle access and servicing

o On-site parking

o Site facilities and services

 

·    Design Principles

o Energy efficiency

 

·    Management of Town Centre

o Waste

o Safety and security

o Events

 

·    Other Controls

o Town Centre

o Community facility building

o Advertising signage

o Application submission requirements

 

The format of the draft amendment is consistent with recent DCP’s that Council has prepared for commercial centres.

Public Participation

The community consultation process for the public exhibition of the draft amendment to the DCP and the Development Application for the expansion to the shopping centre will occur concurrently.

 

It will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s adopted Community Participation Manual and will comprise the following:

 

·    Advisory letters to all adjoining and surrounding landowners, community groups, businesses and landowners

·    Public display of the draft DCP and Development Application material including maps, draft plans/ instruments and background studies at Council’s Penrith and St Marys Offices as well as the Glenmore Park Shopping Centre and Glenmore Park Community Centre that is adjacent to the shopping centre

·    Notification of the public exhibition in local newspapers

·    Presentation of all exhibition material on Council’s website, which can also be accessed in the library free of charge

·    Conducting a public information meeting during the exhibition period at the Glenmore Park Community Centre which will involve both AMP representatives and Council officers

 

At the conclusion of the consultation process the draft DCP will be reported back to Council for formal consideration.  

Conclusion

The Glenmore Park area has expanded since the Town Centre was developed.  The community have expressed a desire to have a broader retail choice on offer within the Town Centre.  A review of the broad principles of the DCP has merit, as the planning guidelines have been in place for some time and should be revisited to enable the site to fulfil its potential.

 

AMP Capital has expressed a willingness to develop the undeveloped land adjacent for a major retail upgrade for the Town Centre. The planning process that is required involves first amending the DCP that guides development for the Town Centre and then obtain development approval for the proposed development for the site.  

 

The Development Application will be determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) due to the cost of the development which is approximately $48,752,440. The decision of the JRPP will need to take into consideration the DCP.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Glenmore Park Shopping Centre - Draft DCP amendment to Glenmore Park Town Centre Chapter of the Penrith DCP 2006 be received

2.     In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Regulations 2000, the draft amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Chapter 6 to incorporate planning controls relating to the Glenmore Park Town Centre as attached to this report, be publicly exhibited

3.     A further report is presented to Council following public exhibition of the draft Development Control Plan 2006 amendment, advising of the outcomes of exhibition and making further recommendations relating to the adoption of the draft DCP amendment.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

7        Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review

 

8        New Region 1 Bus Network

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

7

Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review   

 

Compiled by:                Judy Cobb, Neighbourhood Facilities Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager   

Strategic Objective: Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Strategic Direction: Our neighbourhood, recreation and leisure facilities and programs meet community needs

     

 

Executive Summary:

The Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review was identified in the 2008/2009 Management Plan and conducted by Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd.  The review process involved extensive consultation with various stakeholders including representatives from the three models of management currently in place for the management of Council’s neighbourhood facilities. A summary of the findings of the review were presented to Council at a Councillor Briefing on 27 July 2009.

The review identified a number of key areas where Council is exposed to various levels of risk.  These areas include, for example, a lack of clear policy direction, lack of compliance to guidelines and regulations, lack of standard operating procedures and minimal performance measures and monitoring systems.

A number of recommendations have been developed to address and minimise Council’s exposure to these risks.  These recommendations are outlined in the report along with a draft Implementation Plan. 

This report recommends that the recommendations and the Implementation Plan of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review as outlined in the report be adopted to significantly reduce Council’s exposure to risk while enhancing the management performance and service delivery.

Background

 

The 2009/2013 Delivery Program includes a delivery action to “develop and implement best practice policies, agreements and practices for the management of neighbourhood facilities, to ensure consistent management practices”. In addition the 2009/2010 Operational Plan includes two tasks that relate to the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service.  These are:

1.   Finalise the review of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service

2.   Prioritise recommendations from the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review and commence implementation of agreed actions.

 

The Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review encompasses the management and administration of Council’s 40 neighbourhood facilities including neighbourhood centres, community centres, youth centres, senior citizens centres and halls.  The service does not include asset management or maintenance which is covered by the City Works Department.

 

Council’s neighbourhood facilities are not staffed, however, a number of community development projects are based in some of these facilities and offer a range of government funded programs and services. 

 

Currently, there are three management models in place for the management of Council’s neighbourhood facilities.  These include:

 

1.   Direct Management – the Neighbourhood Facilities Service directly manages 25 of Council’s neighbourhood facilities.

 

2.   Committee Management – there are currently eight volunteer committees who have been delegated the care, control and management of nine Council owned neighbourhood facilities (under Section 377 of Local Government Act)

 

3.   Licence Agreement – Council has entered into a licence agreement with three Community Development Organisations that are responsible for the management of six neighbourhood facilities. Though the terms of the licences have expired all of the conditions and covenants have continued as a yearly licence.

 

Each management arrangement brings inherent benefits with relative advantages and disadvantages over other management approaches.

 

The regulatory and legislative processes that must be complied with by Council, and other managers of Council facilities, are becoming more and more onerous.  Any breaches of these requirements expose Council, Council staff, committee members and centre users to significant risk. Therefore, changing social, legal, technical and financial environments have led to a need to review current practices.

 

Project Aim and Objectives

 

A Project Support Group was established to assist with the development of a Project Brief for the review of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service. This group consisted of representatives from Neighbourhood Facilities, Community and Cultural Development, Financial Services and City Works (Building Projects and Maintenance) departments.

 

The aim of the review is to evaluate the current management structures, systems, processes, and practices for the purpose of making recommendations to enhance service delivery and inform future decision making processes.  In particular, the review is aimed at identifying Council’s exposure to risk and recommending options to minimise these risks.  The review process involved extensive consultation with identified internal and external stakeholders.

 

The project objectives as identified in the Project Brief are as follows:

 

·    Inform future planning and decision making processes

·    Ensure management systems and administrative practices are developed in consultation with key stakeholders

·    Ensure Council’s risks are monitored and minimised

·    Enhance management performance while maintaining the interests of all stakeholders

·    Improve service delivery, increase levels of user satisfaction and maximise usage of Council’s neighbourhood facilities while remaining responsive to changing community needs

·    Increase levels of support, training and resources for staff and volunteers required to fulfil Council’s responsibilities

·    Recognise the need for flexibility and varying community circumstances.

 

Appointment of Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd

 

In March 2009 Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd was engaged to undertake the review of the management of Council’s neighbourhood facilities.  Morrison Low has extensive experience in working with local government and consulting with the community.  They have also undertaken similar reviews for other local Councils, including Hornsby Shire Council in 2003.

 

Methodology and Consultative Process

 

The agreed methodology applied to this project is outlined in the following table:

 

Milestone

Timeframe

Confirm assignment objectives

April 2009

Collection and examination of relevant information

April 2009

Meeting with internal and external stakeholders

Week of 18 May 2009

Site visits and analysis

Week of 18 May 2009

Presentation of draft report and findings to CMT

9 July 2009

Presentation of draft report and findings to Council

27 July 2009

Presentation of draft report and findings to Stakeholders

4 August 2009

Report findings, recommendations and Implementation Plan reported to Council

19 October 2009

Implementation of agreed actions

ongoing

 

Prior to the commencement of the consultative process Morrison Low Consulting undertook an extensive process of gathering all relevant written information that relates to the Neighbourhood Facilities Service.  This information included for example:

 

·    Strategic and policy documents

·    Statistical information 

·    Financial information

·    Previous Council reports relevant to the operation of neighbourhood facilities

·    Samples of administrative systems and procedural documents

·    Position descriptions for the Neighbourhood Facilities Team

·    Committee history and details

·    Asset management history.

 

After examining this information Morrison Low Consulting commenced the consultative process with an information session that was widely promoted and open to all stakeholders including Council Officers, Management Committee members, Community Development Projects and general users of Council’s neighbourhood facilities.  The purpose of the Information Session was to explain the purpose of the review, outline the review process and clarify any questions stakeholders may have had.  This meeting was attended by a wide range of stakeholders.

 

Following the information session the consultative process included:

 

·    One to one interviews with Neighbourhood Facilities Officers

·    A group interview with identified Council Officers including representatives from Financial Services, Community and Cultural Development, City Works (Building Projects and Maintenance), and Customer Service departments

·    Consultative meetings with Committee representatives

·    Consultative meetings with interested user groups

·    Consultative meetings with Community Development Organisations and other key service providers (who use an office in a neighbourhood facility and/or provide services to the community from a neighbourhood facility).

 

The entire consultative process was facilitated by Morrison Low Consulting.  Council officers did not attend the consultative meetings in an effort to ensure that the stakeholders felt that they could speak openly and honestly to the consultants.

 

A total of 53 committee and/or community representatives participated in the consultative process.  Seven of the eight Volunteer Management Committees and five of the six Community Development Projects currently operating from a neighbourhood centre were represented at one or more of the consultative meetings.

 

In addition to the consultative meetings, Morrison Low also conducted site visits of seven of Council’s 40 neighbourhood facilities.  The facilities selected for a site visit represented a cross section of new facilities, older facilities and facilities managed by one of the three management structures. These facilities included:

 

Name of Facility

Management Structure

Cambridge Park Hall

Direct Management

Harold Corr Hall

Direct Management

St Marys Senior Citizen Centre

Committee Management

Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre

Committee Management

South Penrith Neighbourhood Centre

Licence Agreement with Community Development Organisation

North Penrith Neighbourhood Centre

Committee Management

Penrith Valley Senior Citizens Centre

Committee Management

 

Presenting the Draft Findings and Recommendations

 

Following the consultative meetings and site visits by Morrison Low a summary of the findings was presented to Councillors at a Council Briefing on 27 July 2009, and internal and external stakeholders at a meeting on 4 August 2009. 

 

Council Briefing Session

 

Mr Steve McGrath (NSW Manager) and Mr Stephen Bunting (Senior Consultant) of Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd presented a summary of the findings of the review at a Councillor briefing session.  The presentation focused on Council’s identified exposure to risk and presented a number of proposed draft recommendations to be implemented to address risk exposure.   These findings and recommendations are detailed later in this report.

 

Presentation to Stakeholders

 

A summary of the findings and recommendations were also presented by Mr McGrath and Mr Bunting to approximately 60 internal and external stakeholders at a meeting on the 4 August 2009.  The purpose of this presentation was to give stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback on the accuracy of the consultant’s findings and comment on the proposed recommendations developed to address the identified risks and issues.

 

Feedback received at the meeting from external stakeholders through this process was generally positive.  There was acknowledgement that the review was long overdue and that generally there was a need for additional support to improve outcomes and minimise risk.

 

In addition to seeking feedback at the meeting, stakeholders were also invited by the Consultants to contact them directly to provide further comment or feedback on the findings and recommendations.  Stakeholders were also provided with a copy of the presentation and encouraged to provide feedback to their own organisational group.  They were also invited to provide feedback to the Neighbourhood Facilities Coordinator at their convenience. No further response from external/internal stakeholders was received by Morrison Low Consulting or the Neighbourhood Facilities Coordinator following the 4 August meeting.

 

Summary of the Key Findings

 

A summary of the key findings of the review of the management of Council’s neighbourhood facilities by Morrison Low Consulting is outlined below:

 

Current Situation

·    Neighbourhood facilities are a significant community asset

·    Neighbourhood Facility Committees and Management are providing a valuable and dedicated service

·    Council is very appreciative of all the work undertaken by Committees, Community Development Organisations and other volunteers

·    The regulatory and legislative processes that must be complied with by Council and Committees are becoming more and more onerous

·    Any breach of these requirements exposes Council, Council staff, Committee members, Community Development Organisations and centre users to significant risk

·    Other Council’s are facing similar issues and have done or are planning to undertake a review of neighbourhood facilities operations.

 

Strategic Direction

·    A number of legislative and planning documents identify requirements for Council to provide services and facilities for the community and to ensure that they are managed efficiently and effectively (eg. Local Government Charter 1993, Social Planning Framework)

·    There is no set policy direction for the management of neighbourhood facilities.

 

 

Ownership, Governance and Management

·    As owners of all neighbourhood facilities Council carries ultimate risk for anything that happens with or in the neighbourhood facilities

·    The governance role is not being fulfilled entirely. Council is not setting expectations or receiving feedback

·    No agreements are in place with Committees or Community Development Organisations to outline expectations therefore the direction and approach to the management of neighbourhood facilities can be inconsistent.

 

Staff and Volunteer Resources

·    Difficulties are experienced in recruiting and retaining Volunteer Committee members

·    Many Committees have significant tenure

·    There is no monitoring in place to ensure volunteers have appropriate skills, knowledge and training

·    The Neighbourhood Facilities Team have a significant workload both managing Council run neighbourhood facilities and supporting Committees and Community Development Organisations who run Council owned neighbourhood facilities

·    Key improvement areas include communication, service level agreements and service standards.

 

Compliance (including Committee Operations, Procedures, Legislation, Public Liability, and Financial Systems)

·    There is a potential for conflict of interest in the absence of clear policy direction

·    Not all Committees have current constitutions or hold valid AGM’s

·    There are few accountabilities prescribed for the management of neighbourhood facilities

·    There are no standard processes in place governing committee decisions, conflict of interest, code of conduct and pecuniary interest

·    Use of standard OHS checklists, hazard and incident forms is low

·    Committees use ad hoc financial systems and processes with little control from Council other than audited annual accounts

 

Financial Performance

·    There are significant funds being managed by Committees with very few controls in place

·    Full cost for both Committee managed, Community Development Organisation managed and Council managed neighbourhood facilities is unknown (eg. direct costs, asset management/maintenance, management costs, overheads etc)

·    Financial data from Community Development Organisations is not reported to Council.

 

Fees and Charges

·    There is no consistent fee structure based on equity/accessibility criteria

·    Discretion has been applied to fees and charges without any documented accountability or audit

·    The Fees and Charges Schedule in the Management Plan is quite complex with rates varying by neighbourhood facilities, space and user, however, the fee structure does not offer flexibility.

 

Utilisation (Usage, Processes, Users)

·    Wide variety of users and events across all neighbourhood facilities

·    Inconsistent booking systems across the three models of management

·    No guidelines in place outlining priority of access, commercial use, Community Development Organisation use of space, etc

·    Utilisation and user data is minimal

·    User satisfaction is not monitored. No customer complaint management/arbitration processes.

 

Marketing and Promotion

·    No marketing strategy in place for Committee managed, Community Development Organisation managed or Council managed facilities.

 

Asset Management and Building Maintenance

·    Total asset value of Council’s neighbourhood facilities is unclear

·    Geographical distribution of facilities indicates that there might be some overlap

·    Access and equity issues require consideration

·    Forward asset management planning and building maintenance programming requires consultation with key stakeholders.

 

Performance Management

·    Minimal reporting in place apart from annual financial reporting

·    Minimal performance measures and monitoring systems in place

·    Lack of business, management and financial plans for Committee and Community Development Organisation managed neighbourhood facilities.

 

Identified Risks Areas Within the Key Findings

 

A total of 16 key risk areas were identified by Morrison Low Consulting for the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service.  The key risk areas are summarised in the following table:

 

No

Key Risk Area

Risks

1

Strategic Direction

Without a clear policy direction overall outcomes for different neighbourhood facilities across all management models could vary significant

2

Ownership, Governance and Management

Lack of governance and variability of management means Council’s risk exposure is not being managed effectively for any of the management models

3

Staff and Volunteer Resources

Inadequately trained staff and volunteers potentially expose Council to compliance, operational, legal and financial risks

4

Compliance – Committee Operations

Council is exposed to operational risk due to varying ability of committees to comply guidelines and regulations

5

Compliance –

Procedures

Lack of standardised operating procedures exposes Council to compliance, operational, financial, and legal risks

6

Compliance – Legislation

Development and monitoring of systems is fundamental to minimise Council’s exposure to legislative risk


 

7

Compliance –

Public Liability

Significant legal risk to Council, Committees and Community Development Organisations if public liability is not managed rigorously

8

Compliance –

Financial Systems

Variability is exposing Council to some financial risk across all management model

9

Financial Performance

Financial risk is increased to Council through lack of accepted financial procedures and regular reporting on financial performance

10

Fees and Charges

Financial and equity risk resulting from reduced revenues and inconsistent charging due to fee waivers and use of neighbourhood facilities by Community Development Organisations free of charge

11

Utilisation – Usage

Without accurate utilisation data for all neighbourhood facilities it is difficult to determine if neighbourhood facilities are being used optimally and appropriately exposing Council to risk of financial under performance and access issues across all management models

12

Utilisation – Process

Without consistent booking systems Council may be exposed to risks of reduced revenue if bookings are not maximised, asset risk if neighbourhood facilities are mistreated and legal risk if inappropriate activities are undertaken

13

Utilisation – Users

Without user feedback systems Council may be exposed to legal and reputational risks and risks associated with under use of neighbourhood facilities if users are dissatisfied

14

Marketing and Promotion

Without a rigorous and consistent approach to marketing Council could be exposed to financial risk due to low utilisation and strategic risk in that promotion does not fit with overall strategy

15

Asset Management and Building Maintenance

Risk of asset failure is increased for all neighbourhood facilities without consistent processes and comprehensive Asset Management Plan/System and building maintenance processes

16

Performance Management

Without good performance management financial and compliance risk increases significantly for Council

 

Recommendations to Address Identified Key Risk Areas

 

The recommendations proposed by Morrison Low Consulting to address the risk areas as outlined above are identified in the following table.  The overall approach of these recommendations is to enhance processes and systems to support those managing Council’s neighbourhood facilities including Council staff, Management Committees and Community Development Organisations and to ensure that Council’s expectations/objectives are monitored for all neighbourhood facilities on a regular basis.

 

Risk Areas

Recommendations

Strategic Direction

 

 

Council to develop a clear policy direction and key outcomes sought from all neighbourhood facilities including social justice, financial performance, behavioural, financial accountability, customer service and delegations

 

KPIs developed to monitor performance of all neighbourhood facilities on a regular basis

Management – Overall (including Governance, Staff and Volunteer Resources)

 

Neighbourhood Facilities Team to manage the improvement of the operational risk areas across all neighbourhood facilities (including performance enhancements) in conjunction with Committees and Community Development Organisations (eg. constitutions, success indicators, training, etc)

 

Realign the Neighbourhood Facilities Service within existing resources to deliver the agreed policy direction and support Committees and Community Development Organisations to achieve agreed outcomes (eg: financial performance, utilisation, marketing, etc)

 

Develop internal stakeholder consultative group hosted by the Neighbourhood Facilities Team that meets quarterly and is focused on addressing and improving any cross departmental issues

Management – Council Managed Facilities (including compliance, financial performance, utilisation and marketing)

 

The Neighbourhood Facilities Team will be responsible for management of Council run neighbourhood facilities in accordance with clear policy direction, key performance indicators and standard operating procedures

Management – Committees and Community Development Organisations (including compliance, financial performance, utilisation, and marketing)

 

On an ongoing basis Committees and Community Development Organisations will be required to manage neighbourhood facilities in accordance with expectations set by Council through clear policy direction and reviewed standard operating procedures

 

Report to the Neighbourhood Facilities Team on achievement of outcomes to allow quarterly reporting by the Neighbourhood Facilities Team to Council

 

Develop Management Agreements for Committee managed neighbourhood centres in line with agreed policy direction

 

Develop Management Agreements and Occupancy Agreements for Community Development Organisations in line with agreed policy direction

 

Review benefits/services provided to all Committees and Community Development Organisations who manage Council owned neighbourhood facilities to ensure all neighbourhood facilities are treated fairly

Asset Management and Building Maintenance

 

Develop a Service Levels Agreements for Neighbourhood Facilities, linked to Council’s Asset Management Plan, incorporating levels of service for the maintenance of buildings with engagement with identified key stakeholders


 

Fees and Charges

 

 

Develop draft revised pricing model (Fees and Charges) in consultation with identified key stakeholders and in line with policy direction for consideration by Council

Performance management (including managing expectations)

 

Neighbourhood Facilities Service to monitor key performance indicators for all neighbourhood facilities on a regular basis and report quarterly to Council

 

Measurements of key performance indicators will commence once systems are developed, templates are established and training and support has commenced

 

In event that support, procedures and systems put in place as a result of the Neighbourhood Facilities Service Review do not mitigate Council’s exposure to risk, consideration be given to alternatives that will assist in alleviating that risk

 

Implementation Plan, Timeline and Funding

 

The following Implementation Plan has been developed to align with the risks and recommendations identified by Morrison Low Consulting as part of the Neighbourhood Facilities Management Service Review.

 

All of the tasks identified in the Implementation Plan will include further input from identified key stakeholders.  Investigations are currently underway to identify funding options to ensure that these tasks are commenced and completed within the proposed timeline.

 

Implementation Plan

Proposed  Timeline

Establish Neighbourhood Facilities Policy Direction in consultation with identified key stakeholders

 

Oct 2009

Mar 2010

Establish Internal Stakeholders Consultative Group

 

Nov 2009

ongoing

Establish Internal Service Level Agreements

 

Nov 2009

Feb 2010

Realign the Neighbourhood Facilities Service within existing resources to deliver the agreed policy direction and support Committees and Community Development Organisations to achieve agreed outcomes.

 

Mar 2010

Oct 2010

Develop new pricing model (fees and charges) in consultation with key stakeholders

 

Mar 2010

July 2010

Establish new guidelines and procedures in line with policy direction and commence implementation of an ongoing training program for Committees and Community Development Organisation management.

 

Mar 2010

Feb 2011

Re-establish Neighbourhood Facilities Management Group Meetings

 

Aug 2010

Ongoing

Develop Management and Occupancy Agreements in consultation with identified key stakeholders

 

Aug 2010

Oct 2010

Establish Neighbourhood Facilities Newsletter

 

Aug 2010

Ongoing

Establish data collection process for the measurements of key performance indicators

 

Sept 2010

Sept 2010

Support management groups to implement  procedures

 

Sept 2010

Ongoing

Commence revised performance reporting

 

Mar 2011

Ongoing

 

It is proposed to engage Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd to develop the Neighbourhood Facilities Policy, Service Level Agreements, Guidelines and Procedures and develop the new Pricing Model (Fees and Charges). The price for this is estimated at $92,100 GST exclusive.

 

$10,000 is available from the Risk Management budget and it is proposed that the balance of funds ($82,100) be transferred from the Community Safety budget in 2009/10 ($50,000) and 2010/11 ($32,000).

 

The Community Safety Section has been successful in achieving a number of grants to implement a range of initiatives to address strategies identified in the Penrith Valley Community Safety Plan. These include $300,000 for enhanced lighting in Cranebrook, $19,445 for the Plate Safe Program, $64,000 for the implementation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) treatments at the Jane Street Commuter car park, $25,000 for fencing at the Penrith Senior Citizens Centre and $60,000 for a Domestic Violence Research Project.

 

The implementation of the recommendations from the Neighbourhood Facilities Service Management Review is a high priority to address the areas of Council’s exposure to risks, as identified in this report. There are no available funds in the Neighbourhood Facilities budget. The funds proposed to be transferred from the Community Safety budget for the implementation of the recommendations from the Neighbourhood Facilities Service Management Review are more than off-set by the amount of grant funding received, and therefore, will not impact on the delivery of the Community Safety program for 2009/10 and 2010/11.

 

Risk Management Coordinator’s Comments

 

With the introduction of operation risk profiling in 2001 it was determined that the Risk Control Improvements would focus initially on Council controlled neighbourhood facilities and then cascade into Committee managed locations.  Since then, there has been a gradual improvement of the management of internal controls in neighbourhood facilities.

 

Service risk assessments identified the overall management of volunteers as having high risk exposures in a number of council services.  Subsequently, the subject of coordinating the management of volunteers has been incorporated into the Internal Audit program.

 

Insurance claims, often regarded as a Key Performance Indicators, from this service have been few and their impact has been minimal.  The claims potential has been reduced by improved management practices and maintenance regimes in the internal controlled locations.  Other risks, including non-insurable risks identified in this report are likely to be addressed by the recommendations of the report.

 

With this report the Public Domain Amenity and Safety Department has taken a major step to minimise Council’s risk exposure by a systematic identification of issues associated with the management of neighbourhood facilities.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comments

 

The implementation of the recommendations of the Neighbourhood Facilities Service Management Review has been identified as a priority.  This report proposes to engage Morrison Low Consulting to further a number of the key steps in the process.

 

Council has received a number of grants, as outlined above, which will assist in the delivery of 2009-10 Community Safety program.  The grant funding provides the capacity for Council to source the required funding of $82,100 from the 2009/10 and 2010/11 Community Safety budget combined with the $10,000 available within the Risk Management budget to implement these recommendations.

 

Conclusion

 

The Neighbourhood Facilities Service Management Review was identified in the 2008/2009 Management Plan and conducted by Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd.  The review process involved extensive consultation with various stakeholders including representatives from the three models of management currently in place for the management of Council’s neighbourhood facilities.   

The review identified a number of key areas where Council is exposed to various levels of risk.  These areas include a lack of clear policy direction, lack of compliance to guidelines and regulations, lack of standard operating procedures and minimal performance measures and monitoring systems.

A number of recommendations have been outlined in the report to address the identified key risk areas.  An Implementation Plan and proposed timeline has also been developed.  The most significant finding and recommendation of the Neighbourhood Facilities Service Management Review identifies the need for Council to establish, in consultation with key stakeholders, a clear policy direction for the management of neighbourhood facilities.  This comprehensive policy will guide the development of enhanced processes and systems required to support the ongoing management of neighbourhood facilities by the Neighbourhood Facilities Team, volunteer management committees and community development organisations in accordance with Council’s strategic and operational expectations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.       The information contained in the report on Neighbourhood Facilities   Management Service Review be received.

2.       The Recommendations and Implementation Plan of the Neighbourhood       Facilities Management Service Review as outlined in the report be adopted.

                   3.       $82,100 and $10,000 be allocated from the 2009/10 Community Safety                        budget and Risk Management budget respectively for the engagement of                       Morrison Low Consulting Pty Ltd for the development of the                                               Neighbourhood Facilities Policy, Service Level Agreements, Guidelines                              and Procedures and the new Pricing Model (Fees and Charges).                

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

A Liveable City

 

 

 

8

New Region 1 Bus Network   

 

Compiled by:                Walter Sinnadurai, Transportation Planner

Authorised by:             David Yee, Acting Design and Technical Advice Manager   

Strategic Objective: Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Strategic Direction: We have access to an interconnected transport network, and our reliance on cars is reduced

 

Presenters:                   Adrian Dessanti - NSW Transport and Infrastructure - Region 1 Bus Network    

 

Executive Summary

In 2008 the then Ministry of Transport (now NSW Transport and Infrastructure (NSWTI)) undertook a review of the Region 1 Bus Network.  Council made a submission to the review in December 2008.  The new network review has been completed and the revised services commenced operation on 11 October 2009 in conjunction with the new CityRail timetable. The Report recommends that the information contained in the report on New Region 1 Bus Network be received.

Background

In 2008 NSW Transport and Infrastructure (NSWTI) carried out a bus network review of the Region 1 area (Penrith, Blacktown and Richmond). Council’s submission on the review was considered and adopted at Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 1 December 2008.  

 

The Bus Network Review of services throughout Sydney was a recommendation of the Unsworth Review.  A key element of the review was to improve connectivity with local places as well as key centres and transport links.  An aim of the review was to maximise the number of residents within 400m of a bus route.

 

The focus of Council’s submission was based on an holistic approach to all elements of public transport rather than specific changes to routes.  The key needs for improved public transport in the City have been identified by Council and others as being necessary to ensure high quality public transport services for Penrith and the surrounding region. 

Current Situation

Following the community consultation period, NSWTI and Comfort Delgro Cabcharge (Westbus) have introduced the new bus network route service for Region 1 area on 11 October 2009 in conjunction with the new CityRail timetable. 

 

During the assessment of the public submissions NSWTI provided a briefing to officers as the revised routes were being finalised.  Council officers have also been working with Westbus on the implementation of the new routes. As the network was introduced to coincide with the new train timetable there was limited opportunity, due to meeting schedules for Council to be briefed prior to the public announcement of the new network. 

 

An assessment of the network against Council’s submission is set out below:

 

Strategic Bus Corridors

 

A strategic bus corridor between Penrith and Mt Druitt was a recommendation of the Unsworth Review.  Council’s submission expressed disappointment that NSWTI did not provide for the strategic corridor and consider expanding the review to provide a fast and frequent bus service with inter-regional connections to other regions such as Richmond and Liverpool.  

 

The new network provides an informal corridor with Routes 774 and 780.  These routes provide east-west connections with bus interchanges.  However these routes do not have the traffic facilities or frequency required for a strategic corridor.

 

Frequency

 

The bus service frequency between Penrith and St Mary’s stations has improved under the new timetable.  Prior to the commencement of the new timetable, a new bus network route (774) was introduced by NSWTI with 10 to 12 minutes frequencies during the peak hours between Penrith to St Marys stations 7 days a week servicing the Nepean Hospital and UWS.  The 774 route frequency has now been changed to 30 minute services during the day time on week days.  However, at the same time, there are two new additional routes, 775 and 776 servicing the same route between Penrith to St Mary’s stations also at 30 minute bus services during the day time on week days.  The combination of routes 774, 775, and 776 between Penrith and St Mary’s stations therefore maintains the 10 minute frequency bus services during the day time on weekdays and provides a 20 minute frequency on evenings and weekends.

 

It appears the frequency and duration remains at 30 minute services during the peak hours for outer suburbs such as Glenmore Park, St Clair, Cranebrook, Cambridge Gardens and Werrington.

 

Access to Employment Centres

 

A new route 779 provides a service to the Erskine Business Park area with a 30 minute bus service during the peak hours and thereafter no service is provided. 

 

The Dunheved Industrial estate remains un-serviced internally with only external services along Christie Street and Forester Road.  It is disappointing that NSWTI has not committed to pursue improved public transport outcomes, for these employment centres given Penrith City’s Regional status.

 

Residents Specific Issues

 

Council included submissions or representation received from residents.

 

Londonderry

The review proposed removal of services from the Londonderry Village area and the Northern Road.  A service has been retained to Londonderry Village.

 

 

Kingswood

The review proposed removal of services from Manning Street and Casuarina Circuit.  These services have been retained.

 

St Clair

The review proposed the removal of route 772 between South St Marys/Colyton and St Clair Shopping Centre.  The route has been modified in Colyton to provide better access, however whilst there is no regular routes service a new “Shopper Hopper” service has been introduced in off-peak periods between the St Clair Shopping Centre and St Marys Station

 

Bus Shelters

 

The preliminary review of the new bus route network indicated that four to five existing bus shelters could be made redundant and / or needs to be relocated.  NSWTI has indicated that funding is available for bus shelter relocations.

 

New Network

 

A review of the new network and the network that was exhibited has indicated that there have been a number changes made to the routes based on submissions from Council and the public as noted above.  In addition changes were made in South Penrith, Glenmore Park, Werrington Downs and Kingswood.  The details will be outlined in the presentation by the representative from NSWTI. 

 

There are two new “Shopper Hopper” services being introduced in Penrith and St Marys that provide a limited weekday off-peak service.  The Penrith service operates between the Penrith Station, Centro and Penrith Plaza.  The St Marys service operates between St Clair Shopping Centre and St Marys Station.

 

There are areas identified that are considered to be adversely affected by the new network.  In particular North St Marys where the removal of route 782 has significantly increased the distance to a bus route for many residents.

 

The implementation of a new network will result in people needing to modify their travel patterns, particularly as the network was introduced in conjunction with a new rail timetable to better align bus and rail services. 

 

Council officers will monitor the operation of the network to identify key problem areas.  Where issues arise they will be brought to the attention of NSWTI.

 

NSWTI’s Presentation

 

Mr Adrian Dessanti on behalf of NSWTI will make a presentation tonight on the new bus network route service for Region 1.  The presentation will address the key issues raised during the public consultation process and how the new network has considered these concerns.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Notwithstanding some identified issues, the new network has, overall, provided better distribution of routes and provided improvements to linkages locally and between centres.

 

The implementation of a new network will result in people needing to adjust their travel patterns, particularly as the network was introduced in conjunction with a new rail timetable to better align bus and rail services. 

 

Council officers will monitor the operation of the network to identify problem areas.  Where issues arise they will be brought to the attention of NSWTI.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on New Region 1 Bus Network be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled



CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday October 19 2009

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                          1

 

2        South Penrith Branch Library Location

 

 


Policy Review Committee

19 October 2009

A Leading City

 

 

 

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

Everyone is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council and those of its Committees of which all members are Councillors, except as provided by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

A Council, or a Committee of the Council of which all the members are Councillors, may close to the public so much of its meeting as comprises:

 

(a)                the discussion of any of the matters listed below; or

(b)               the receipt or discussion of any of the information so listed.

The matters and information are the following:

 

(a)                personnel matters concerning particular individuals;

(b)               the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers;

(c)                information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

(d)               commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

·                         prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or

 

·                         confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or

 

·                         reveal a trade secret.

 

(e)                information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of the law;

(f)                 matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property;

(g)        advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

The grounds on which part of a meeting is closed must be stated in the decision to close that part of the meeting and must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

The grounds must specify the following:

(a)                the relevant provision of section 10A(2);

(b)               the matter that is to be discussed during the closed part of the meeting;

(c)                the reasons why the part of the meeting is being closed, including (if the matter concerned is a matter other than a personnel matter concerning particular individuals, the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer or a trade secret) an explanation of the way in which discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

Members of the public may make representations at a Council or Committee Meeting as to whether a part of a meeting should be closed to the public

The process which should be followed is:

 

·        a motion, based on the recommendation below, is moved and seconded

·        the Chairperson then asks if any member/s of the public would like to make representations as to whether a part of the meeting is closed to the public

·        if a member/s of the public wish to make representations, the Chairperson invites them to speak before the Committee makes its decision on whether to close the part of the meeting or not to the public.

·        if no member/s of the public wish to make representations the Chairperson can then put the motion to close the meeting to the public.

The first action is for a motion to be moved and seconded based on the recommendation below.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        South Penrith Branch Library Location

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:          Monday 19 October 2009

Delivery Program:       A City of Opportunities

Issue:                            We play an active role in our communities

Report Title:                Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association 2009-2010 Business Plans

Attachments:                Penrith City Centre Association Business Plan

                                      St Marys Town Centre Management Business Plan and Report



Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

Attachment 1 - Penrith City Centre Association Business Plan

 

 

 











 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

19 October 2009

Attachment 2 - St Marys Town Centre Management Business Plan and Report