23 February 2011

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 28 February 2011 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

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 7 February 2011.

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 COUNCIL

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

 

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 February 2011.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 21 February 2011.

Access Committee Meeting - 2 February 2011.

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 28 February 2011

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION OF PENRITH CITY’S ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CULTURAL HERITAGE

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

COUNCIL CHAMBER seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross

We’ll toil with hearts and hands;

To make this Commonwealth of ours

Renowned of all the lands;

For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 



Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

Council values the unique status of Aboriginal people as the original owners and custodians of lands and waters, including the land and waters of Penrith City.

 

Council values the unique status of Torres Strait Islander people as the original owners and custodians of the Torres Strait Islands and surrounding waters.

 

We work together for a united Australia and City that respects this land of ours, that values the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage, and provides justice and equity for all.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

“Sovereign God, tonight as we gather together as a Council we affirm that you are the giver and sustainer of life.  We come together as representatives of our community to make decisions that will benefit this city and the people within it. 

 

We come not in a spirit of competition, not as adversaries, but as colleagues.  Help us to treat each other with respect, with dignity, with interest and with honesty.  Help us not just to hear the words we say, but also to hear each others hearts.  We seek to be wise in all that we say and do.

 

As we meet, our concern is for this city.  Grant us wisdom, courage and strength.

 

Lord, help us.  We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.”

 

 

 

 

 


For members of the public addressing the meeting

 
Council Chambers

Text Box: Lectern

Group Managers                          

                
           

 
Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

Director
Craig Butler

 

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

 

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Kevin Crameri OAM
North Ward

 

Senior Governance Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                          

                
          

 
   


2011 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2011 - December 2011

(Adopted by Council 29/11/10)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

7

 

 

2v

 

 

15#

5ü

10¨

7

12

(7.00pm)

 

28#

21

18

23#

27*

18

 

19^

(7.00pm)

 

21#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

 

 

14@

4

9

6

4

1

 

 

14

5

31

21

 

 

 

 

 

22

26@

31

 

 

Operational Plan Public Forum

 

6.00pm

 

 

 

 

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

Meeting at which the Draft Operational Plan for 2011/2012 is adopted for exhibition

*

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2011/2012 is adopted

#

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

@

Delivery Program progress reports

^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

ü

Meeting at which the 2010/2011 Annual Statements are presented

¨

Meeting at which any comments on the 2010/2011 Annual Statements are presented

-           Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-           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 Acting Executive Officer, Glenn Schuil.

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2011 AT 7:36PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM read a statement of recognition of Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage.

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by Rev. Neil Checkley

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 13 December 2010

1  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 13 December 2010 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 8 - Development Application DA09/0609 Final Voluntary Planning Agreement for 2/91 Great Western Highway, Emu Plains. Applicant: J A Aitken, J W Aitken, M R Aitken & D J Reeves;  Owner: Innovation Planning Australia Pty Ltd as he is one of the owners of the property. Councillor Jim Aitken OAM indicated he would leave the room for discussion on the item.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 2 - Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round Three Funding as she is on the Parent Advisory Committee of the Werrianda Child Care Centre which will be receiving funding for shade structures.

 

Councillor Robert Ardill declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 14 - Youth Week 2011- Proposed Activities and Funding    as one of the recipients of funding is a church he attends.

 

Councillor Mark Davies declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 14 - Youth Week 2011- Proposed Activities and Funding as one of the recipients of funding is a church he attends.

 

Councillor Tanya Davies declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 14 - Youth Week 2011- Proposed Activities and Funding    as one of the recipients of funding is a church she attends.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 3 - 2010 NSW Community Building Partnership Program Funding as he is the Public Officer of the Llandilo Hall which will be the recipient of funding recommended in the report.

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Councillor Karen McKeown elected to Local Health Network                                     

2  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Councillor Karen McKeown elected to Local Health Network be received.

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, John Thain and Jackie Greenow all spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.

 

 

 

3        The Success of the 2011 Australia Day Celebrations                                                     

3  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the Mayoral Minute on The Success of the 2011 Australia Day Celebrations be received.

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, John Thain and Mark Davies all spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute and wanted to personally thank the Australia Day Ambassadors and Council staff for their efforts in staging a successful event.

 

 

2        Locals recognised with Australia Day Honours                                                              

4  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Locals recognised with Australia Day Honours be received.

Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Greg Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Tanya Davies and Prue Guillaume all spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.

 

 

 

 

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee, held on 7 February 2011 

5  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 31 January, 2011 be adopted.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Audit Committee                                                                                                                

6  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the information contained in the report on Audit Committee be received

 

2        Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round Three Funding     

7  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Guillaume seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round Three Funding be received.

2.     Council accept the grant funds totalling $724,000 for the nine projects approved by the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government as described in this report.

 

 

3        2010 NSW Community Building Partnership Program Funding                                 

8  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2010 NSW Community Building Partnership Program Funding be received

2.     The Premier and Local Members be thanked for approving the Council’s four grants detailed in the report

3.     Council endorse the acceptance of the approved funds, providing the contracts when issued do not require a substantial reassessment to the scope or budget of any project

 

 

 

4        Urban Development Institute of Australia National Congress 2011                             

9  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Urban Development Institute of Australia National Congress 2011 be received.

2.     Council nominate Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Ben Goldfinch and Marko Malkoc to be delegates to attend the National Congress of the Urban Development Institute of Australia in Adelaide from 28-31 March, 2011 and grant leave of absence as appropriate.

 

5        Summary of Investments & Banking and Agency Collection Fees as at  1 December to 31 December 2010                                                                                                                   

10  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking and Agency Collection Fees as at 1 December to 31 December 2010 be received.

2.      The graphical investment analysis as at 31 December 2010 be noted.

3.      The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 December 2010 to 31 December 2010 be noted and accepted.

4.      Agency Collection Fees be noted.

 

 

6        "Funding Our Future" Program                                                                                     

11  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on "Funding Our Future" Program be received

2.     That the community consultation about the potential use of a Special Rate Variation commence immediately

3.     A further report be provided on the outcomes of the community consultation to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 21 March 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

7        Proposed Exhibition of Council's revised Resource Strategy and Community Engagement Strategy                                                                                                                               

12  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed Exhibition of Council's revised Resource Strategy and Community Engagement Strategy be received.

2.     That the revised Resource Strategy and Community Engagement Strategy be exhibited for community feedback.

3.     That the outcomes of the public exhibition be reported to Council.

 

 

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:38pm.

 

8        Development Application DA09/0609 Final Voluntary Planning Agreement for 2/91 Great Western Highway, Emu Plains. Applicant: J A Aitken, J W Aitken, M R Aitken & D J Reeves;  Owner: Innovation Planning Australia Pty Ltd                                              

13  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA09/0609 Final Voluntary Planning Agreement for 2/91 Great Western Highway, Emu Plains be received.

2.     The Voluntary Planning Agreement be endorsed and Council’s Common Seal be placed on all necessary documentation.

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, returned to the meeting, the time being 8:39pm.

 

9        Development Application DA10/0664 Proposed Dwelling Addition at Lot 268 DP 240525 (No. 34) Kilkenny Road, South Penrith. Applicant: H R Ovenden & K J Ovenden;  Owner: H R Ovenden & K J Ovenden                                                                                          

 

14  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/0664 Proposed Dwelling Addition at Lot 268 DP 240525 (No. 34) Kilkenny Road, South Penrith be received.

2.     The SEPP 1 objections relating to landscape area be supported.

3.     DA10/0664 for a dwelling addition at 34 Kilkenny Road, Penrith be approved subject to the attached conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1       A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A019 – Occupation Certificate

A046 – Construction Certificate required

D001 – Sediment and Erosion Control

D009 – Covering Waste Storage area

D010 – Waste disposal

E001 – BCA compliance

H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H041 – Hours of work

K016 – Stormwater

L008 -  Tree Preservation Order

L012 – General landscaping

P002 - Fees

Q01f – Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q05f -  Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

3.2      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Wayne Ryan, Drawing Number 10-19 pages 1- 6, dated 21.6.10, the application form, the BASIX Certificate, and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions

3.2      In accordance with the requirements of clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, you are required to install a hard wired smoke detector in the existing dwelling. This detector is to comply with the requirements of AS3786 and must be located in accordance with.7.2 of the Housing Provisions. A certificate from a Licensed Electrician attesting to the installation of the smoke detector is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

3.3      The external finishes of the dwelling addition are to compliment and blend with the established streetscape and amenity of the area.

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

10      Development Application DA10/1184 Proposed Single Storey Dwelling & Inground Swimming Pool at Lot 1050 DP 1128253 (No. 8 - 10) Crestwood Avenue, Glenmore Park. Applicant: B.A.C. Design Pty Ltd;  Owner: P Tzirkas & L Tzirkas                            

15  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA10/1184 Proposed Single Storey Dwelling & Inground Swimming Pool at Lot 1050 DP 1128253 (No. 8 - 10) Crestwood Avenue, Glenmore Park be received.

2.     The SEPP 1 objections relating to landscape area be supported.

3.     DA10/1184 for a dwelling at 8-10 Crestwood Avenue, Glenmore Park be approved subject to the attached conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1       A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A019 – Occupation Certificate

A046 – Construction Certificate required

D007 – Filling of Land

D009 – Covering of Waste Storage Area

D010 – Appropriate disposal of excavated waste

E001 – BCA Compliance

H001 – Stamped Plans and Site Notice

H002 – All forms of Construction

H009 – Cut/Fill details

H036 – Rainwater Tank

H037 – Safe supply of water from catchment

H038 – Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 – Rainwater tank pump

I003 – Roads Act approval 1

J001 – Excavated material removal

J002 – Fencing when water in pool

J004 – Pool fence residential

J007 – Boundary fencing

J010 – Pool board/sign

K016 – Stormwater

K026 – Stabilised access

L008 – Tree prevention order

P002 – Fees associated with Council land

Q01F – Notice of Commencement & Appointment of PCA

Q05F – Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

3.2      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Wayne Ryan, Drawing Number 10-19 pages 1- 6, dated 21.6.10, the application form, the BASIX Certificate, and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions

3.3      Erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to the commencement of works on site including approved clearing of site vegetation. The erosion and sediment control measures are to be maintained in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan(s) for the development and the Department of Housing's “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” 2004

The approved sediment and erosion control measures are to be installed prior to and maintained throughout the construction phase of the development until the landscaping, driveway and on-site parking areas have been completed for the development. These measures shall ensure that mud and soil from vehicular movements to and from the site does not occur during the construction of the development

3.4      The operating noise level of the swimming pool filter and equipment shall not exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise level when measured at the boundaries of the premises. The provisions of the Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997 apply on the development, in the terms of regulating offensive noise

3.5      The building shall be set out by a registered surveyor.  A Survey Certificate shall be undertaken and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority when the building is constructed to ground floor slab level and frame stage with eaves and gutters installed

3.6      The external finishes of the dwelling are to compliment and blend with the established streetscape and amenity of the area

3.7      No earthworks including cut and fill or building works including a retaining wall, garden shed or other structures of the like are permitted within the easement. The easement is to remain at natural ground level at all times.

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

 

 

A Green City

 

11      Managed Aquifer Recharge Project

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8.40pm.

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:42pm.

16  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Managed Aquifer Recharge Project  be received

2.     Subject to grant funding of $2,200,000 through the NSW Office of Water, Council support the acceptance of the grant from DSEWPC on the basis of the grant and funding agreement incorporating:

a.    A first stage allocation sufficient for Council to undertake the required detailed design, costing and risk assessment, and

b.    A provision that progression of the project to construction is subject to a favourable confirmation of costs and a satisfactory risk assessment being confirmed by Council

3.     Subject to approval by NSW Office of Water of the application for grant funding of $2,200,000, Council accept that grant funding subject to the favourable detailed design, costing and risk assessment to be undertaken in Stage 1 of the project

4.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to any necessary documentation.

5.    Council write to all Local and Federal members of parliament thanking them for their support with this project and also passing on Council’s thanks to the former and current Ministers.

 

A Liveable City

 

12      Provision of Animal Pound Services                                                                                

17  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Provision of Animal Pound Services be received.

2.     The Waste & Community Protection Manager be authorised to prepare an inter Council agreement with Hawkesbury City Council for the provision of Animal Pound Services.

 

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

13      Magnetic Places Community Cultural Grants Program                                                

18  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.       The information contained in the report on Magnetic Places Community         Cultural Grants Program be received.

2.       The five recommended projects listed in Table 1 in this report be approved     for funding to the value of $27,354.

 

14      Youth Week 2011- Proposed Activities and Funding                                                     

19  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Youth Week 2011- Proposed Activities and Funding be received.

2.     Council endorse the five recommended projects and funding amounts to the total value of $6,150 as outlined in Table 1 of this report.

 

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch left the meeting, the time being 8:52pm.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Penrith Ambassador                                                                                                

Councillor Marko Malkoc requested a report to Council on having a permanent ‘Penrith Ambassador’ to represent the City.

Councillor Ben Goldfinch returned to the meeting, the time being 8:54pm.

 

RR 2          Speeding Vehicles - Bennett Road, St Clair and Colyton                                     

Councillor Tanya Davies requested that investigations take place into speeding on Bennett Road, St Clair & Colyton and that speed measuring devices be placed at intervals along this section of road. Councillor Davies requested that the residents be concerned be notified of the outcome of the investigations.

 

RR 3          Traffic Issues - Northern Road, Chain - O - Ponds Road, Kings Hill Road and Littlefields Road                                                                                                                          

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a letter which details the accident history at the above intersections with the Northern Road, what steps Council has taken to address the safety issues and any potential further improvements to driver safety.

 

RR 4          Walking Bus Program                                                                                             

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a report to Council on the Walking Bus Program that is in operation in Rouse Hill currently.

 

RR 5          Riverside Road - Naming                                                                                        

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a report to Council investigating the new section of Riverside Road, over the creek and whether this section of the road could be renamed to allow both the public and emergency services to find this area quickly without confusion.

 

RR 6          Penrith Shuttle Bus                                                                                                  

Councillor John Thain undertook to make representations and lobby the Premier of NSW Kristina Keneally for a shuttle bus service in the Penrith CBD.

 

RR 7          Bus service to Blue Hills, Glenmore Park                                                              

Councillor Prue Guillaume requested Council support the campaign to extend the 799 bus to Blue Hills, Glenmore Park by writing to Westbus and the NSW Minister for Transport.

 

 

URGENT BUSINESS

 

UB 1          Evidence of contract cancellation - Kemps Creek tip                                           

Councillor Tanya Davies requested Council seek irrefutable evidence that the contract to send radioactive waste from Hunters Hill to Kemps Creek has been cancelled.

 

20  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

21  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tanya Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that Council seek irrefutable evidence that the contract to send radioactive waste from Hunters Hill to Kemps Creek has been cancelled.

 

 

UB 2          Penrith District Netball Association - Request for Funding                                 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested $8000 from each ward voted works be allocated to the Penrith District Netball Association to assist with the refurbishment and upgrade of the main meeting room area of their complex.

22  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

 

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

23  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that $8000 from each ward voted works be allocated to the Penrith District Netball Association to assist with the refurbishment and upgrade of the main meeting room area of their complex.

 


 

Committee of the Whole

 

24  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 9:07pm

 

 

Councillor Tanya Davies left the meeting, the time being 9:10pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

 

A Leading City

 

2        Acquisition of Open Space, Caddens Road, Claremont Meadows                               

 

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.

 

3        Property Matter - Acquisition of No. 18 Carinya Avenue, St Marys                           

 

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.

 

 

 

The meeting resumed at 9:22pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 9:07pm on Monday, 7 February 2011 the following being present

 

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain

 

and the Committee of the Whole excluded the press and public from the meeting for the reasons set out in CW1 and that the Committee of the Whole submitted the following recommendations to Council.

 

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Acquisition of Open Space, Caddens Road, Claremont Meadows                               

25  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

CW2 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Acquisition of Open Space, Caddens Road, Claremont Meadows be received.

2.     Council pay compensation to the owners of Lot 5 DP 27105 for the dedication as Public Reserve of approximately 1.706 hectares of land zoned “7(a) flora and fauna conservation” in accordance with the Claremont Meadows Section 94 Plan as outlined within the summary in the report.

3.     The owners be responsible for the survey, subdivision, registration and associated costs involved in dedicating the land.

4.     Each party be responsible for their own legal and associated costs.

5.     The land be classified as “Community” land in accordance to the Community Plans of Management.

6.     The payment of the compensation amount to the owners be incorporated into Council’s 2010-11 Borrowing Program.

 

 

Councillor Tanya Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9:11pm.

 

3        Property Matter - Acquisition of No. 18 Carinya Avenue, St Marys                           

26  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Greg Davies

CW3 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Property Matter - Acquisition of No. 18 Carinya Avenue, St Marys be received.

2.     Council purchase Lot 199 DP 26908 in accordance with Conditions 1- 4 as outlined in the summary of the report.

3.     The land, Lot 199 DP 26908, be classified as “Operational” land.

4.     The City Works Manager is authorised to remove all structures from the property.

5.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all necessary documentation.

6.     A Further report be brought to Council on provision for managing traffic and parking between, Carinya Avenue and West Lane, St Marys.

 

 

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

That the recommendation contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2 and CW3 be adopted.

 

UB 3          Premier's flood relief appeal - Queensland                                                            

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that $3,000 from each Wards voted works be allocated to the Queensland Premier's flood relief appeal.

27  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as an urgent matter.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

28  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that $3,000 from each Wards voted works be allocated to the Queensland Premier's flood relief appeal.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:26pm.

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

Anyone can request permission to address a meeting, providing that the number of speakers is limited to three in support of any proposal and three against.

 

Any request about an issue or matter on the Agenda for the meeting can be lodged with the General Manager or Public Officer up until 12 noon on the day of the meeting.

 

Prior to the meeting the person who has requested permission to address the meeting will need to provide the Public Officer with a written statement of the points to be covered during the address in sufficient detail so as to inform the Councillors of the substance of the address and a written copy of any questions to be asked of the Council in order that responses to those questions can be provided in due course.

 

In addition, prior to addressing the meeting a person addressing Council or Committee will be informed that they do not enjoy any privilege and that permission to speak may be withdrawn should they make inappropriate comments.

 

It should be noted that persons who wish to address the Council are addressing a formal part of the Council Meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting should give consideration to their dress attire. Smart casual is a minimum that is thought to be appropriate when addressing such a forum.

 

It should be noted that speakers at meetings of the Council or Committee do not have absolute privilege (parliamentary privilege).  A speaker who makes any potentially offensive or defamatory remarks about any other person may render themselves open to legal action.

 

Prior to addressing the meeting the person will be required to sign the following statement:

 

“I (name) understand that the meeting I intend to address on (date) is a public meeting.  I also understand that should I say or present any material that is inappropriate, I may be subject to legal action.  I also acknowledge that I have been informed to obtain my own legal advice about the appropriateness of the material that I intend to present at the above mentioned meeting”.

 

Should a person fail to sign the above statement then permission to address either the Council or Committee will not be granted.

 

The Public Officer or Minute Clerk will speak to those people who have requested permission to address the meeting, prior to the meeting at 7.15pm.

 

It is up to the Council or Committee to decide if the request to address the meeting will be granted.

 

Where permission is to be granted the Council or Committee, at the appropriate time, will suspend only so much of the Standing Orders to allow the address to occur.

 

The Chairperson will then call the person up to the lectern or speaking area.

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

· Their name;

 

· Organisation or group they are representing (if applicable);

 

· Details of the issue to be addressed and the item number of the report in the Business Paper;

 

· Whether they are opposing or supporting the issue or matter (if applicable) and the action they would like the meeting to take;

 

·           The interest of the speaker (e.g. affected person, neighbour, applicant, applicants spokesperson, interested citizen etc).

 

Each person then has five minutes to make their address.  Those addressing Council will be required to speak to the written statement they have submitted.  Permission to address Council is not to be taken as an opportunity to refute or otherwise the points made by previous speakers on the same issue. 

 

The Council or Committee can extend this time if they consider if appropriate, however, everyone needs to work on the basis that the address will be for five minutes only.

 

Councillors may have questions about the address so people are asked to remain at the lectern or in the speaking area until the Chairperson has thanked them.

 

When this occurs, they should then return to their seat.

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                     

   

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 February 2011

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee held on 21 February, 2011

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 2 February 2011

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Liveable City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 7 February, 2011

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton - Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), David Lance - Roads and Traffic Authority, Councillor Karen McKeown – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Pat Sheehy AM Emeritus Mayor – Representative for the Member for Londonderry, Greg Westenberg – Representative for the Member for Penrith, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager City Infrastructure, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co‑ordinator, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer, Alyce Kliese – Trainee Engineer.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Phil Davies – Westbus, Noel Fuller – Co-ordinator, Ranger Services

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted for Councillor Jackie Greenow, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 6 December 2010

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 6 December 2010 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Lavin Crescent, Werrington County - Proposed Linemarking Improvements           

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Lavin Crescent, Werrington County - Proposed Linemarking Improvements be received.

2.     A “Give Way” (‘TB’) holding line be provided on Lavin Crescent at the Dunheved Road intersection, Werrington County.

3.     20m of double-barrier linemarking and raised reflective pavement markers be installed on Lavin Crescent, Werrington County, extending from the Dunheved Road intersection.

4.     An additional left-turn pavement arrow be provided on Dunheved Road, Werrington County, east of the Lavin Crescent intersection and west of the pedestrian crossing point.

 

2        Station Street, St Marys - Proposed Parking Restrictions                                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Station Street, St Marys - Proposed Parking Restrictions be received.

2.     Approximately 27m length of “No Stopping” zone be installed adjacent to existing double-barrier linemarking at the St Marys Bus Interchange, at Station Street, St Marys, and the adjoining 55m length of “No Parking – Buses Excepted” zone be installed adjacent to the St Marys Bus Interchange, at Station Street, St Marys.  All works will be funded by RailCorp.

3.     Westbus and Busways be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

3        Bakers Lane, Erskine Park & Londonderry Road, Londonderry - Installation of School Zone Flashing Lights                                                                                                         

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bakers Lane, Erskine Park & Londonderry Road, Londonderry - Installation of School Zone Flashing Lights  be received.

2.     Council note the information.

3.     The Principals of Trinity Primary School, Emmaus Catholic College, Mamre Anglican School and Londonderry Public School be advised of the proposed installation of the flashing lights in the School Zones by the Roads and Traffic Authority.

 

4        Darvill Road, Orchard Hills - Proposed Implementation of "Stop" Signage & Associated Linemarking                                                                                                                       

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Darvill Road, Orchard Hills - Proposed Implementation of "Stop" Signage & Associated Linemarking be received.

2.     “Stop” signage (R1-1) and associated holding lines and 10m of double‑barrier (BB) linemarking on Darvill Road, at the intersection of Wentworth Road, Orchard Hills be implemented.

3.     The damaged chevron sign on Wentworth Road, Orchard Hills, at the intersection be replaced.

4.     Councillor Tanya Davies and the resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

5        Jordan Springs Stage 1A - Signs & Linemarking Plans                                                

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Jordan Springs Stage 1A - Signs & Linemarking plans be received.

2.     Council note the information and confirm approval of the signs and linemarking plan for Jordan Springs Stage 1A.

 

6        Penrith City Council Road Safety Program Update                                                      

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Council Road Safety Program Update be received.

2.     The information be noted.

 

7        Western Sydney Carpool Project - Proposed Parking Signage                                     

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Western Sydney Carpool Project - Proposed Parking Signage be received.

2.     “No Parking (Authorised Car Share Vehicles Excepted Zone Monday – Friday 8am-5pm – Permits Must Be Displayed)” signage be provided in two existing “2P Mon-Fri, 8.30AM-3.30PM AUTHORISED VEHICLES EXEMPTED” spaces on the outer ring of Council’s Civic Centre car park and the exiting restrictions be removed.

3.     Funding be provided from the Roads and Traffic Authority Block Grant of Traffic Facilities.

4.     Parking signs be installed in March 2011.

5.     Western Sydney Carpool Project Co-ordinator be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

8        Penrith City Festival - Saturday, 19 March 2011                                                           

LTC Comment

The Westbus representative requested that during the Festival, buses be diverted from Derby Street, left into Station Street, right into Ransley Street, right into Mulgoa Road, right into Jane Street and left into the Penrith Station bus interchange, as this route is easier for buses to manoeuvre through to the railway station.

 

The Committee had no objections to this proposal.

 

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Festival - Saturday, 19 March 2011 be received

2.     The event applicant be advised that this is a part Class 2 Event and part Class 4 Event under the Roads and Traffic Authority’s “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that the following conditions specified below must be complied with prior to the event:

(a)       The Transport Management Plan submitted by event applicant detailing the proposed temporary road closures for the event to be held on Saturday, 19 March 2011 be endorsed;

                      (b)     Approval be given for the temporary closure of:

·        High Street, between Castlereagh and Henry Streets;

·        Woodriff Street, between High and Tindale Streets;

·        Station Street, between Henry Street and Union Road;

·        Riley Street, between High and Henry Streets; and

·        Union Lane, between Station and Woodriff Streets

                                      from 3.00am to 10.00pm for the duration of the event;

                             (c)     Approval be given for the temporary closure of:

                               *        The Broadway, from Judges Park to Station Street

     from 10.20am to 11.15am for the duration of the Parade Event;

(d)               The Parade Event be run under the direct supervision of NSW Police;

(e)     A Transport Management Plan including a Risk Management Plan be lodged by the event applicant, with the Roads and Traffic Authority for approval, a minimum of 30 days prior to the event. A copy of the Roads and Traffic Authority approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event;

(f)               The event applicant obtain separate approval from the NSW Police and submit a Schedule 1 form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police a minimum 30 days prior to the event. A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event;

(g)               The event applicant submit to Council a copy of Public Liability Insurance (usually a certificate of currency) of minimum $10 million, 30 days prior to the event. In addition the Event applicant indemnify Council in writing against all claims for damage and injury which may result from the proposed event;

(h)               A detailed Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Traffic Authority and NSW Police a minimum 30 days prior to the event. The Traffic Control Plan shall detail how a minimum a 4.0m emergency lane is maintained during the event;

(i)                The event applicant arrange to place barricades and provide Traffic Controllers where required by the approved Transport Management Plan. Where the Traffic Management and Traffic Control Plan indicate Traffic Controllers are to be uses all Traffic Controllers must have current Roads and Traffic Authority certification;

(j)      The event applicant must provide documentary evidence to Council a minimum 30 days prior to the event that the event fully complies with the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001;

(k)     The event applicant advertise the proposed temporary road closures in local newspapers a minimum of two weeks prior to the event, and provide variable message signs in appropriate locations a minimum of one week prior to the event, with the locations of the VMS boards submitted to Council for endorsement prior to their erection. VMS boards should be located in accordance with the RTA’s Technical Direction TDT2002/11c;

(l)      The event applicant deliver an information letterbox drop and personal communication to all business proprietors, property owners/tenants, residents and other occupants in the affected streets two weeks prior to the event. Any concerns or requirements must be resolved by the applicant or referred back to Council for consideration.

(m)    Signposting advising the date and time of all closures be provided by the event organiser and be provided  two weeks prior to the event (the applicant to liaise with the Roads and Traffic Authority regarding size of sign and text height);

(n)     The event organiser obtain approval from ambulance and fire brigade (NSW Fire Brigade and RFS) and SES for the proposed event and submit a copy of the approval to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event;

(o)     The event applicant obtain approval from private bus companies for the proposed event and submit a copy of the approval to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.  Bus companies shall be requested to advertise the changed route for affected buses, at least one week prior to, and during, the event;

(p)               Should the consultation process resolve to temporarily relocate ‘Bus Stops’ or ‘Bus Routes’ that were not indicated in the original Transport Management Plan, a further report will be required to be submitted to the next available Local Traffic Committee meeting;

(q)               The event applicant shall ensure that noise control measures are in place as required by the protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000;

(r)                The event applicant is to ensure that competitors obey road rules and Police directions during the event;

(s)               All documentation conditioned be submitted to Council for information purposes at least 30 days prior to the event;

(t)      All works as part of this approval are conducted at no cost to Council.

           

                   3.       Penrith City Centre Association be advised that Council reserves the right                        to cancel this approval at any time.

                   4.       Penrith City Centre Association be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

9        Belmore Street, North Street & Lawson Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facility                                                                                                                

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Belmore Street, North Street & Lawson Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facility be received.

2.     The project for a pedestrian refuge on Lawson Street, Penrith be entered into Council’s Traffic Facility Prioritisation Process.  When the project receives priority against other listed sites, Council’s Design Co-ordinator be requested to investigate options for the pedestrian refuge island and a further report be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration of the plan.

3.     The Roads and Traffic Authority be requested to modify the existing splitter island in Belmore Street at North and Lawson Streets, Penrith to provide a pedestrian refuge.

4.     The resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

10      Macquarie Avenue & Lemongrove Road, Penrith - Endorsement of Signs & Lines Plan   

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Macquarie Avenue & Lemongrove Road, Penrith - Endorsement of Signs & Lines Plan be received.

2.     The median island, pavement works and associated guardrail at the Macquarie Avenue and Lemongrove Road intersection in Penrith, including all associated linemarking and signage as per Plan No. AL 135 be finalised and endorsed, subject to confirmation that the design accommodates turning movements for heavier vehicles as required, and guardrail installation to be in accordance with Australian Standards and consider approaching vehicles from Lemongrove Road, with funding available under the 2010/11 Nation Building Black Spot Program.

 

11      Kukundi Drive, Glenmore Park - Road Safety Concerns                                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Kukundi Drive, Glenmore Park - Road Safety Concerns be received.

2.     The project for traffic calming improvements near the bend outside house number 60 Kukundi Drive be entered into Council’s Traffic Facility Prioritisation Process.  When the project receives priority against other listed sites, Council’s Design Co-ordinator be requested to prepare a design for the location, with a further report submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for design plan consideration.

3.     The residents be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

12      Penrith City Centre 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme - Stage 5 Road Safety Audit                                                                                                                                   

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme - Stage 5 Road Safety Audit be received.

2.     The recommendations listed in Table 1 of this report be implemented as soon as practicable.

 

13      Chapel Street, St Marys - Request for Provision of Pedestrian Refuge Facility          

RECOMMENDED

 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Chapel Street, St Marys - Request for Provision of Pedestrian Refuge Facility  be received.

2.     The proposed median island in Chapel Street, at the intersection of Queen Street, St Marys be deferred from the Projects for Construction 2010/2011 list and reassessed for the possible provision of a marked pedestrian crossing in six months.

3.     The following amended projects listed for construction under the 2010/2011 Major Traffic Facilities Program be noted:

(1)     O’Connell Street/Second Avenue, Kingswood – roundabout;

(2)     Glenmore Parkway 200m west of The Northern Road, Glenmore Park - slow point; and

(3)     Borrowdale Way, Cranebrook – pedestrian facility.

4.     The following project be constructed under the 2010/2011 Major Traffic Facilities Program, should item (2) above be funded under the 2011/2012 Black Spot Auslink Program:

*       Hobart Street, Oxley Park – slow point.

5.     All designs be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee for endorsement prior to construction.

6.     Councillor Greg Davies be advised of Council’s resolution.

7.     St Marys Town Centre Management Inc be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Mulgoa Road, Jamisontown – Removal of Existing Bus Zone  (Raised Westbus)         

The Westbus representative requested approval to remove an existing “Bus Zone” located on Mulgoa Road, Jamisontown, immediately south of the intersection with Jamison Road.  The Roads and Traffic Authority representative advised that there are no objections to removal of the “Bus Zone” and the Authority will arrange for the signs to be removed.

 

RECOMMENDED

That the Committee note the information.

 

 

GB 2          Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows – Request for Approval of New “Bus Stops”  (Raised Westbus)                                                                                                                          

The Westbus representative requested approval of two new “Bus Stops” in Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows.

 

RECOMMENDED

5 That Council investigate the matter and advise Westbus accordingly.

 

 

GB 3          Weight Limited Roads in Penrith LGA – Request for Audit for Enforcement Purposes  (Raised Council)                                                                                                         

Council’s Co-ordinator Ranger Services advised that an enforcement programme will shortly be undertaken on load limited roads in the Penrith Local Government Area.  He requested an audit of load limited roads in the Penrith LGA to be carried out, to facilitate the enforcement process.

 

RECOMMENDED

That Council’s City Works Department be requested to investigate existing load limit signs in the Penrith Local Government Area, in consultation with Council’s Rangers, and update and repair signage as required.

 

 

GB 4          Centro Nepean Car Park – Request for Agreement with Penrith City Council  (Raised Council)                                                                                                                           

Council’s Co-ordinator Ranger Services advised that Centro Nepean Management has formally requested that Penrith City Council enter an agreement with them in regard to provision of parking enforcement in their private car park.  A report will be prepared for Council’s Ordinary Meeting by Council’s Waste & Community Protection Manager.

 

RECOMMENDED

That the Committee note the information.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 10:35am.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 February, 2011 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Leading City

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 21 February, 2011

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill (arrived 7:42pm), Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Tanya Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

Leave of Absence was granted to Councillor Ben Goldfinch for the period 21 February 2011 to 25 February 2011 inclusive.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume left the meeting, the time being 7:36pm.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 31 January 2011

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 31 January 2011 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 - The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and Caddens Residential Development Applications as he is a owner of property in the area.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume returned to the meeting, the time being 7:38pm.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

4        Concept Plan of Precinct A within Glenmore Park Stage 2  Applicant:  Lensworth Glenmore Park C/O Byrnes PDM Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Lensworth Glenmore Park

Development Services Manager, Paul Lemm introduced the report and invited Brendan O’Brien from Stockland Group to give a presentation.

Councillor Robert Ardill, arrived the time being 7:42pm.                                                            

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Concept Plan of Precinct A within Glenmore Park Stage 2  Applicant:  Lensworth Glenmore Park C/O Byrnes PDM Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Lensworth Glenmore Park be received

2.     The Precinct A concept plan be endorsed.

3.     Council write to the Department of Education requesting:

·            confirmation of their intention to use the site allocated to them for provision of a primary school and;

·            the potential of consolidating the sporting fields and the proposed school site into one lot to allow for greater flexibility in use.

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

For

Against

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and Caddens Residential Development Applications                                                                                                

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:25pm.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on The WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan and Caddens Residential Development Applications be received.

2.     Council write to the Minister and Shadow Minister for Planning seeking a Direction exempting the WELL Precinct Development Contributions Plan, the District Open Space and Cultural Facilities Plans from the $30,000 per lot/dwelling cap.

3.     Council not enter into an “In Kind” arrangement or a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Landcom in relation to its residential development applications for the Caddens Urban Release Area.

4.     Council seek clarification/commitment from the NSW Government regarding delivery of State infrastructure which will affect development of the WELL Precinct.

5.     Council write to the NSW Premier, the Opposition Leader and the Minister and Shadow Minister for Planning concerning S94 contributions, seeking advice as to the proposed approach for dealing with funding for local infrastructure for future developments.

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

For

Against

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:39pm.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:39pm.

 

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM took the chair for consideration of item 2.

 

Councillor Robert Ardill left the room and did not return to the meeting, the time being 8:40pm.

 

2        Accessible Communities Program                                                                                    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Accessible Communities Program be received

2.     Council endorse the submission of applications for the Tandara Childcare Centre and Accessible Bus Shelter Program.

3.     Sunnyfield Enterprises be advised of Council’s recommendation and the reasons for not seeking a grant for their proposed project.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting and took the Chair, the time being 8:40pm.

 

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:41pm.

 

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:42pm.

 

3        Constitutional Recognition for Local Government                                                         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Constitutional Recognition for Local Government be received

2.     Council declares its support for the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund local government directly

3.     Council seek the inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed

4.     Council call on all political parties to support a referendum by 2013 to change the Australian Constitution to achieve Constitutional recognition for local government and in this regard, Council write to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and local Federal Members of Parliament to inform them of Council’s support for Constitutional recognition for local government.

 

A Liveable City

 

5        Access To Council Facilities                                                                                              

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Access To Council Facilities be received.

2.     The draft Key System Policy be adopted

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:51pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 21 February, 2011 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A City of Opportunities

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 2 February, 2011

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Jackie Greenow (Chair), David Currie, Michael Morris, John Farragher, Denise Heath, Ronda Hopkins, Farah Madon

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Joe Ibbitson, Community Programs Coordinator; Robyn Brookes, Disability Services Officer; Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager; Hans Meijer, City Works Manager; Graham Pares, Strategic Projects Officer; Peter Wood, Development Assessment Coordinator; Vanessa Muscat, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor; Colin Wood, Building Approvals Team Coordinator

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor Robert Ardill and Graham Howe.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 1 December 2010

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 1 December 2010 were confirmed.

 

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES OF 1 DECEMBER 2010

 

Access to Business Premises

 

Erich Weller referred to item 2 from the previous meeting and discussion on page 5 of the minutes which made reference to access to business premises.  In January a discussion was held with a number of the Access Committee members who put together information for Council officers to consider.  This proposal together with other information from other Departments will be considered and presented to a future Access Committee meeting.

 

Erich Weller confirmed that access to business premises has been identified as a priority by the Access Committee and is included in the Penrith Inclusion Plan – People with Disability 2009-2013 which Council has endorsed. The proposal put together by the Access Committee members will assist Council officers in formulating the Access to Business Premises initiative. 

 

Erich Weller also indicated that further discussion would be held with Access Committee members on the draft initiative.

 

Erich Weller thanked those Access Committee members who participated and put the proposal together. Denise Heath thanked Erich Weller for meeting with Access Committee members and including consideration of the proposal in the development of the Access to Business Premises initiative.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        Celebrations at Penrith for International Day for People with Disability                    

Robyn Brookes spoke to the report.  The short DVD made about the IDPwD event on 3 December was screened for the Committee.  It was advised that White Studios filmed and edited the DVD.  The Accessible Arts website will have a link to the film. Erich Weller advised that the DVD is a useful resource to support funding submissions.

 

Committee members discussed the IDPwD event and made positive comments about the day.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that video clips are on U-tube, with a link to the DVD to be also put on the Accessible Arts site for Western Sydney. Erich Weller suggested that the link to the site could be sent out to Committee members.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That:

 

1.   The information contained in the report on Celebrations at Penrith for International Day for People with Disability be received.

2.   A letter of congratulations and thanks be sent to the partners who participated with the IDPwD event.

 

3        Website Upgrade Project - Improvement in Accessibility                                              

Graham Pares introduced himself as the Strategic Projects Officer who works in Information and Customer Relations.  He gave the background to the website upgrade project and future improvements.

 

Graham Pares advised that the way information is presented on the website will be changed to a more customer based focus. 

 

The Committee discussed the ease of searching for data on the new website and compatibility with Jaws.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That the information contained in the report on Website Upgrade Project - Improvement in Accessibility be received.

 

Graham Pares left the meeting.

 

4        Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee                                       

Peter Wood spoke to the Development Application Referrals report.

 

DA10/0990          Additions to Existing Animal Welfare League Establishment, Elizabeth Drive, Kemps Creek

Peter Wood advised that the development application is for additions to the existing animal welfare facility.  The proposed development comprises dog and cat accommodation, a store, stockyard, stables, construction of an education centre, a crematorium, veterinary clinic and administration building.

 

Access issues addressed in the proposal relate to wheelchair accessible parking spaces, provision of accessible paths of travel and sanitary facilities.  The application is accompanied by a one page statement from Murray Mountain.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee include:

 

·    the circulation space of the door is not adequate in the accessible toilet

·    changes of level are not clear on the plans

·    the accessible path of travel to the verandah

·    footpath from parking area to the building

·    consideration of installation of a lift

·    the driveway should be sealed.

 

Farah Madon suggested requesting a more detailed access report as this is a large project to have such a broad statement.

 

Peter Wood advised that he was happy to receive any follow-up emails from Committee members regarding this application as it is ongoing.

 

DA10/1146          Expansion of Oral Health Facility and Refurbishment of Existing Building Nepean District Hospital

Peter Wood advised that Oral Health Facility at Nepean Hospital application will be reported to the Joint Regional Planning Panel scheduled for 24 February 2011.

 

A very detailed access report accompanied this development application.  It is proposed to build a new waiting room, 25 new dental treatment rooms, new tutorial and meeting rooms, new dental laboratory, staff room and toilets, change rooms and storage areas.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    accessible surgeries

·    removable dental chairs

·    the distance to the accessible toilet

·    path of travel from the wheelchair parking spaces to the front door

·    lack of parking.

 

Peter Wood advised that proposed conditions would address the issues discussed however as it is a Crown application the applicant must accept the conditions.

 

DA10/1208          Crematorium, Cemetery and Memorial Gardens with Associated Buildings and Carparking, Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham

Peter Wood advised that a concept plan has been received for a cemetery, crematorium, memorial gardens, administration building, three chapels, associated buildings and carparking on Luddenham Road next door to the Model Farm.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    accessible paths of travel

·    accessible parking

·    back of house toilets

·    back of house access

·    stepping stones and gravel

·    provision for wheelchairs within the chapels

·    the step up to the casket

·    no signage on doors

·    public transport.

 

The meeting held a supper break at 6.25pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 6.40pm.

 

DA11/0025         Alterations and Additions to Existing Building to be used as a Health Services Facility, Gidley Street, St Marys

 

Peter Wood advised that the proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing building at Gidley Street, St Marys.  The access to the building is off Chapel Street.  The proposal is for refurbishment and minor additions to internal areas at ground and first floor level.  The building was previously used as a community welfare centre.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    safe path of travel from the carpark

·    wheelchair accessible carpark spaces

·    the grade of the ramp off Chapel Street into the building

·    vehicular entry via the roller door

·    lack of parking

·    the first floor accessible toilet does not comply

·    handrails at entry stairs should not protrude out of the property boundary.

 

Peter Wood advised that the access consultant’s report has assessed that the proposal will provide for an upgrade of the entry ramp.

 

DA10/1272          Proposed Alterations and Additions to Cobham Juvenile Justice Centre, Great Western Highway, Werrington

Peter Wood advised that this application only relates to a certain part of the site marked as “A” on the plan.  An accessibility report has been provided by Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting. The southern carpark will be provided with two accessible car spaces.  Other recommendations relate to emergency egress, sanitary facilities, accessible pathways, lighting and signage.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    accessible path of travel from the carpark to the administration building

·    the accessible toilet not being compliant.

 

Peter Wood advised that a compliance report would be required before occupation of the building.

 

DA10/1305          Proposed Glenmore Park Town Centre Stage 2, Glenmore Parkway, Glenmore Park

Peter Wood advised that this is a different proposal from the one previously brought to the Committee.  This proposal involves expansion of the Glenmore Park Town Centre to include a discount department store, 25 speciality shops, a small supermarket, an arcade to the existing shopping centre, an undercroft area with restaurants, commercial premises and carparking.

 

Peter Wood suggested that Committee members could email their comments to him.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    carparking spaces near the pet centre and the path of travel, change of grade

·    upgrade of the existing shopping centre

·    upgrade of pedestrian footpaths

·    uneven cobblestones

·    upgrade of the eastern terrace

·    handrails and tactiles

·    internal furniture, places to sit

·    crossings and traffic management link from skatepark to the shops – connectivity.

 

Peter Wood advised that there is an access report provided with this application.  This application will be reported to the Joint Regional Planning Panel and the draft DCP for the town centre for this area will be reported to Council.

 

Peter Wood advised that the applicant and architect would attend the next Access Committee meeting and be provided with an opportunity to respond to issues raised by the Committee.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That the information contained in the report on Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee be received.

 

1        Stronger Together, The Second Phase:  2011-2016

 

Robyn Brookes spoke to the report which describes Stronger Together 2011-2016 phase two of the NSW Government’s 10 year plan to improve the disability system in NSW.  The first phase is complete and has been reviewed through consultations.  These consultations informed the second phase.  An announcement regarding the second phase was made at the end of last year.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That the information contained in the report on Stronger Together, The Second Phase:  2011-2016 be received.

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Memo re Complaints Procedure for Dealing with Issues between Access Committee meetings                                                                                                                     

Joe Ibbitson handed out a memo which explained the process for making complaints to Council in relation to access matters.

 

Councillor Greenow asked members to use this method if they have issues they wish to bring to Council’s attention.

 

GB 2              Including People with Disability in Community Life - Accessible Communities Fact Sheet

Joe Ibbitson handed out information about the Accessible Communities Fund. The Government has announced an $11 million package to support the implementation of the National Disability Strategy.  Maximum grants are $100,000 and applicants need to provide a dollar for dollar contribution.  The closing date for applications is the end of February.

 

Council will be responding and is presently considering three proposals.  The three proposals relate to a child care centre, pathway access to the Sunnyfield premises in St Marys and interpretive signage and audio guides at The Lewers Gallery.

 

It was advised that applications are currently being assessed and that two project proposals will be submitted.  Successful initiatives will be funded on a matched dollar for dollar basis.

 

Hans Meijer suggested that accessible bus stops could be a possible fourth proposal.

 

GB 3              Australian Human Rights Commission – Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards

 Colin Wood handed out information on the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards from the Australian Human Rights Commission.

 

The new Premises Standards comes into effect on 1 May 2011 and coincide with the changes to the BCA.

 

Vanessa Muscat advised that this is only stage 1 and within five years stage 1 will be revised and stage 2 will come into effect.

 

Colin Wood advised that the guidelines will be presented at the next Access Committee meeting.  A PowerPoint presentation will be provided as well as a summary.  A soft copy of the guidelines will be available to take back to groups.

 

GB 4           Accessible Holiday Accommodation

Ronda Hopkins raised the issue of accessible holiday venues.

 

Discussion was held around many holiday venues being inaccessible. It was suggested that there be a rating system for motels, hotels and accommodation parks.

 

Councillor Greenow suggested that Council put a motion forward at the Local Government Association of NSW Conference towards the end of the year.  Erich Weller suggested identifying the relative State and Federal authorities for motels and tourism and requesting the LGA of NSW to make representation to those authorities.  Further information will be presented to a future Access Committee meeting on a draft motion.

 

GB 5          Pathway Construction St Marys Village Shopping Centre                                  

Hans Meijer advised that a pathway will be constructed which provides improved pedestrian access to St Marys Village Shopping Centre from Carinya Avenue. Half the funds will be provided from East Ward Voted Works and Mirvac Funds Limited will cover the remainder of the cost.

 

Hans Meijer also advised that the accessible toilet will be upgraded by Mirvac early in 2011.

 

 

Councillor Greenow thanked everyone for their attendance and input at the meeting.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8.00pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 2 February, 2011 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM 

 

2        Six Month Review of the Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the December Quarter Review of the 2010-2011 Operational Plan

 

3        Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

4        Summary of Investments for Period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011

 

5        Planning for Penrith Lakes

 

6        2011 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government

 

7        Amendments to 2011 Meeting Calendar

 

A City of Opportunities

 

8        Grant Application - Regentville Hall Kitchen upgrade

 

9        Community Assistance Program Rolling Component Projects Approved Under Delegated Authority July - December 2010

 

10      St Marys Spring Festival

 

A Green City

 

11      Support for Earth Hour 2011

 

A Liveable City

 

12      Great River Walk Stages 7 and 7a grants

 

13      Community Safety Grant Funding

 

A Vibrant City

 

14      Fire Safety Report

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM 

 

2        Six Month Review of the Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the December Quarter Review of the 2010-2011 Operational Plan

 

3        Pecuniary Interest Returns

 

4        Summary of Investments for Period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011

 

5        Planning for Penrith Lakes

 

6        2011 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government

 

7        Amendments to 2011 Meeting Calendar

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

 

1

Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM    

 

Compiled by:               Stephen Britten, Group Manager - Legal & Governance

Authorised by:            Alan Stoneham, General Manager  

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

On the 8 November 2010 the General Manager received complaints in respect of the conduct of Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM whilst on a delegation to Korea, China and Japan.  After the initial review of those complaints it was determined that prima facie the complaints must be investigated further. Subsequently the matter was referred to a Conduct Review Committee whose members were selected from the adopted list prepared by WSROC and endorsed by Council.

 

The representatives of the Conduct Review Committee are Robin Hill, Kath Roach and John Kleem who have had extensive local government and management experience.  The Committee reviewed the complaints and agreed that the Council was duty bound to follow the process under the Code of Conduct and fully investigate the complaints. 

 

The Conduct Review Committee has now finished its investigations of the complaints and has delivered to Council a copy of the finalised report.  The report is attached at attachment 1.

 

The Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM has forwarded a letter to the General Manager in which he has advised that he has decided to step aside from the position of Mayor until such time as the Division of Local Government concludes any investigations or processes relating to the conduct of the Mayor whilst on the overseas delegation to China, Korea and Japan in 2010.  Effectively this will mean that at meetings of the Council and all other Council forums the Mayor would defer to the Deputy Mayor to chair such meetings.  It is proposed the Deputy Mayor would represent the Council at all civic and community functions along with other Councillors.

 

A copy of a letter from the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM to the General Manager is attached at attachment 3.

 

Current Position

 

Extracted below is the summary of the report along with the recommendations. 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

The Conduct Review Committee was provided with two written complaints and interviewed 13 witnesses which resulted in 38 specific allegations. The investigation of the allegations resulted in the finding that the Respondent had breached the Penrith City Council Code of Conduct on 22 occasions over the period of the 3 week trip to China, Korea and Japan between 14 October and 3 November 2010.

 

The Committee determined that the majority of the breaches related to section 6.2 and section 6.3 of the Penrith City Council Code of Conduct.  The findings in regard to four (4) allegations also relate to breaches of section 6.1(c) of the Code of Conduct.

 

There are a number of key reasons for the Committee’s findings on the allegations:

 

1.   The Respondent holds the role of Mayor at Penrith City Council and is required to carry out functions in accordance with that role as specified under the Local Government Act 1993.  Part of that role included that he was the Leader of the Delegation to China, Korea, and Japan for the 3 weeks between 14 October 2010 and 3 November 2010.

 

2.   The Respondent had previously participated in a training session on the Penrith City Council Code of Conduct.

 

3.   Council had organised specific briefings for the Respondent and other members of the delegation prior to the trip to ensure they were fully informed regarding cultural awareness and understanding of international relations.

 

4.   Council had prepared a specific Guide “Etiquette and Behaviour - a guide to modern business life. The Asian Way” to assist delegation members and also provided specific briefings to the Respondent on the Guide and highlighted key provisions contained within the Guide.

 

5.   The Respondent failed to clearly demonstrate the appropriate behaviours, authority and commensurate responsibility associated with the position of Mayor.

 

6.   The Committee determined based on the evidence provided that the Respondent consistently ignored the Etiquette and Behaviour Guide.

 

7.   The Committee interviewed 12 witnesses involved in the 3 week trip who represented a cross section of people on the delegation.  These included Penrith City Councillors, staff, contractors to council, members of the business community and others linked to council through the cultural exchange program.

 

8.   The allegations represented a series of patterns of unacceptable behaviour and while it is acknowledged that some of the allegations represented specific incidents witnessed on occasion by only one person, these singular incidents also demonstrated a pattern of unacceptable behaviour.

 

9.   The Respondent has stated that a number of the comments he made were made in jest. However, 11 of the witnesses who travelled with the Respondent did not find his comments amusing.  Further, the witnesses did not indicate that the Respondent’s comments were an attempt at humour.

 

10. The Respondent failed to heed the advice about his inappropriate behaviour provided throughout the 3 week trip.  At least seven (7) different delegates expressed their concern directly to the Respondent about his behaviour. At least two (2) of the delegates spoke to the Respondent on multiple occasions.  The five other delegates made at least one specific statement.  Of these, two delegates expressed their concern by way of their reaction to a specific action of the Respondent.

 

11. Some representatives of the host countries expressed concern about the Respondent’s behaviour to other members of the Penrith delegation.  They expressed confusion as to how an individual, who demonstrated these behaviours, could hold the highly respected position of Mayor of the City.

 

12. The Committee determined based on the evidence provided that the Respondent’s behaviour impacted on the credibility and success of the delegation.

 

13. Given the role of the Respondent; the length of the trip; and the public accountability of Council, the Committee has determined that all allegations are considered to be of a serious nature and demonstrate a course or pattern of unacceptable and inappropriate conduct.

The Conduct Review Committee has recommended as follows:

 

It is recommended by the Committee in accordance with the provisions provided for within the Code of Conduct that:

 

1.   Council Receive and note the report of the Conduct Review Committee;

 

2.   The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be censured for misbehaviours in (22) of (38) allegations, defined in the Report through (22) Breaches of the Penrith City Council Code of Conduct identified by Clauses 6.1 (c), 6.2 and 6.3.

 

3.   The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be required to provide to the Council, the Penrith Business Alliance, the International Friendship Alliance and to the leaders of the host delegations in the Cities visited, an unreserved written apology for his inappropriate behaviour while on a trade delegation to China, Korea and Japan between 14 October 2010 and 3 November 2010.  The written apology is to be copied to all Councillors and to the General Manager.

 

4.   The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be required to participate in a planned Counselling Program.  The Program is to be determined by an appropriate independent person.

 

5.   The censuring, apologies and counselling are to be completed within 30 days of the Council decision on the report.

 

6.   The Council should give consideration to any other sanctions it considers appropriate, with the provisions available to it under the Local Government Act 1993.  This should include, but not be limited to the provisions contained in Chapter 14, Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Mayoral Response

 

The Mayor has provided a further submission to Council in respect of the Conduct Review Committee Report that appears as attachment 2. The covering note that accompanied the submission says:

 

“I would like to begin by sincerely apologising if my actions caused concern to the Penrith Business Alliance, Penrith City Council or the Penrith International Friendship Committee. It was unintentional and I regret any offence caused.

 

I believe the investigation process has been unfair. Without knowing the substance of the complaints I was asked questions and expected to answer off-the-cuff.  I also only had a week to comment on the draft report.

 

I also believe it is unfair the complaints that were dismissed as not breaching the Code, were still included in a public report. Despite the fact that 16 allegations were dismissed, their inclusion in the report could add to a presumption of guilt.

 

Of the complaints, 18 related to shaking hands, giving out business cards or photographs being taken.

 

I concede that some of my actions, in hindsight, were inappropriate.

I am a conservative person in appearance and behaviour; I do not seek to draw attention to myself.

 

I only requested one photograph be taken on the entire trip and that was of the Taiko drummers. All other photos taken were requested by the local people, who used their own cameras, in a fashion and setting to their liking. One woman in the Expo who had her photo taken then went and got her mother and grandmother for another photo.

 

When I shook hands, their hands were very small compared to mine and this was often commented on by them. At one table, they all took turns taking photos of their hands on top of mine. One woman even took off her shoes and took photos, comparing the size of our feet. This was a common occurrence; even Vice-Mayors like Jin Naibing, who I believe was a doctor, compared our hands.

 

I strongly deny any inappropriate behaviour with young women I met. All photos were requested and I believe putting my hand on the shoulder or waist of a man or a woman for the purposes of a photo is fine.

 

Even when the interpreter told the interview panel that they took my hand because they were worried about my health and wellbeing, it was classed as a breach.

 

All comments that have been quoted were made in private conversations among Australians, except for the comment about drinking.

 

In November of 2009, I explained that I had concerns about the food I would eat while overseas as I did not want to offend anyone. I never requested or asked for special food. When my hosts showed concern over my eating, I just patted my stomach and said I wouldn’t starve. I just wanted them to understand I cannot eat many different types of food whether at home or overseas. I would ask the waitresses and interpreters what it was and what it contained.

 

In Japan, the interpreters sometimes brought bread and butter to make sandwiches and I told them this was not necessary. Some people from the delegation even put their food in front of me so they didn’t look bad.  I did try a lot where possible”.

 

The Mayor has asked that Council have regard for that additional information when considering the Conduct Review Committee Report.

 

Options Available to Council

 

Within the Report of the Conduct Review Committee reference has been made to Chapter 14 Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1993 which relates to the process for the suspension of a Councillor for conduct warranting such suspension. A Council can request that the Division of Local Government instigate a process seeking suspension of a Councillor.  Depending on the course followed, such a suspension can be for a period of up to one (1) month or six (6) months.  Section 440H(1)(a) of the Local Government Act states as follows:

 

“The process for the suspension of a councillor from civic office is initiated by:

 

(a)  A request made by the council by resolution communicated to the Director- General, in which the council states its belief that grounds may exist that warrant the councillor’s suspension”.

 

Notwithstanding that the Conduct Review Committee may not have the authority to recommend such a course of action to the Council, it would appear that there is discretion for the Council, as stated above, to refer the matter concerning the conduct of the Mayor to the Division of Local Government if the Council is of the view that the Mayor’s conduct warrants this action to commence.  In order to commence this process the Council must find the Councillor in breach of the Code of Conduct, consider their conduct to be of such a nature that warrants suspension of the Councillor and that the Council has censured the Councillor. 

 

If the Council wishes to follow this course of action it would need to replace recommendations six (6) set out above with the following recommendation:

 

·      That the Council considers the conduct of the Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM to be of such a nature that warrants the Division of Local Government to consider suspension of the Mayor as Councillor and that Council Officer’s write to the Department seeking that the Division of Local Government consider the suspension of the Mayor at the request of the Council.

Conclusion

Council has a Code of Conduct that stipulates appropriate behaviour for all staff and elected representatives. All staff and Councillors receive significant training in the Code of Conduct, and it is expected that everyone will follow these standards diligently.  The 38 allegations against Cr Crameri were investigated by the independent Conduct Review Committee in a robust and exhaustive process, demonstrating Council’s commitment to pursuing any breach of the Code.  Cr Crameri was given several opportunities to respond to the allegations. Details of his responses have been included in this business paper. The Committee found Cr Crameri in breach of the Code on 22 of the alleged matters.

It is evident from the Mayor’s letter that he expects the matter will be referred to the Division of Local Government for consideration as set out in this report, and he will step aside as Mayor until that investigation is concluded.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM  be received.

 

           2.       Council Receive and note the report of the Conduct Review Committee;

 

           3.       The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be censured for misbehaviours in                             (22) of (38) allegations, defined in the Report through (22) Breaches of                       the Penrith City Council Code of Conduct identified by Clauses 6.1 (c), 6.2                         and 6.3.

 

           4.       The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be required to provide to the                          Council, the Penrith Business Alliance, the International                                                     Friendship Alliance and to the leaders of the host delegations in the Cities                             visited, an unreserved written apology for his inappropriate behaviour while                        on a trade delegation to China, Korea and Japan between 14 October 2010                          and 3 November 2010.  The written apology is to be copied to all                               Councillors and to the General Manager.

        

         5.       The Mayor, Councillor Crameri OAM be required to participate in a                         planned Counselling Program.  The Program is to be determined by an             appropriate independent person.

 

           6.       The censuring, apologies and counselling are to be completed within 30                             days of the Council decision on the report.

 

       7.       That the Council consider the referral of the matter to the Division of Local            Government for consideration of suspension of the Mayor Councillor Kevin           Crameri OAM.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Conduct Review Committee Report

63 Pages

Attachment

2.  

Mayoral Response to Conduct Review Committee Report

13 Pages

Attachment

3.  

Letter from the Mayor

1 Page

Attachment

  


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

 

2

Six Month Review of the Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the December Quarter Review of the 2010-2011 Operational Plan   

 

Compiled by:               Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Tanya Jackson, Strategic Planning Coordinator

Authorised by:            Alan Stoneham, General Manager   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)

Strategic Response

Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting guidelines, Council must prepare a report on progress of the service activities and tasks in the adopted Delivery Program every 6 months, and the Operational Plan every 3 months.  As the organisation continues to look at better ways to capture required information, eliminate duplication and streamline reporting, both of these progress reports have been consolidated into a single report for your consideration tonight.

 

This consolidated review provides a comprehensive progress report on the 21 programs which make up Council’s Delivery Program 2009-2013 as well as reporting on the performance of external and internal services (with the exception of the three controlled entities which have separate reporting requirements) outlined in the 2010-2011 Operational Plan. Overall this report provides clarity and accountability to Council and the public on the annual delivery of Council’s program through its approved services and their required goals.

 

The report is divided into three sections:

 

Section 1:   Six month progress report for the Delivery Program 2009-2013 covering the 21 programs, indicators, highlights, priorities, challenges and a summary of progress.

Section 2:   December Quarter Review of the Operational Plan 2010-2011 covering the performance summary of Council’s 45 services, completed tasks and projects and exception reporting.

Section 3:   A review of Council’s Financial Position as at 31 December 2010 including revised estimates and revotes identified in the recommended budget.

 

A brief executive summary of the results in each area is provided below.  The Progress Report and Services Performance and Financial Review Summary report, which provide detailed information on all three sections mentioned above, are available on Council’s website.  Councillors will receive copies of the Progress Report and Services Performance and Financial Review Summary report under separate cover as an enclosure to this Business Paper.

 

Six Month Review of Delivery Program 2009-2013 - Results

 

All of Council’s 21 programs performed well for the six months from July 2010 to December 2010.  All of the 117 program activities were ‘on target’ at 31 December 2010.  With the exception of the Programs for Major Infrastructure Projects and Design and Traffic, Parking and Drainage all Program budgets were ‘on target’.  Of the 58 Program Indicators the majority are ‘on target’ with only one being identified as requiring attention.  The tasks, activities and indicators that are not ‘on track’ are explained further in this report, and in the enclosed Progress Report.

 

December Quarter Review Services Performance Summary

 

The combined effort of Council’s 45 services for the three month period ending 31 December 2010 has resulted in a 52% achievement of the yearly requirement as required in the adopted 2010-2011 Operational Plan, and is 2% above target.

 

Council’s Performance Planning System indicates that of Council’s 460 Tasks, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Capital and Operating Projects, 447 were either ‘on target’ or ‘completed’ by 31 December 2010.  Details of the remaining 13 items and the challenges they are facing have been included in this report and in the enclosed Services Performance and Financial Review Summary report.

 

Financial Position Summary

 

The cumulative budget result for the six months to 31 December 2011 is a surplus of $39,997.  This result comprises both positive and negative variations to the original budget, with the most notable for the quarter being the identification of salary savings, additional income anticipated from interest on investments, and the allocation of additional funds to street lighting and the Penrith Pool operations.

 

In addition to these adjustments there are two projects proposed to be revoted into 2011-12 as they are not expected to be completed in the current financial year.  Further details on proposed major variations and revotes are provided later in this report.

 

This report recommends that the revised budget estimates identified in the report be adopted.

 


How is Progress Measured?

 

Progress for both the Delivery Program and Operational Plan is expressed through the use of actual results versus target expressed as percentages and ‘traffic light’ indicators.  The rating scales and parameters for each ‘traffic light’ are explained below.

 

Table 1: Guidelines for ‘Traffic Light’ Status Indicators

*

[Green]

On Target

90% +

A service activity, task, project, budget, program indicator or KPI is within 10% of targeted performance for that YTD period.

*

[Amber]

Attention Required

75% - 89%

A service activity, task, project, budget, program indicator or KPI is within 15% - 25% of targeted performance.  It is at risk of non-completion, and may be the subject of a proposed carry over or partial revote of works.  A comment is required about the issue, the focus required, and what will be done to address it.

[Red]

At Risk

< 75%

A service activity, task, project, budget, program indicator or KPI is more than 25% off its targeted performance and/or is the subject of a proposed revote of works.  A comment is required about the issue, the focus required, and what will be done to address it.

 C

100%

Completed (usually applies to Capital & Operating Projects and Tasks with defined target dates).  Represents 100% completion.

 

Section 1: Delivery Program 2009-2013 ~ Six Month Progress Report

The enclosed Progress Report provides information on the progress and achievements of Council’s programs and services.  The Report is based on Council’s adopted Delivery Program 2009-2013 and Operational Plan 2010-2011.

 

The Delivery Program progress report covers the six months from July 2010 to December 2010.  The Report encompasses all of Council’s 21 programs (a program is a group of one or more services), each of which is the responsibility of a Group Manager.  Council’s 21 programs are:

 

·    Children’s Services

·    Community Facilities

·    Community Information and Events

·    Community Wellbeing

·    Corporate Finance

·    Corporate Governance

·    Corporate Support

·    Corporate Workforce

·    Development Applications

·    Environmental and Health Management

·    Libraries

·    Major Infrastructure Projects and Design

·    Parks

·    Planning and Advocacy

·    Public Spaces and Community Safety

·    Roads, Footpaths and Buildings

·    Sport and Recreation

·    Strategic Planning

·    Sustainability

·    Traffic, Parking and Drainage

·    Waste Management and Community Protection.

Information is provided on the key achievements and highlights of each program, together with progress on activities, indicators, and expenditure (budgeted and actual).  The year from July 2010 to June 2011 is the second of the four years covered by the adopted Delivery Program, and this is the first of the two Progress Reports for this year.  The Report provides information, for Council and our communities, on our progress towards implementing the Delivery Program 2009-2013.

 

The Operational Plan progress report covers the second quarter from October 2010 to December 2010, and includes a summary of how each of Council’s 45 services has performed over this period.  The Report includes progress on tasks, projects, key performance indicators (KPIs) and budget for each service.  Further information on the Operational Plan is provided in Section 2 and 3 of this report and in the attached Services Performance and Financial Review Summary.

Reporting Outcomes

Table 2 below shows that all 21 Council programs performed well, and were ‘on target’ at 31 December 2010.  Overall the table shows:

·           100% of activities are ‘on target’

·           90% of budgets are ‘on target’

·           98% of program indicators are ‘on target’

 

Table 2: Delivery Program Reporting Outcomes

Measurement Type

Traffic Lights Status

Total

Green

(On Target)

Amber

(Needs Focus)

Red

(At Risk)

Activities

117
(100%)

-

-

117

Budget

19
(90%)

1
(5%)

1
(5%)

21

Indicators

57
(98%)

1
(2%)

-

58

 

There are three program areas (budget or program indicator) which have resulted in an amber or red traffic light.  The variance in each circumstance is explained in the comments below.  While this particular aspect of the Program needs focus, each Program overall is on target for the six months at 31 December 2010.

 

·        Major Infrastructure Projects and Design (Penrith Commuter Carpark)

       Budget Result:    Red ~ at risk

Comment:  Commencement of construction of the project has experienced delays due to the need to resolve funding agreements and achieve RailCorp signoff and land transfer.

 

·        Roads Footpaths and Buildings

       Program Indicator Result: Amber ~ needs focus

Program Indicator: Number of bus shelters constructed each year

Comment: No bus shelters have been constructed to date in 2010-11 as advice regarding compliance, with the recent introduction of new access standards for bus stops, is being sought.

 

·        Traffic, Parking and Drainage:

       Budget Result:    Amber ~ Needs focus

Comment:  This variance relates predominantly to major traffic improvements proposed to be delivered within the financial year 2010-11, which have experienced unexpected delays in finalising detailed engineering designs.  Designs have now been completed, and endorsed by Council and the Local Traffic Committee.  Construction has commenced on Evan Street, The Crescent Roundabout and lighting along with the Carrington Street and Bennett Street intersection.  Due to recent wet weather the program is expected to be completed in May/June 2011.  Further variances relate to the delays in finalising the catchment flood studies in the Penrith City Centre and Byrnes Creek.

Highlights and Challenges

The enclosed Progress Report focuses on the highlights and achievements of each Council program, and its agreed priorities.

 

Most of the 42 Delivery Program priorities are ‘on track’.  There are nine priorities (primarily focused around asset construction, management and maintenance) where we are experiencing challenges in funding the full extent of the programs that are needed to ensure our assets are sustainably managed into the future.  Those priorities are currently being implemented to the extent available within their current budgets.

 

Some of the key program highlights for the six months from July 2010 to December 2010 include:

·        Council was awarded a commendation in the category of Planning for Healthy Urban Environments by the NSW Division of the Planning Institute of Australia for the draft Health Strategy and Action Plan

·        $192 million worth of development approved with 283 Construction Certificates approved to the value of $34 million and the management and implementation of the Urban Release Areas within the LGA such as Jordan Springs, Glenmore Park Stage 2 and Waterside. Management of those estates have seen 680 new lots created

·        Management of the Joint Regional Planning Panel determination process which saw major warehouse facility at Erskine Business Park, the establishment of a shopping centre at Wallacia and the Landfill Gas Management Facility Erskine Park

·        Council received the Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) Bronze Award for its Vision for 50/50 Equity

·        Utilisation of the Glenmore Park Child and Family Centre was above projections

·        Reconstruction of Greygums Oval – Cranebrook, Peppertree Oval – St Clair and Leonay Oval – Leonay completed

·        Completion of construction works on the Cranebrook Lighting Enhancement project

·        19km of roads either resurfaced or reconstructed and 1.5km of new pedestrian pathway constructed

·        Gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Stage 1) and adoption of Penrith Development Control Plan 2010

·        Launch of Penrith City’s Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy.

 

A key element in reviewing our progress is to also identify any issues that might affect our capacity to implement Council’s agreed priorities and program milestones.

 

In September 2010 Council undertook a Mid-term Review to identify significant issues and challenges, and explore practical responses, through a series of management workshops.  The ‘mid-term’ represented two years into the Councillors’ elected four-year term and an opportunity to consider the issues that challenge the implementation of Council’s adopted Delivery Program 2009-2013, including the agreed priorities.  A workshop with Councillors was held on the 22 September 2010, to discuss the identified issues and potential responses.

 

Challenges identified are reflected in the enclosed Progress Report for each Program, including specific challenges such as Children’s Services:  insufficient shade, particularly in the hotter months, in the adventure playground at the new Glenmore Park Child and Family Precinct).  The organisational challenges that were identified, through the mid-term review and this current reporting process, include improving systems integration, investigating new sources of revenue, managing existing and new assets, staff retention and succession planning.  These are matters that will be addressed as part of our continuing organisational improvement processes, and will be regularly reported to Council.

 

The challenges facing Penrith, as a City and a Council, are not unique.  Councils across NSW are struggling to balance community expectations with resourcing and funding capacity.  The new Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation, particularly the requirements for a Resource Strategy and regular reporting, will highlight ongoing issues of asset management, community expectations and limited funding which affect most local councils.  Our responses to these challenges must be practical and sustainable in the longer-term.  Some may take time to implement.

 

During the six months from July 2010 to December 2010, Council commenced a review of the adopted Resource Strategy to provide more information about the present state of our resources and what is required to manage and maintain these assets into the future.  Council also reviewed the Community Engagement Strategy with the aim of better defining how Council will engage with its communities, and the principles and methods to be used in community engagement activities.  Ongoing, open discussions with our communities are essential in ensuring we are allocating Council’s limited resources to those of greatest benefit and importance.  These draft documents are currently on public exhibition, and will be finalised over the next few months..

 

Section 2: December Quarter Review - 2010-2011 Operational Plan

The Operational Plan progress report for the period ending 31 December 2010 is the second quarterly review of Council’s 2010-2011 Operational Plan, which in turn contributes to the achievement of Council’s Delivery Program 2009-2013.

 

Each quarter, all Managers are required to report progress on each of their services, based on service activities, service budgets, tasks, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), capital and operating projects as set out in the adopted 2010-2011 Operational Plan.  The results for the December Quarter Review are as follows:

 

1.      Overall Services Performance Summary

Council’s Performance Planning System indicates that the combined effort of all services for the three month period ending 31 December 2010 has resulted in a 52% achievement of the yearly requirement as required under the adopted 2010-2011 Operational Plan.

 

This result is encouraging demonstrating that services performance was 2% above the target of 50% at this stage of the year.  The contributing factors to this result are summarised in the table below.

 

Table 3: Service Performance Summary

 

SERVICE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Completed

GREEN

(On Target)

AMBER

(Attention Required)

RED

(At Risk)

Totals

SERVICES OVERALL (excluding Controlled Entities)

 

45

(100%)

-

-

45

 

·     Tasks

11

(4%)

264

(94%)

2

(1%)

1

(<1%)

278

·     Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

 

101

(94%)

4

(4%)

2

(2%)

107

·     Capital Projects

43

(33%)

81

(63%)

3

(3%)

2

(<2%)

129

·     Operating Projects

9

(10%)

81

(85%)

5

(5%)

-

95

Totals

63

527

14

5

609

 

Analysis of Results

 

Table 3 shows that the 45 Council services performed well and were “On Target” as at 31 December 2010.  This result is was due to:

·        98% of Tasks Completed or On Target

·        94% of KPIs were On Target

·        96% of Capital Projects were Completed or On Target, and

·        94% of Operating Projects were Completed or On Target.

It is generally the case that for the second quarter in any Operational Plan year that most reporting elements would normally be “on track” especially given that a large number of projects are phased for completion in the remaining half of the year. It is encouraging to see so many completed items in the second quarter (27 for this three month period).

 

2.      Completed Task and Projects

A positive result coming from Table 2 is the identification of 27 tasks and projects that were completed within the quarter.  Some of the key projects and tasks are listed below:

 

Table 4: Completed Key Tasks and Projects for the December Quarter 2010

Key Tasks and Projects Completed

Commentary

Andromeda Water Bore

In December, the water bore at Andromeda Oval (Cranebrook) became operational following the hook up to irrigation lines in December, providing a non potable water supply to irrigate two fields on an ongoing basis. The availability of a reliable water supply will enable the fields to support higher levels of utilisation. This is a good example of a Community and Council Partnership as the project was managed by Council and the grant funding won by the Cranebrook United Soccer Club.

Berkshire Park Hall Upgrade

The internal and external upgrade of the Berkshire Park Hall included the installation of an accessible toilet, refurbishment of the existing toilets, installation of new storage areas and energy efficient light fittings, air conditioning, installation of solar panels, a rain water tank, fencing, softfall, and minor landscaping.

Big Green Day Out Community Festival

The Big Green Day Out community festival was held in November featuring interactive activities, ranging from Green Cleaning workshops to performances by traditional Indigenous dancers. The special guest host was Ranger Stacey from Channel 10’s popular television show, Totally Wild. The day highlighted Council's involvement in sustainable environmental activities and in particular biodiversity conservation.

Community Safety Initiatives

The Nepean Domestic Violence Network, supported by Council, successfully held events for Reclaim the Night 2010 on 28 October and Stop Domestic Violence Day on 3 December 2010.

Council commenced an E Nose graffiti sensor trial in two of the most prolific graffiti hot spots locations in the City.

Control of Aquatic Plants

The December quarter saw the harvesting and removal of weed on Glenmore Loch marking the completion of the annual program.

Cook Park Oval Floodlighting

The installation of 100 lux floodlights at Cook Park cricket/AFL oval in St Marys. St Clair Crows AFL will utilise the facility during the winter season.

Cranebrook Park/Oval Embellishments

Grid-iron, rugby league & cricket clubs are enjoying the use of new 100 lux floodlights, the reconstructed field utilising recycled organics, the two lane cricket practice facility and centre match pitch, the irrigation system and the car park facilities at Cranebrook Park which were completed in the December quarter.

Great River Walk Stage 4 - West Bank Design

Designs for the west bank of the Great River Walk (Stage 4) were completed in the December quarter.  Additional geotechnical and structural engineering advice received enabled the finalisation of designs and an application submitted for Construction Certificate. Approval is expected in late February which will then enable the staged construction of the shared pathway and associated works. It is anticipated that construction of 1st section of River Road path (Stage 6 project) starting at Regatta Park, will begin in late March/ early April. The scope of work for the west bank will take place between Victoria Bridge and the M4 subject to available funding.

Information Communications Technology (ICT) productivity assessment

As part of Council’s ongoing program to identify ways to improve services provided to the Community, an ICT assessment of the organisation identifying tangible productivity improvements was completed in the quarter. Short and long term recommendations from report included increased use of mobile devices for field staff, employing a wireless email capability at remote locations, greater use of cloud based generic applications such as hosted web applications and the use of form based email/SMS system for rostering purposes instead of the ‘call list’ (eg in Children’s Centres). The potential productivity gains identified in the report equated to 101 FTE at 25 minutes per working day. A two year implementation plan was developed and work has begun to realise the identified productivity gains.

Jane Street Car Park

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) upgrades to the Jane Street car park were completed in the December Quarter. The Jane Street Car Park CPTED Project was a partnership initiative between Council, RailCorp and Penrith Police involving the implementation of a series of physical CPTED treatments to reduce the risk of Stealing From Motor Vehicles at the car park.

The physical works have had a positive impact on maximising surveillance opportunities, strengthening territorial reinforcement measures and improving access control throughout the car park. The installation of the new fencing around the perimeter of the car park has clearly defined the space and provided improved access control. The removal of dense shrubbery has enhanced passive surveillance of the car park, improved visibility and subsequently minimised concealment opportunities.

Londonderry Neighbour Centre Sustainability Initiatives

Solar panels and an additional water tank were installed at Londonderry Neighbourhood Centre during the December Quarter on time and within budget. The project was grant funded through the Castlereagh Community Fund.

New Computers in Libraries

New Veriton L480 computers were installed in Council Libraries consuming half the power of conventional PCs (135 watts compared to 300 watts of power). These PCs are also significantly faster than the current computers in the Library. This equates to faster processing speeds for users and substantial cost savings for the organisation.

New Playgrounds and Playground Upgrades

During the December Quarter, new playgrounds were installed at Myrtle Road Reserve, Claremont Meadows and at Allsop and Paterson Reserve, Cambridge Park.  Playground upgrades were also completed at the following Children’s Centres:

·      Stepping Stones CCC

·      Strauss Road CCC

·      Wattle Glenn CCC

·      Emu Village OOSH

Parking Ranger Technology Improvements

Parking Rangers commenced a live trial of the Electronic Infringement Notices in December. This new system will increase accuracy of infringement issued. This system will allow officers to increase proficiency, report damaged street signs and allow for a Hot List to be provided of Mobility Parking Scheme Permits (Disability Permits) that have been revoked and are being used illegally to be identified in real time before issuing an infringement.  The live trial will take place for three months and will be reviewed for efficiency before this period ends.

Penrith General Cemetery Enhancements

New concrete beams were constructed in Lawn sections 2 and 4 in December thus allowing for headstones to be placed on the concrete beams providing for an additional 140 new burial sites at the Cemetery.

Penrith Health Strategy and Action Plan adopted

On 3 November 2010 the NSW Division of the Planning Institute of Australia awarded Council a commendation in the category of ‘Planning for Healthy Urban Environments’ for the draft Penrith Health Strategy and Action Plan. The award recognises Council’s plan as “an innovative example of the significant role councils can play in creating supportive environments for health and wellbeing”.

The Penrith Health Strategy was adopted by Council on 29 November 2010 and will be implemented through the Action Plan. Some of these actions are already being implemented include:

·      Continued promotion of fresh healthy food at Community events such as at Big Green Day Out on 7 November 2010 by providing healthy options to visitors

·      Presentations on nutrition to Council preschool parents who have children commencing school in 2011

·      Commencement of a survey of local supermarkets looking at affordability and access to good quality nutritious food

·      Responding to customer requests about nutrition, physical activity and smoke free environment

Penrith Swimming Centre Pool Hoist installed

The hoist was installed to provide greater access to Penrith Swimming Pool for people with disabilities. Since its installation in October, pool staff have been trained in its operation and the hoist has been receiving regular use.

Rural Roads Resealing Program

Second Avenue, Llandilo was resurfaced in the September quarter and Georgina Road (from Mt Vernon Road to Duff Road) Mt Vernon was resurfaced in the December quarter.

Workforce Initiative -Online Recruitment

Online recruitment was implemented in the December Quarter. This new recruitment process will assist Council to recruit staff more effectively and efficiently. Some of the benefits include job applicants receiving acknowledgements much sooner, interview panel members having faster access to applicant information and that the turnaround from advertising to filling a position will improve by 33%, dropping from 12 to 8 weeks.

 


3.     Exception Reporting

A total of 21 Tasks, KPIs and Projects in 11 services were identified in the Services Performance Summary (Table 2) as being an ‘Amber Traffic Light ‘requiring attention’ or a ‘RedTraffic Light ‘at risk of not being delivered or ‘not achieved this quarter’.  A complete listing, sorted by individual service, is provided in Table 5 below with commentary/remedial action also provided.

 

Table 5: Services Exception Report for the December Quarter 2010

Traffic

Light

Measure

Result

Target

Comment / Remedial Action

Building Maintenance & Construction

RED

(At Risk)

Capital Project:

Bus Shelters Program

0%

50%

Work was deferred due to possible changes in the design of bus stops and shelters under the State Government’s new access requirements which may impact on the construction of bus shelters in both the CBD and rural areas.

Council is working closely with neighbouring councils in seeking advice and clarification on the application of the new accessibility standards. These requirements could possibly increase the cost of all bus stops and shelters by up to 100%. A list of priority locations has been finalised and the shelters are now expected to be installed in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

City Planning

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Operating Project:

Integrated Local Plan

50%

50%

PROPOSED REVOTE

Stage 1 of Penrith City-wide LEP (Penrith LEP 2010) was gazetted on 22 September 2010.  Council endorsed a Draft Planning Proposal for Stage 2 in November 2010.  The Draft Planning Proposal was forwarded in December 2010 to Department of Planning for 'Gateway' determination. However with the NSW elections to be held in late March, it is unlikely that a Gateway Determination will be received in time to allow exhibition of Stage 2 in the current financial year.

 

 

 

 

 

Communications

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Capital Project:

Website Upgrade

5%

50%

PROPOSED REVOTE:

Project is on target with the development of the functional specification for the upgrade of the Content Management System (CMS) and the recruitment of the Strategic Project Officer and Team Administrator – Communications.   The project timetable has been extended to align with the outcomes of the Penrith Branding project.

Community Safety

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Operating Project:

Community Graffiti Removal Program

40%

50%

Discussions continue with the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Police regarding the development of a partnership to place young offenders within a graffiti removal program.

Further scoping works will be conducted in the 3rd quarter and a program plan developed for implementation in early 2011.

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Operating Project:

WSAAS Domestic Violence Resource Project

40%

50%

This project has continued to experience delays in implementation, more recently with regard to the employment of a suitably qualified casual staff member to coordinate stage two of the project. Three applications were received in response to the Expression of Interest advertised to engage a casual staff member to coordinate Part 2 of the project and the delivery of training activities for non-government community service providers in the Penrith LGA relating to domestic and family violence.

A staff member has been appointed and commenced work on 20 December 2010.



The training schedule that will be developed will be appropriately staged to allow workers throughout the region to engage in the training while being cautious of overburdening services. It was therefore considered appropriate for the training sessions to be spread across a six month period. A further project extension has been sought from Community Services NSW to enable the implementation of training within a suitable timeframe.

Design & Project Management

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Capital Project:

Penrith Station Commuter Carpark

15%

50%

Designs for the project have been completed and Council has approved the engagement of a contractor for the car park construction.  Negotiations are continuing with the State and Federal agencies to finalise the funding agreements. RailCorp are yet to give final signoff for the car park plans and Landcom is yet to finalise the purchase of the DoD site and transfer ownership of the car park land to Council (expected end of February 2011).  When all the above matters are resolved, the contractor will be engaged to construct. The expected construction period is about nine months.  All of the above constraints are outside of Council's control.  It is anticipated that the current budget will be expended by the end of this financial year.

RED

(At Risk)

Capital Project:

WELL Infrastructure Fund

10%

50%

Designs have been completed for the three road upgrades to be funded through the Dept of Planning (DoP) grant in advance of the s94 funding from the Estate.  The DoP has recently issued a directive to cap the s94 contributions.  The anticipated cost of this work exceeds the available budget and the project construction has been put on hold pending resolution of the funding and DoP cap. Representations have been made to DoP on the matter and Council will continue to make representations to DoP or reduce the scope of the S94 plan.

Development Applications

AMBER

(Attention Required)

KPI:

More than 70% of Major Development Applications determined within 50 days

59%

70%

The reporting procedures for State Environmental Planning Policy 1 objections have introduced delays to the assessment cycle as have the added demands of resourcing for Land and Environment Court cases and those issues raises in the KPI on advertised development below.  The focus on older development applications has played a key role in this and other KPI achievement together with the year to date reporting as it is difficult to regain lost ground from previous quarters. In an attempt to address these KPIs staff have looked at simplifying the reporting process and the implementing an escalation policy so that matters do not become blocked. A review of KPIs for applicability and additional measures looking at quality outcomes has also taken place.

AMBER

(Attention Required)

KPI:

Average Mean processing time for Development Approvals (40 days)

49 days

40 days

The target was not met as there has been a concentration on clearing older more complex Development Applications over the last two quarters. The results for the next quarter are unlikely to change as there is an ongoing focus to clear older DAs. The current standard of 40 days is to be increased to 50 days are part of the new DoP regulations which will be introduced in the next few months.

RED

(At Risk)

KPI:

More than 70% of Advertised, Integrated, Concurrent or Major development applications determined within 70 days

42%

70%

Together with the focus on older DAs this quarter, there has been a balancing of resources to cope with the demands of the Joint Regional Planning Panel, Part 3A submissions, Part 5 assessment submissions, managing the upsurge in activity in the residential release areas and providing evidence and documentation to the Land and Environment Court.  These competing demands impacted on all KPIs and it is unlikely to change in the following quarter.

RED

(At Risk)

KPI:

More than 70% of Designated or Joint Regional Planning Panel development applications determined within 90 days

40%

70%

The management of these DAs that have required the Joint Regional Planning Panel to be the determining authority have experienced delays due to meeting the on-going demands of the Panel members and arranging suitable times.  The Christmas period resulted in delays to sequencing of Panel meetings and the availability to stage the session.

Libraries

RED

(At Risk))

Tasks:

Evaluate and review current library management system

20%

50%

Time constraints and the additional work required for the Library Directions Plan Project, have meant that an evaluation and review of the current library management system has had to be postponed.

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Capital Project:

Library Special Purpose Projects -Building

25%

50%

The St Marys Branch Library will be undergoing some refurbishment this year. Work is presently being carried out on the reorganization of the collection layout to facilitate a small increase in public space within the building.

New furniture, including folding tables and lighter weight chairs are to be purchased replacing the heavy furniture currently located at St Marys Library. This expenditure is planned for the 3rd and 4th quarters.

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Operating Project:

Library Special Purpose Projects -Promotion

25%

50%

This result is due to phasing as the two major promotional library events, the Annual History Conference and the Sydney Writer’s Festival event are planned to be held in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

AMBER

(Attention Required)

KPI:

More than 6,400 new library members each year

2,764

3,200

Although the target at this stage of the year has not yet been reached it is anticipated that by the end of the financial year the annual target will be reached. Increases in library membership are not always even throughout the year and can be affected by school holidays, special events at libraries and other seasonal impacts relating to attendance.

Recreational & Leisure Facilities Management

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Task:

Implement the recommendations of the Leisure Facilities Management Options Appraisal

25%

50%

The final Leisure Management Options Appraisal report has been presented to the Recreation Working Party by external consultants. The Working Party determined that before implementation of the recommendations takes place, further business modelling and a city wide Aquatics Strategy is required.

A brief is being developed however resources and budget have not been currently identified to complete the business planning exercise.

Strategic Planning

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Task:

Consolidate Council's adopted strategies, relating to the City's people and places, into a new City Planning Strategy

20%

50%

The draft Penrith Planning Strategy includes Council's adopted strategies relating to the Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre, Rural Lands Strategy, Employment Planning Strategy, Biodiversity Strategy and PITLUS. 

The draft Strategy will be updated to include the Urban Strategy and strategies relating to health, aged persons and children services when endorsed by Council. Given resource constraints and priorities over the last six months work on the Penrith Planning Strategy has slowed with the Strategy not expected to be updated until 2011.

Deferral of this task to 2011-12 was approved by Council as part of the September Quarter Review. Deferral does not impact other projects, as it consolidates and streamlines Council’s existing strategies.

 

 

Sustainability Planning

AMBER

(Attention Required)

Operating Project:

Sustainability Indicators and Reporting (EEP)

35%

50%

This quarter has seen further review of data and supporting information for the reporting of Council's Sustainability Indicators in Council's Annual Report 2009-10, and a review of the dedicated indicator website to ensure that it meets the intent of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Work has also commenced on the engagement of suitably qualified consultants to (a) Update the content of the indicator website, (b) Review Council’s current suite of indicators in line with best practice and newly developed frameworks, and (c) Redevelop the indicators website to improve accessibility and the visibility of linkages between indicators and Council's strategic framework.

This project will be managed in consultation with staff from the Strategic Planning team to ensure that any changes comply with the requirements of new Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation.

Workforce & Workplace

AMBER

(Attention Required)

KPI:

More than 90% of staff return to pre injury duties each year

78%

90%

There are currently 36 claims this quarter of which 28 employees have returned to normal duties and 8 are on Return To Work programs. This result is consistent with 2nd quarter reporting.

 

Progress for each of the exceptions listed above will continue to be monitored and remedial action taken to return these to a “Green” traffic light “On Target” status where possible.


Section 3: Financial Position for the December Quarter

The financial position of Council for the quarter is expressed by providing information on:

·        Budget Position (whether balanced/surplus/deficit)

·        Significant Variations

·        Identified Revotes

·        Funding Summary

·        Reserve Movements for the quarter, and

·        the Capital and Operating Budget Projects list for the quarter

 

Key performance comments regarding the Financial Position are included later in this report with the all the above information provided in the enclosure (2010-11 Operational Plan – Services Performance and Financial Review Summary).

 

Budget Position

 

 

$000s

 

Original Budget Position Surplus/(Deficit)

(18.3)

 

 

 

 

September Quarter Variations        

(89.3)

 

December Quarter Variations

(153.0)

 

December Review Variations

300.6

 

Revised Surplus/(Deficit)

        40.0

 

 

 

 

 

The more significant variations (F – favourable, U- unfavourable) proposed for the quarter include:

                                                                                                                           $000’s

Net Salary Savings

334.0

F

Interest on Investments

200.0

F

Community Safety Neighbourhood Renewal

65.0

F

Enhanced Public Domain Team

65.0

F

Bank & Agency Charges

50.1

F

Net Penrith Pool Operations

(179.0)

U

Street Lighting

(130.0)

U

Emergency Services Management

(81.9)

U

St Clair Recreation Centre Income

(40.0)

U

 

 

 

 

The predicted cumulative result for the year as at December is a small surplus of $39,997 after the recommended variations for the quarter. These adjustments together with proposed minor variations, revotes, and reserve movements are detailed in the enclosure (2010-11 Operational Plan – Services Performance and Financial Review Summary).  Commentary is provided below on the more significant issues in the review.

Net Salary Savings - $334,011

During the second quarter of 2010-11 salary savings have been realised primarily due to vacancies across a number of departments.  The majority of these vacant positions are in the process of being filled.  It is recommended that some of the identified salary savings are retained in the individual departments to enable the engagement of consultants or temporary staff to ensure the delivery of key Operational Plan tasks and projects. The salary savings, net of those being retained by departments, total $334,011 for the December Quarter and it is proposed to return these savings to general revenue.

Emergency Services Contributions- $81,850 U (5.4%)

Emergency Management NSW collects contributions on behalf of the NSW Fire Brigades, the NSW Rural Fire Services and the State Emergency Service under the provisions of the Fire Brigades Act 1989, the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the State Emergency Service Act 1989.  These adjustments reflect the annual assessment notice for 2010-11 which has now been received with all councils required to pay 11.7% of the service’s Estimated Expenditure in their Local Government Area. Penrith Council's contribution for Emergency Services Management in 2010-11 is $1.6m representing an increase of $81,850 on original budget estimates, an increase of 10.6% compared to 2009-10.

Bank and Agency Charges - $50,100 F (15%)

A half-yearly review of bank and agency charges associated with Council’s operations has identified the opportunity to reflect a decrease in agency collection costs.  This decrease reflects an increasing trend of payment via the internet/Bpay and an expected decrease in merchant fee recovery income.

Interest on Investments - $200,000 F (14.3%)

The untied component of Council’s investment portfolio has so far this year been consistently outperforming the benchmark and providing returns greater than the original estimates in the 2010-11 budget. As interest rates are expected to increase further during the remainder of this financial year it is proposed to increase the estimate for general revenue interest by $200,000 to $1.6m.

Street Lighting - $130,000 U (4.9 %)

A review of street lighting charges has been undertaken after six months under the new electricity contract. Usage over the coming months will continue to be monitored however fine tuning of this budget, including a reassessment of the savings to be achieved following the finalisation of the new contract have resulted in the need to increase the annual budget by $130,000 to $2.8m.

Community Safety Neighbourhood Renewal - $65,000 F (10.8%)

The original budget for this project commenced in 2002 and included components for Local Shopping Strip Improvements and Street Lighting improvements. The local shopping strip improvements program is substantially completed and recent changes to Integral Energy charges for new lighting installations has resulted in Council not being required to pay an upfront capital charge.  These savings within this budget will be used to partly offset the increase to street lighting charges.

Enhanced Public Domain Team - $65,000 F (1.8%)

Efficiencies in the operation of this team have led to savings in this budget with $65,000 being proposed to be returned to general revenue. In addition these efficiencies will also allow for additional site specific after-hours cleansing work to be planned over the remainder of the year. This will include high-pressure cleaning of high-traffic footways within St Marys & Penrith CBD areas, detailed additional servicing of general precincts including the City’s commuter car parks.

Net Penrith Pool Operations - $179,000 U

A review of the Penrith Swimming Centre has been completed and to reflect the anticipated operations of the facility for the remainder of the year the following budget adjustments are proposed:

 

Penrith Pool Income (decreased $78,000- 10.8%) Revenue for the current financial year is forecast to be approximately $645,000 compared to the original budget of $723,000. Despite significant periods of inclement and inconsistent weather patterns some areas of the operation are above 2009-10 levels, however decreases in income from general admission ($36,000), kiosk sales ($15,000), and Learn-to-Swim ($18,000) have resulted in a decrease in the overall revenue projections.

 

Penrith Pool Employee costs (increased $101,000 17.9%) -It is proposed to increase the budget for Employee Costs by $101,000. Measures to manage these costs are being implemented within the need to continue to provide the appropriate staff ratios to comply with regulations as well as to comply with the Local Government Award, including pay increases. It is now projected that employee costs for Penrith Pool will be approximately $748,000 compared to the original budget of $647,000.

St Clair Recreation Centre Income - $40,000 U (24.6%)

A review of the Centre's operations has resulted in a decrease in expected income for the year from $162,000 to $122,000. This variance incorporates the expected increase in attendance in the coming months reflecting the proactive programming of activities. Activities now offered include: Zumba classes, indoor hockey, disability sports program, a multi-sport kids program, and a basketball program in conjunction with the St Clair Wolves.

 

Other variations with no impact on Surplus

Howell Oval Electronic Scoreboard - $30,000 (Reserve)

Replacement of the existing scoreboard was not included within the original scope of the project to redevelop the cricket pavilion at Howell Oval funded by the Federal Government. It has been proposed by the cricket club that an electronic scoreboard would better serve contemporary purposes and would provide more opportunity for other cricket events and sports to use the ground in the future if demand determines this. It is proposed that the installation of an electronic scoreboard be funded from the Penrith Park Precinct Reserve.

 

 

 

Leisure Management Options Appraisal/Aquatics Strategy - $35,000 (Reserve)

As a result of the Leisure Management Options appraisal it has been determined that further financial modelling and a review of future aquatics provision in the City needs to be completed before a final decision is made on the future management model for Ripples St Marys, Penrith Swimming Centre and St Clair Leisure Centre. To maintain independence in this review it is proposed that consultants are engaged to undertake the study.

 

Penrith Story - $65,000 (Contribution)

The Penrith Story involves the telling of the unique story of what it is to be a ‘Penrithite’, the history of this place and its landscape and Penrith’s future.  The Penrith Story will articulate the idea of what Penrith’s future could be when approached from the entirely different perspective of creative analysis and planning.  The expenditure budget for this project has been increased to match expected contributions for Penrith Story project from PPVA, Landcom & Panthers, Museum of Contemporary Art bringing the total project to $115,000.

 

Maintenance of EEP Constructions- $50,000 (EEP Reserve)

Enhanced Environmental Program (EEP) funding is proposed to be transferred from the Maintenance of EEP Constructions to the Plant Replacement Program as a contribution towards the purchase of a new inductor for drain cleaning.  

 

Plant Replacement Project - $58,256 (Contribution)

The SES has provided funding towards a replacement rescue vehicle.  This contribution will offset expenditure in Council’s Plant Replacement Program.

 

Neighbourhood Centres (NHC)/Halls Income- $78,000

Greater than budgeted utilisation of the recently refurbished St Marys Memorial Hall along with other facilities including Erskine Park Community Centre and Hall and St Marys Senior Citizens Centres has resulted in the increased projections for Neighbourhood Centre and Hall income.

 

Penrith Brand Study - $80,000

This project is proposed to be established following the redirection of the 2010-11 City Marketing budget, with a further redirection of $40,000 proposed in 2011-12.

 

Gipps St Rehabilitation- $200,000 (s94 Reserve)

Additional funding from the District Open Space Contributions Plan is proposed to be transferred to this project to fund the preliminary earthworks at the Gipps Street site. Earthworks at the site are ongoing and are expected to continue to be funded from available funds within this Plan.

 

Tipping Contract - $241,198 (Reserve)

A greater reduction in the volume of tonnes estimated to go to landfill to reflect the impact of the introduction of the organics service has been achieved. These savings on tipping costs will be transferred to the Waste Reserve.

 

 

 

 Penrith Station Commuter Car Park Interest - $250,000

The expected interest to be earned on the Penrith Station Commuter Car park grant is to be reduced as the grant agreement has not yet been finalised.

 

Depreciation- $8.7m (non-funds)

A revaluation of Roads and Drainage was conducted at 30 June 2010, which resulted in an additional amount of $279m being added to Council’s Road and Drainage assets. These revaluations have resulted in increased depreciation for the 2010-11 year and will also increase future year’s depreciation. A proposed budget increase of $8.7 million has been included in the December Review for the revised annual depreciation estimates attributed to the revaluation. This variance includes $1.6 million for Drainage Depreciation and $7.1 for Roads Depreciation.

 

Property Development Reserve

Due to the nature of the property market a number of adjustments will be needed each quarter to reflect market conditions.  For the December Quarter these are as follows:

 

·    Capital Expenditure – deferral of some capital expenditure for the projected refurbishment of a heritage building which has been offset by an increase of $260,000 for property purchases and site improvements

·    Rental income – an adjustment is proposed to reflect some current vacancies of commercial premises

·      Interest - additional $120,000 in interest on reserve due to an increase in the reserve balance

·    Compensation for Easement - $75,000 decrease in income. It was expected that some compensation might eventuate for an easement for sewerage purposes over land that is occupied by Penrith Panthers of which Council is Trustee of the site, (land owned by The Dept of Lands). However this now appears unlikely.

 

Revotes

 

There are two adjustments to planned capital and operating works proposed for adoption this quarter:

 

Integrated Local Plan - $60,000 (General Revenue)

 

This funding is proposed to be revoted for the public exhibition of the Local Plan and draft Urban Strategy which has been delayed from the current financial year due to the lengthy processes with the Penrith Local Environment Plan 2010(Stage 1) and is now scheduled to occur in mid-2011.  A major city-wide exhibition will be required and it is anticipated that the revote will be fully utilised to ensure that the legislative requirements and the community consultation processes are carried out in a comprehensive manner.

 

Website Upgrade - $224,567 (General Revenue)

 

The proposed revote will ensure that the website upgrade project is aligned with other key projects including refreshing branding and marketing of the City and Council.  The revoted funds relate to the project elements of the purchase of a new Content Management System (CMS) and the engagement of a design team for the redesign of website content.  The timeframe for the outcomes of the branding and marketing project will see recommendations presented to Council in October 2011.  The decisions made at that time will have implications for both the structure of web pages and the content of the information presented.  The timeframe for the website upgrade has therefore been amended to reduce any lag between expenditure and outcomes for the project.

 

Conclusion

All of Council’s 21 programs have performed well over the last six months and, overall, were ‘on target’ at 31 December 2010.

 

The enclosed Progress Report summarises information on progress and achievements in each of Council’s programs and services, and identifies highlights for the six-months from July 2010 to December 2010.  It also considers challenges which will impact on Council’s ability to deliver on the agreed priorities in the Delivery Program 2009-2013.  Council is continually exploring practical responses to address these organisational challenges.

 

The 2009-10 Operational Plan December Quarter review indicates that the performance of Council Services is ‘on track’ to meet Council’s challenging annual program despite the ongoing financial challenges faced.

 

The review documents have been placed on Council’s website, and will also be available to the public in hard copy and CD versions on request.  The opportunity is available for Council tonight to seek clarification or elaboration on particular matters in any section of this report, or the enclosed Progress Report and Services Performance and Financial Review Summary Report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Six Month Review of the Delivery Program 2009-2013 and the December Quarter Review of the 2010-2011 Operational Plan be received

2.     The 2010-11 Operational Plan Review as at 31 December 2010, including the revised estimates identified in the recommended budget, be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

3

Pecuniary Interest Returns   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Administration Officer - Policy and Council Support

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer  

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) concerns “Honesty and Disclosure of Interests” and requires all elected members and designated persons to complete an initial Pecuniary Interest Return, and every year thereafter, an Annual return.

Designated persons include the General Manager, other senior staff and staff holding a position identified by the Council as a position of a designated person because it involves the exercise of certain functions such as regulatory or contractual functions.

First returns have to be completed within three months of becoming a Councillor or designated person.  The returns listed in this report have been lodged prior to the due date for the receipt of the returns.

Current Situation

Section 450A of the Act deals with the registration and tabling of returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons.

A register of all returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons in accordance with the Act is currently kept by Council as required by this part of the Act.

A list of the pecuniary interest returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons must be tabled at a Council Meeting.

With regard to Section 450A(2)(a) the following first pecuniary interest returns have been lodged:

Name

Position

Due Date

Date Lodged

Craig Squires

Team Leader  - Regulatory Compliance

18 January 2011

27 October 2010

Robert Paluzzano

Project Coordinator

9 February 2011

8 February 2011

Ben Rodwell


Acting Supply Coordinator

9 February 2011

31 January 2011

Tracy Chalk

Waste & Community Protection Manager

9 February 2011

6 December 2010

David Burns

Recreations Operations Officer

9 February 2011

9 February 2011

Virginia Tuckerman

Recreation Coordinator

9 February 2011

24 January 2011

Ari Fernando

Major Projects & Design Coordinator

10 February 2011

2 February 2011

Maya Goldsmith

Administration Services Supervisor

10 February 2011

17 November 2010

Kerry Hiatt

Records Management Coordinator

11 February 2011

15 November 2010

Brian Clarke

Pool Supervisor

13 February 2011

13 February 2011

Ben Howarth

Pool Supervisor

12 February 2011

10 February 2011

Karin Schicht

Landscape Architectural Supervisor

16 February 2011

31 December 2010

Rosemarie Canales

Architectural Supervisor

16 February 2011

6 December 2010

Joe Ibbitson

Community Programmes Coordinator

18 February 2011

4 January 2011

Jeni Pollard

Neighbourhood Renewal Programme Coordinator

18 February 2011

31 December 2010

Tracy Leahy

Community Programmes Coordinator

18 February 2011

6 December 2010

Jade Bradbury

Business Coordinator Children’s Services

18 February 2011

6 December 2010

Jennifer Moses

Sustainability Research Planner

18 February 2011

6 December 2010

Wendy Connell

Community Engagement Officer-Strategic Plan

 

18 February 2011

6 December 2010

Laura Schuil

Acting Supply Officer

5 April 2011

21 January 2011

Ross Russell

Supply Officer

5 April 2011

10 January 2011

 

The returns have been lodged prior to the due date for the receipt of the returns, and are kept in a register held by the Senior Governance Officer. The documents are available for inspection in accordance with Chapter 4, Part 2 of the Local Government Act, 1993 and are tabled in accordance with the Act.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Pecuniary Interest Returns be received

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

4

Summary of Investments for Period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011   

 

Compiled by:               Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)

Strategic Response

Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011 and a reconciliation of invested funds at 31 January 2011. The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Background

CERTIFICATE OF RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I hereby certify the following:

 

1.   All investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, relevant regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

2.   Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled as at 31 January 2011.

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments for Period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011 be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 31 January 2011 be noted.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Investments - January 2011

4 Pages

Attachment

 

5

Planning for Penrith Lakes   

 

Compiled by:               Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, Acting Group Manager - Leadership 

Requested By:             Councillor John Thain

 

Objective

We demonstrate leadership, foster resilience and tenacity, and encourage innovation

Community Outcome

A Regional City that provides our jobs, education, services and entertainment (1)

Strategic Response

Share aspirations and work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City (1.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

The Penrith Lakes Scheme is a 2,000 hectare urban development site which is located on the Castlereagh floodplain at the foothills of the Blue Mountains with 11 kilometres of frontage to the Nepean River.  The site supplies sand and crushed aggregate to the Sydney construction market.  It is home to the Sydney International Regatta Centre and Penrith Whitewater Stadium, internationally significant sport and recreation legacies of the Sydney 2000 Olympics.

Development of the site is governed by Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 11 – Penrith Lakes Scheme and a Deed of Agreement between the NSW State Government and the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC).  Those documents guide raw material extraction, rehabilitation of the site, its intended handover to Government as a Regional Parkland centred on a series of large recreational lakes and the establishment of an urban area on the site.

The Project will provide a much needed water-based regional recreation resource of some 1,500 hectares for Western Sydney and an opportunity to deliver quality housing outcomes that contribute to the Government’s housing targets outlined in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036.

Planning for the Penrith Lakes Scheme has been underway in one form or another for the past decade.   Government and PLDC have engaged Council in that process until PLDC deferred their Concept Plan for the site in 2007. 

After continued representations by Council and PLDC, the State Government established a high level Taskforce in early 2010 to overview and co-ordinate planning for the Penrith Lakes Scheme. Whilst this initiative is welcome Council has not been invited to participate in the Taskforce.  It is understood that invitation has not been forthcoming due to the commercial nature of the discussions.

Since establishment of the State Government Taskforce, PLDC has reduced their engagement with Council and the local community about their intentions for the site.  This is most inappropriate as the local planning context and local community interests, concerns and expectations need to be considered in planning for the Scheme.  This report recommends that Council enlist State Government’s support for Council’s re-engagement in the planning process.

State Government stewardship, Council’s continued engagement in the planning process and identification of funding mechanisms for necessary infrastructure and parkland management are essential for the timely and orderly delivery of the Scheme as a principal Sydney visitor destination and quality urban area.

Background

The Penrith Lakes Scheme has a long history of co-operative partnership between State Government, Council and Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC).  In 1976 the State Government established Penrith Lakes Scheme Working Party delivered a report that investigated the possibilities for a co-ordinated approach to extraction and rehabilitation on the Castlereagh floodplain.  The working party recommended the site be rehabilitated to form a water-based recreation area.

In 1981 the Director of the then Department of Environment and Planning (DoP) directed the preparation of a Regional Environmental Plan (REP) to provide a framework to implement the Lakes Scheme.  The Department completed the Regional Environmental Study (RES) in 1984 which concluded that the Lakes Scheme was technically and environmentally feasible, and recommended the large lake alternative as the preferred rehabilitation option.

Following exhibition, Sydney REP No.11 – Penrith Lakes Scheme was made by the then Minister in 1986 to implement the extraction of raw material and identify the creation of lakes, parkland and a 230ha urban area as the preferred means of rehabilitating the site. The urban area was proposed to ensure the viability of the lakes rehabilitation option.

The REP is supported by a Deed of Agreement between the NSW State Government and PLDC, originally executed in August 1987 and amended in August 1989 to reflect the Olympic facilities outcome.  The Deed stipulates the financial obligations of the parties and regulates the site quarrying and rehabilitation activities. Council is not a signatory to the Deed and due to its commercial nature has not been provided with a copy of the document.

The existing REP focuses on managing the quarrying and rehabilitation process.  To date, the Lakes Scheme has successfully delivered a reliable source of sand and gravel for the building industry, and improved the environmental performance of quarry operations.  However, quarrying activities are expected to cease in 5 – 7 years and the REP provides limited guidance for the development of the urban land and parkland.

In 2000, PLDC requested the Minister to initiate the rezoning of the urban land.  At that time, the then Minister determined this would be best facilitated by the preparation of a new REP.  A series of planning and environmental studies were subsequently undertaken by DoP to provide a framework for the Plan’s formulation.  The draft REP proposed to increase the urban area to 410ha.   That increase was to be achieved through a reduction in parkland area.

Consultation on the preparation of the REP had occurred with Council, PLDC and other public authorities.  The REP had been drafted and, we understand, was ready for public exhibition in late 2006.

However, PLDC had expressed concern with a number of aspects of the REP process, in particular:

·     The lack of integration between the planning for urban and parkland areas of the site;

·     The complexity of amending an REP to reflect contemporary issues; and

·     The sequential process associated with the REP mechanism that saw the preparation and adoption of the Development Control Plans after the gazettal of the REP.  This planning process was not considered to deliver the necessary commercial certainty within a reasonable timeframe, and to delay the ability to raise capital to develop the site.

In December 2006, PLDC made application to the Minister for Planning to have the Scheme declared a Part 3A Major Project under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, in lieu of proceeding with the draft REP.  In February 2007 the Minister declared the Scheme to be a Part 3A Major Project, authorising PLDC to prepare a Concept Plan for the site.

The quantum and nature of the land use components proposed in the Concept Plan remained generally the same as that envisaged by the draft REP.  The principal differences between the draft REP and the Concept Plan were that the Concept Plan:

·     Dispersed the urban component throughout the Parkland;

·     Integrated the planning for the urban and parkland areas; and

·     Included a management structure and funding mechanism for the Parklands

In November 2007, the PLDC Board deferred progress of the Concept Plan and requested the DoP defer determination of the Plan pending a review of the financial implications of the proposal.  PLDC formally withdrew the Concept Plan application on 15 March 2010.

Council’s Strategic Vision for the Penrith Lakes Scheme

The Penrith Lakes Scheme provides a significant opportunity to develop a principal Sydney destination for employment, housing and recreation.

In August 2000 Council established the Penrith Lakes Working Party comprising all Councillors to oversee Council’s contribution to the Penrith Lakes planning process.  In April 2001, the Working Party identified Council’s key objectives and land use preferences for the Scheme. In summary these were seen as:

·     Deliver a sustainable legacy, with the integration of social, environmental and economic outcomes.

·     Achieve an urban area that has the capacity to provide a distinctive and broader housing choice, and widen the social spectrum of the City. 

·     Create a very broad spectrum of recreation opportunities, which would be attractive not only to people living in Penrith, but to Western Sydney residents.  Recreation choices would be diverse, and offer a range from concentrated, commercially driven facilities to passive environmental experiences.

·     Achieve a major water-based regional recreational resource, demonstrating world’s best practice; and continue to accommodate the Whitewater and Regatta Centres as ‘state of the art’ facilities, within optimum management and maintenance regimes.

·     Secure a significant contribution to economic development and tourism employment.  That recognises the opportunities Penrith Lakes will present in terms of recreation and tourism, and the possibility of commercial uses (including resorts) establishing in the parklands.  In addition, employment uses (such as head offices, and research and development parks) could be considered as part of the urban area, along with other activities needed to service the new community.

These objectives have been advocated with PLDC and State Government in planning for development of the Scheme.

Principal issues

Planning for the Penrith Lakes Scheme has been underway in one form or another for the past decade.  The principal issues that process has identified are the need for State Government stewardship, Council’s continued engagement in the planning process and identification of funding mechanisms to ensure the timely and orderly delivery of the Scheme.

1.  Stewardship

The arrangements currently in place to deliver the Lakes Scheme are complex and there is an acute need for the State Government to consider the most effective parkland management and funding model for the Scheme.

Matters to be resolved include water management, flooding constraints and evacuation, management and sustainable funding arrangements for the parkland, timely delivery of the parklands, timing of the handover of the main lake, and orderly and timely delivery of the urban area. In terms of the proposed urban development for the Scheme, issues are securing urban outcomes to complement the parkland, and identifying the appropriate infrastructure and cost apportionment.

Delivery of the Scheme requires coordination of government agencies that provide the necessary technical expertise in matters relating to urban development, parkland and recreation management, and infrastructure costing and delivery.

Effective management and sustainable funding of the Parklands is critical to the successful delivery of the significant recreational legacy provided by the Scheme.  Council has argued that a separate Management Authority for the Parklands would:

·     Ensure the technical expertise necessary to interpret and implement the complexities of the Penrith Lakes Water Plan;

·     Provide the best management structure to protect, manage and promote the significant regional and international recreational opportunities for the site;

·     Ensure the ongoing success of the Olympic legacy;

·     Provide the best management structure for integrating the urban and recreational activities on the site, allowing the Scheme to reach its full potential; and

·     Provide the best assurance that the income derived from the site is reinvested in the Parklands.

We have requested the State Government:

·     Provide stewardship at a high level to ensure the timely and orderly delivery of the Penrith lakes Scheme as a principal Sydney visitor destination for employment, housing and recreation.

·     Nominate a senior ‘go to’ person, with the appropriate authority, to drive the planning and delivery of the project, and coordinate and integrate positions across government.

·     Engage Penrith City Council and the Federal Government in planning for the delivery of the Penrith Lakes Scheme. The local planning context and local community interests, concerns and expectations need to be considered in planning for the Scheme. 

2.  Funding

Development of the Scheme is guided by a Deed of Agreement between State Government and the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation. A significant benefit of the Deed is that it entitles Government to 10% of the proceeds from the sale of the urban land. These proceeds would assist establishment, management and financial sustainability of the Regional Park.

The site is located on the Nepean floodplain which is a significant constraint to the type, location and extent of development opportunities. In the last concept plan for the site, the urban component consumed the vast majority if not all the flood free developable land. If the Regional Park is to fulfil its intended function and achieve a degree of financial sustainability, then there is a need to preserve an equitable proportion of flood free developable land for recreation, tourism and development opportunities.

PLDC has advised that the substantial costs associated with urban development on the site, particularly flood evacuation measures, significantly reduce their capacity to contribute to necessary regional and local infrastructure. It is important that the State Government is aware of this issue, as the responsibility to deliver the outstanding infrastructure will ultimately rest with State Government and the relevant public authority. Council, or any future Parkland Management Authority, should not be placed in a position of having to fund or subsidise infrastructure required to support urban development on the site.

While PLDC is mandated by the shareholder companies to secure a profitable development outcome, the delivery of the parklands and lakes elements that will become part of the enduring community legacy of Scheme are the responsibility of government.

We have requested the State Government develop a funding model that:

·     Retains the 10% allocation from the sale of the urban land in the Deed of Agreement between State Government and PLDC or identifies another funding mechanism.

·     Allocates the dividend to the establishment of the Regional Park and the associated Management Authority.

·     Ensures an equitable portion of flood free developable land is retained for recreation, tourism and development opportunities in the Regional Park.

The Penrith Lakes Scheme represents a unique opportunity to create a principal Sydney destination for employment, housing and recreation never before seen in Western Sydney, probably Australia.  Its realisation requires government and private sector resolution of the financial challenges associated with infrastructure provision and parkland management. It is of a scale and level of significance deserving of Federal Government participation, including infrastructure funding.  These financial challenges are not insurmountable as evidenced by the success of Springfield, a developing satellite city near Ipswich, Queensland.  There, government and the private sector have established infrastructure cost sharing arrangements that provide certainty in timing and delivery of facilities and services.

3.  Engagement

The Parkland and Lakes system to be transferred to State Government for the purposes of the Regional Park is a significant asset for the community of Western Sydney.  Government needs to be pro-active and maintain its knowledge of the Scheme’s history and context, continue enforcement of the Deed of Agreement and actively participate in the landuse planning considerations currently being undertaken by PLDC to ensure delivery of the Scheme’s legacy.

Government and PLDC have not engaged Council in planning for delivery of the parkland and the urban outcomes since PLDC deferred their Concept Plan for the site in 2007.  Council has an extensive history of involvement with the Scheme and is well placed to assist Government in understanding the context, environmental characteristics and landuse planning considerations integral to the delivery of the Scheme.

 

For these reasons we have requested the State Government assist in reinvigorating engagement with Council in planning for the delivery of the Penrith Lakes Scheme.

Current Activity

On the 10 December 2010 the DoP advised Council that it was exhibiting two applications from PLDC to modify development consent DA4 applying to the site.  DA4 is part of the approvals regime that authorises and controls sand and gravel extraction and rehabilitation of the final landform for the Penrith Lakes Scheme.  The applications were exhibited from 10 to 24 December 2010. 

The applications seek approval to reconfigure the size and shape of the proposed Wildlife Lake at the northern end of the Scheme and relocate the proposed flood control weir and pipeline from the western to the northern side of the Lake.  However, our initial review revealed the proposal also indicated/relied upon alterations to the approved methodology and infrastructure for managing flooding within the Scheme.  Council’s technical staff were concerned these amendments would have impacts beyond the scope of the applications and the boundary of the Scheme.

We advised the DoP of these concerns and requested:

·     Extension of the exhibition period until mid February to ensure Councillors, technical staff and the wider community had the opportunity to understand the implications and benefits of the proposal and provide informed comment.

·     The Department arrange technical briefings by PLDC and their consultants to assist Council staff understanding and assessment of the proposal.

Following representations by Councillor Thain, the DoP agreed to accept a submission from Council, up until Friday 14 January 2011.  Unfortunately, the requested technical briefings did not occur and it is unclear if the DoP intend to make the necessary arrangements.

Given the short timeframe, lack of consultation during preparation of the applications and the absence of the requested technical briefings Council is not in a position to support the proposal and advised the DoP accordingly by letter dated 14 January 2011.

Way Forward

After continued representations by Council and PLDC, the State Government established a high level Departmental Task Force in early 2010 to overview and co-ordinate planning for the Penrith Lakes Scheme. The Taskforce has been established by the Department of Premier and Cabinet and includes senior representatives of the Department of Planning, NSW Treasury, the Office of the Hawkesbury/Nepean and PLDC.  This gives effect to our request that the State Government provide stewardship at a high level and such a step is appreciated. Disappointingly, despite our requests for engagement in this process, Council has not been invited to participate in the Taskforce.

In light of the above, it would be appropriate for Council to request:

·     A briefing from the Taskforce and PLDC on the status of planning for the Penrith Lakes Scheme.

·     The Department of Planning coordinate a briefing of Council staff by the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation and their technical consultants on the methodology and infrastructure for managing flooding within the Scheme. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Planning for Penrith Lakes be received

2.     The Head of the State Government Taskforce and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation be invited to brief Council on the status of planning for the Penrith Lakes Scheme.

3.     The Department of Planning be requested to coordinate a briefing of Council staff by the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation and their technical consultants on the methodology and infrastructure for managing flooding within the Scheme.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

6

2011 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government   

 

Compiled by:               Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:            Adam Beggs, Acting Senior Governance Officer   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The 2011 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 19-22 June 2011.

 

Penrith City Council is entitled to have one voting delegate at each plenary session and it is Council’s practice to send additional Councillors as observers to the Assembly.

 

Presentations will be given at the Assembly from key political leaders.

 

Council should nominate its voting delegate to attend the Assembly as well as observers, and grant leave of absence as appropriate.

 

Motions for the Assembly under three themes (Place, Position and Partnership) need to be submitted to the ALGA by no later than Friday 22 April 2011. It is recommended that a further report detailing suggested motions be considered at Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting to be held on 4 April 2011.

Background

The 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 19–22 June 2011.

 

The National General Assembly, which is sponsored by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), will have as its theme, “Growing with Our Community – Place, Position and Partnership”.

 

Speakers on the Provisional Program include:

·      The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Prime Minister

·      The Hon Tony Abbott MP, Leader of the Opposition

·      The Hon Simon Crean MP, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government

·      Senator Barnaby Joyce, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Water

·      Senator Bob Brown, Leader of the Australian Greens

 

 

Delegates

Each Council is entitled to have one voting delegate at each plenary session.

 

In the past, in addition to selecting its voting delegate, Council has elected to send additional Councillors as observers.

 

In 2010, Council’s voting delegate to the National General Assembly was Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, and the additional observers were Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Marko Malkoc and Karen McKeown.

 

Submitting Motions

To enhance the quality of outcomes from this year’s National General Assembly, and to ensure that motions are relevant to local government nationally, the ALGA Board is calling for motions on the three core themes of the 2011 Assembly, namely:

·      Place

·      Position

·      Partnership

 

The aim is to stimulate ideas about new ways of doing business to meet the infrastructure and service needs of local people in their local communities. Motions for the Assembly need to outline credible ideas and policy initiatives that will strengthen local government’s capacity to respond to the social, economic and environmental challenges facing Australia.

 

To be eligible for inclusion in the National General Assembly Business Papers motions must:

1.   fall under one of these themes – place, position, partnership;

2.   be relevant to the work of local government nationally; and

3.   complement or build on the policy objectives of state or territory associations.

 

Motions that are carried by the National General Assembly become Resolutions. These Resolutions are then considered by the ALGA Board when setting national local government policy and will also feed into the Australian Council of Local Government processes.

 

Motions need to be submitted to the ALGA by no later than Friday 22 April 2011.

 

It is proposed to report on the draft Motions to the Policy Review Committee on 4 April 2011.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2011 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government be received

2.     Council nominate its voting delegate for the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government.

3.     Council nominate those Councillors that will attend as observers at the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government.

4.     Leave of Absence be granted to all Councillors attending the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from 19-22 June 2011.

5.     A further report detailing suggested motions be considered at Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting to be held on 4 April 2011. 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Leading City

 

 

7

Amendments to 2011 Meeting Calendar   

 

Compiled by:               Stephen Pearson, Executive Services Officer

Authorised by:            Adam Beggs, Acting Senior Governance Officer  

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The report proposes amendments to the 2011 Meeting Calendar which was adopted at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 29 November 2010.

 

The report recommends that:

·      an additional Ordinary Council Meeting be held on Monday 11 April 2011 at 7:00pm;

·      the Operational Plan Public Forum be held on Wednesday 4 May 2011 (in lieu of Monday 30 May 2011); and

·      the second Ordinary Council Meeting in May be held on 30 May 2011 (in lieu of 23 May 2011).

 

Background

 

As Councillors are aware, the Council is currently considering the possibility of applying for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) for the 2011-12 year.

 

Council officers have been in discussion with the Independent Pricing and Review Tribunal (IPART) and the Division of Local Government about the application process and the proposed SRV program following the release of the Guidelines and have received advice that Council will need to have adopted its 2011-12 Operational Plan prior to the 10 June 2011 SRV determination date. 

 

If Council wishes to proceed with an SRV application, this will necessitate an adjustment to the 2011 Meeting Calendar affecting the months of April and May.

 

In essence, to fit in with the SRV program timeline, it means that Council will need to:

 

·      convene an additional Ordinary Council Meeting on Monday 11 April 2011

so as to allow for an earlier decision on the adoption of the Draft Operational Plan for 2011-12 for exhibition

·      bring forward the date of the Operational Plan Public Forum from Monday 30 May 2011 to Wednesday 4 May 2011

so as to allow sufficient lead time for the public to make submissions on Council’s plans and strategies for 2011-12

·      put back the date of the Ordinary Council Meeting on Monday 23 May 2011 to Monday 30 May 2011

so as to allow sufficient time from the date of public exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan for 2011-12 to the date of adoption of the Operational Plan

Current Situation

The current 2011 Meeting Calendar for May and June is as follows:

 

Mon Apr 4

Mon Apr 18

Mon May 2

Mon May 9

Mon May 23

Mon May 30

PR

OM

OM

PR

OM

OP

 

OM – Ordinary Council Meeting           

PR – Policy Review Committee Meeting          

OP-Operational Plan Public Forum

Proposed Situation

In regard to the additional Ordinary Council Meeting proposed to be held on 11 April 2011, it is intended that this meeting only consider the one item of business - the ‘Adoption of the Draft Operational Plan for 2011-12 for exhibition’. This item of business would have normally been dealt with at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 May 2011.

 

The proposed change in the date of the Ordinary Council Meeting from 23 May to 30 May will result in a more even spacing between Ordinary Council Meetings i.e. four (4) weeks between the meetings on 2 May and 30 May and four (4) weeks between the meetings on 30 May and 27 June.

 

The change in the date of the Operational Plan Public Forum to a Wednesday (4 May) rather than a Monday (30 May), and the transfer of the Ordinary Council Meeting from 23 May to 30 May will leave a ‘meeting free’ Monday on 23 May.

 

The proposed 2011 Meeting Calendar for May and June incorporating these changes is as follows:

 

Mon Apr 4

Mon Apr 11

Mon Apr 18

Mon May 2

Wed May 4

Mon May 9

Mon May 30

PR

OM

OM

OM

OP

PR

OM

 

OM – Ordinary Council Meeting

PR – Policy Review Committee Meeting          

OP-Operational Plan Public Forum

 

The changes to the meeting calendar have been discussed with the relevant Managers and all statutory and operating obligations are able to be met, including adherence to key dates for consideration of Operational Plan Quarterly Reviews, 2010-2011 Operational Plan, Delivery Program Progress Reports and 2009-2010 Financial Statements.

 

An amended 2011 Meeting Calendar (full year) incorporating these three changes is set out overleaf for Council’s consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Amendments to 2011 Meeting Calendar be received

2.     The 2011 Meeting Calendar be altered as follows:

 

·      an additional Ordinary Council Meeting be convened for 7:00pm on Monday 11 April 2011 for the purpose of considering one item of business only - the ‘Adoption of the Draft Operational Plan for 2011-12 for exhibition’;

·      the Operational Plan Public Forum be held on Wednesday 4 May 2011 in lieu of Monday 30 May 2011; and

·      the Ordinary Council meeting scheduled for Monday 23 May 2011 be held instead on Monday 30 May 2011.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

2011 Revised Meeting Calendar - Proposed for Adoption by Council on 28 February 2011

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

Appendix 1 - 2011 Revised Meeting Calendar - Proposed for Adoption by Council on 28 February 2011

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

8        Grant Application - Regentville Hall Kitchen upgrade

 

9        Community Assistance Program Rolling Component Projects Approved Under Delegated Authority July - December 2010

 

10      St Marys Spring Festival

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A City of Opportunities

 

 

 

8

Grant Application - Regentville Hall Kitchen upgrade   

 

Compiled by:               Diane Boyde, Community Development Officer - Older People

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides information on the outcome of a successful grant application to Ageing, Disability and Home Care (ADHC) in the NSW Department of Human Services to upgrade the kitchen at Regentville Hall.

Council Officers had identified the need for an upgrade to the Regentville Hall kitchen.  The Hall’s kitchen facilities are outdated and in need of refurbishment to maintain food safety standards.  Council applied for funding assistance under the HACC (Home and Community Care) capital (non-recurrent) program for refurbishment of the kitchen.  This project is eligible for HACC Funds as the kitchen is used by Nepean Food Services which is funded under the HACC program.

 

Council officers had identified that approximately $45,000 of works were required to bring Regentville Hall kitchen to contemporary standard.

 

The report recommends that the information be received, that the funding agreement be signed with Ageing Disability and Home Care (ADHC), and that correspondence be forwarded to the Minister for Ageing, Disability Services, Volunteering and Youth thanking the NSW Government for the grant to complete the work as outlined in this report.

Background

 

Council officers had identified the need for an upgrade to the Regentville Hall kitchen.  This was estimated to cost approximately $45,000.  An opportunity to apply for capital funding from ADHC arose and given the importance of the services provided by Nepean Food Services to the local community an application was submitted to ADHC.  Council officers only had a short timeframe within which to submit the application.

 

Current Situation

 

On 4 February 2011 Council received notification from the Hon Peter Primrose MLC, Minister for Ageing, Disability Services, Volunteering and Youth to advise that funding of $46,070 excluding GST had been approved to upgrade the kitchen in Regentville Hall.

 

The grant will assist Nepean Food Services to continue to provide a professional and efficient meals on wheels service for many frail older residents that live in their own homes.  This outcome supports the delivery of Council’s Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy which recognises the importance of ageing in place to many of the City’s older residents.

 

Next Steps

 

Council officers from Neighbourhood Facilities will coordinate the development of a detailed project plan and timeline for the delivery of the project.  City Works will coordinate and supervise the final design, specification and refurbishment work on the project.

 

Community and Cultural Development Department officers will continue to liaise with the Regentville Hall Management Committee and Nepean Food Services to ensure their input to the final design of the kitchen and there is minimal disruption to the Centre’s regular activities during the construction period.

 

Preliminary discussions with the Regentville Hall Management Committee and Nepean Food Services indicate the Hall will close during July 2011 to allow the refurbishment of the kitchen to take place.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has received notification from the Hon Peter Primrose MLC, Minister for Ageing, Disability Services, Volunteering and Youth advising that funding of $46,070 excluding GST has been approved to upgrade the kitchen at Regentville Hall.

 

The grant will assist Nepean Food Services to continue to provide a professional and efficient meals on wheels service for many frail older residents that live in their own homes.  This outcome supports the delivery of Council’s Planning for an Ageing Community Strategy which recognises the importance of ageing in place to many of the City’s older residents.

 

The project will be progressed during the first half of 2011 and the refurbishment is likely to take place during July 2011 with the agreement of the Regentville Hall Management Committee and Nepean Food Services.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Grant Application - Regentville Hall Kitchen upgrade be received

2.     The funding agreement between Council and Ageing, Disability and Home Care NSW Department of Human Services be signed enabling the sum of $46,070 to be utilised for the refurbishment of the Regentville Hall kitchen.

3.     Correspondence be forwarded to the Minister for Ageing, Disability Services, Volunteering and Youth thanking the NSW Government for the grant to complete the project as outlined in this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A City of Opportunities

 

 

9

Community Assistance Program Rolling Component Projects Approved Under Delegated Authority July - December 2010   

 

Compiled by:               Sonia Dalitz, Social Planner

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides information on the allocation of the Rolling Component Community Assistance Program funds under delegated authority during the period July– December 2010.  The report recommends that the information be received.

 

Background

Through the Community Assistance Program, Council makes small grants to non-profit organisations and community-based groups to help meet local community needs.  The maximum grant is $1,200.

 

There are two components of the Community Assistance Program - the Planned Component and the Rolling Component. The Rolling Component allows for one-off requests to be approved by Council at any time during the year.  This provides a flexible supplement to the Planned Component of the program, which is undertaken each year around October.

 

At the Policy Review Committee meeting on 10 September 2007, Council adopted the 2007 Community Assistance Program (CAP) policy and included it in Council’s Policy Register. The policy identifies that ‘a report will be provided every six months informing Council of successful Rolling Component applications for the relevant period.

 

This report provides information on the 2010-11 CAP Rolling Component projects that have been approved under delegated authority by the General Manager during the six month period July to December 2010.

 

Projects Approved Under Delegation

The following table summarises details of the projects approved during the July to December 2010 period:

 

Project

Organisation

Amount

Contribution towards purchase of drums for the Pipe Band.

 

Hawkesbury Nepean Valley Pipe Band Inc.

 

$800

TOTAL

$800

 

A total of $800.00 has been approved under delegated authority in the period from July to December 2010.

 

For the second half of the funding year January-June 2011, an amount of $6,200.00 remains available in the CAP Rolling Component. Any further allocations will be reported to Council after June 2011 as per the Community Assistance Program policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Community Assistance Program Rolling Component Projects Approved Under Delegated Authority July - December 2010 be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A City of Opportunities

 

 

10

St Marys Spring Festival   

 

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

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

 

Objective

We have a say in our future

Community Outcome

A Council that involves, informs and responds (10)

Strategic Response

Engage our communities by creating opportunities for participation, listening, provide information and responding (10.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

 

As an outcome of the Councillor workshop in March 2010 it was agreed that Council staff take on the role of organising the 2010 St Marys Spring Festival on an interim basis for the 2010 year only to ensure that the festival occurred.

 

The 2010 St Marys Spring Festival was scheduled for 4 September 2010 but was cancelled due to inclement weather. It was subsequently rescheduled to 30 October 2010. As a result of having to conduct a re-scheduled festival it was reported to Councillors last November that there was a net deficit on the event of $9,164.10. Since that time some additional revenue and reduction in event charges has resulted in the actual deficit being reduced to $4,131. Additionally, for the first time in 2010 additional costs were incurred to conduct the festival, ensuring it met contemporary event standards and requirements and these costs will continue into the future.

 

This report investigates the options as to how the St Marys Spring Festival can be delivered into the future following discussions with relevant stakeholders. It recommends that the St Marys Development Committee be provided with assistance to engage an external event manager to organise the 2011 festival followed by a comprehensive review to determine a long term solution to delivering future festivals.

 

The report also recommends that a contribution of $1,377 be voted from each ward’s voted works to cover the net deficit for the 2010 St Marys Spring Festival previously agreed to in principal by Councillors.

 

Background

 

For the last 34 years the St Marys Development Committee - a 377 Committee of Council have utilised an annual allocation of $20,000 from Council in addition to stall holder fees and ride contributions to organise the St Marys Spring Festival.

 

Following advice from the Committee that they would no longer be able to organise the 2010 festival and all future festivals, particularly the extensive event administration, logistics and the contemporary regulatory requirements that need to be met, Councillors agreed that Council staff take on the role of organising the festival on an interim basis for 2010 only to ensure that it occurred. The committee however, made it clear that they remained keen to still play a significant role in the organisation of the festival.

 

In 2010 the festival was delivered by Council event staff in conjunction with an external event manager to whom Council outsourced the organisation of the festival. This allowed Council event staff to continue to work on its large community and civic events program and was funded from savings generated through the rationalisation of events that took place as a result of a Councillor workshop on community and civic events in March 2010.

 

Current Situation

 

At the Council meeting of 8 November 2010 Council resolved that consideration of the future of the St Marys Spring Festival be deferred to a future Ordinary Meeting of Council.

 

Since that time a number of meetings have taken place with the St Marys Development Committee to look at how the St Marys Spring Festival can continue to be successful and be improved in the future. The committee indicated that they want to retain a very close involvement in future festivals but no longer have the capacity to organise the event on their own and are aware that with any new organiser there may be some changes to how the event is conducted.

 

The Committee have done an admirable job in organising this festival for 34 years and there is no doubt that under their stewardship it has become an iconic event for St Marys and one that should continue well into the future.

 

There are three alternative options for the delivery of the St Marys Spring Festival commencing with the Spring Festival in September 2011. It should be noted that for the first time in 2010 there were a number of additional costs incurred in delivering the festival that will continue to be incurred in the future. Whichever of the three options is preferred the additional costs outlined below will form part of the total cost of the festival in the future. While there is no capacity within existing budgets to fund these additional costs they may be partially or fully offset in future years should sponsors be secured for future festivals.

 

·    Police (not previously charged and included a 50% discount)    $3,600

·    User charges - waste, toilets and CBD cleaning

(not previously charged)                                                              $2,000

·    Two-way radio communication                                                   $200

·    Uniforms                                                                                                $800

·    Additional marketing collateral                                                   $2,500

·    Message boards                                                                                     $1,100

·    APRA licence                                                                              $100

·    On-site electrical contractors                                                                 $200

 

TOTAL (Approx)                                                                         $10,500

 

As can be seen in 2010 these costs amounted to approximately $10,000 and along with the development of a risk management plan by events staff this brought the event into line with the standards applied to other major events organised by Council in its community and civic events program.

 

1.   Council Events Team Organise Festival

 

In 2010 there was no capacity for Council’s events team to take on the organisation of another significant community event such as the St Marys Spring Festival within existing resources with a program that now incorporates more than 60 community and civic events annually.

 

Following the review of the community and civic events program in March 2010 savings were identified from the rationalisation of the events program that was agreed to by Council in the Councillor Workshop 8 March 2010. These savings amounting to $42,400 and were split up so that $20,000 was allocated to an event manager for the 2010 St Marys Spring Festival with the balance returned to general revenue. From 2011 onwards these savings will no longer be available.

 

Now with a full complement of staff in the events team, an internal restructure of the team would allow a dedicated resource to be re-deployed to focus on the delivery of major community events that would include the delivery of the St Marys Spring Festival. Should this option be endorsed it would mean that the events team would be unable to accommodate the introduction of any other additional events in the annual program.

 

If the Council events team does organise the festival in 2011 it is important to note that the St Marys Development Committee will continue to play a significant role in organisation of the St Marys Spring Festival through close consultation with the events team on an ongoing basis. While the committee have indicated that they are no longer in a position to be able to organise the festival on their own, their wealth of experience will remain invaluable to the Council events team in delivering another successful Spring Festival.

 

Should the Council events team organise the annual St Marys Spring Festival in 2011 the $20,000 allocated to the St Marys Development Committee should instead be retained by Council to run the event. Estimated stall holder contributions and income from rides would approximate $12,000 and contribute towards funding the event. As mentioned previously additional funding of $10,000 will be required from Council to bring the event in line with contemporary event standards and requirements and the securing of sponsors for future festivals may partially or fully offset the shortfall in bringing the event in line with these contemporary standards. Should sponsorship not be secured, the event will be scaled back to keep the budget balanced.

 

2.   St  Marys Development Committee to Engage External Event Manager to Organise Festival

 

As was the case for the 2010 festival, an external event manager could be engaged to organise the festival. This option has the advantage that it frees up Council resources to concentrate on its already large community and civic events program. The St Marys Development Committee would then work closely with the appointed external event manager to ensure that the festival is delivered in an appropriate manner.

 

Under this scenario, it is proposed that the St Marys Development Committee be provided with a further $10,000 to recruit an external event organiser. Staff from the events team will assist the Committee conduct this process of recruitment.

 

In 2010 the event manager retained by Council was successful in delivering the festival and for the first time was able to source a major sponsor, along with several other sponsors for the event which, had the original festival proceeded as scheduled would have returned a surplus. It is envisaged that any professional external event manager contracted to deliver the 2011 festival should also be able to attract sponsorship to help offset the costs associated with conducting the festival.

 

After the 2010 St Marys Spring Festival was finalised Council was provided with access to relevant data bases and all the formalised event procedures and forms by the 2010 external event manager, all of which can be passed on to subsequent external event managers to conduct the festival.

 

As explained previously, in 2010 the event manager was funded from the savings generated by the rationalisation of events that came about from the Councillor workshop in March 2010.

 

Should this be the preferred option for delivering the festival into the future an additional $10,000 would be required to retain an external event manager.

 

We would expect that a professional event manager would secure sponsorship to partially or fully fund the $10,000 cost to bring the event in line with contemporary standards. Should this sponsorship not be secured to the full amount of the additional costs required, the event manager would also scale the event back to keep the budget balanced.

 

 

3.   St Marys Town Centre Association to Organise Festival

One of the main objectives of the St Marys Spring Festival is to provide an opportunity to promote the St Marys town centre and for retailers in Queen Street to promote their business. Similarly, as part of their charter, it is an objective of the St Marys Town Centre Association to strengthen existing businesses and create new opportunities for growth within the centre. With these similar goals it is an obvious fit for the St Marys Development Committee and the St Marys Town Centre Association to work together to deliver the Spring Festival in the future.  The combined business acumen of the St Marys Town Centre Association coupled with the skills and the enthusiasm of community representatives from the St Marys Development Committee could offer many benefits to the St Marys Town Centre.

The St Marys Town Centre Association came on board in 2010 as a sponsor of the re-scheduled festival and has already indicated that they may consider continuing their association with the festival. It is a logical next step that they take on a major role in the future delivery of the St Marys Spring Festival given that they already have come on board as a sponsor in 2010 and that aims of the festival align so closely with their charter.

 

For their part the St Marys Development Committee have indicated a willingness to work in partnership with the St Marys Town Centre Association to deliver future festivals and while formal discussions have yet to take place between the two groups it is envisaged that this partnership has the potential to successfully deliver the St Marys Spring Festival for many years to come.

 

However, with the impending retirement of the Chief Executive Officer and the need to commence the organisation of the 2011 Spring Festival within the next month this option is not viable for 2011.

 

It is important to note that for each of the options outlined above, it is recommended that the St Marys Development Committee continue to play a significant role in organisation of the St Marys Spring Festival through close consultation with organisers on an ongoing basis.

 

While the committee have indicated that they are no longer in a position to be able to organise the festival on their own, their wealth of experience will remain invaluable to festival organisers for years to come.

 

 

Funding Option 1 - Council Events Team Organise Festival

 

Expenditure

 

Anticipated cost to run the event

 

$32,000

Add: Costs to meet contemporary event standards

 

$10,000

Total Cost of St Marys Spring Festival Event

 

$42,000

Income

 

Annual general revenue allocation from Council, retained in the events budget

 

$20,000

Estimated income from rides and stall holder contributions

 

$12,000

Estimated sponsorship

$10,000**

 

Total identified funding

 

$42,000

Deficit

 

Shortfall of funding for the event in future years

NIL

 

 

**It is anticipated that sponsorship can be secured to partially or fully fund the $10,000 cost to bring the event in line with contemporary standards. Should sponsorship not be secured to the full amount of the additional costs required ($10,000), the event will be scaled back to keep the budget balanced.

 

Funding Option 2 – St Marys Development Committee to Engage External Event Manager to Organise Festival

 

Expenditure

 

Anticipated cost to run the event

 

$32,000

Add: Costs to meet contemporary event standards

 

$10,000

Add: Cost of an External Events Manager

$10,000

 

Total Cost of St Marys Spring Festival Event

 

$52,000

Income

 

Annual general revenue allocation from Council, retained in the events budget

 

$20,000

Estimated income from rides and stall holder contributions

 

$12,000

Estimated sponsorship

$10,000**

 

Total identified funding

 

$42,000

Deficit

 

Shortfall of funding for the event in future years

$10,000

 

 

**As outlined in the option above, we would expect that a professional event manager would secure sponsorship to partially or fully fund the $10,000 cost to bring the event in line with contemporary standards. Should this sponsorship not be secured to the full amount of the additional costs required ($10,000), the event manager would also scale the event back to keep the budget balanced.

 

A source of funding to pay for the cost of $10,000 to engage an External Event Manager needs to be identified and will be required to fund this option as there are no funds available within existing budgets.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

The rescheduled St Marys Spring Festival event has been completed and the event has been reconciled. Traditionally the budget for this event has been approximately $32,000 made up of a combination of Council’s annual contribution of $20,000 and any stall holder fees and ride commissions.  In 2010-11 an additional $20,000 was provided, as a once off, from savings identified within the Community and Civic Events program.  This additional budget enabled the engagement of an external events manager and addressed the additional costs of approximately $10,500 as outlined in this report. Following the original festival being cancelled due to wet weather Council agreed to underwrite the rescheduled event by way of a contribution from Voted Works. 

 

The total cost of both the original and rescheduled events was $72,688.  After allowing for Council’s contribution of $40,000, sponsorship and revenues from stall holders and rides commissions of $28,557 the total amount required from voted works is $4,131.

 

This report also outlines a number of options available for the management of this event in future years with funding a shortfall of up to $10,000 for option 2, depending on the level of sponsorship secured.  No capacity has been identified to address these shortfalls and this priority will need to be considered along with other priorities as part of the development of the 2011-12 Operational Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

As it is a core component of the St Marys Development Committee’s annual program, the best option to deliver the St Marys Spring Festival in 2011 involves the Committee appointing an external event manager. As the appointed event manager will report directly to the Committee, this option will give them a greater control and involvement in the overall organisation of the festival.

 

While the Council Events Team could organise the festival, this option would also allow Council’s Events Team to concentrate on its already comprehensive community and civic events program.

 

At the conclusion of the 2011 festival a comprehensive review needs to be undertaken to determine a long term solution to the future delivery of this iconic event for St Marys.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.   The report on the St Marys Spring Festival be received.

 

2.   Option 2 (the St Marys Development Committee engage an external event manager to organise the festival) be pursued pending the identification of the additional $10,000 in the development of the 2011-12 Operational Plan.

 

3.   At the conclusion of the 2011 St Marys Spring Festival a comprehensive review be undertaken to determine a long term solution to delivering the Spring Festival into the future.

 

4.   A contribution of $1,377 be voted from each ward from voted works (total $4,131) to cover the net deficit for the 2010 St Marys Spring Festival.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

11      Support for Earth Hour 2011

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Green City

 

 

 

11

Support for Earth Hour 2011   

 

Compiled by:               Carmel Hamilton, Sustainability Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, Acting Group Manager - Leadership   

 

Objective

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

Community Outcome

A Council with a smaller ecological footprint (13)

Strategic Response

Work to reduce the organisation's ecological footprint (13.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

Council has supported Earth Hour since its inception in 2007 and it is proposed to support this event again in 2011 by switching off lights at a number of Council facilities on Saturday 26 March between 8:30pm and 9:30pm. It is recognised that this event falls on the same day as the New South Wales State Government election. The selection of Council venues for participation in Earth Hour will be managed to ensure there is no disruption to the election.

 

The event provides Council with a timely opportunity to demonstrate its leadership on the issue of climate change, while undertaking a promotion and education program to encourage local businesses, schools and households to participate and make changes to reduce their energy consumption.

Background

Climate change is increasingly recognised as a major global problem with local consequences and responsibilities. Penrith City Council has demonstrated its commitment, and has set goals, to achieve a reduction in both corporate and City greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Significant resources have been invested in achieving strong emissions reduction through a coordinated program of actions across the organisation. 

 

An understanding of the issues surrounding climate change and support for action on climate change is increasingly apparent in both our local community and the broader global community. 

Earth Hour 2011

WWF Australia (formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund) initiated a project in 2007 called ‘Earth Hour’. Earth Hour was developed to educate and involve the community in taking action to combat climate change and is being run again in 2011. Council has supported Earth Hour since 2007 by switching off the lights for the designated one hour period at several of our major facilities, and also by undertaking a broader education and promotion campaign with the local community.

 

As in previous years, the main highlight of the campaign revolves around a designated one hour period on Saturday 26 March when households, businesses, organisations and schools are encouraged to commit to turn off their lights between 8.30-9.30pm.

 

Switching off lights is a symbolic gesture and gives a highly visible signal to the wider community of an organisation’s or individual’s commitment to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

 

This year Earth Hour focuses on encouraging sustained action throughout the year, with the theme ‘This Earth Hour, go beyond the hour’.

Proposed Participation in Earth Hour

Earth Hour provides a clear opportunity for Council to support the event in its role as a community leader, as the aims of the project align closely with Council’s own goals for corporate and community emissions reductions.

 

It is proposed that Council participate directly, where this poses no risk to safety and does not disadvantage any community or customer services required at the facilities. Within these limits, Council would commit to turning off all lights, other than essential security lighting, within appropriate Council facilities, for the one hour period between 8:30pm - 9:30pm on Saturday, 26 March 2011.

 

It is recognised that this year the event coincides with the New South Wales State Government Election, however as the event is global it will be proceeding as planned.

 

The following facilities have been identified by management as able to participate in Earth Hour. This will be subject to any bookings for relevant facilities being received in the interim, including the need for any election related activities which may arise. Where bookings are received they will take precedence over the Earth Hour arrangements.

·    Civic Centre

·    Queen Street Centre

·    Council’s Depot

·    St Clair Recreation Centre

·    Visitor Information Centre

·    Ripples Leisure Centre

·    Penrith Swim Centre

·    Penrith Whitewater Stadium

 

Although largely symbolic, the action of turning off the lights within Council facilities sends a clear message to the community about Council’s commitment to greenhouse gas reduction.

 

Participating in the event will also provide Council with an excellent opportunity to advocate for greenhouse gas reduction, by encouraging local businesses and individuals to also participate and make changes to reduce their emissions.

 

Promotion and education within the community will be undertaken in the lead up to Earth Hour, with an emphasis on the simple things that can be done in the average home or business, to address climate change without negatively impacting on lifestyle and convenience.

 

Along with seeking to leverage the broader promotion of Earth Hour which is undertaken by the main event organisers, Council will undertake a local promotions program which will include media releases, display materials within Council facilities, promotion through the Council website, fact sheets, and the distribution of information to staff, schools and participating businesses. 

 

A link with the event coordinator, WWF Australia, has also been established to share information and resources and ensure that any local promotions are consistent with the broader promotions being undertaken.

Conclusion

Given the increasingly critical nature of the issue of climate change and global warming within Australia and across the globe, it is imperative for Council and our City to be at the forefront of efforts to combat climate change. Earth Hour is one initiative which is very timely in this regard. Council’s participation in Earth Hour and promotion to the community is in keeping with both its policy commitments and leadership role.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Support for Earth Hour 2011 be received

2.     Council participate in Earth Hour 2011 and promote the event to the community.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

12      Great River Walk Stages 7 and 7a grants

 

13      Community Safety Grant Funding

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Liveable City

 

 

 

12

Great River Walk Stages 7 and 7a grants   

 

Compiled by:               Karin Schicht, Landscape - Architectural Services Supervisor

Authorised by:            Craig Ross, Major Projects Manager  

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)

Strategic Response

Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report is to advise Council of a grant offer for Stage 7 of the Great River Walk under the Metropolitan Greenspace Program 2010 and to seek Council’s endorsement for the acceptance of the grant.  The report also seeks Council’s endorsement to lodge an application in the 2011 Metropolitan Greenspace Program for Stage 7a.  The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received, that Council accept the Stage 7 grant and endorse the lodgement of the Stage 7a application.

Background

The Great River Walk (GRW) is a significant initiative that Council has been supporting and pursuing for many years, through a range of funding sources including Council, State and Federal Government grants and private contributions.  The project is part of Council’s Major Projects model, through which the funding and expenditure of significant multi-year projects are managed.

 

A major source of funding for the GRW has been the Metropolitan Greenspace Program (MGP), which focuses on creating a better balance between the needs of communities and conserving natural resources to deliver a high quality of life for Sydney residents.  In the 2010 MGP, a total of 26 successful projects were approved with grants totalling nearly $2,500,000 on a dollar-for-dollar basis. 

 

The following table details the implementation of the GRW and the associated grant applications.   Including the Stage 7 grant, Penrith City Council has received a total of $1,091,642 for the GRW, under the MGP grant program.

 

Stage

Description

Grant funding

Status

1

Weir to Cassola Place (incl. external contributions)

$202,260

MGP Grant application successful and project complete

1a

Top-up funds for stage 1

$165,000

MGP Grant application successful and project complete

2

Log Cabin Hotel lookout and other links (incl. external contributions)

$130,032

MGP Grant application successful and project complete

3

Signage, branding and marketing plan  (incl. external contributions)

$34,000

MGP Grant application successful and project complete

4

West Bank (Design only) from M4 to Victoria Bridge

$63,250

MGP Grant application successful and project complete

5

The Missing Links (Nepean Ave, Memorial Ave, Weir Res. river’s edge)

$131,500

MGP Grant application successful and implementation 95% complete

6

West Bank phase 1– River Rd pathworks

$85,000

MGP Grant application successful and construction expected to commence February 2011

RLCIP2

Lookout and steps

$140,000

RLCIP2 Grant application successful and project complete

RLCIP2

Two waters edge decks

$75,000

RLCIP2 Grant application successful and project complete

7

West Bank phase 2 – River Road pathworks

$280,000

MGP Grant application successful and construction to be integrated with Stage 6 works

7a

West Bank Phase 3 - River Rd pathworks

$250,000/$190,000

MGP Grant applications due  fourth quarter

 

Construction Certificate approved works on River Road (funded by Stages 6 and 7 and adjacent to existing kerb and gutter) are programmed to commence on site in mid March with the ordering of material and engagement of the pile driving contractor commencing late February.

Current Situation

At its Ordinary meeting of 19 April 2010, Council endorsed the lodgement of a grant application for Stage 7 – West Bank Phase 2.  A grant of $280,000 has now been approved by the MGP for this stage.  The total project value is $560,000.  Of the 26 successful projects in the 2010 Program, Penrith’s Great River Walk Stage 7 received the highest grant allocation.

 

The West Bank design comprises two key components:

1.   2.25 km of roadside shared pathway abutting new kerb and gutter, with improved connections to the mid-slope gravel path

2.   Improvements to Regatta Park

 

The scope of Stage 7 is for implementation of the 2.5m wide shared pedestrian cycle path adjacent to new kerb and gutter along River Road (continued from Stage 6); bush regeneration and weed management, over two years, heritage interpretation (signage or public art) including design / artist; and promotional material including brochures, articles and the development of a webpage connected to Council’s website.

 

The next round of the MGP is underway with the submission of grant applications for the 2011 round to be lodged in the fourth quarter.  The 2011 Penrith application (Stage 7a) will primarily involve the continued construction implementation of the shared pedestrian cycleway along River Road.  Depending on site conditions, the works will be in the vicinity of Francis Ave, Warring Ave and Dewdney Rd.  Works are based on the designs and documentation prepared by consultants in Stage 4 (West Bank design) and will continue on from where Stage 7 works stop. 

 

In the context of the overall MGP, Penrith’s 2010 grant is a substantial amount.  Preliminary indications are that the 2011 Stage 7a application will be for $250,000, requiring a Council contribution of $250,000 (total project value $500,000).  It has been considered prudent to follow recent advice from MGP to submit a lesser amount as an alternative for MGP to consider ($190,000). This lesser option would require a lesser Council contribution of $190,000 (total project value $380,000).

 

Council’s matching contribution towards this project are proposed as follows:

1.   $190,000 from City Works’ River Road kerb, gutter and drainage program; and

2.   $60,000 from the Section 94 District Open Space Plan.  Details of this allocation will be confirmed when Council receives the grant offer. 

 

It is anticipated that the successful grants will be determined early 2012.  As a condition of the grant, the project should be completed within 24 months.  Should this funding application be successful, the timing for path construction will follow the staged City Works program of kerb, gutter and drainage works on River Road (funded by City Works).

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

Acceptance of the grant offer for Stage 7 of the Great River Walk requires Council to commit matching funding of $280,000.  As reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 18 April 2010 this funding is proposed to be sourced by a combination of $175,000 through Council’s 2011-12 Kerb & Guttering program, $40,000 available in the Parks budget, over the next two years, for bush regeneration and $59,000 from the District Open Space Contributions Plan.

 

The application to the 2011 MGP for Stage 7a of the Great River Walk will require Council to commit matching funding of $250,000 with the project being proposed to be undertaken in 2012-13.  The progression of the Great River Walk has been a priority for a number of years and it is proposed that Council’s contribution, should the grant be successful, would be provided by $190,000 from the 2012-13 Kerb & Guttering Program and a further $60,000 from the District Open Space Plan Contributions Plan. The projected balance of the District Open Space Contributions Plan as at 30 June 2012, after taking this contribution into consideration, is $796,878.  Once the outcome of the 2011 MGP has been announced a further report will be provided to Council confirming the proposed matching contribution, including any reduced contribution should a reduced offer be made.

 

Conclusion

The MGP has supported the GRW in Penrith with grant funding since 2003.  This stage will continue the GRW momentum achieved to date as well as demonstrate interventions in line with the River Road Plan of Management.  An MGP grant application for Stage 7a (2011) is able to be prepared and submitted for assessment.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Great River Walk Stages 7 and 7a grants be received.

2.     Council endorse the acceptance of funding for Great River Walk Stage 7 – West Bank Construction Phase 2 offered under the Metropolitan Greenspace Program 2010.

3.     Council send letters of thanks to the Minister for Planning and the Local Member, and to the Great River Walk Inc and Hawkesbury City Council for their support.

4.     Council endorse the lodgement of the application for the 2011 Metropolitan Greenspace Program grant for the Great River Walk Stage 7a – West Bank Construction Phase 3 as outlined in this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Liveable City

 

 

 

13

Community Safety Grant Funding   

 

Compiled by:               Olivia Kidon, Community Safety Co-ordinator

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

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)

Strategic Response

Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of two (2) Community Safety grants that have been received, one (1) under the NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Graffiti Hotspot Program in the amount of $103,833, and the other under the Federal Government’s Safer Suburbs Program in the amount of $200,000.

 

The NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General has allocated an amount of $103,833 under its CPTED Graffiti Hotspot Program 2010/11. The project involves the implementation of landscape screening to solid panel fencing at four (4) graffiti hot spot locations throughout the Local Government Area. 

 

A further grant has been received following commitment from the Federal Minister for Home Affairs/Minister for Justice and the Member for Lindsay of $200,000 from the Safer Suburbs Program to go towards a range of actions to improve safety within the Civic Arts/Green Space located between the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, the Westfield Plaza Shopping Centre and the Penrith Civic Centre. The actions include extending Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) coverage of the Green Space and engaging local youth services to develop activities that discourage antisocial behaviour in this space.

 

The report recommends that the information contained in this report be received and that the grant funding in the amounts of $103,833 and $200,000 respectively, be accepted.

 

Background

 

NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Graffiti Hotspot Program

 

Penrith City Council has been selected as one of ten (10) local government areas identified by the NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General (DJAG) to participate in the CPTED Graffiti Hotspot Program. Penrith Council has been selected as one of the locations based on the levels of reported graffiti in official crime data. The project will be funded by the DJAG and constitutes a key component of the NSW Government’s Graffiti Action Plan.

 

It should be noted that the selection of Penrith LGA as one of the local government areas identified was based on 2008 crime data.  There has been a substantial reduction in graffiti across the whole LGA since that time, however there are several hot spots that remain a challenge for graffiti minimisation.

 

The project involves the implementation of a range of CPTED based treatments across known hotspots. Council was asked to identify four (4) locations that could be a potential focus for the project. Representatives from the DJAG attended a site visit with Council staff to inspect the potential locations on Thursday 11 November 2010. Following the site visit Council was asked to submit a project proposal for consideration of funding allocation under the Graffiti Hotspot Program 2010/11.

 

On 14 January 2011 Council received advice from the DJAG that Council’s submission had been successful in obtaining funding of $103,833 to deliver the identified projects. The program will consist of extensive landscape screening of solid panel fencing at the following locations:

-     Rotary Park, Glenmore Park

-     Coonawarra Pedestrian Underpass and Reddington Reserve, St Clair

-     Fragar Road Reserve, South Penrith

-     Schoolhouse Channel (Cobb Avenue), Jamisontown

 

Landscape screening at the above locations will minimise opportunities for graffiti vandalism. The application of landscape screening is an appropriate graffiti reduction measure at these locations due to minimal visibility and passive surveillance of the locations from adjoining properties as a result of property orientation and solid panel fencing. Effective landscape screening together with continued rapid removal of graffiti from these locations is anticipated to be a sign of community investment in the area.

 

The funding agreement has now been finalised and approved by the Department of Justice and Attorney General. Council officers are currently developing project specifications and designs for the landscape screening. Upon completion, a schedule of works will be developed following which a suitable contractor will be engaged to supply and install the landscape screening.

 

Federal Government’s Safer Suburbs Program

 

On 12 August 2010 the Minister for Home Affairs/Minister for Justice and the Member for Lindsay committed funding of $200,000 from the Safer Suburbs Program to go towards a range of activities to improve safety within the Civic Arts/Green Space located between the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, the Westfield Plaza Shopping Centre and the Penrith Civic Centre. The activities include:

 

-     Extending CCTV coverage of the Green Space between the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, the Westfield Plaza Shopping Centre and the Penrith Civic Centre.

-     Engaging local youth services to develop activities that discourage antisocial behaviour in this space.

 

Council received advice from the Minister for Home Affairs/Minister for Justice on 3 February 2011 confirming funding of $200,000 had been allocated for this project. Programs funded under the Safer Suburbs Program seek to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour by funding community safety initiatives.

 

The funding of the above mentioned activities will assist Council in delivering strategies and programs under Council’s Community Safety initiatives that address the priority issue of harassment and antisocial behaviour. The funding also supports safety and public space related strategies within Council’s Youth Action Plan.

 

Council officers currently await the receipt of further correspondence from the Attorney General’s Department inviting the submission of a detailed project proposal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Community Safety Grant Funding be received.

2.     Council accept the grant funding from the NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General, CPTED Graffiti Hotspot Program, in the amount of $103,833.

3.     Council accept the grant funding under the Federal Government’s, Safer Suburbs Program, in the amount of $200,000.

4.     Council write to the NSW Attorney General expressing appreciation of the funding offer.

5.     Council write to the Federal Minister for Home Affairs/Minister for Justice expressing appreciation of the funding offer.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

14      Fire Safety Report

 

 



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

A Vibrant City

 

 

 

14

Fire Safety Report   

 

Compiled by:               Craig Squires, Acting Building Compliance Coordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We build on our strengths, value our heritage, celebrate our cultural diversity, and foster creativity

Community Outcome

A City with design excellence that respects our local identity (22)

Strategic Response

Promote good design, sustainable buildings, and development that enhances our City (22.1)

        

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of reports from the New South Wales Fire Brigade concerning fire safety issues at four properties in the Penrith Local Government Area.  The Brigade inspects sites as part of their duties either routinely or on request. The premises were inspected following complaints received, details of the complainants were not provided.

 

The items reported by the Brigade have been referred to Council for our determination.  Section 121ZD of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires the matters resulting from an inspection of the Brigade be tabled to a Council meeting.

 

Most of the issues raised by the Brigade at these four properties were of a minor nature and have been addressed by the owners of the premises. Some issues may take longer to resolve and will require fire safety orders.

 

This report recommends Council continue to monitor these four premises as part of its Fire Safety Audit Program with a view to ensure essential fire safety measures are being maintained in the buildings. It is also recommended Council advise the Brigade of its decision.

Statutory Process

The fire safety upgrading provisions are contained in Orders 6, 8, 10 and 11 of Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act).  This report relates to such a circumstance where the Brigade have advised Council of fire safety issues and requested Council to determine the matter.

 

Under Section 118L of the Act, the Brigade can inspect any premises of shared accommodation or any other premises when requested by the Council, a person who is the owner, lessee or occupier of the building or when they receive a complaint in writing.  In most instances, the inspection is initiated by a complaint and in these circumstances the complainant is rarely disclosed to Council.

 

 

When a Council receives advice from the Brigade that they have inspected a premises under Section 118L of the Act, Council must table any report and recommendations it receives to a meeting of the Council and determine whether or not it will exercise its powers under the Act to give an Order to rectify the situation.  Council must also give notice of its determination to the Commissioner of the New South Wales Fire Brigade.

 

The details of the Brigades and Council inspections are summarised in the following Table:

 

Address of Premises

NSW Fire Brigade Comments

Council Work Required

302 Charles Hackett Drive, St Marys

Owner: Woolworths

Blocked access to hydrant

Nil, Hydrant readily accessible, plan of management in place to keep hydrant accessible at all times. This premises is included on Council’s Fire Safety Audit Program.

411 Great Western Highway, St Marys

Owner: St Marys Band Club

Fire indicator panel hidden behind promotional material, Staff unaware of emergency procedures, Fire indicator panel in fault, No keys to premises

Nil, fire indicator panel is now visible. The Brigade have indicated that emergency procedures are adequate, no faults showing on fire indicator panel, security on site to allow brigade entry at any time. This premises is included on Council’s Fire Safety Audit Program.

351 High Street, Penrith

Owner: Australian Arms Hotel

The fire indicator was faulty, Fire Safety Schedule and Annual Fire Safety Statement not displayed, exit signs not illuminated, travel distances on the second storey of the premises do not comply with the BCA, emergency lighting and exit signage not provided to second storey of the premises, floor/ceiling separating the 2 stories do not appear to comply with the BCA

A Fire Safety Audit of the building has been conducted and as a result, a Notice of Intention has been served to upgrade the premises to an acceptable level of fire safety.

2/120 Mulgoa Road, Penrith

Owner: Planloc Pty Ltd

Excess storage of combustible materials such as cardboard and paper near LPG cylinders.

Inspection revealed combustible material removed, 2 exits signs were not illuminated, this will be followed up with a Notice Of Intention if not rectified.

Conclusion

All fire safety issues identified by the Brigade and Council will need to be addressed by the owner of the premises. In this regard, it is recommended Council continue to monitor these premises as part of its Fire Safety Audit Program.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Fire Safety Report be received

2.     Council continue to monitor the four premises as part of its Fire Safety Audit Program with a view to ensure essential fire safety measures are being maintained in the buildings

3.     Council advise the Brigade of its decision

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday February 28 2011

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                        1

 

2        Commercial Matter - Property Great Western Highway, St Marys 

 

3        Council Property - Lease of Shop 5, Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to existing Tenants, Stuart & Tammie Plevey

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

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 Leading City

 

2        Commercial Matter - Property Great Western Highway, St Marys 

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.

 

3        Council Property - Lease of Shop 5, Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to existing Tenants, Stuart & Tammie Plevey

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 28 February 2011

Delivery Program:     

Issue:                            Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

Report Title:                Code of Conduct - Mayor Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Attachments:               Conduct Review Committee Report

                                      Mayoral Response to Conduct Review Committee Report

                                      Letter from the Mayor



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

Attachment 1 - Conduct Review Committee Report

 

 

 
































































Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

Attachment 2 - Mayoral Response to Conduct Review Committee Report

 

 

 

RESPONSES BY COUNCILLOR KEVIN CRAMERI, OAM, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PENRITH, TO 23 COMPLAINTS MADE ON 9 NOVEMBER 2010 AND 11 NOVEMBER 2010 BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE PENRITH TRADE DELEGATION TO CHINA, SOUTH KOREA AND JAPAN IN THE PERIOD 14 OCTOBER 2010 AND 3 NOVEMBER 2010 IN RELATION TO WHICH BREACHES OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT ARE SAID TO HAVE OCCURRED

 

COMPLAINT No. 1

 

Our hosts had previously been made aware that I have certain dietary restrictions.  Consequently, and as politely as I could, I would ask the interpreters to find out what the food was and what it contained.  I then ate what I could and assured the interpreters that I had had sufficient and I would not starve.  I also told the interpreters to assure our hosts and waiters/waitresses that I meant no offence if I did not eat a particular course, or did not finish my meals.  Other people put their food in front of me to look good.

 

Whenever the hosts or anyone else wanted to have a photograph of me taken with the interpreters and/or waiting staff, or anyone else, I always co-operated.  I saw no offence in my shaking hands with people and I saw no offence in putting my arms around the shoulder or waists of people in the photograph with me.

 

I did not ask for photographs to be taken, it was not my camera and I do not know whose camera it was or who took the photograph.

 

I do not believe our hosts ever took offence because of my dietary requirements.  I do not believe my conduct amounted to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 2

 

It was my belief that the task of the delegation was to meet and interact with as many people as possible.  Consequently and following the official or formal business of the delegation, I would circulate around the room talking to as many people as possible.  The only way to do this, of course, was for me to have the assistance of interpreters, young or older as the case may be.  I spoke to people of all ages and sex.

 

Similarly, the leader or leaders among our hosts were also engaging in discussions with all members of the delegation and others who were present at the functions.  I do not consider my behaviour, following the end of the formal part of any function, constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 3

 

No breach. 

 

I don’t send text messages.  I did look at one.  The hosts were looking at their phones and taking calls.  GM was beside me and didn’t notice.

 

COMPLAINT No. 4

 

I do not concede that I “repeatedly” took women’s hands into my own to compare sizes.  I do have very large hands and I agree that whenever men and women remarked about their size, I did compare their hand with mine.  I cannot recall rubbing their hands and I see no purpose in doing so.  I normally, however, shake hands using both my hands (Bob Hawke style) whether the other person is a man or woman.  There is no offence in doing so and, ultimately, one of the purposes of the delegation as I understood it, was an exchange of cultures, ours’ and our hosts’.  I felt that looking and behaving like an “Asianised” Australian was a very artificial and sterile way of interfacing cultures.

 

As far as the museum visit is concerned, I agree that after the official function I asked if I could visit the museum so that I could learn more about the local history.  I did not prevent any one of the other delegates from coming.  I was accompanied by an interpreter and by the museum’s curator and I found the visit to be very rewarding.

 

I do not specifically recall my asking the interpreter if she had an unmarried sister in Australia, nor do I recall the context of the conversation we were having.  In any event, I certainly meant no offence to the interpreter and, subject to her opinion, I do not believe that she took offence.

 

I do not believe that any part of my conduct, as reported by the witnesses, in all the circumstances constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

I only compared hands when it became the subject of discussion.


 

COMPLAINT No. 5

 

It is possible that I may have remarked that a young woman wearing shorts and tights on a stairway ahead of us, would have felt cold.  The fact is that, in the Northern Hemisphere, November is a cold month and that it was rather cold that day and all of us were dressed accordingly.

 

My remark simply related to the young woman apparently not being warmly enough dressed.  The remark was in English, I did not request it to be translated, nor do I believe it to have been translated.  My remark was a statement of fact and was not and could not in any way, have been construed as a sexual remark.

 

I do not believe my remark constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

The remark was only made to Australians in private discussion.

 

COMPLAINT No. 6

 

No breach. 

 

I used my lanyard to get into the German exhibit because we had a German with us and there was a 90 minute wait.

 

COMPLAINT No. 7

 

No breach. 

 

I handed out my business cards to some boys at the village and to some men and women.

 

COMPLAINT No. 8

 

I deny that I “repeatedly” pointed out Asian women who did not have small busts.

 

In response to the witness’ remark to me that she was unable to purchase clothing because Asian women have small busts, I may have drawn her attention to 3 or 4 ladies with larger busts to reassure her that she may be able to find something to fit her.

 

In any event, my remarks were made privately to the delegate concerned and not to anyone else and were totally in context with the delegate’s own concerns for her personal clothing.

 

I deny that my behaviour in such circumstances constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 9

 

I do not recall “holding and caressing hands” of waitresses and interpreters at the formal dinner on 15 October 2010.  Waitresses and interpreters have to do their jobs and I find it impossible to believe that they would interrupt their work, especially during a formal dinner, just to have their photographs taken with me or anyone else.  In any case, I did not ask for my photograph to be taken with waitresses and interpreters, although I am aware that members of the delegation took photographs, including the interpreters.  Some of the photographs I was able to obtain are attached.

 

It is normal for me, and for everyone, in a photograph with others, to put arms around each other.  That’s what happened and I do not believe anyone at that time, or any other time, took offence.

 

I deny that my behaviour constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 10

 

I deny that I “took the initiative” in holding the interpreter’s hands during the Great Wall Walk.  It was, in fact, the two interpreters that took my hands to help me along, probably in deference to my age and my white hair.  I took it as a joke and went along with the offered assistance in a joking way.  In any event, the incident was very short and did not last more than 30 seconds.  To my knowledge, no-one took offence at the “holding of hands” and I certainly did not.

 

I do not believe that the incident constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct. 

 

See witness 7 statement – how can it be a breach?


COMPLAINT No. 11

 

I do not recall attempting to hold the hand of one of the lady delegates during the Great Wall Walk.  I recall saying something like “don’t hold my hand then”, but it may well have been in the context of my offering assistance to that lady while going down steps.

 

I deny that my offer of assistance to that lady, whether refused or not, amounts to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 12

 

I recall that, in the bus on our way back from the visit to the Great Wall, there was a good deal of good humour and joking all round.  In that context, and jokingly, I did say to the Australian interpreter to come to my room.  I do not recall any mention of “a threesome” but if I made a reference to have a threesome, then it was still in the context of sharing jokes.

 

The interpreter certainly took no umbrage at the jesting conversation but I recall that other delegates drew my attention to the fact that my words may have been misinterpreted.

 

I then expressed my apologies to the interpreter who assured me that she had taken no offence whatsoever.

 

I believe that my words were taken out of context and were not regarded by the interpreter as an offence.

 

I deny that my words, in their then context, constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct. 

 

See witness 1 statement

 

COMPLAINT No. 13

 

No breach. 

 

There were people with me all the time, I was never alone.

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT No. 14

 

I do recall several people asking me to have their photographs taken with me, both women and men, at the Shanghai Expo.  I did not refuse so as not to give any offence and I did hand out my card.  I recall that one member of the public also wanted a photograph of her mother and grandmother taken with me.

 

I do not deny that I had put my arm around the person being photographed with me.  That action may be regarded by some as a “cuddle” but I regard it as a friendly gesture towards the person who wants to be photographed with me.  I did not experience any rejection and certainly no offence was taken, as smiles and handshakes confirmed.

 

I do not recall saying to the witness that I should have put on my card my room number and the hotel we were staying at, or that we should follow the women or meet them later.  If I did, I said those words in jest with that single witness.  If I had repeatedly said it, someone else would have heard it. 

 

I deny that my behaviour constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

I left after 10 – 15 photos to stay with our group. 

 

COMPLAINT No. 15

 

No breach.

 

I never ever wrote on the back of business cards and they are printed on both sides.

 

COMPLAINT No. 16

 

I do not recall specifically saying to the witness at the Swiss Hotel that I can “still pull the birds”.  If I did say those words to the witness, it was very likely a joking remark because of the number of ladies that wanted to have their photograph taken with me, a tall, old, white haired man who happened to be leading the delegation and who always had a smile on his face and appeared friendly.

 

It seems that, apart from the particular witness I supposedly joked with, no-one took offence at my words, if I said them.

 

I deny that my words constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 17

 

No breach.

 

COMPLAINT No. 18

 

No breach.

 

COMPLAINT No. 19

 

No breach. 

 

Vice Mayor, Jin Naibing,  I believe she was a doctor, compared my hands and we spoke of many differences between the races.

 

COMPLAINT No. 20

 

No breach.

 

COMPLAINT No. 21

 

I have absolutely no recollection of toasting the interpreter, Kimmy, at the official meeting on 22 October 2010.  I do recall toasting, in my capacity of leader of the delegation, the Mayor of Gangseo Council and many other people.

 

And, if I did in fact toast the interpreter, Kimmy, it was done in context which I do not recall.

 

The incident was not brought to my attention by anybody other than the witness.

 

I deny that an incident which I cannot recall constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 22

 

My discussions with the Mayors of the cities we visited focussed on many issues including the structure of payments to city officials.  I informed the host Mayors about our system and both the hosts and I benefitted from that exchange.

 

The extensive responses given to me and the number of questions asked of me was a clear indication of the fact that not only no offence was taken by our hosts but that they welcomed the exchange of information and that was part of the delegation’s purpose.

 

I deny that my discussions and questions constituted a breach by me of the Code of Conduct.  We had also spoken about this in Australia.

 

Witness 1 statement

 

COMPLAINT No. 23

 

I did develop a friendship with the 35 years old interpreter, Mei Hi.  I spent a good deal of time in cars during the Korean visit and Mei Hi sat next to me as I was the leader together with another male member of the delegation.

 

I conversed with her during our travelling and indeed, the other member of the delegation joined in from time to time.  The conversation covered a wide range of topics including our families, work, hobbies and so on.  We all considered her a very efficient and helpful interpreter and I treated her accordingly.

 

I think I did show Mei Hi a few dance steps after the Matildas soccer match because she said she wanted to learn how to dance but I don’t remember the sequence of events that led to that, except we waited nearly one hour to get in.

 

There was never any impropriety attached to my friendship with Mei Hi and we parted friends with my shaking hands with her and kissing her on the cheek.  I did not ask her for any of her personal details nor was I given any.

 

I deny that my friendship with Mei Hi constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

She was appointed to be my interpreter and assistant for the visit and was at my side at all times.

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT No. 24

 

I do recall that the delegation returned to the hotel after the Matildas soccer game to get ready to go to the official function but I do not recall the incident referred to by the witnesses, as I was on flu and arthritis medication at the time.  I do recall that we all went out together to the function.

 

Even if Mei Hi was sitting on a bed in my room and I had given her chocolates while other delegates were present and with my door open, that does not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

We all went up together and came down together.  Door was open all the time.  Witness 1 & 6 statements.  We were only there five minutes because they were waiting for us to come back.

 

COMPLAINT No. 25

 

My comment to the Mayor of Gangseo was, as I recall, in the context of a “drinking competition” during the function.  It was a fun thing initiated by the Mayor of Gangseo and referred to the fact that one of our lady delegates seemed to really get into the spirit of it.  That led me to remark to the Mayor of Gangseo, in jest, that “our women drink better than you”.  No-one was offended other than the witness.  They were cheering her and so were we.  She took the toasting to them to save our men who were copping a hiding.

 

I deny that my remark was a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 26

 

No breach. 

 

If you look at the photo, there were about 20 people to squeeze into a narrow space.

 

COMPLAINT No. 27

 

No breach. 

 

I sat at the rear and to the side, out of sight of the hosts, purposely to avoid embarrassment.

 

COMPLAINT No. 28

 

I recall the incident.  We were preparing for the tea ceremony at Furusato-kan and 3 or 4 Japanese women were dressing all of us in Kimonos.  The questions I asked were in the context of the type and number of clothing items required by men and women to be dressed in Kimonos and it was explained to me by those women that even a lot of Japanese women need assistance to get a Kimono on.  I only recall that the Japanese women were middle aged.  I consider the questions I asked to have been legitimate and no-one was offended other than the witness.

 

These women were with us the next day, one taught English (which is why I spoke with her) and she wanted Australian strine to compare with American strine and we talked a lot that day.  She sought me out to talk about it and was certainly not offended.

 

I deny that the questions I raised, in their context, constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 29

 

All I can recall of the incident on 26 October 2010 was that the lady delegates were taking a long time to get dressed up and I tried to get them to hurry up because the men delegates also had to get dressed up in the same dressing room.  My remarks were not offensive and I did not “peek”.

 

I recall that the dressing room had louvered doors and one could not, obviously, see inside.

 

I deny that my behaviour, in its context, constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 30

 

It is possible that at the tea ceremony on 26 October 2010, I may have said the alleged words to the two male delegates sitting on either side of me.  I was puzzled, in fact, as to how we could go to the toilet without removing some or all of the kimono dressing.

 

The remarks I made were private and addressed to the two male delegates next to me.  They were not meant to be overheard by the witness and no-one else heard them.  There was no comment by the men.

 

I deny that my private remarks, legitimate in any event, constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct. 

 

COMPLAINT No. 31

 

The comment I made was totally in the context of the Melbourne Cup and how people attending it behave, and what some women wore or did not wear, at the event.  There was, as I recall, vigorous comment and debate on the issue and it appears that only one witness was upset by my remarks which are borne out by the movie ‘Kenny’ and the media coverage each year.

 

In its then context, my remarks, factually true, do not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 32

 

All I recall of the incident is that the waitress serving us could not speak English and the four or five of us who were at the table were having extreme difficulty in getting through to her.  In order to tone down the increasing frustration, I jokingly said something to the effect that it was OK, she was just having a blonde day.

 

We had to point to pictures and indicate how many of each we wanted and she was having a lot of problems.  There were only 5 Aussies and no interpreter.  This was not at official function, so why is it a breach?

 

It was not my intention to be disrespectful to the waitress and in any event, she did not understand what I was saying nor were my words translated to her.

 

I deny that my remarks, made in jest and aimed at settling down my fellow delegates, constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 33

 

No breach. 

 

These two women were middle aged, between 40 – 50.  These women were with us the next day, one taught English (which is why I spoke with her) and she wanted Australian strine to compare with American strine and we talked a lot that day.  She sought me out to talk about it and was certainly not offended.

 

COMPLAINT No. 34

 

No breach. 

 

This is the only photo request by me.  Each also had a photo taken on their camera as a group and each with me separately.  They gave me a present for my wife.  The Committee failed to put this information in the report.

 

COMPLAINT No. 35

 

I recall the incident.  I also recall that it was quite cold in Hakone on 1 November 2010 but that I was trying to comfort and warm up the woman from our delegation, in all good faith.  When she rudely told me to keep away from her, I apologised and kept away from her for the rest of our trip.

 

I deny that I ever touched the witness’ bottom on that occasion or at any other time.

 

I deny that my gesture of friendship towards the witness and my effort to make her feel comfortable, constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

COMPLAINT No. 36

 

No breach.  

 

Another vexatious complaint by witness 13.

 

COMPLAINT No. 37

 

I do recall that after the formal dinner at the “Turning Japanese Exhibition” on 2 November 2010, I was called out by our 30 year old

Japanese interpreter to the corner where her handbag was.  I went to her and she presented me with a mounted photograph of me and the Mayor of Fujieda taken earlier that morning.  I thanked her for it and went back to the dinner table where I continued to talk to the Mayor, still with the interpreter’s assistance, and other guests.

 

There were no chairs and we were standing not sitting.

 

I probably did express my appreciation to the interpreter for her kind gesture and assistance in the words alleged but she certainly took no offence.  I do not believe that our hosts were offended in any way.  I deny ever touching anyone’s bottom at any time.

 

I deny that my behaviour with the Japanese interpreter was a breach of the Code of Conduct. 

 

COMPLAINT No. 38

 

No breach. 

 

The Committee did not acknowledge an email from the interpreter stating that the Mayor had told her to stay with me.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

Attachment 3 - Letter from the Mayor

 

 

 

 



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 28 February 2011

Delivery Program:     

Issue:                            Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

Report Title:                Summary of Investments for Period 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2011

Attachments:               Summary of Investments - January 2011



Ordinary Meeting

28 February 2011

Attachment 1 - Summary of Investments - January 2011

 

 

 




 


 

ATTACHMENT       

 

 

 


Date of Meeting: 

 

Delivery Program:       A Leading City   

 

Program:                      Corporate Finance

 

Report Title:                 2009-2010 Voted Works