23 April 2012

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 23 April 2012 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

Barry Husking

Acting General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM - 16 April 2012 to 11 May 2012 inclusive.

Councillor Kath Presdee - 22 April 2012 to 27 April 2012 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 11 April 2012.

 

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 - 2 April 2012.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 16 April 2012.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 23 April 2012

 

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
Greg Davies
East Ward

 

Senior Governance Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                          

                
          

 
   


B&WHORIZ2012 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2012 - December 2012

(adopted by Council on 21 November 2011)

 

 

 

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

 

6

5

 

 

 

9

20#@

3ü

15∞

5

10

(7.00pm)

 

20#@

26

23v

21#

25*

23

 

24^\

(7.00pm)

 

19#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

 

 

 

7

4

2

13

 

 

 

3

 

13

19

16

 

 

30

 

 

8

12

 

Operational Plan Public Forum

 

6.00pm

 

 

 

 

Wed

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 v

Meeting at which the Draft Operational Plan for 2012-2013 is endorsed for exhibition

 *

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2012-2013 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 2011-2012 Annual Statements are presented

 

Meeting at which any comments on the 2011-2012 Annual Statements are presented

\

The opportunity may be taken to move this meeting to the 17 September 2012, should the election result be declared early.

 

The Ordinary Council Election will be held on 8 September 2012

-            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 Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON WEDNESDAY 11 APRIL 2012 AT 7:38PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Senior Governance Officer.

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillors Kaylene Allison, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Prue Guillaume, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

 

APOLOGIES

77  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Mark Davies that apologies be received from Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Tanya Davies, Marko Malkoc and Robert Ardill.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 26 March 2012

78  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 26 March 2012 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

79  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Standing Orders be suspended to allow a member of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:42 pm.

 

 

 

 

Ms Suzie Wright

 

Item 1 - Jordan Springs Development Proposals DA11/0514, DA11/0515, DA11/0516 and DA11/0517 Lot 1127 DP1158660 (formerly Lot 1036 DP1149525) (No. 1070 - 1170) The Northern Road, Jordan Springs (formerly Llandilo)

 

Ms Wright, representing The Greens, spoke against the recommendation.  Ms Wright stated that the consultant’s report did not address the issues that had been raised by the Land and Environment Court.  Ms Wright also expressed the view that a qualified, independent ecological consultant should have undertaken the assessment of the development applications the subject of this report.

 

80  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that an extension of time be granted to enable the speaker to complete their address, the time being 7:49 pm.

 

Ms Wright concluded by stating that issues of public interest were not being taken into account, including the Cumberland Plain being destroyed by growth centres and that the vegetation buffer zone along creeks in the subject area was insufficient, resulting in the area not being fauna friendly.  Ms Wright requested that the development application be set aside and that an independent ecological assessment of the application be undertaken.

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

81  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:53 pm.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        Suburban Jobs Program                                                                                                   

82  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the Suburban Jobs Program be received.

2.     Council endorse participation in a consortium with the University of Western Sydney and the Penrith Business Alliance in making application to the Australian Government’s Suburban Jobs Program for funding to develop employment space on University land at Werrington.

3.     Council express its appreciation to the University of Western Sydney and the Penrith Business Alliance for their initiative and leadership in preparing the application to the Australian Government’s Suburban Jobs Program.

 

 

 

1        Jordan Springs Development Proposals DA11/0514, DA11/0515, DA11/0516 and DA11/0517 Lot 1127 DP1158660 (formerly Lot 1036 DP1149525) (No. 1070 - 1170) The Northern Road, Jordan Springs (formerly Llandilo) Applicant: Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner: St Marys Land Ltd                                                            

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Jordan Springs Development Proposals DA11/0514, DA11/0515, DA11/0516 and DA11/0517 Lot 1127 DP1158660 (formerly Lot 1036 DP1149525) (No. 1070 - 1170) The Northern Road, Jordan Springs (formerly Llandilo) be received.

2.    Development Application DA11/0514 for Subdivision of the Western Precinct, St Marys Release Area (Jordan Springs) – Lot 1127 DP1158660 (formerly Lot 1036 DP1149525), (Nos. 1070 - 1170) The Northern Road, Llandilo be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

2.1     A001        Approved plans

A005        Integrated approval authority’s consent

A042        Asset protection zones in bush fire areas

A044        Compliance with NSW Rural Fire Service GTAs

A046        Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B004        Dust

B005        Mud/soil

C003        Uncovering relics

D001        Sediment and erosion control measures

D002        Spray grass

D005        No filling without prior approval

D06A       Validation of fill material

D009        Covering of waste storage area

D010        Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D013        Traffic noise and acoustic report

D014        Plant and equipment noise

G001        Installation of services and service clearances

G002        Section 73

G004        Integral Energy clearance

H01F       Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002        Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of construction works

H012        Site classification

H041        Hours of construction work

K101        Works at no cost to Council

K201        Sediment and Erosion Control

K202        Roads Act

K205        CC for Subdivision Works

K206        Road Design Criteria Table

K207        Road Safety Audit

K213        Water Quality

K224        Inter-allotment Drainage

K225        Bus Stops

K301        Sediment & Erosion Control - Installation

K304        Matters to addressed prior to commencement of Subdivision Works

K401        Erosion and Sediment Control

K404        Services - Underground

K405        Street Lighting

K406        Drainage Connection

K407        Major Filling

K408        Soil Testing - Subdivisions

K503        Stormwater Compliance

K504        Restriction to User and Positive Covenant

K507        Line marking & Signage

K510        Street Signs

K511        Bond for Final Wearing Course

K513        Maintenance Bond

K514        Subdivision Compliance Documentation

L001        Approved landscaping plans

L002        Landscaping construction

L003        Landscaping report requirements

L005        Planting of plant material

L006        Australian Standard landscaping requirements

L007        Tree protection measures

L008        Tree Preservation Order

L009        Tree preservation order

M001       Prior to subdivision work

M007       Street lighting

M008       Linen plan

M009       88B Instrument

M011       Soil testing

M013       Street trees

M014       Surveyors Certificate

P001        Costs

P002        Fees associated with Council land

Q001        Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q008        Subdivision Certificate

 

2.2     The following aspect in relation to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTPED) principles should incorporated into the development:

 

Lighting

·    All street lighting shall be designed in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy, and in accordance with Integral Energy standards and requirements.

·    All pedestrian and cycle networks and bus stops shall be well lit in accordance with the abovementioned standards.

·    Lighting should take into account all vegetation and landscaping that may act as an entrapment spot or obscure the effectiveness of the lighting.

·    Lighting should be consistent in order to reduce the contrast between shadows and illuminated areas.

·    Lighting should have a wide beam of illumination, which reaches the beam of the next light, or the perimeter of the site or area being traversed.

 

Landscaping

·    Street Tree planting and planting along pedestrian / cycle pathways should promote passive surveillance and clear lines of sight. Any trees should have a high canopy so as not to provide concealment opportunities. Dense shrubs and heavy undergrowth should be avoided along the pathways.

·    The pedestrian / cycle pathways will be marked and signposted to clearly delineate which portion of the pathway should be used by pedestrians, and which should be used by cyclists.

·    Trees within public reserve areas must also have a high canopy and minimal undergrowth to enable passive surveillance, promote clear lines of sight and reduce entrapment spots. Dense shrubs must be avoided.

 

Village Park

·    DA 11/0514 for the Stage 2A subdivision indicates that the layout of Village Park ensures that opposite/adjoining buildings overlook it. This is supported as this will enable increased casual surveillance of these areas.

 

2.3     The soil salinity management measures outlined within the Western Precinct Plan must be implemented during construction.  The measures and recommendations outlined by Geotech Testing Pty Ltd in their correspondence dated 8 March 2010 (Ref: 7508/23-AA Final Revised) are also to be adopted and implemented as a part of the development.

 

2.4     The development shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Western Precinct Contamination Management Plan and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Western Precinct.

 

25      Dust suppression techniques are to be employed during construction to reduce any potential nuisances to surrounding properties.

 

2.6     All soil material stockpiled for future use on the site is to be stored in such a manner so as to minimise dust.

 

2.7     Corner lots need to be designed to ensure that the driveway is located a minimum of 6 metres from the tangent point of the intersection to comply with the Australian Standards 2890.

 

2.8     All sites are to be benched in the subdivision to limit cut and fill to be minimal on the site and negate the need for retaining walls.

 

2.9     Those proposed lots will zero allotments need to be identified in the 88B instrument. The lots need to be benched to ensure that no earthworks are required within the easement so that access for maintenance is not hindered by varying ground level. Alternatively, the dwellings need to be designed with dropped edge beams to contain the cut and fill and ensure that the easement remains at a natural ground level after the construction of a dwelling at zero allotment.

 

2.10   All RMS (formerly the RTA) conditions are to be applied received from the SRDAC reference ID 09M1255v10-11, ID 09M1255 v6-9 and ID 09M1255 vol 2 –SYD09/00603.

 

2.11   Pedestrian, bus and cycle facilities are to be consistent with the Development Control Strategy.

 

2.12   All bicycle path construction is to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the RMS (formerly the RTA) NSW Bicycle Guidelines and AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14 Bicycles.

 

2.13   The conditions outlined in the Bush Fire Safety Authority issued by the NSW Rural   Fire Services dated 22 June 2011, shall be incorporated into the development where applicable.

 

2.14   All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to the Roads & Maritime Services (formerly the RTA).

 

2.15   Temporary on-site detention and erosion and sediment control basins shall be provided generally on accordance with the concept plans lodged for the development approval prepared by J Wyndham Prince, reference number 9111, sheets DA0 – DA16, revision B, dated 17/05/2011.

 

Engineering plans and supporting calculations for the on-site detention system are to be prepared by a qualified Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer and shall accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

An operation and maintenance manual shall be approved by the Certifying Authority as part of the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the on-site detention system has been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

 

2.16   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control shall be submitted to Penrith City Council.

 

2.17   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the design of the roundabout at the intersection of Road No’s 8 & 25 complies with Austroads guidelines.  The roundabout is to incorporate pedestrian refuge facilities and bicycle crossing facilities.  The provision of irrigation and drainage for landscaping is also to be incorporated.

 

2.18   Structural design certification by a suitably qualified engineer – NPER (Structural) of the bridge structure shall accompany any construction certificates issued for civil works.

 

2.19   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate detailed plans of the proposed culvert structure on Road No 8 are to be submitted to Penrith City Council.

 

2.20   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works relating to the utility service lead in works within public road reserves have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

 

2.21   Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate street trees are to be planted in accordance with the street tree plan numbered WP V2a STP Issue C dated 06/05/2011.

 

Prior to the planting of street trees, the street tree plan, plant species and location are to be approved by Penrith City Council.  In this regard, please contact Council’s Development Services Unit on 4732 7777.

 

2.22   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the ultimate signalised treatment of the intersection of The Northern Road / Jordan Springs Boulevard (refer to RTA correspondence reference ID 09M1255 Vol 2 – SYD09/00603 dated 12 May 2011) is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

2.23   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the timing for the delivery of the proposed traffic signals at the intersection of Road No’s 8, 20 & 21 is to be formally agreed to by Penrith City Council.  Any interim intersection arrangement is to be approved by the Local Traffic Committee.

 

2.24   The temporary on-site detention system and erosion and sediment control system shall be maintained by the person with the benefit of the development consent until development runoff is diverted into the ultimate water quality / detention system and the temporary system has been decommissioned.  A minimum 12 month maintenance period will apply to the ultimate water quality / detention system when completed.

 

2.25   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Planning Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended.

 

2.26   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Development Agreement. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Development Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Development Agreement, as amended. The provision of affordable housing lots shall be made to the Centre for Affordable Housing in accordance with Clause 17 of the Development Agreement.

 

2.27   An arborist report relating to the trees proposed to be retained shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.  The arborist report shall include consideration of the proposed extent of cut and fill works to confirm whether the trees can be retained on the site.  The report should also specify tree protection measures to ensure that the trees proposed for retention have the best possible chance of surviving the proposed works.  

 

2.28   The existing tree schedule (attached to the Tree Plan) provided with this application is to be updated to include justification to substantiate the proposed removal of all trees.  These further details must be submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. 

 

2.29   No remnant vegetation shall be removed from the land to be dedicated as Open Space without the prior approval of Penrith City Council

 

3.    Development Application DA11/0515 for Subdivision of the Western Precinct, St Marys Release Area (Jordan Springs) – Lot 1127 DP1158660 (formerly Lot 1036 DP1149525), (Nos. 1070 - 1170) The Northern Road, Llandilo be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

3.1     A001        Approved plans

A005        Integrated approval authority’s consent

A042        Asset protection zones in bush fire areas

A044        Compliance with NSW Rural Fire Service GTAs

A046        Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B004        Dust

B005        Mud/soil

C003        Uncovering relics

D001        Sediment and erosion control measures

D002        Spray grass

D005        No filling without prior approval

D06A       Validation of fill material

D009        Covering of waste storage area

D010        Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D013        Traffic noise and acoustic report

D014        Plant and equipment noise

G001        Installation of services and service clearances

G002        Section 73

G004        Integral Energy clearance

H01F       Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002        Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of construction works

H012        Site classification

H041        Hours of construction work

K101        Works at no cost to Council

K201        Sediment and erosion control

K202        Roads Act

K205        CC for Subdivision Works

K206        Road design criteria table

K207        Road Safety Audit

K213        Water quality

K224        Inter-allotment drainage

K225        Bus stops

K301        Sediment and erosion control - installation

K304        Matters to be addressed prior to commencement of subdivision works

K401        Erosion and sediment control – during construction

K404        Services - underground

K405        Street lighting

K406        Drainage connection

K407        Major filling

K408        Soil testing

K503        Stormwater compliance

K504        Restriction as to user and positive covenant

K507        Line marking and signage 

K510        Street signs

K511        Bond for final wearing course

K513        Maintenance bond

K514        Subdivision compliance documentation

L001        Approved landscaping plans

L002        Landscaping construction

L003        Landscaping report requirements

L005        Planting of plant material

L006        Australian Standard landscaping requirements

L007        Tree protection measures

L008        Tree Preservation Order

L009        Tree preservation order

M001       Prior to subdivision work

M007       Street lighting

M008       Linen plan

M009       88B Instrument

M011       Soil testing

M013       Street trees

M014       Surveyors Certificate

P001        Costs

P002        Fees associated with Council land

Q001        Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q008        Subdivision Certificate

 

3.2     The following aspect in relation to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTPED) principles should incorporated into the development:

 

Lighting

·    All street lighting shall be designed in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy, and in accordance with Integral Energy standards and requirements.

·    All pedestrian and cycle networks and bus stops shall be well lit in accordance with the abovementioned standards.

·    Lighting should take into account all vegetation and landscaping that may act as an entrapment spot or obscure the effectiveness of the lighting.

·    Lighting should be consistent in order to reduce the contrast between shadows and illuminated areas.

·    Lighting should have a wide beam of illumination, which reaches the beam of the next light, or the perimeter of the site or area being traversed.

 

Landscaping

·    Street Tree planting and planting along pedestrian / cycle pathways should promote passive surveillance and clear lines of sight. Any trees should have a high canopy so as not to provide concealment opportunities. Dense shrubs and heavy undergrowth should be avoided along the pathways.

·    The pedestrian / cycle pathways will be marked and signposted to clearly delineate which portion of the pathway should be used by pedestrians, and which should be used by cyclists.

·    Trees within public reserve areas must also have a high canopy and minimal undergrowth to enable passive surveillance, promote clear lines of sight and reduce entrapment spots. Dense shrubs must be avoided.

 

3.3     The soil salinity management measures outlined within the Western Precinct Plan must be implemented during construction.  The measures and recommendations outlined by Geotech Testing Pty Ltd in their correspondence dated 8 March 2010 (Ref: 7508/23-AA Final Revised) are also to be adopted and implemented as a part of the development.

 

3.4     The development shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Western Precinct Contamination Management Plan and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Western Precinct.

 

3.5     Dust suppression techniques are to be employed during construction to reduce any potential nuisances to surrounding properties.

 

3.6     All soil material stockpiled for future use on the site is to be stored in such a manner so as to minimise dust.

 

3.7     No work associated with this development is to be undertaken in the vicinity of the existing bitumen road located in the south east of the site until such time as an EPA Accredited Site Auditor has issued a Site Audit Statement for the area, it has been deemed suitable for its intended use, and the Site Audit Statement has been submitted to Council.

 

3.8     Corner lots need to be designed to ensure that the driveway is located a minimum of 6 metres from the tangent point of the intersection to comply with the Australian Standards 2890.

 

3.9     All sites are to be benched in the subdivision to limit cut and fill to be minimal on the site and negate the need for retaining walls.

 

3.10   Those proposed lots will zero allotments need to be identified in the 88b instrument. The lots need to be benched to ensure that no earthworks are required within the easement so that access for maintenance is not hindered by varying ground level. Alternatively, the dwellings need to be designed with dropped edge beams to contain the cut and fill and ensure that the easement remains at a natural ground level after the construction of a dwelling at zero allotment.

 

3.11   All RMS (formerly the RTA)  conditions are to be applied received from the SRDAC reference ID 09M1255v10-11, ID 09M1255 v6-9 and ID 09M1255 vol 2 –SYD09/00603.

 

3.12   Pedestrian, bus and cycle facilities are to be consistent with the Development Control Strategy.

 

3.13   All bicycle path construction is to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the RMS’ (formerly the RTA)  NSW Bicycle Guidelines and AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14 Bicycles.

 

3.14   The conditions outlined in the Bush Fire Safety Authority issued by the NSW Rural   Fire Services dated 22 June 2011, shall be incorporated into the development where applicable.

 

3.15   All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to the Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

3.16   Temporary on-site detention and erosion and sediment control basins shall be provided generally on accordance with the concept plans lodged for the development approval prepared by J Wyndham Prince, reference number 9111, sheets DA20 – DA27, revision E, dated 17/05/2011.

 

Engineering plans and supporting calculations for the on-site detention system are to be prepared by a qualified Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer and shall accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

An operation and maintenance manual shall be approved by the Certifying Authority as part of the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the on-site detention system has been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

 

3.17   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control shall be submitted to Penrith City Council.

 

3.18   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works relating to the utility service lead in works within public road reserves have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

 

3.19   Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate street trees are to be planted in accordance with the street tree plan numbered WP V2b STP Issue C dated 19/05/2011.

 

Prior to the planting of street trees, the street tree plan, plant species and location are to be approved by Penrith City Council.  In this regard, please contact Council’s Development Services Unit on 4732 7777.

 

3.20   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate all subdivision works in Village 2A are to be completed to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

3.21   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the ultimate signalised treatment of the intersection of The Northern Road / Jordan Springs Boulevard (refer to RTA correspondence reference ID 09M1255 Vol 2 – SYD09/00603 dated 12 May 2011) is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

3.22   The temporary on-site detention system and erosion and sediment control system shall be maintained by the person with the benefit of the development consent until development runoff is diverted into the ultimate water quality / detention system and the temporary system has been decommissioned.  A minimum 12 month maintenance period will apply to the ultimate water quality / detention system when completed.

 

3.23   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Planning Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended.

 

3.24   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Development Agreement. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Development Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Development Agreement, as amended. The provision of affordable housing lots shall be made to the Centre for Affordable Housing in accordance with Clause 17 of the Development Agreement.

 

3.25   An arborist report relating to the trees proposed to be retained shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.  The arborist report shall include consideration of the proposed extent of cut and fill works to confirm whether the trees can be retained on the site.  The report should also specify tree protection measures to ensure that the trees proposed for retention have the best possible chance of surviving the proposed works.  

 

3.26   The proposed street tree planting plan is to be revised to incorporate an informal street tree arrangement.  Details are to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. 

 

3.27   The existing tree schedule (attached to the Tree Plan) provided with this application is to be updated to include justification to substantiate the proposed removal of all trees.  These further details must be submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. 

 

3.28  No remnant vegetation shall be removed from the land to be dedicated  as Open Space without the prior approval of Penrith City Council

 

 

4.    Development Application DA11/0516 for Subdivision of the Western Precinct, St Marys Release Area (Jordan Springs) – Lot 1127 DP1158660 (formerly Lot 1036 DP1149525), (Nos. 1070 - 1170) The Northern Road, Llandilo be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

4.1     A001        Approved plans

A005        Integrated approval authority’s consent

A042        Asset protection zones in bush fire areas

A044        Compliance with NSW Rural Fire Service GTAs

A046        Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B004        Dust

B005        Mud/soil

C003        Uncovering relics

D001        Sediment and erosion control measures

D002        Spray grass

D005        No filling without prior approval

D06A       Validation of fill material

D009        Covering of waste storage area

D010        Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D013        Traffic noise and acoustic report

D014        Plant and equipment noise

G001        Installation of services and service clearances

G002        Section 73

G004        Integral Energy clearance

H01F       Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002        Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of construction works

H012        Site classification

H041        Hours of construction work

K101        Works at no cost to Council

K201        Sediment and erosion control

K202        Roads Act

K205        CC for subdivision works

K206        Road design criteria table

K207        Road safety audit

K213        Water quality

K224        Inter-allotment drainage

K225        Bus stops

K301        Sediment and erosion control - installation

K304        Matters to be addressed prior to commencement of subdivision works

K401        Erosion and sediment control – during construction

K404        Services - underground

K405        Street lighting

K406        Drainage connection

K407        Major filling

K408        Soil testing

K503        Stormwater compliance    

K504        Restriction to user and positive covenant

K507        Line marking and signage

K510        Street signs

K511        Bond for final wearing course

K513        Maintenance bond

K514        Subdivision compliance documentation

L001        Approved landscaping plans

L002        Landscaping construction

L003        Landscaping report requirements

L005        Planting of plant material

L006        Australian Standard landscaping requirements

L007        Tree protection measures

L008        Tree Preservation Order

L009        Tree preservation order

M001       Prior to subdivision work

M007       Street lighting

M008       Linen plan

M009       88B Instrument

M011       Soil testing

M013       Street trees

M014       Surveyors Certificate

P001        Costs

P002        Fees associated with Council land

Q001        Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q008        Subdivision Certificate

 

4.2     The following aspect in relation to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTPED) principles should incorporated into the development:

 

Lighting

·    All street lighting shall be designed in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy, and in accordance with Integral Energy standards and requirements.

·    All pedestrian and cycle networks and bus stops shall be well lit in accordance with the abovementioned standards.

·    Lighting should take into account all vegetation and landscaping that may act as an entrapment spot or obscure the effectiveness of the lighting.

·    Lighting should be consistent in order to reduce the contrast between shadows and illuminated areas.

·    Lighting should have a wide beam of illumination, which reaches the beam of the next light, or the perimeter of the site or area being traversed.

 

Landscaping

·    Street Tree planting and planting along pedestrian / cycle pathways should promote passive surveillance and clear lines of sight. Any trees should have a high canopy so as not to provide concealment opportunities. Dense shrubs and heavy undergrowth should be avoided along the pathways.

·    The pedestrian / cycle pathways will be marked and signposted to clearly delineate which portion of the pathway should be used by pedestrians, and which should be used by cyclists.

·    Trees within public reserve areas must also have a high canopy and minimal undergrowth to enable passive surveillance, promote clear lines of sight and reduce entrapment spots. Dense shrubs must be avoided.

 

4.3     The soil salinity management measures outlined within the Western Precinct Plan must be implemented during construction.  The measures and recommendations outlined by Geotech Testing Pty Ltd in their correspondence dated 8 March 2010 (Ref: 7508/23-AA Final Revised) are also to be adopted and implemented as a part of the development.

 

4.4     The development shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Western Precinct Contamination Management Plan and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Western Precinct.

 

4.5     Dust suppression techniques are to be employed during construction to reduce any potential nuisances to surrounding properties.

 

4.6     All soil material stockpiled for future use on the site is to be stored in such a manner so as to minimise dust.

 

4.7     No work associated with this development is to be undertaken in the vicinity of the existing bitumen road located in the south east of the site until such time as an EPA Accredited Site Auditor has issued a Site Audit Statement for the area, it has been deemed suitable for its intended use, and the Site Audit Statement has been submitted to Council.

 

4.8     Corner lots need to be designed to ensure that the driveway is located a minimum of 6 metres from the tangent point of the intersection to comply with the Australian Standards 2890.

 

4.9     All sites are to be benched in the subdivision to limit cut and fill to be minimal on the site and negate the need for retaining walls.

 

4.10   Those proposed lots will zero allotments need to be identified in the 88b instrument. The lots need to be benched to ensure that no earthworks are required within the easement so that access for maintenance is not hindered by varying ground level. Alternatively, the dwellings need to be designed with dropped edge beams to contain the cut and fill and ensure that the easement remains at a natural ground level after the construction of a dwelling at zero allotment.

 

4.11   All RMS (formerly the RTA) conditions are to be applied received from the SRDAC reference ID 09M1255v10-11, ID 09M1255 v6-9 and ID 09M1255 vol 2 –SYD09/00603.

 

4.12   Pedestrian, bus and cycle facilities are to be consistent with the Development Control Strategy.

 

4.13   All bicycle path construction is to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the RMS’ (formerly the RTA) NSW Bicycle Guidelines and AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14 Bicycles.

 

4.14   The conditions outlined in the Bush Fire Safety Authority issued by the NSW Rural   Fire Services dated 22 June 2011, shall be incorporated into the development where applicable.

 

4.15   All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to the Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

4.16   Temporary on-site detention and erosion and sediment control basins shall be provided generally on accordance with the concept plans lodged for the development approval prepared by J Wyndham Prince, reference number 9111, sheets DA40 – DA48, revision F, dated 17/05/2011.

 

Engineering plans and supporting calculations for the on-site detention system are to be prepared by a qualified Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer and shall accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

An operation and maintenance manual shall be approved by the Certifying Authority as part of the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the on-site detention system has been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

 

4.17   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control shall be submitted to Penrith City Council.

 

4.18   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works relating to the utility service lead in works within public road reserves have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

 

4.19   Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate street trees are to be planted in accordance with the street tree plan numbered WP V2c STP Issue D dated 20/05/2011.

 

Prior to the planting of street trees, the street tree plan, plant species and location are to be approved by Penrith City Council.  In this regard, please contact Council’s Development Services Unit on 4732 7777.

 

4.20   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate all subdivision works in Village 2A &2B are to be completed to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

4.21   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the ultimate signalised treatment of the intersection of The Northern Road / Jordan Springs Boulevard (refer to RTA correspondence reference ID 09M1255 Vol 2 – SYD09/00603 dated 12 May 2011) is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

4.22   The temporary on-site detention system and erosion and sediment control system shall be maintained by the person with the benefit of the development consent until development runoff is diverted into the ultimate water quality / detention system and the temporary system has been decommissioned.  A minimum 12 month maintenance period will apply to the ultimate water quality / detention system when completed.

 

4.23   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Planning Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended.

 

4.24   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Development Agreement. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Development Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Development Agreement, as amended. The provision of affordable housing lots shall be made to the Centre for Affordable Housing in accordance with Clause 17 of the Development Agreement.

 

4.25   An arborist report relating to the trees proposed to be retained shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.  The arborist report shall include consideration of the proposed extent of cut and fill works to confirm whether the trees can be retained on the site.  The report should also specify tree protection measures to ensure that the trees proposed for retention have the best possible chance of surviving the proposed works. 

 

4.26   The proposed street tree planting plan is to be revised to incorporate an informal street tree arrangement.  Details are to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. 

 

4.27   The existing tree schedule (attached to the Tree Plan) provided with this application is to be updated to include justification to substantiate the proposed removal of all trees.  These further details must be submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. 

 

4.28  No remnant vegetation shall be removed from the land to be dedicated  as Open Space without the prior approval of Penrith City Council

 

5.    Development Application DA11/0517 for Subdivision of the Western Precinct, St Marys Release Area (Jordan Springs) – Lot 1127 DP1158660 (formerly Lot 1036 DP1149525), (Nos. 1070 - 1170) The Northern Road, Llandilo be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

5.1     A001        Approved plans

A005        Integrated approval authority’s consent

A042        Asset protection zones in bush fire areas

A044        Compliance with NSW Rural Fire Service GTAs

A046        Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B004        Dust

B005        Mud/soil

C003        Uncovering relics

D001        Sediment and erosion control measures

D002        Spray grass

D005        No filling without prior approval

D06A       Validation of fill material

D009        Covering of waste storage area

D010        Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D013        Traffic noise and acoustic report

D014        Plant and equipment noise

G001        Installation of services and service clearances

G002        Section 73

G004        Integral Energy clearance

H01F       Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002        Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of construction works

H012        Site classification

H041        Hours of construction work

K101        Works at no cost to Council

K201        Sediment and erosion control

K202        Roads Act

K205        CC for subdivision works

K206        Road design criteria

K207        Road safety audit

K213        Water quality

K224        Inter-allotment drainage

K225        Bus stops

K301        Sediment and erosion control - installation

K304        Matters to be addressed prior to commencement of subdivision works

K401        Erosion and sediment control – during construction

K404        Services - underground

K405        Street lighting

K406        Drainage connection

K407        Major filling

K408        Soil testing

K503        Stormwater compliance

K504        Restriction to user and positive covenant

K507        Line marking and signage

K510        Street signs

K511        Bond for wearing course

K513        Maintenance bond

K514        Subdivision compliance documentation

L001        Approved landscaping plans

L002        Landscaping construction

L003        Landscaping report requirements

L005        Planting of plant material

L006        Australian Standard landscaping requirements

L007        Tree protection measures

L008        Tree Preservation Order

L009        Tree preservation order

M001       Prior to subdivision work

M007       Street lighting

M008       Linen plan

M009       88B Instrument

M011       Soil testing

M013       Street trees

M014       Surveyors Certificate

P001        Costs

P002        Fees associated with Council land

Q001        Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q008        Subdivision Certificate

 

5.2     The following aspect in relation to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTPED) principles should incorporated into the development:

 

Lighting

·    All street lighting shall be designed in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy, and in accordance with Integral Energy standards and requirements.

·    All pedestrian and cycle networks and bus stops shall be well lit in accordance with the abovementioned standards.

·    Lighting should take into account all vegetation and landscaping that may act as an entrapment spot or obscure the effectiveness of the lighting.

·    Lighting should be consistent in order to reduce the contrast between shadows and illuminated areas.

·    Lighting should have a wide beam of illumination, which reaches the beam of the next light, or the perimeter of the site or area being traversed.

 

Landscaping

·    Street Tree planting and planting along pedestrian / cycle pathways should promote passive surveillance and clear lines of sight. Any trees should have a high canopy so as not to provide concealment opportunities. Dense shrubs and heavy undergrowth should be avoided along the pathways.

·    The pedestrian / cycle pathways will be marked and signposted to clearly delineate which portion of the pathway should be used by pedestrians, and which should be used by cyclists.

·    Trees within public reserve areas must also have a high canopy and minimal undergrowth to enable passive surveillance, promote clear lines of sight and reduce entrapment spots. Dense shrubs must be avoided.

 

5.3     The soil salinity management measures outlined within the Western Precinct Plan must be implemented during construction.  The measures and recommendations outlined by Geotech Testing Pty Ltd in their correspondence dated 8 March 2010 (Ref: 7508/23-AA Final Revised) are also to be adopted and implemented as a part of the development.

 

5.4     The development shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Western Precinct Contamination Management Plan and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Western Precinct.

 

5.5     Dust suppression techniques are to be employed during construction to reduce any potential nuisances to surrounding properties.

 

5.6     All soil material stockpiled for future use on the site is to be stored in such a manner so as to minimise dust.

 

5.7     Corner lots need to be designed to ensure that the driveway is located a minimum of 6 metres from the tangent point of the intersection to comply with the Australian Standards 2890.

 

5.8     All sites are to be benched in the subdivision to limit cut and fill to be minimal on the site and negate the need for retaining walls.

 

5.9     Those proposed lots will zero allotments need to be identified in the 88b instrument. The lots need to be benched to ensure that no earthworks are required within the easement so that access for maintenance is not hindered by varying ground level. Alternatively, the dwellings need to be designed with dropped edge beams to contain the cut and fill and ensure that the easement remains at a natural ground level after the construction of a dwelling at zero allotment.

 

5.10   All RMS (formerly the RTA) conditions are to be applied received from the SRDAC reference ID 09M1255v10-11, ID 09M1255 v6-9 and ID 09M1255 vol 2 –SYD09/00603.

 

5.11   Pedestrian, bus and cycle facilities are to be consistent with the Development Control Strategy.

 

5.12   All bicycle path construction is to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the RMS’ (formerly the RTA) NSW Bicycle Guidelines and AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14 Bicycles.

 

5.13   The conditions outlined in the Bush Fire Safety Authority issued by the NSW Rural   Fire Services dated 22 June 2011, shall be incorporated into the development where applicable.

 

5.14   All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to the Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

5.15   Temporary on-site detention and erosion and sediment control basins shall be provided generally on accordance with the concept plans lodged for the development approval prepared by J Wyndham Prince, reference number 9111, sheets DA50 – DA56, revision B, dated 17/05/2011.

 

Engineering plans and supporting calculations for the on-site detention system are to be prepared by a qualified Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer and shall accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

An operation and maintenance manual shall be approved by the Certifying Authority as part of the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the on-site detention system has been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

 

5.16   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control shall be submitted to Penrith City Council.

 

5.17   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works relating to the utility service lead in works within public road reserves have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

 

5.18   Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate street trees are to be planted in accordance with the street tree plan numbered WP V2d STP Issue B dated 20/05/2011.

 

Prior to the planting of street trees, the street tree plan, plant species and location are to be approved by Penrith City Council.  In this regard, please contact Council’s Development Services Unit on 4732 7777.

 

5.19   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate all subdivision works in Village 2A are to be completed to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

5.20   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the ultimate signalised treatment of the intersection of The Northern Road / Jordan Springs Boulevard (refer to RTA correspondence reference ID 09M1255 Vol 2 – SYD09/00603 dated 12 May 2011) is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Roads & Traffic Authority.

 

5.21   The temporary on-site detention system and erosion and sediment control system shall be maintained by the person with the benefit of the development consent until development runoff is diverted into the ultimate water quality / detention system and the temporary system has been decommissioned.  A minimum 12 month maintenance period will apply to the ultimate water quality / detention system when completed.

 

5.22   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Planning Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended.

 

5.23   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Development Agreement. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Development Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Development Agreement, as amended. The provision of affordable housing lots shall be made to the Centre for Affordable Housing in accordance with Clause 17 of the Development Agreement.

 

5.24   An arborist report relating to the trees proposed to be retained shall be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.  The arborist report shall include consideration of the proposed extent of cut and fill works to confirm whether the trees can be retained on the site.  The report should also specify tree protection measures to ensure that the trees proposed for retention have the best possible chance of surviving the proposed works.  

 

5.25   The existing tree schedule (attached to the Tree Plan) provided with this application is to be updated to include justification to substantiate the proposed removal of all trees.  These further details must be submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. 

 

5.26   No remnant vegetation shall be removed from the land to be dedicated as Open Space without the prior approval of Penrith City Council.

 

6.     Those who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

 

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 Kevin Crameri OAM

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

 

 

A Liveable City

 

Councillor Kath Presdee left the meeting, the time being 8:11 pm.

 

 

3        Tender Reference 11/12-12 - Roof Replacement and Rectification at Ripples Aquatic Centre                                                                                                                                 

84  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11/12-12 - Roof Replacement and Rectification at Ripples Aquatic Centre be received.

2.     A contract be entered into between Bermagui Constructions Pty Ltd and Penrith City Council for the roof replacement and rectification works at Ripples Aquatic Centre for a sum of $1,636,892.05 (ex GST).

 

 REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Cranebrook Road, Cranebrook - Speed Zone                                                      

Councillor John Thain requested that the Local Traffic Committee investigate and report on the possibility of providing 50 kph signs and ‘No U Turn’ signs along Cranebrook Road in the vicinity of Cranebrook Park.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee returned to the meeting, the time being 8:13 pm.

 

RR 2          Forrester Road, North St Marys - Traffic Signs                                                   

Councillor John Thain requested that the Local Traffic Committee investigate and report on whether a ‘No U Turn’ sign should be provided in the vicinity of Forrester Road, North St Marys to prevent traffic turning left out of Maple Street from doing u-turns at Griffith Street, causing congestion during morning peak hour.

 

RR 3          Northern Road, Llandilo                                                                                         

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that  the Local Traffic Committee investigate and report on the possibility of extending the double white lines on Seventh Avenue, Llandilo across Northern Road, further east to prevent u-turns occurring in the vicinity of the main road.

 

RR 4          Rural Fencing                                                                                                           

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report to Council concerning rural fencing, in particular fencing surrounding houses in rural areas.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:15 pm.

 



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


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        2012 Australian Small Business Champion Awards

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Leading City

Mayoral Minute

2012 Australian Small Business Champion Awards

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

           

 

Over the weekend I attended the 2012 Australian Small Business Champions Awards to support the 16 Penrith City businesses who were finalists this year.

 

The Australian Small Business Champion Awards is a prestigious and comprehensive program that supports and recognises small businesses across Australia.

 

A large number of entries were received from across Australia and out of these, 16 businesses from Penrith City were selected as finalists in a number of different categories. Their nominations reflect their hard work, the contribution of their business in generating employment and their contribution to the economic development of our local community.

I’d like to congratulate the following small business finalists: 

·    Tax Today, Penrith

·    Petrinas Family Day Care, Cranebrook

·    Connect Fitness, Kingswood

·    Advantage Psychology, St Marys

·    Kingswood Smash Repairs, Kingswood  

·    Rejuven8 Penrith Cosmetic Clinic, Penrith

·    James' Interior House Care, Penrith

·    Go Bananas,  St Marys  

·    White River Design, Penrith

·    Property Central, Penrith

·    Sittano's Bar & Restaurant, Penrith

·    Stain Busters, Penrith

·    Wild Ride Australia, Colyton

 

I’d also like to congratulate the three local businesses who won the award for their category:

·    Winner in the Automotive Services category - Production Automotive, Penrith

·    Winner in the Recruitment Services category - Complete Recruitment Solutions, Penrith

·    Winner in the Services category - Nepean Regional Security, Penrith

 

In addition, Production Automotive, Nepean Regional Security and Complete Recruitment Solutions were nominated in the Small Business Champion Entrepreneurs Category.

 

Nepean Regional Security and Complete Recruitment Solutions were also nominated in the Business Growth Champion Category.

 

Melinda from Production Automotive, Gina from Nepean Regional Security and Linda from Complete Recruitment Solutions are all here tonight and I’d like to congratulate them on their awards.


The Australian Small Business Champion Awards are the pinnacle of business success. Each finalist and winner will have the opportunity to promote their achievement through a number of different marketing and promotional channels, to enhance their reputation and further develop their business.

 

Again, I’d like to congratulate all the small businesses nominated this year and thank the owners and their employees for their ongoing contribution to the development of our region.

 

Councillor Greg Davies

Mayor

 

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on 2012 Australian Small Business Champion Awards be received.

 

 

  


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 April 2012

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 16 April 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Liveable City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 2 April, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, Constable Bill Pearson – Penrith Police, Michael Kayello – Roads and Maritime Services, Mark Holmes – representative for the Member for Mulgoa, Wayne Mitchell – Group Manager City Infrastructure, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co-ordinator, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer, Jacob Strong – Trainee Engineer, Emma Lawton – Trainee Engineer.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

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

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, James Suprain – Roads and Maritime Services.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 5 March 2012

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 5 March 2012 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Bradley Street, Glenmore Park - Approval of Signs & Linemarking Plan                  

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bradley Street, Glenmore Park - Approval of Signs & Linemarking Plan be received.

2.     The signage and linemarking plans prepared by J Wyndham Prince for Bradley Street, Glenmore Park (Plan Nos. 8949/CC5 B dated 17/09/10, 8949/CC15 E dated 04/05/11, 8949/CC18 C dated 24/03/11, 8949/CC23 B, dated 17/09/10) be endorsed for construction.

3.     J Wyndham Prince be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

2        Main Street, Jordan Springs - Approval of Sign & Linemarking Plan                        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Main Street, Jordan Springs - Approval of Sign & Linemarking Plan be received.

2.     The signage and linemarking plan prepared by J Wyndham Prince for Main Street, Jordan Springs (Plan No. 8634CC276 B, dated 20/12/11) be endorsed for construction.

3.     J Wyndham Prince be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

3        Jeanette Street, Regentville - Provision of Parking Restrictions for Emergency & Authorised (Council & Rural Fire Service) Vehicles Only                                            

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Jeanette Street, Regentville - Provision of Parking Restrictions for Emergency & Authorised (Council & Rural Fire Service) Vehicles Only be received.

2.     “No Parking – Emergency and Authorised Vehicles Exempt” be implemented for a distance of approximately 45m, from the western side of the driveway of the Fire Control Office to the eastern side of the first driveway of the community centre.

3.     The NSW Rural Fire Service, and the residents opposite, be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

4        Hope Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of "No Stopping" Restrictions                  

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Hope Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of "No Stopping" Restrictions be received.

2.     “No Stopping” restrictions be implemented for a distance of 20m on the northern and southern sides of Hope Street, Penrith, immediately east of Colless Street, and continue for a distance of 10m on the eastern side of Colless Street, Penrith, both immediately north and south of Hope Street.

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

 

 

 

 

 

5        Installation of School Zone Flashing Lights - Various Sites across the Local Government Area                                                                                                                                    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Installation of School Zone Flashing Lights - Various Sites across the Local Government Area be received.

2.     Council note the information.

3.     The Principals of The Lakes Christian College, St Pauls Grammar School, Chifley College Dunheved Campus, St Clair Public School, Jamison High School and York Primary School be advised of the proposed installation of the flashing lights in the School Zones by the Roads and Maritime Services.

 

 

6        Parker Street & Barber Avenue, Kingswood - Pedestrian Safety                                

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Parker Street & Barber Avenue, Kingswood - Pedestrian Safety be received.

2.     Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services and provide “in principle” support for the provision of central median pedestrian fencing along Parker Street, between Great Western Highway and Derby Street, Penrith, and request that funding be allocated to these works by the Roads and Maritime Services as a priority.

3.     Council write to both Nepean Hospital and Nepean Private Hospital providing them with an update on this matter.

 

 

7        Woodriff Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of "No Stopping" Restrictions in Temporary Car Park                                                                                                                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Woodriff Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of "No Stopping" Restrictions in Temporary Car Park be received.

2.     “No Stopping” restrictions be provided in the blind aisle and the turning space at the northern end of the temporary car park on Woodriff Street, Penrith, between Judges Place and the Penrith Bowling & Recreation Club.

 

 

 

 

8        Seventh Avenue, Llandilo - Proposed Provision of Linemarking                                 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Seventh Avenue, Llandilo - Proposed Provision of Linemarking be received.

2.     Double-barrier (BB) linemarking be provided for a total distance of 20m at the crest, immediately east of the driveway to house number 235 Seventh Avenue, Llandilo.

3.     Divided-barrier (BS) linemarking be provided immediately east and west of the double-barrier linemarking for a distance of 145m in each direction.

4.     Separation (S1) linemarking be provided immediately west of the divided‑barrier linemarking, to connect to the existing separation line approximately 130m west and immediately east of the divided-barrier linemarking for a distance of 65m.

 

 

9        Bel-Air Road, Penrith - Traffic Calming Devices                                                           

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bel-Air Road, Penrith - Traffic Calming Devices be received.

2.     Design Plan AB 165 Rev A (dated 23/3/12) for installation of three Watts Profile speed humps be finalised and endorsed for construction.

3.     Residents who made submissions be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

10      High Street, Penrith - Design Plan Endorsement for Blister Island Treatment fronting Penrith Public School                                                                                                        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on High Street, Penrith - Design Plan Endorsement for Blister Island Treatment fronting Penrith Public School be received.

2.     Design Plan AH120 be endorsed for construction under the 2011/2012 Urgent Local Traffic Committee Facilities budget, subject to final approval from the Roads and Maritime Services.

3.     Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services advising of Council’s resolution and associated timeframes for implementation, and request the subsequent signalised upgrade to be programmed as a matter of priority.

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB1    Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park - Proposed Provision of Linemarking & Signage at Pedestrian Refuge (Raised Council)

 

Council officers have received a request from a resident to investigate pedestrian safety at an existing pedestrian refuge in Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park.  Glengarry Drive is a local 50km/h road that runs north-south from Glenmore Parkway.  The road width is approximately 9m wide with two 4.5m wide travel lanes.  The subject pedestrian refuge is located adjacent to house number 16 Glengarry Drive and currently consists of a refuge facility, u-hold rails with internal chevron boards, 20m of “No Stopping” restrictions on the western side of the road only, and pedestrian refuge warning signage on both the northbound and southbound approaches approximately 25m from the refuge.

 

Site investigations at this location were undertaken by Council officers to assess any impact on pedestrian safety, including an assessment of sight distances at the crossing point.  It was determined that all current sight distances comply with required standards and, in addition, an analysis of the most recent five-year crash data available to Council (2006 to 2010 inclusive) revealed no accidents at this location.

 

Whilst on site, however, Council officers have identified works that can be undertaken to contemporise the pedestrian refuge to comply as far as possible with current Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Technical Directions.  This has the potential to further improve pedestrian safety and vehicle awareness in this location.

 

In this regard, it is proposed to provide 30m of painted chevron linemarking, on both the northbound and southbound approach to the pedestrian refuge.  It is further proposed to provide “No Stopping” restrictions for a distance of 30m for the length of the painted chevron linemarking, on both the eastern and western sides of the road.  The existing pedestrian refuge warning signage is proposed to be moved to 95m prior to the refuge on both the southbound and northbound approaches, and upgraded to fluorescent reflective signage.  In addition, existing pedestrian fencing on the western side of the road and the chevron boards internal to the u-hold rails, which both have the potential to obstruct pedestrian visibility, will be removed.

 

Due to the nature of the road environment and the long period of time that the refuge island has been in place in the existing residential area, it is proposed not to provide double-barrier linemarking as described in the RMS Technical Direction, as this would have a major impact upon existing on-street parking.  This would ensure that the balance between pedestrian safety and residential parking is maintained.  In addition, it ensures that buses are able to pick up and set down at the existing “Bus Stop” on the western side of Glengarry Drive approximately 45m from the refuge island.

 

Parking in front of properties at the subject location will be affected due to the narrow carriageway width (9m) and, as such, public consultation is necessary.  The public consultation process will involve a mail-out to those properties located within the extent of the proposed linemarking and signage scheme.

 

 

 

Whilst conducting site inspections Council officers also noticed vehicles corner cutting when turning into Coolabah Crescent and Brigadoon Avenue from Glengarry Drive.  As a proactive measure, it is proposed to provide 10m of double-barrier linemarking in both Coolabah Crescent and Brigadoon Avenue to encourage motorists not to cut the corners at these intersections.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That:

 

1.     Consultation be conducted with affected residents and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

2.     Subject to no substantial objections, 30m of painted chevron linemarking be provided on both the northbound and southbound approaches to the pedestrian refuge adjacent to 16 Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections, “No Stopping” restrictions be provided to correspond with the end of the painted chevron linemarking at both the north and south approaches to the pedestrian refuge on Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park, on both the eastern and western sides of the road.

4.     Existing pedestrian refuge warning signage be moved to 95m prior to the pedestrian refuge on Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park on both the southbound and northbound approaches, and be upgraded to new fluorescent reflective signage.

5.     10m of double-barrier (BB) lines be provided in Coolabah Crescent and Brigadoon Avenue from their intersections with Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park.

 

GB 2          Pyramid Street, Emu Plains – Speeding Vehicles  (Raised Penrith Police)

The Penrith Police representative raised concerns regarding vehicles speeding in Pyramid Street and cutting the corner at the intersection of Pyramid Street and Mundy Street, Emu Plains.  Police advised that Lidar enforcement at this location is difficult due to the road alignment.  The Police representative requested that Council undertake speed surveys in Pyramid Street.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   Council investigate the matter.

2.   Council write to Penrith Police advising the results of the speed surveys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GB 3          Bennett Road & Desborough Road, Colyton – Traffic Safety  (Raised Representative for the Member for Mulgoa)

The representative for the Member for Mulgoa raised concerns on behalf of the Principal of Bennett Road Public School, regarding traffic safety in Bennett and Desborough Roads, Colyton.  Further details are to be provided.

RECOMMENDED That Council investigate the matter.

 

GB 4          Adelaide Street, Oxley Park – Traffic and Parking Issues  (Raised Representative for the Member for Mulgoa)                                                                                                              

The representative for the Member for Mulgoa raised concerns on behalf of residents regarding parking issues in Adelaide Street, Oxley Park, outside Oxley Park Public School.  Parents dropping off and picking up children at the School are parking across and near residential driveways and blocking access.

LTC Comment

St Marys Police advised that they would patrol the area and conduct enforcement as required.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   Council note the information.

2.   Mrs Tanya Davies MP, Member for Mulgoa be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

GB 5          Park Road, Wallacia – Heavy Vehicles  (Raised Representative for the Member for Mulgoa)    

The representative for the Member for Mulgoa raised concerns on behalf of residents regarding the number of trucks using Park Road, Wallacia to travel to the quarry.  Residents have complained about their homes being shaken by passing trucks, and about trucks using air brakes and speeding.  This problem affects approximately 30 residents in Park Road.

 

LTC Comment

 

The Committee noted that Park Road is a State Road under the control and management of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).  As such, Council will write to the RMS and request they investigate the matter further.  In addition, the Committee advised that Council had previously written to the RMS following the recent fatal accident on Park Road and requested the RMS to investigate the recommendations of the NSW Police FIRST Report, which included pavement condition.

 

Penrith Police also advised that Park Road is regularly patrolled with regard to speeding vehicles.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   Council write to the Roads and Maritime Services and request that the pavement condition on Park Road, Wallacia, be investigated.

2.   Mrs Tanya Davies MP, Member for Mulgoa be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

GB 6          Victoria Street, Werrington – Request for Provision of “Bus Stops”  (Raised Westbus)                  

The Westbus representative requested the provision of two new “Bus Stops” in Victoria Street, Werrington, outside house numbers 150 and 143.  The Westbus representative advised that this is due to the nearest “Bus Stop” being approximately 360m east in Victoria Street.

RECOMMENDED  That Council investigate the matter and provide a response to Westbus accordingly.

 

 

GB 7          Lethbridge Avenue, Werrington – Request for Provision of “Bus Stop”  (Raised Westbus)   

The Westbus representative requested the provision of one new “Bus Stop” near 117 Albert Street, Werrington (on the corner of Lethbridge Avenue and Albert Street).

RECOMMENDED  That Council investigate the matter and provide a response to Westbus accordingly.

 

 

GB 8          Manning Street, Kingswood – Request for Provision of Timed Parking Restrictions at the Manning Street Shops  (Raised Council)                                                                             

Council’s Ranger Services Co-ordinator requested the provision of 1-hour parking restrictions on the western side of the shopping centre car park in Manning Street, Kingswood.

Council’s Rangers advised that the car park is a Council-owned car park that is being monopolised by university parking which leaves no spaces for visitors and shoppers to the Manning Street shops.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     Consultation be carried out with affected shop owners and business proprietors, and any substantial objections be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

2.     Subject to no substantial objections being received, full-time one-hour parking restrictions (1P) be provided on the western side of the car park at the Manning Street shops at Kingswood.

 

 

 

GB 9          Ropes Crossing Boulevard, St Marys– Reduction in Speed Limit  (Raised Roads & Maritime Services)                                                                                                                        

The Roads and Maritime Services representative advised that the speed limit on Ropes Crossing Boulevard, St Marys (from the creek to Forrester Road) has been reduced to 50km/h.

RECOMMENDED That the Committee note the information.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 2 April, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Leading City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 16 April, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Prue Guillaume (arrived 7:09 pm), Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 16 April 2012 to 11 May 2012 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted for Councillors Ben Goldfinch, Tanya Davies and from Councillor Prue Guillaume for her late arrival.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 19 March 2012

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 19 March 2012 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

Engineering Services Manager, Adam Wilkinson introduced the report and invited Noel Child of NG Child and Associates to give a presentation.                                                                                

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan be received

2.     Council officers finalise a submission on the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan Discussion Paper and lodge it with Transport for NSW by 27 April 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

A Green City

 

3        Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad

Acting Group Manager City Presentation, Tracy Chalk introduced the report and invited RID Squad Co-ordinator, Barry Ryan to give a presentation.

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:15pm.

 

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:18pm.

 

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:20pm.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume left the meeting, the time being 8:22pm.

 

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:23pm.

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume returned to the meeting, the time being 8:26pm.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee left the meeting, the time being 8:28pm.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report and presentation on the Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad be received.

2.     Council exercise its option to extend the Western Sydney Regional Illegal (RID) Squad Strategic Alliance Agreement.

3.     A further report be brought to a future Policy Review Meeting on the cost of collection and disposal of orphan waste within the Penrith LGA.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

Councillor Kath Presdee returned to the meeting, the time being 8:34pm.

 

1        Organisational Communications Policy

Group Manager Information and Customer Relations, Brian Steffen gave a brief introduction to the report.                                                                                                                                            

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.       The information contained in the report on Organisational Communications Policy be received

2.       The Communications policy below replaces the former Media Liaison Policy:

 

i.        Any Penrith City Council related external or internal communication     that is likely to be seen by 500 or more people, including but not   limited to marketing or publicity collateral, brochures, posters,         newsletters, email and correspondence must be authorised by a           Communications Officer.

 

ii.       Only the General Manager, Mayor, a Communications Officer, or any            other officer after consultation with a Communications Officer, can                  make comments on behalf of Council to the media, including posts on            social media.

 

iii.      Communications Officers will liaise with the relevant subject matter               officers prior to providing a final response to the media and before           making a social media post.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:36pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 16 April, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Exhibition of Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan

 

2        2012 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions and Outcome of 2011 Motions

 

3        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 March to 31 March 2012

  

A Green City

 

4        Domestic Waste

 

A Liveable City

 

5        RFQ 11/12-04, Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan

 

6        Coachmans Park Improvement Project

 

7        Tender Reference 11/12-14, Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner

 

8        Grant Funding - Erksine Park High School

 

A Vibrant City

 

9        Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review Implementation - Governance Arrangements

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Exhibition of Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan

 

2        2012 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions and Outcome of 2011 Motions

 

3        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 March to 31 March 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1

Exhibition of Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan   

 

Compiled by:               Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Graham Pares, Acting Operational Plan Coordinator

Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

Authorised by:            Barry Husking, Acting 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

The development of the 2012-13 Operational Plan has reached a key milestone with the Draft being presented to Council tonight, seeking endorsement for it to be placed on Public Exhibition to seek the community’s feedback.

 

The adopted 2012-13 Operational Plan will represent the final instalment of the 2009-13 Delivery Program.  The Draft document outlines the proposed budgets, service plans, including services levels and the agreed performance measures considered necessary to deliver the outcomes of both the 2012-13 Operational Plan and the 2009-13 Delivery Program.  

 

The 2011-12 Operational Plan included an IPART approved Special Rate Variation (SRV) that in addition to funding a number of emerging priorities of the Delivery Program also ensured that the services and service levels being demanded by the community could be maintained.  The approval of this SRV has meant that a balanced budget has been delivered for 2011-12 and the development of the 2012-13 budget has been commenced from this balanced long term financial position.

 

Again this year a number of variations to the base budget are being proposed and the base budget has accommodated some new priorities, including allocating annual indexation to a number of key programs that had not previously received it.  The net result of the adjustments and allocations outlined in this report project a balanced budget position.

 

A copy of the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan will be tabled at the meeting and copies have been provided to Councillors under separate cover.  The draft Operational Plan will be placed on public exhibition from Tuesday 8 May to Monday 4 June inclusive. Submissions received will be considered in the final 2012-13 Operational Plan that will be prepared for Council’s consideration at the Ordinary Meeting on 25 June 2012.

 

 

 

 

Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan

Council’s planning framework consists of the Community Strategic Plan 2031, the four year Delivery Program 2009-13 and the four annual Operational Plans that are prepared within the operating period of the Delivery Program.  Each Operational Plan reflects the yearly ‘operations’ of Council in terms of providing more detail on the specific delivery program priorities that will be pursued through the provision of programs and services.  Each service is summarised with annual service plans, including service levels and performance measures and budgets. 

 

The Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan has been prepared in a similar manner to previous Plans, both to maintain consistency in service delivery and assist with understanding the manner in which Council will undertake the proposed work.  The format also aims to demonstrate more clearly how the service activities and tasks to be completed each year fit within the overall four year picture.  Specific detail on the format of the Plan is provided later in this report.

 

The preparation of the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan draws upon the extensive community engagement that was carried out for the preparation of the Delivery Program 2009-13, the feedback received after exhibition for each of the subsequent Operational Plans and the specific engagement activities undertaken for key decision steps such as the application for the Special Rate Variation in 2011.  Being the 4th and final Plan prepared for this Delivery Program period, it is felt that Council has a solid grasp of the key priorities of the community and agreed service standards.

 

Budget Background

Each year the Operational Planning challenge is to at least maintain existing services and similar levels of expenditure on new works and asset maintenance and, if possible, extract some surplus funds to allocate to high priority projects. Traditionally, increases in revenue have been almost totally absorbed by cost increases and the need to allocate funds to projects which simply have to be done. 

 

In recent years the financial challenges facing Council to continue to maintain the services and service levels being demanded by the community has been at the forefront of Council’s deliberations in the development of annual Operational Plans.  These challenges were compounded by a number of unfunded emerging priorities included in the 2009-13 Delivery Program.

 

In recognition of these challenges Council developed a SRV application as part of the 2011-12 Operational Plan process. The community was extensively consulted on the SRV and the impact it would have on their rates.  While the community feedback was varied a majority support was demonstrated and the application was submitted to IPART for determination. In reviewing and ultimately approving a slightly reduced SRV, IPART commented on the affordability of the increase, particularly for rural ratepayers. This issue has been considered by Councillors during the development of the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan. While it is proposed that the current rating structure is continued into 2012-13 this report details the process of the review of rural rating undertaken and the opportunities explored.

 

The approved SRV, as intended, addresses Council’s long term financial sustainability and provides funding for maintaining services and service levels, essential asset renewal programs, enhanced services and key CBD renewal and improvements to ensure that Council continues to affirm its position as a Regional City.

 

The 2011-12 Operational Plan continues to be closely monitored and a projected surplus position was reported to Council in the December 2011 Review.  The development of the  Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan commenced from this strong footing, with the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) continuing to forecast small surpluses into the future.

 

Operational Plan Format

The Draft Operational Plan consists of 2 parts:

 

Part A - Operational Plan – Service Plans, Budget & Revenue Policy and Statutory Statements

·          Budget and  Revenue Policy

 

This section of Part A follows on from the Service Plans. It sets out Council’s financial intentions for 2012-13. The Budget & Revenue Policy documents include:

o    A Funding Summary for 2012-13

o    Graphs showing where the money will come from and where it will be spent

o    The basis for Council’s Rates and Domestic Waste Charges for 2012-13

o    Long Term Funding projections (and assumptions)

o    Reserve Movements

o    A detailed listing of Capital and Operating Projects (sorted by Service titles)

o    The current status about and the future plans relating to the Special Initiative Programs.

 

·          Service Plans

The largest portion of Part A is devoted to the annual “Service Plans” for each of Council’s specified services. There are 47 identified services, however only 44 draft Services Plans are provided for Council’s consideration with the Operational Plan presented tonight. The three controlled entities are governed under separate reporting requirements to Council.

 

What is a Service Plan?

 

A Service Plan is a summary Operational Plan for a single service. Each Service Plan includes:

o   Program Title - the name of the relevant program to which the service contributes

o   Service Title - the name of the service. (Note that the Service Plans are ordered, based on the alphabetically sort of Service titles A to Z)

o   Responsible Officer - normally the Manager position responsible for delivering this service

o   Service Description -  summarises what the service has been established to deliver

o   Service levels - provides a measure of service performance and the effectiveness of the service delivery

o   Service Budget - the planned operational budget provided for the service, detailing planned operating expenditure, capital expenditure and the revenue expected to be generated by the service

o   Activities and tasks - annual deliverables from the service including priorities established in the Delivery Program

 

Part B - Operational Plan - Fees and Charges

This part provides full details of Council fees and charges proposed for 2012-13.

 

Budget & Revenue Policy, Service Plans and Statutory Statements

The Budget, Revenue Policy, and Commentary are contained in Part A of the draft Operational Plan. The areas with significant changes compared to 2011-12 are discussed within the commentary of the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan and include employee costs, electricity and street lighting, loan repayments, rating income, interest income, financial assistance grant and development related income.

 

The draft budget is summarised below:

 

BUDGET- FUNDING SUMMARY

2011-12

Original

$’000

2012-13

Proposed

$’000

Expenditure

Capital Works

39,932

36,138

Other Funded Expenses

151,147

162,434

Total Expenditure

191,079

198,572

Income

Rates

78,470

83,640

Fees and Charges

54,777

58,557

Grants and Contributions

37,939

35,856

Other Income / Reserves

19,893

20,519

Total Income

191,079

198,572

Net Budget Position

0

0

 

Rating 

Rating Increase - IPART Announcement

From 2011-12 onwards the responsibility for determining and announcing the rate peg has been transferred from the Minister of Local Government to IPART.  Under this new regime IPART developed a Local Government Cost Index (LGCI).  This index, less a productivity coefficient, now forms the annual rate peg and accordingly an increase of 3.2% was announced for 2012-13 by IPART in December 2011.

As there will be a time lag from the introduction of the carbon price and its reflection in the LGCI, IPART has decided to make a specific carbon price related advance of 0.4% in the 2012-13 rate peg.  This advance is aimed at increasing council’s general income and assisting in meeting additional costs resulting from the introduction of the carbon price. Overall, local government costs are estimated to increase by 0.6% in 2012-13 as a result of carbon pricing.   IPART believes that councils will be able to offset 0.2% of the increased costs by accessing Federal Government Initiatives and energy efficiency schemes, resulting in a net 0.4% Carbon Price factor included in the rate peg for 2012-13.  Once the effect of the carbon price has flowed through to electricity and other prices used in the LGCI the advance will be reversed over 2 years (removal of 0.1% in 2013-14 and 0.3% in 2014/15).

 

As Council received a SRV commencing in 2011-12 to be phased in over four years (5.8%, 5.5%, 5.0% and 4.5% respectively),  the rate increase for Council is fixed to the approved SRV increase for each of these years. 

 

Council has been advised by the Division of Local Government (DLG) that for the small number of Councils, like Penrith, that have a SRV in place over the next 3 years there is an offer to take up this allowance of 0.4% for the impact of the Carbon Price. Accordingly Council has written to IPART advising that this offer will be accepted and requesting that our SRV approval be altered to reflect this change.  It is anticipated that this will amend Penrith’s approved rate increase as below:

 

 

SRV approval

Amended Approval

Change

2012-13

5.5%

5.9%

á 0.4%

2013-14

5.0%

4.9%

â 0.1%

2014-15

4.5%

4.2%

â 0.3%

 

This change will have little impact on Council’s base income from 2015-16 but does provide for an additional $606,754 to be generated over the period.  It is intended that this will enable Council to offset some of the increased costs of the carbon price.  While it does not provide for the ongoing impact of the Clean Energy Future (CEF) the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan being presented for exhibition tonight has been prepared upon the basis of accepting the additional 0.4% in 2012-13.

 

A net increase of $5.17m for rates income over the original estimate for 2011-12 has been estimated for 2012-13.  This net increase incorporates the approved IPART increase, including provisions for the additional works of the SRV, removal of the previous 2002-03 Special Rate Variation of 4.82% and an additional 0.4% allowance for the impact of the price on Carbon. After allowing for changes in yields and growth these factors result in an approximate increase of 2.2%.  Growth of $1.13m, with $186,500, being predicted growth in non-residential rates, is included in the overall increase.

 

Ordinary Rates

Each year Council must determine a rating policy for the next financial year.  The Local Government Act 1993 provides for a number of rating structures that ensure Councils have the flexibility to develop a structure that best provides equity for their Local Government Area. Council’s current structure is an ad valorem rate with a minimum amount.

 

As part of the Special Rate Variation (SRV) approval by the IPART in June 2011, Penrith City Council was encouraged to look at providing some kind of relief to rural residential ratepayers.

 

Accordingly the existing Rating Policy has been considered in some detail during the development of the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan with reports on a Rating Structure Review presented to a number of Finance Working Parties and an Operational Plan Workshop.

 

The review, and these reports, provided an analysis of the possibility and impact of introducing different rating sub-categories for Rural Residential properties.  At present, rural residential properties are charged the same rate in the dollar as other residential properties on the basis that owners of higher valued land have a higher capacity to pay land rates.

 

The review considered maintaining the current rating structure or providing a discount to rural residential properties. The options investigated to provide a rural residential discount included:

1)   Spreading the income loss due to the discount over the Residential and Farmland categories only, or

2)   Spreading the income loss due to the discount over all rating categories.

 

It was determined that a reduction in the rural residential rate, subsidised by the rest of the residential rate base, was not appropriate given the increased burden it would place on the majority of other rate payers, many with a lower capacity to pay. In addition it would also be at the same time that urban ratepayers will be subject to the Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC), a charge that is not imposed on rural residential ratepayers.

 

Therefore the extensive review has determined to continue to apply the existing rating structure, which is an ad valorem rate with a minimum amount and it is on that basis that the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan has been developed. This means that rates are based on the land value of the property determined by the NSW Valuer General.

 

Penrith City Council charges rates on three types of land categories – Residential, Business, two Business sub-categories – Penrith CBD Rate and St Marys Town Centre Rate, and Farmland. The farmland rate in the dollar for 2012-13 is 50% of the residential rate.

 

Council currently has 65,846 rateable properties contributing approximately 43% of Council’s total revenue. As reported to Council at the Policy Review Meeting of 5 December 2011 two new management entities are proposed to be established for Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre Management with funding to be provided from a continuation of business sub-category rates to fund their respective activities. A total of $334,782 will be raised from Penrith CBD and $251,155 from St Marys Town Centre for this purpose.

 

The following table incorporates the impact of the 5.5% IPART increase for 2012-13, removal of or the 2002-03 Special Rate Variation, and an additional allowance of 0.4% for the impact of the price on carbon, on the ad valorem rate, the minimum rate, and the anticipated revenue after pensioner subsidy for each rate category and sub-category.


 

Rate Category

Ad Valorem Rate in $

 

MINIMUM RATE

Total Anticipated Revenue

Number of Properties

2012-13

 

Increase

 

$

$

$’000s

Residential

0.0040902

772.15

16.55

61,449

62,192

Farmland

0.0020451

772.15

16.55

1,244

379

Business

0.0071148

988.00

21.20

15,888

2,624

Business - Penrith CBD Rate

0.0081422

988.00

21.20

2,743

415

Business - St Marys Town Centre Rate

0.0109808

988.00

21.20

749

 

236

 Total

 

 

 

82,073

65,846

Pensioner Subsidy

Council’s policy is to give eligible pensioners a pensioner subsidy.  Council’s policy provides for a 50% rebate of rates and domestic waste charges to a maximum of $250. Council will continue to lobby both State and Federal Governments for increased assistance for pensioners.

Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC)

Penrith City Council’s Enhanced Environmental Program (EEP) provided funding to enable the delivery of a number of significant environmental programs that improved our local environment through infrastructure and stormwater improvement programs.

 

With the expiry of the 2002-03 Special Rate Variation (EEP) in June 2012 other mechanisms have been explored to fund essential environmental enhancement programs and projects. The 2011-12 SRV foreshadowed the introduction and implementation of a SMSC in accordance with the DLG Stormwater Management Service Charge Guidelines as the funding mechanism for a significant number of stormwater management services. The charge only applies to urban residential and business properties. The introduction of a SMSC ensures that programs are provided to deliver a wide range of stormwater management initiatives essential to the health of the catchment and responding to community expectations. 

 

The annual charge structure being proposed has reduced the yield from residential properties to $1.1m compared to $2.3m income received under the 2002-03 SRV. This yield from residential allows for Council’s Policy to provide a full discount for eligible Pensioners from the SMSC.  To address this equity the proposal caps the total contribution by business properties to the 2011-12 yield increased by 5.5% (IPART approved increase). The proposed annual SMSC has been modelled to achieve this outcome. The table overleaf shows the number of properties subject to the proposed annual SMSC, and an estimate of the revenue generated.  The income generated will provide for a $1.2m Environmental Program and a $548,084 Urban Drainage Program.

 

 


Estimated Stormwater Management Charge Revenue

 

Stormwater Category

Annual Charge

No. of Properties

Total Charges

Urban Residential

Residential

$25.00

             38,911

$972,775

Residential (Strata)

$12.50

               7,312

$91,400

Residential (Pensioner)

Nil *

               7,589

 -

Residential (Strata - Pensioner)

Nil *

               1,019

 -

Urban Business

Business

$22.80 plus an additional $22.80 for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres

               2,887

$683,909

Total Charges

 

 

$1,748,084

*Council’s Policy has provided a full discount for eligible pensioners.

 

A full list of projects proposed to be funded, subject to Council’s endorsement of the introduction of a SMSC in 2012-13 has been included as Attachment A.  The proposed program is indicative of future years’ programs.

 

Reserves

Details of Council’s reserves are also included in Part A of the Draft Operational Plan.  These are amounts held for specific purposes.  The reserves are divided into internal reserves (set up to apply Council policy) and external reserves (required by law).  Some reserves are set up to ensure that Council’s policies with regard to a particular outcome are safeguarded, while others provide funds for a particular expressed purpose some time in the future.

 

Voted Works

Also included in the reserves is an allocation to “Voted Works”.  Council policy is that an amount of $53,000 is allocated to each of the three Wards each year.  These funds are normally applied to particular purposes of an urgent nature, in one or more of the Wards, by resolution of Council. Voted Works also provides an opportunity to allow some discretionary funding for items that arise unexpectedly during the year, and when all other funding in the annual program has been allocated.  It is Council policy that any unexpended amounts in Voted Works are revoted to the following year.

 

Section 94 Program of Works

A central feature of the Draft Plan is the inclusion of an extensive program of infrastructure works and community facilities, funded by Section 94 contributions in 2012-13. These projects are outlined below, and have been included in the Capital and Operating Projects section of Part A of the draft documents.

 

A summary of the proposed Section 94 program capital works expenditure for 2012-13 under each relevant Plan is provided below.

 

Section 94 Plan

Project

2012-13 Expenditure

$

Library Facilities

Library Resources

79,191

Erskine Business Park

Erskine Pk/Mamre Rd Intersection Upgrade Construction

4,081,514

Mt Vernon

Kerrs Rd and Mt Vernon Rd Intersection

170,000

TOTAL

 

4,330,705

 

Fees and Charges

As part of the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan process, fees and charges have been reviewed with the proposed increases in the fees set directly by Council being generally in the vicinity of the estimated CPI increase. The Draft Fees & Charges details a description of each item, the 2011-12 rate and the proposed 2012-13 rate.

 

Children’s Services fees have been incorporated into the fees and charges document at the amounts recommended by the Board of the Penrith Children’s Services Cooperative.  The fees and charges for the Controlled Entities fees are set and published by those organisations.  Fees set by regulation are included at the current rates, but are subject to change when the regulations change.

 

Included in the Fees and Charges are proposed charges for the Domestic Waste Management (DWM) for all service combinations. The standard “sustainable” 3 bin service and standard 2 bin services (rural multi unit areas) are both proposed to increase by $19 per annum to $298 to allow for increases in the waste levy and tipping costs, including an estimated impact of $10 p.a. per service for the carbon price and an increase of 15% on the Waste Levy imposed by the State Government.  Even though this represents a 7% increase, Penrith City Council’s DWM charge remains significantly below that of neighbouring Councils. The charge for the service is a reflection of the cost savings that are attributable to the introduction of the three bin system and the significant improvement in the percentage of waste diverted from landfill as a result.  The Fees and Charges section of the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan details the different service combinations. The most commonly used services and their charges for 2012-13 are summarised overleaf.


 

Domestic Waste Service

Rate per Week

$

Annual

Charge

$

Percentage Increase

(Decrease)

%

Anticipated Revenue

$

Vacant Land

0.67

34.80

16.00

46,841

Waste Management Service

Sustainable Service

5.73

298.00

6.81

13,367,088

Reduced Organics

5.23

272.00

6.67

726,512

Large Service

6.79

353.00

7.29

1,349,872

Weekly Service

7.56

393.00

7.97

1,957,926

Weekly Reduced Organics

7.06

367.00

7.94

92,851

Weekly Large

9.87

513.00

8.00

96,444

Non-Urban Residual and Multi-Unit Service

5.73

298.00

6.81

2,760,374

 

 

Overall the average increase in user fees and charges included in the draft 2012-13 Fees and Charges is 4.53%. This category of income is estimated to be $58.6m which is 34% of Council’s total estimated operating revenue for 2012-13.

 

Detailed Program Information

Further details relating to Council’s current Special Rate Variations, contributions to Controlled Entities, Reserve balances and proposed movements, and Capital and Operating Projects are provided in Part A of the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan.

 

Long Term Financial Plan

As part of the Councils Resource Strategy each council must prepare a Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) for a minimum of ten years which is to be updated at least annually as part of the development of the Operational Plan. The aim of the LTFP is to ensure that Council identifies financial issues at an early stage and reviews their effect on future activities.  The LTFP must be reviewed in detail as part of the four yearly review of the Community Strategic Plan. The LTFP process involves four main elements:

·       Planning Assumptions

·       Revenue Forecasts

·       Expenditure Forecasts

·       Sensitivity Analysis

 

The use of Council’s ten-year financial model is a key factor in meeting these reporting requirements and planning for the achievement of a sound long-term financial position for Council. The model is capable of extrapolating the current year base budget, incorporating recurrent projects, future capital projects and associated recurrent costs, debt servicing, rates projections, and has the capacity for a number of budget variables to be applied. Future years’ forecasts are linked to the Operational Plan and provide a means of assessing the long-term financial implication of current year decisions. The Model is able to hold multiple views of possible future outcomes with each view representing a particular set of assumptions and what the outcomes would be if these assumptions happen to occur.

 

Following last years SRV the LTFP projections were updated and these projections have been tested and updated during the development of the draft 2012-13 budget.

 

The planned/ base scenario the LTFP indicates a balanced or small surplus budget from 2012-13 onwards as shown on the following graph, however projections for years 8-10 of the LTFP should be considered to be less certain than those of the earlier years:

 

 

Performance Assessment and Reporting

The organisation’s performance in delivering the annual Operational Plan is reviewed, under the Local Government Act, as part of quarterly and annual reviews of the Plan.

 

Performance will be measured principally by progress towards the achievement of the tasks and projects stated in the draft Plan, as well as performance measures for on-going services provided by Council.

 

In terms of reporting, an exception report will be provided to Council as part of the normal business paper within 2 months after each quarter at an Ordinary Meeting of Council. The report will contain a summary traffic light report on all services highlighting where areas of performance may require attention or at risk of not being delivered (ie. Amber and Red traffic lights) and any variances to budget.

 

 


Changes to the Delivery Program 2009-13

 

As mentioned earlier, the Delivery Program 2009-13 sets out the tasks and activities Council will undertake over a four year period, with the Operational Plan providing a more detailed snapshot for each year. Occasionally tasks need to be changed, or timeframes modified, in response to changing circumstances. This is done through the process of preparing the Operational Plan which identifies where a task is not proceeding as expected.  A change to a task in the Operational Plan should also be endorsed as a change to the Delivery Program.

 

Timetable

Council is to consider the following timetable for the public notification, exhibition and consultation on the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan.

 

Step/Action

Dates

·    Public Exhibition and Submissions

8 May to 4 June

·    Consideration of 2012-13 Operational Plan for adoption

Ordinary Meeting

Monday 25 June

Public Consultation

Section 405(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 states that Council must give public notice of its draft Operational Plan and that the period of Public Exhibition “must not be less than 28 days”. Subject to Council’s adoption of the draft Plan tonight, it is proposed that the exhibition period be 28 days, beginning on Tuesday 8 May and ending on Monday 4 June 2012. Within this period, copies of the document will be accessible at the Civic Centre, Queen St Centre, all Libraries, Youth Centres, Neighbourhood Centres, Council’s Children’s Centres and Recreation Centres.

 

The Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan will be available to be viewed or downloaded on Council’s website.  As previously mentioned, this Operational Plan draws upon the extensive community engagement that has been carried out for the preparation of the Delivery Program 2009-13, the feedback received after exhibition for each of the subsequent Operational Plans and the specific engagement activities undertaken for key decision steps such as the application for the Special Rate Variation in 2011.  Being the 4th and final Plan prepared for this Delivery program period, it is felt that Council has a solid grasp of the key priorities of the community and agreed service standards.  Based upon this position, it has been decided that there will be no public meeting this year as part of the public exhibition process.

 

Notwithstanding this position, an extensive program of public notification and consultation is planned and is provided below and will run along side the current community consultation for the new Community Strategic Plan that will inform the next four year Delivery Program. This year’s Operational Plan consultation largely follows the model established in recent years.

 

The main features of the publicity and consultation program include:

·        Briefing of media and other publicity elements such as the regular Council column

·        Comprehensive advertising campaign in local newspapers and a local radio station

·        Displays in the Penrith and St Marys Civic Centres and libraries

·        Flyers in all neighbourhood centres and childcare centres

·        Online submission form with electronic lodgement

·        Establishment of a dedicated telephone information line and email address for enquiries

·        Use of other established community meetings, forums and contact points to advertise the draft Plan and its content

·        Access to key Council documents and an on-line community forum via a hosted site on Bang the Table.

 

Details of some specific components of the program are provided below.

 

Public Notification

·        Local Newspapers and Radio

It is intended to notify the community of the draft Operational Plan exhibition through weekly advertisements in all local newspapers and a local radio station (Vintage FM).

 

The notice will cover the importance and content of the draft Plans, the impact of the SRV and information about the Public Meeting and opportunities for the Community to make submissions on the draft Plan.

 

 

Online Community Consultation

Council will give the public the opportunity to have their say ‘on-line’ through Council’s web page and an on-line discussion forum.

 

·        Council Web page

Council has for some years utilised its own website to promote and extend community and stakeholder engagement and consultation for purposes including the draft Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan. This has generally been through the provision of information and key documents, contact details and the opportunity for emailed queries, comments and submissions. This will again be in place for the coming process and formal submissions by email (including through a website link) or by an online feedback form will be available to all internet users.

 

·        On-line Discussion Forum – Bang The Table website

For the last three years, an additional form of on-line consultation was used to broaden the range of community engagement initiatives. The introduction of the on-line, externally hosted, discussion “blog” website has been extremely successful and this forum will continue.

 

The Bang the Table website platform will again be used to generate additional awareness of, interest in and comments on Council’s draft plans and strategies. This ‘discussion’ website is externally hosted and operated independently by the consultants at ‘arms length’ from Council (but with any inappropriate/offensive comments immediately removed). Council officers monitor the site and have the opportunity to clarify statements of fact or respond to issues which arise. Members of the public browse the website or register to provide comments, add new topics of discussion, respond to comments made by others or download Council documents. The feedback received will be considered, in the context of the submissions which were made, as part of the overall public response to the draft Plans and Strategies. The results from this forum will be included in the report back to Council on the overall results of the public exhibition.

 

Consultative Meetings

Council service teams will continue to discuss with the community the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan at any scheduled meetings held during the exhibition period.  Feedback from these sessions throughout the year has been built into the planning of service delivery for the 44 services and will enable those community members to confirm the proposed service standards or raise specific question by submission if they believe necessary.

 

Consideration of Submissions

Public submissions on the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan will be able to be received through:

 

·        Completed online feedback forms (from a link from Council’s website)

·        Emails

·        Standard mail or faxes

·        Completion of submission forms at static exhibition sites

Council must consider all submissions and matters arising from them and make any appropriate adjustments to the draft Operational Plan prior to adoption.

 

Depending on the nature and complexity of each submission, Council may choose to amend the draft Operational Plan, or consider a submission but defer any changes to the document until a subsequent period.  When the Operational Plan is adopted, Council can then make its rates and charges and fix its fees for the coming year.

 

In keeping with Council’s normal practice, all submissions received on the draft Plan will be individually acknowledged.  A detailed response will be provided by appropriate officers as soon as possible, reflecting Council’s established policy or following Council’s determination of the particular issue. A full report on public submissions will be made as part of the report to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 25 June 2012 which will seek formal adoption of the 2012-13 Operational Plan.

Conclusion

The coming Operational Plan will deliver a very substantial body of works and services to the City within Council’s available means and represents the final instalment of the 2009-13 Delivery Program.

 

As in any year, proposals for expenditure on projects and programs of merit will outstrip the organisation’s capacity to achieve them.  Achieving that balance is the essence of public sector management and the budget process.

 

It is recommended that Council endorse the public exhibition of the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Exhibition of Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan be received.

2.     In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council endorse the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan  including any amendments made at tonight’s meeting, for public exhibition

3.     In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the draft 2012-13 Operational Plan be placed on public exhibition for 28 days, commencing on Tuesday 8 May 2012 and closing on Monday 4 June 2012

4.     The public exhibition arrangements as detailed in this report for the Draft 2012-13 Operational Plan be implemented and submissions from the public be invited.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Attachment A - Proposed Projects funded from Stormwater Management Charge Revenue

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                   23 April 2012

Appendix 1 - Attachment A - Proposed Projects funded from Stormwater Management Charge Revenue

 

temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Leading City

 

 

2

2012 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions and Outcome of 2011 Motions   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

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

This report advises Council of three proposed motions for the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly to be held in Canberra from 17-20 June 2012, and seeks endorsement from Council to submit the motions, as detailed, to the Assembly. The report also provides advice on the outcomes of three motions submitted by Council in 2011.

 

The proposed motions for 2012 include:

 

·    Local Infrastructure equity and delivery

·    Skills and Employment

·    Development of a national community indicator framework for local government

 

The report recommends that:

 

1.   The information contained in the report on 2012 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions and outcomes of 2011 Motions be received.

 

2.   The motions detailed in the report on ‘Local Infrastructure equity and delivery, Skills and Employment and Development of a national community indicator framework for local government be submitted for inclusion in the 2012 Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly Business Paper.

Background

The 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 17-20 June 2012.

 

The 2012 National General Assembly, which is sponsored by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), will have as its theme, “National Voice, Local Choice – Infrastructure, Planning, Services”.

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 2012 Assembly:

·     Infrastructure

·     Planning

·     Services

 

To be eligible for inclusion in the National General Assembly business paper, motions must:

 

1.   Fall under one of these themes – Infrastructure, Planning, Services;

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 to the Assembly

Motions need to be submitted to the ALGA by no later than Friday 27 April 2012.

 

1.    The following motion, under the theme ‘Infrastructure’, has been identified by the Group Manager – People and Places, as a possible issue for which a motion could be framed for debate at the Conference.

 

Short Title of Motion

 

Local Infrastructure equity and delivery

 

Suggested Theme

 

Infrastructure

 

Motion

 

That the National General Assembly calls upon the Australian Government to extend its engagement in local infrastructure delivery by:

 

§ Expanding direct funding of local facilities that will improve community health and the functional efficiency of local government areas; and

§ Instructing Infrastructure Australia to prepare guidelines for the minimum standards of infrastructure to which all communities should have access.

 

National Objective

 

Local government is essential in achieving National productivity and health goals through the provision of community infrastructure such as roads and recreation facilities.  Councils’ ability to fund local infrastructure has been constrained by their inability to raise additional funds (due to rates and infrastructure contributions caps). 

 

Recent GFC-related funding of local infrastructure by the Federal government demonstrates the advantages of direct financing of local government by the Commonwealth. Extending funding will benefit local governments and their communities across Australia, better enabling local communities to achieve efficiency and productivity gains as well as improving local community health.

 

Summary of Key Arguments

 

This motion is intended to achieve:

 

§ Greater Australian Government recognition of the important role it can and should play in facilitating local infrastructure delivery to achieve national economic efficiency and health objectives. Recognition of this role will lead to more frequent and direct relationships between these two levels of government and also enable the Commonwealth to advocate for local councils with State Governments, which are the primary funding sources and funding regulators for local government.

 

§ Greater funding of local infrastructure by the Australian Government. To date there has been only sporadic funding by the Australian Government of local infrastructure. This funding has typically occurred during times of economic crisis (e.g. the 2008 GFC and the 1990s recession One Nation funding schemes).

 

§ The development of a template of appropriate local infrastructure for communities across Australia in order to achieve greater equity amongst these communities. Currently there is no common standard for local infrastructure provision. Preparation of these standards would enable comparison across LGAs Australia-wide and highlight those areas with infrastructure shortfalls and the costs and timeframes likely to be required to address these gaps. Infrastructure Australia is the arm of the Australian Government responsible for achieving national infrastructure suitability and efficiency and should be tasked with the development of this local infrastructure template.

 

2.    The following motion, under the theme ‘Infrastructure’, has been identified by Council Director, Craig Butler as an issue highlighted by the National Growth Areas Alliance (NGAA), and as a possible issue for which a motion could be framed for support and debate at the Conference.

 

Short Title of Motion

 

Skills and Employment

 

Suggested Theme

 

Infrastructure

 

Motion

 

That the National General Assembly

 

a)   commends the Australian Federal Government for commencing to improve skills and employment outcomes

 

b)   calls on the Australian Federal Government to increase its focus on and take further action to close the gap for areas of low school retention, low post secondary attendance, low levels of skills and inadequate employment options in order to improve national productivity and improve social and environmental outcomes.

 

National Objective

 

The objective of this motion is to seek continued and expanded policy focus and investment in improving skills and employment participation and equitable access to opportunities thereby improving national productivity and social and environmental outcomes.

 

Summary of Key Arguments

 

The Australian Government has recognised that low levels of participation in education and employment create costly social problems and negatively impact on national productivity.  Some areas have a significant gap in their performance on criteria such as school retention rates, post secondary entrance, job opportunities and unemployment.  It has also been demonstrated that investment to improve these indicators brings a cost benefit, improves productivity and creates jobs.  The Suburban Jobs Program has been one initiative designed to improve the distribution of jobs. 

 

The overarching issue is that participation in education and employment is not evenly distributed.  The level of inequality within a society has been shown to relate to a wide range of health and social problems.

 

According to the State of Australian Cities 2010 Report, for businesses to be able to effectively compete they need skilled labour, connectivity, educational, social and cultural facilities and efficient linkages of centres of activity.  The report also says that access to education and employment is critical to levels of labour force participation with the flow on effects for household income and wealth.  Concentrations of different types of employment and the variation in transport connections to these jobs can leave already disadvantaged communities marginalized from these job opportunities.

 

Local Government has long recognised the importance of advocating for relevant skills and jobs for local communities, and the infrastructure to support this.  They are key planks in achieving sustainable communities.

 

The Prime Minister has indicated the need to improve productivity.  The Suburban Jobs Program, amongst other initiatives has been a good start.  Without further investment to lift education and employment participation in under performing areas, however, the outcomes sought will not be achieved.

 

Continued and expanded investment in the infrastructure and programs required to support improved and equitable participation in skills and employment is required.

 

3.    The following motion, under the theme ‘Planning’, has been identified by the Group Manager - Leadership, as a possible issue for which a motion could be framed for debate at the Conference.

 

Short Title of Motion

 

Development of a national community indicator framework for local government

 

Suggested Theme

 

Planning

 

Motion

 

That the National General Assembly support investigation into a simple national indicator framework to measure community wellbeing which covers the full range of local government activities, is supported by quality data sources and fits within the four year local government election cycle.

 

National Objective

 

Measurement of community wellbeing has become an accepted part of the role of government at all levels.  Work done by local, state and federal government into indicators of community wellbeing has revealed a number of ‘core’ issues that are relevant to all communities, including safety, health, the environment, community resilience and education.  Development of a national local government approach to measuring and reporting on community indicators will allow integration with federal indicator frameworks, simplify data collection and will provide a strong basis for local government to advocate that core data needs be met through national collections, including the ABS. 

 

Summary of Key Arguments

 

Local councils across Australia are reporting on a range of community (also called liveability or ‘quality of life’) indicators that cover issues of importance to their communities.  This is being driven by a number of factors, including the introduction of Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation in NSW and Western Australia, and the use of the CIV framework in Victoria and (soon) in Queensland.   There is also significant work being undertaken on community indicators in the state and federal spheres, particularly by the ABS, the Major Cities Unit, and the Department of Sustainability, Energy, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC).

 

The extent of work currently being undertaken across Australia by all spheres of government emphasises the importance of measuring and reporting on community wellbeing and liveability.  It has also demonstrated that there is the potential to identify a group of core indicators (10 – 20) that will be relevant to a broad range of local (and possibly state and federal) governments, regardless of size or location.

 

Use of a consistent set of core indicators, drawn from the same data sources, will allow different councils to talk the same language about the wellbeing of their communities.  Consistency with state and federal frameworks will mean that local government reporting can be placed in a state and national context, providing a robust data base for lobbying and advocacy programs.  Additionally, use of the same set of core indicators will also allow councils to pool data collection, potentially reducing the cost involved, and present a stronger case to state and federal departments for access to their data at an LGA or regional level.  It will also present a strong case for local government to advocate that core data collection needs be met by federal agencies, including the ABS.

 

Outcome of 2011 Motions

 

The Australian Local Government Association has recently written to Council advising of the outcomes of the 2011 motions. A copy of the letter which includes a coordinated response from the Australian Government concerning the resolutions arising from the 2011 National General Assembly for Local Government is appended to this report.

 

Penrith City Council submitted three motions to this conference with the following responses being provided by the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Simon Crean MP on behalf of the Australian Government.

 

Resolution Number: 29

 

That the National General Assembly calls upon the Australian Government to provide funding and resources in order to modify existing and/or establish new infrastructure to assist local councils with their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) to comply with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT) requirements so that the necessary infrastructure can be transformed to meet the required standards.

 

Response

 

The Australian Government’s National Disability Strategy outlines a 10 year national policy framework to improve the lives of people with disability, promote participation and create a more inclusive society. The National Disability Strategy will guide public policy across governments to ensure that people with disability have the same opportunities as other Australians. Supporting the National Disability Strategy are the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability, and the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Transport Standards), which seek to provide certainty about responsibilities under the Act.

 

A review of the first five years of operation of the Transport Standards has been undertaken, and the final review report and Government response were publically released in June 2011. The review included a recommendation about Government funding for projects in regional and rural areas where local governments are unable to resource upgrades of public transport infrastructure.

 

As indicated in the Government response to the review report, the provision of funding for projects is a matter for each state government to consider, including in the context of existing regional infrastructure programs and budget deliberations. The Government will give consideration to the eligibility criteria for existing regional and rural transport and infrastructure programs to ensure no inappropriate exclusions apply to projects that would support compliance with the Transport Standards.

 

 

 

Resolution Number: 48

 

That the National General Assembly call on the Australian Government for a greater dialogue directly with the Local Government Authorities in relation to the proposed reforms in aged care and disability services associated with the National Health reforms and Productivity Commission reports into Aged Care and Disability Services, to ensure ongoing high quality health outcomes are as a minimum maintained for the ageing residents living in our communities.

 

Response

 

The Department of Health and Ageing continues to engage with key stakeholders, including local government authorities, in relation to the proposed reforms in aged care and disability services associated with the National Health reforms and Productivity Commission reports into Aged Care and Disability Services.

 

Ongoing consultation is occurring through national public and industry consultations, including with ALGA members, on specific reform items, such as eHealth and Home and Community Care", and through the www.yourhealth.gov.au website.

 

The Productivity Commission's Final Report Caring for Older Australians includes proposals for extensive reform of the aged care system. In developing its response, the Australian Government is listening to the views of stakeholders and the broader community about the significant changes proposed by the Commission. The Minister for Mental Health and Ageing is currently holding a number of meetings with stakeholders and the broader community around Australia, including ALGA, to hear their views on the Productivity Commission's proposals.

 

The National Disability Strategy (NDS) outlines a 10-year national policy framework to guide reforms in mainstream and specialist disability service systems to improve outcomes for people with disability, their families and carers. The NOS has been developed in partnership with state, territory and local governments under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), and in consultation with people with disability.

 

There is a strong role for local governments in the implementation of the NOS.  The Australian Local Government Association is represented on the NOS Development Officials Working Group (DOWG) together with senior representatives from Commonwealth departments with responsibility for specialist disability services and central agencies from each jurisdiction. The DOWG supports the Standing Council on Community, Housing and Disability Services which is responsible for implementation of the NOS.

 

Each jurisdiction has in place (or is developing) an individual plan for tangible and achievable service improvements for people with disability.  Actions under these plans will aim to work in parallel with activities under the national implementation framework but are locally-based and detailed in council-specific Disability Action Plans.

 

The Productivity Commission Report Disability Care and Support" found that the current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient, and gives people with disability little choice. The Government has started work- with states and territories that are principally responsible for funding and delivering disability support services- to fundamentally reform disability care and support.

 

Motion Not Considered:

 

That the National General Assembly call on the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Senator the Hon Jan McLucas, to make representations to the Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP, Minister for Tourism, seeking the establishment of a national independent access accreditation system for tourist accommodation in Australia.

 

Response

 

This motion was not considered at the 2011 National General Assembly as it was not considered to fall under one of the NGA themes. As such, it was listed for discussion after the complying motions had been discussed, if time permitted. Unfortunately due to time constraints the motion was not debated. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2012 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government Motions and Outcome of 2011 Motions be received

2.     The motions detailed in the report on ‘Local Infrastructure equity and delivery, Skills and employment and Development of a national community indicator framework for local government be submitted for inclusion in the 2012 Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly Business Paper.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

ALGA response to 2011 National General Assembly Motions

28 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                   23 April 2012

Appendix 1 - ALGA response to 2011 National General Assembly Motions

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Leading City

 

 

3

Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 March to 31 March 2012   

 

Compiled by:               Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

Authorised by:            Andrew Moore, Financial Services 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

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 March 2012 to 31 March 2012, a reconciliation of invested funds at 31 March 2012 and the Agency Collection Methods as at 31 March. 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 March 2012.

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 March to 31 March 2012 be received.

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 March 2012 to 31 March 2012 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 31 March 2012 be noted.

4.     The Agency Collection Methods as at 31 March 2012 be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Agency Collection Methods

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Summary of Investments - March 2012

4 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                     23 April 2012

Appendix 1 - Agency Collection Methods

 

 

 

 

The following is an update of the methods to make payments to Council through various agencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                   23 April 2012

Appendix 2 - Summary of Investments - March 2012

 

temp


temp


temp


temp

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

4        Domestic Waste

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Green City

 

 

4

Domestic Waste   

 

Compiled by:               Geoff Brown, Waste Management Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Tracy Chalk, Waste and Community Protection Manager   

 

Objective

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

Community Outcome

A City with a smaller ecological footprint (12)

Strategic Response

Respond to the impacts of climate change, by mitigating and adapting what we do (12.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report will provide information as to the current status of green bin maintenance issues and a proposed solution for continuous service improvement.  The proposed solution includes the replacement of all aged green lid bins. 

Bin maintenance bookings have increased over the last two years with customer requests for the replacement of lids, pins, wheels and bin bodies.  This is causing major inconvenience for residents who have to continuously report bin failures.  Further, the new lids which were fitted to the existing bin bodies are coming off in large numbers as a result of the various bin/lid fixing designs and worn bin/lid fixing points. The ageing bins are also starting to fail in increasing numbers as a result of being exposed to the elements for up to 30 years.

 

In previous reports to the Waste Services Committee, it was identified that the lids fitted to the organics bins arced upwards at the opening where the lid closes on the bin body.  The supplier of the lids, Superior Pak (formally Nylex) has since confirmed that there is a fault with the lids that was caused in the manufacturing process.

 

SITA is now in a position to replace all the faulty lids but are very concerned about fitting new lids to bins that are failing in increasing numbers for various reasons and SITA cannot guarantee that the lids when fitted will remain fixed. Based on a range of circumstances SITA is proposing to replace all the organic bins with new bins through a variation to the contract for organics and garbage collection.

 

Based on the circumstances outlined in this report it would seem that the replacement of only the lids to the existing bins may not provide the best outcome for residents, Council or SITA. By providing a new organics bin, residents will have bins with properly fitted lids that will minimise fly infestation and greatly reduce bin and lid failure problems. This should promote better use of the bin in terms of reduced contamination and the enhancement of community education and customer service and better benchmark contractor/driver performance.

 

Consequently, it is recommended that the organics bins be replaced and that Council resolve to do this by way of contract variation and further not to call tenders due to extenuating circumstances, as outlined in this report.

 

 

Current Situation

SITA could replace up to 50,000 defective lids to the organics bins in the field;  however, there are concerns that due to their age, condition and design the bins in the field will not be suitable to receive the new lids (please see Appendix A – Background to the Supply of Garbage Bins for further information).

 

Bin Age and Design

The majority of organic bins generally comprise the old stock of 240L garbage bins that were in use prior to the initial lid changeover on introduction of the organics service. These bins generally include three different brands being Schaeffer, Otto and Sulo. The Schaeffer bin (made in Germany) was introduced in a mass roll out (35,000 bins) in 1982. It is estimated that there are up to 5,000 Schaeffer bins remaining in the field. Unsubstantiated reports from Nylex staff indicate that there may be up to 15,000 Schaeffer bins in the field. These bins are now 30 years old. The remaining bins comprise Otto and Sulo brands, the majority of which were introduced between 1984 and 1999. These bins now range in age from 13 to 28 years.

 

The original Schaeffer and Otto bins are obsolete and the original parts for these bins are no longer available making lid change over very difficult and problematic. The Sulo bins have lid fixing design problems after lid replacement resulting in the lids being less secure. 

 

Bin Condition

SITA provides monthly reports on service statistics to Council within the terms of the contract. This information includes provision of new bins, bin replacement and bin repairs. In Council’s Tender of 2006 certain information was provided for prospective tenderers including information on bin repairs and replacement. This information provided the tenderers with an indication of bin numbers they would need to account for during the term of the contract. Bin replacement, new bins and bin repairs prior to 2006 averaged 148, 49 and 115 per month respectively.

 

 

Currently, the monthly average is 469 bin replacements, 367 new bins and 666 repairs. This is an increase of 216%, 648% and 479% respectively compared to the service level at the time of tender in 2006.

 

 

Lid Replacement

Under our contract for the collection of domestic waste SITA is responsible for the provision of new bins, repair and maintenance of the organic and residual waste bins. As a result of the faulty organic bin lids, SITA’s bin supplier will provide 20% of the replacement lids; however, SITA will supply and fund the remaining 80% of lids as a result of Nylex going into receivership during the contract program.

 

Due to the increasing failure rate of the ageing bins and the different types of bins and bin lid/handle designs (to accommodate new lids) it may be better to consider the option to replace the organic bins.

 

SITA has provided Council with a cost to replace the 50,000 organic bins with quotes obtained from Superior Pak and Sulo. The cost comprises the bin price, assembly and distribution, removal and recycling of the old bins, and a buy back price for the old bin. The price also includes a discount for the replacement lids (applicable to the Superior Pak quote only) and a discount of the tender price component for the repair and replacement of damaged bins for the remaining term of the contract. This equates to a total bin price of $25.57 per bin and a total overall cost of $1,278,500 based on 50,000 bins.

 

SITA is responsible under the Garbage and Organics Collection Contract to replace and repair damaged bins and to provide new service bins when required for the term of the contract. SITA’s tender price incorporated an amount to cover these costs for the contract term. This amount ($360,000) will be credited back to Council for the remaining term of the contract and SITA will continue to repair and replace the new bins to be provided.

 

Alternatively, under Local Government Procurement (a subsidiary of the LGSA), councils have the option of purchasing Mobile Garbage Bins at the prices quoted in the procurement contract. Three contractors have quoted prices for the supply and delivery of bins. The estimated prices range from $38.45 to $39.78 per bin excluding transport costs for delivery to Council’s depot. Therefore, the lowest estimated price under the Local Government Procurement Contract would be in the vicinity of at least $1,922,500 excluding transport costs and rollout.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

The replacement of the organics bins, over five years commencing 2012-13, will require annual funding of $255,700.

 

The Draft 2012-13 budget already incorporates an allocation of $80,000 to assist with the replacement of damaged bins (bin replacement program developed arising from the Waste Services Committee Meeting). It proposed to use this allocation to replace the organics bins in 2012-13, with the balance of $175,700 to be provided from the Waste Reserve, which has an estimated closing balance as at 30 June 2013 of $2.1m.  Funding for the replacement of bins in the four remaining years is proposed to be incorporated into the calculation of the annual Domestic Waste Charge, which will amount to approximately $4.00 per service per annum.

 


 

Legal and Governance Group Manager’s Comment

Entering a contract to purchase bins as outlined in the report would in normal circumstances trigger the need for a tender to be called. These circumstances are complicated by the interrelationship between the obligations under the present Waste Contracts to replace bins and the warranty issue outlined in the report.  Under the Local Government Act it is open to a Council to consider this purchase as exempt from the tendering requirements “because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tender a Council decides by resolution (which states the reason for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.”

 

In these circumstances extenuating circumstance do exist because of the interrelationship between the bin replacement, the issue with replacing lids and the present contracts.  To consider that tenders be called in these circumstances would create a situation where other tenders could not provide a competitive tender. 

 

Gadens Lawyers have provided advice that in the circumstances they believe it is open to Council to conclude that the exemption from tendering in the circumstances is open to Council and appropriate.

 

The report provides pricing from Local Government Procurement, which also gives comfort that Council is receiving value for money if it resolves to accept the proposal from SITA.

 

The recommendation to the report provides a number of grounds which support the recommended decision.

 

Summary

SITA has confirmed through bin supplier Superior Pak that the lime coloured lids fitted to the existing organic bins have a manufacturing defect. Both SITA and Superior Pak will fund, supply and fit new lids to all organic bins in the field.

 

Due to the current failure rate of the ageing bin stock and lids of the various bin types and incompatible handle designs (to accommodate new lids), it is considered that the replacement of the entire 50,000 organic bins in lieu of replacing the lids is the preferred option. 

 

Further the provision of new bins should provide greater customer satisfaction, as residents will have new bins with lids that seal properly minimising fly infestation and bin and lid failure. New bins should also promote better use of the bin by residents in terms of reduced contamination and the enhancement of customer service and community education.

 

The Local Government Act Tendering Legislation provides that Council does not have to invite tenders for contracts (subject to Council resolution listing the reasons for the decision) if extenuating circumstances exist and that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.

 

It is recommended that tenders not be invited for the supply and delivery of bins due to extenuating circumstances and the Garbage and Organics Collection Contract price be varied to cover the cost to replace the organic bins, as outlined in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Domestic Waste be received.

2.     Due to extenuating circumstances and an unavailability of competitive tenders (for the reasons detailed in this recommendation) Council not invite tenders for the supply and delivery of up to 50,000 organics bins as it is unlikely to give rise to  a satisfactory  result for Council and the community. The grounds for extenuating circumstances and an unavailability of competitive tenders include:

i.    no other supplier can establish a price that accounts for the considerable savings that would accrue to SITA were it to be awarded the Contract to supply the bins (possibly by way of variation);

ii.   no other supplier could amortise the cost of the replacement bins in the manner available to SITA due to the present waste contract;

iii.  SITA would receive a substantial windfall should the contract be awarded to another supplier;

iv.  the complicated nature of what SITA may do if a tender was called;

v.   should potential tenderers learn of SITA’s competitive advantage, other tenderers may then be disinterested in incurring the cost of formulating a tender proposal; and

vi.  the price offered by SITA is approximately 33% less than that available through Local Government Procurement and there seems little doubt that it is very competitive and in the circumstances seems unlikely to be beaten through a public or selective tender.

vii. the present waste contract with SITA be varied to accommodate the arrangements detailed within this report and that the Waste & Community Protection Manager, together with the Group Manager – Legal & Governance negotiate the variation in accordance with this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Background to the Supply of Garbage Bins

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                   23 April 2012

Appendix 1 - Background to the Supply of Garbage Bins

 

Appendix A

 

BACKGROUND TO THE SUPPLY OF GARBAGE BINS

 

Bin Design and Age

 

The majority of organic bins generally comprise the old stock of 240L garbage bins that were in use prior to the initial lid changeover on introduction of the organics service. These bins generally include three different brands being Schaeffer, Otto and Sulo. The Schaeffer bin (made in Germany) was introduced in a mass roll out (35,000 bins) in 1982. It is estimated that there are up to 5,000 Schaeffer bins remaining in the field. Unsubstantiated reports from Nylex staff indicate that there may be up to 15,000 Schaeffer bins in the field. These bins are now 30 years old. The remaining bins comprise Otto and Sulo brands, the majority of which were introduced between 1984 and 1999. These bins now range in age from 13 to 28 years.

 

The following information has been provided by Nylex as a result of a study of bin lid failures in Penrith after the lid replacement program at the commencement of the contract. 

 

Schaeffer bin – This is the only bin where the manufacturer attaches lids to bodies at the time of manufacture. This is due to the way the lid is attached, which is designed to be permanent and difficult to tamper with. Special jigs and air operated tools are required to assemble the two centre and outer pins while in the production process. When all four pins are inserted into the handles they are stapled at 90 degrees to ensure a sealed and non-removable lid. The Schaeffer bin also has a significantly reduced internal diameter in the core of the handle ensuring no other hinge pin will fit without modifications. The original Schaeffer bin and associated parts are no longer available.

 

Otto/Sulo bin (MR1 mould) - This bin was the predominant bin being provided during the period 1984 to 1999. The bin handle has a slightly reduced internal diameter compared to current bins and it is believed that the additional force required to drive hinge pins home increases pin stress and subsequent failure. This bin has the largest proportion of lid failures found in recent random audits. The Otto bin and parts are no longer available.

 

Sulo Bin (STD) – This bin was provided between the years 2000 and 2007. The bin is identified by its lightweight body and large diameter one-piece handle. There have been issues where replacement pins have worked their way out of the handles. The Sulo handle design is unique in that it has an ‘interference’ fit where the moulding in the inner handle is deformed during lid assembly. The large outside diameter accommodates internal ribbing that converges towards the centre of the handle. When an original pin is inserted these ribs deform to provide surface tension. When the pin is removed, or works its way out over time, the deformation becomes permanent and when a replacement pin is inserted it does not grip as well.

 

In summary, the original Schaeffer and Otto bins are obsolete and the original parts for these bins are no longer available making lid change over very difficult and problematic. The two Sulo bins have lid fixing design problems after lid replacement resulting in the lids being less secure. 


 

 

Contract Terms and Conditions and Tendering Requirements

Supply, Repair and Maintenance of Bins

The contract for the collection of garbage and organics provides that the contractor is responsible for the repair and replacement of damaged bins and for the provision of new service bins. The contract also provides that the contractor fit new lime green lids to the existing garbage bins and to supply 50,000 new 140 litre red lid residual bins.

During the tender process Council provided statistical data on bin repairs and bin replacements as a guide so that tenderers could cost this component of the service.

Based on current statistical data provided by SITA in comparison to pre-tender information provided by Council, it is estimated that the contractor will be required to replace an additional 20,000 bins and carry out additional 27,000 bin repairs during the remaining five years of the contract. There could be greater impact on bin replacement and repairs if new lids are fitted to the existing bins.

The above estimates far exceed Council’s pre-tender information estimates and it could give rise to a potential variation request by SITA to increase the service price to cover the unexpected costs.

As SITA would be required to replace a substantial number of bins under the terms of the contract over the remaining five year period, it is considered a better option to take advantage of the discounts available and replace all the organic bins now.

 

The supply of new bins will provide greater customer satisfaction, as residents will have bins with lids that seal properly minimising fly infestation, and reduced bin and lid failure.  New bins should also encourage residents’ correct use in terms of reduced contamination and the enhancement of community education and customer service.

 

Contract Variations

Under the contract for the collection of garbage and organics, there are provisions which allow either party at any time to request a variation of the contract. The contract provides that any request to vary the contract must include adequate information as is reasonably required for either party to assess the request, including particulars of any additional charge or any deduction from the service rates. This information has been included in the body of this report. Variations may only occur with the agreement of the other party but such agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld.

 

It has been requested by SITA that consideration be given to the replacement of the 50,000 organics bins in lieu of replacing the defective lids (for the reasons outlined in this report) at a cost of $1,278,500 ($255,700 per annum over five years). This equates to approximately $4.00 per household per annum funded from the Domestic Waste Reserve in 2012/13 and from the Domestic Waste Charge for the remaining four years.

 

It is proposed to vary the contract terms and conditions by increasing the organics collection service price by $0.0984 for the remaining five years of the contract term. This would bring the total price per weekly organics collection service to $0.9217. 


 

 

Local Government Act Tendering Requirements

Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 sets the requirements for which Council needs to invite tenders for a contract. Section 55 also specifies the circumstances when tendering for contracts does not apply.

 

Section 55 clause (3) subclause (i) provides:

 

“This section does not apply to the following contracts:

 

“a contract where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenders, a council decides by resolution (which states the reason for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.”

Council’s Lawyers, Gadens have advised that there are good grounds to argue “extenuating circumstances” and an unavailability of competitive tenders, resulting in the tender process being unlikely to give rise to a satisfactory result.

 

 


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

5        RFQ 11/12-04, Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan

 

6        Coachmans Park Improvement Project

 

7        Tender Reference 11/12-14, Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner

 

8        Grant Funding - Erksine Park High School

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

5

RFQ 11/12-04, Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan   

 

Compiled by:               Karin Schicht, Landscape Architecture Supervisor

Jeni Pollard, Place Manager

Authorised by:            Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager

Jeni Pollard, Place 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 the outcome of the submissions received from suitably qualified and experienced consultant teams for the provision of the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan. The key services are place making, landscape and urban design and community engagement services. The Masterplan will inform the detailed design documentation and subsequent staged implementation of works as part of Council’s adopted City Centres Renewal and Improvement Project (recent SRV) program. These works are scheduled to commence in 2013.

 

The City Centres Renewal and Improvement Project (recent SRV) program was developed to enable a program of civic improvements to be implemented to support the growth and development of the centres thus facilitating local employment opportunities. The principal aim is to stimulate visitor and business activity, enliven the centres and provide a catalyst to encourage economic growth and support new investment. For Penrith and St Marys, an annual budget of $1.6m will deliver these improvements. A similar master planning exercise will be conducted for the St Marys Town Centre at a later date.

 

A total of 33 submissions were received (of these, one submission did not include a fee and was therefore deemed non-compliant and not considered further).  Following a review of the all of the submissions by the Project Evaluation Panel a determination was made to short-list three (3) submissions that represented the best quality and value for money to Council. The companies shortlisted were Place Partners, Oculus and Turf Design Studio & Environmental Partnership (TDEP). The three (3) shortlisted companies were then invited to a formal interview with members of the Project Evaluation Panel to further clarify methodology, personnel and fees.

 

Based on a detailed evaluation process, the Project Evaluation Panel is recommending that the contract for Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan be awarded to Place Partners at a cost of $132,375 excluding GST.

 

Background

Submissions for the provision of Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan were advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 January 2012. The request was placed on the e-tendering website on 31 January 2012. After four weeks, the period closed on 29 February 2012.

 

The recent SRV program will provide funding for City Centre Renewal in both Penrith and St Marys. This Masterplan addresses the key locations to guide that programme implementation in that period. The study area includes the following streets: High St (Henry to Lawson Sts), Station St (Belmore St to Union Lane) and Riley St (Henry to High Sts). The scope of the works required included: a place making and public art strategy; community engagement; concepts and final masterplan designs and documentation with indicative costings; and an implementation strategy with indicative staging.

 

The President of the Penrith City Centre’s Association has confirmed his organisations support for a masterplanning process that will assist in the delivery of key aspects of the strategic vision for Penrith City Centre including creation of a safe and attractive centre with a high quality public realm.

 

For the purposes of this project, a masterplan is described as a blueprint of what is going to happen where. It will reveal a reasonable level of detail to inform the later detailed design and then tender documentation for the construction of the future staged projects.

 

The consultant brief articulated the aims and objectives of the project, as follows:

1. To create a unique city centre identity and sense of place that enhances the connection between people and place

2. Improve the quality of the urban environment to encourage economic growth and support new investment.

3. To meet the current and anticipated demands of the city’s users

4. Increase property values, economic activity and business opportunities

5. Enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities, liveability and attractiveness of the City Centre, and address the economic, intellectual, social, cultural, aesthetic and sensory aspects

6. Facilitate an adequate amount of extended kerbside dining areas and promote a night-time economy

7. To establish a safe and accessible pedestrian friendly public realm with high aesthetic amenity

8. Integrate place making / public art into infrastructure and identified special places

9. Engage the community adequately and effectively throughout the preparation of the masterplan. Achieve broad community and stakeholder support for both the masterplan and the projects that are to be implemented.

 

The project does not include specific and detailed investigations into architectural, engineering, drainage, utilities, traffic and transport, or the development of materials palettes and detailed urban designs.  The Penrith City Centre Public Domain Technical Manual provides the basis of materials palettes and will be utilised in development of the detailed urban designs which are master planned in this project.

 

In December 2011 Council adopted a Public Art and Place Making Policy which confirms the importance of place making and the need for collaboration between a range of professional disciplines and partners on the development of the project concept through to the completion of the project. It is anticipated that some Place outcomes of this project will go beyond the specific bricks and mortar solutions which will be further detailed and implemented under the recent SRV program. These additional Place outcomes will be taken up by the Place Making team for assessment and potential implementation under other programs.

 

The request called for submissions from ‘consultant teams’, as no single consultant was considered to hold all of the necessary expertise and skill required. It was proposed in the submission documents that Council will select one preferred consultant team to perform all of the services specified.

 

The consultants were required to submit their submission in a pro-forma, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria. For an improved project outcome, they were also required to suggest any optional components that Council should consider over and above their base methodology and price.

 

Project Evaluation Panel

The Project Evaluation Panel consisted of Michael Doggett (Supply Coordinator), Laura Schuil (Acting Supply Officer Contracts), Karin Schicht (Landscape Architecture Supervisor), Victoria Patterson (Landscape Architect), Jeni Pollard (Place Manager), Karen Harris (Senior Cultural Development Officer) and Terry Agar (City Centres Coordinator).

 

Submission Evaluation Criteria

In accordance with the advertised consultant brief, the submissions submitted were evaluated against the following evaluation criteria:

Methodology and community engagement strategy (40%)

Consultant team composition, experience and qualifications (25%)

Price and timeframe (25%)

Insurances, OH&S, QA and response to contract (10%)

Whilst the brief provided the key objectives of the project, in essence it required consultant teams to provide a return brief. This would enable consultant teams to demonstrate their clear understanding of the requirements of the project and document their methodology to achieve the necessary outcomes. Accordingly, this was the most heavily weighted component of the evaluation.

 

List of all Submissions Received

A total of 33 submissions were received. Of these, one submission did not include a fee and was therefore deemed non-compliant and not considered further.

 

The remaining thirty two (32) submissions were included in the evaluation and are listed below with their price, from lowest to highest. The name of the consultant is the company acting as lead consultant.

Table 1. Fees (lowest to highest)

 

Consultant

Fees

1

Black Beetle

$             44,920

2

Aspect Studios

$             57,800

3

Design Partnership

$             78,175

4

Clouston Associates

$             83,500

5

Jackson Teece

$             89,020

6

Group GSA

$             95,000

7

Habitation

$             95,000

8

Complete

$             95,800

9

Oculus

$             96,182

10

Turf Design Studio and Environmental Partnership (TDEP)

$             98,780

11

HASSELL

$           111,020

12

LFA

$           115,000

13

Context

$           119,930

14

Place Partners

$           126,475

15

Tony Caro Architecture

$           127,225

16

KI Studio

$           133,600

17

AECOM

$           140,687

18

Mode Design

$           142,730

19

DEM

$           143,090

20

Connybeare Morrison

$           143,648

21

Corkery Consulting

$           150,618

22

Development Planning Strategies

$           151,815

23

RPS

$           152,000

24

Arterra Design

$           155,600

25

Place Design

$           163,530

26

Johnson Pilton Walker

$           177,300

27

Hames Sharley

$           180,000

28

Project

$           181,575

29

Scott Carver

$           198,750

30

GHD

$           202,232

31

Government Architects Office

$           227,810

32

McGregor Coxall

$           234,860

 

Evaluation process

The process for the evaluation of the submissions is summarised as follows:

1.   Initial review of all submissions to determine compliance with the primary evaluation criteria, namely methodology, consultant team composition and relevant experience;

2.   Determination of an initial short-list of consultants based on the best rankings from 1, above

3.   Second review of short-list (2, above) to determine compliance with the remaining evaluation criteria, including price and program

4.   Determination of a final short-list of consultants based on the best rankings from 1 and 3, above

5.   Further evaluation of the interview short-listed consultants through:

-     Formal Interviews

-     Referee Checks

 

 

Evaluation Process Step 1: Initial Evaluation of Submissions

Each of the 32 written submissions was assessed by each of the Project Evaluation Panel members independently. Assessment was limited to the highest weighted evaluation criteria of project, namely methodology, consultant team composition and relevant experience. The Panel was not privy to any information relating to fees during this evaluation step.

 

Evaluation Process Step 2: Determination of the Initial Short-list

The combined scores were ranked lowest to highest and the highest thirteen (13) consultant teams were considered to be short-listed.

 

It was determined by the Project Evaluation Panel that there was no benefit to Council in further evaluating the consultant teams with the lowest rankings (the remaining 19). The initial short-list (13 teams) were as follows:

 

AECOM

Clouston

Context

Corkery Consulting

DEM

GHD

Government Architects Office

KI Studio

McGregor Coxall

Oculus

Place Design

Place Partners

TDEP

 

Evaluation Process Step 3: Further Evaluation of the Initial Short-listed Consultant teams

The initial short-listed consultant teams were next assessed for the remaining selection criteria. These included price, timeframe, OH&S, Quality Assurance, insurances and response to Council’s Terms and Conditions of Engagement. The evaluation of price took into consideration: exclusions; allowances for community engagement tools, disbursements, printing, meetings and presentations; as well as the expected input from Council officers.

 

It should be noted that the quality of the initial short-list submissions was very high and the Panel were challenged to next evaluate which teams provided the best value for money.

 

Evaluation Process Step 4: Determination of the Final Short-list

Following Steps 1 to 3 of the evaluation process, the Panel determined that the highest ranked submissions should all be capable on paper of providing a good outcome for the project. Of the short-list of 13, the top five teams were considered outstanding above the remaining 8.

 

Of the top 5 teams, a final short-list of 3 to interview was determined based on the prices provided:

          Oculus (with the following sub-consultants: Pamille Berg Consulting; KJA; Cox

Architecture; Funktion)

          Place Partners (with the following sub-consultants: Spackman Mossop & Michaels;

Cred; Richard Brecknock; Steven Burgess; Sean Fry)

                   TDEP (Turf Design Studio and Environmental Partnership)

GHD and Corkery Consulting had fees notably higher than the other three so were reserved in this process pending interviews with the other three tenderers.

 

Evaluation Process Step 5: Further Evaluation of the Final Short-list

Formal interviews and referee checks were undertaken to determine the final consultant team.

Interviews were conducted with the three short-listed consultants to further determine their understanding of the scope of the works required, details of their relevant experience and to ascertain the level of resources, including community engagement tools that each team would allocate to this contract. The interview process also sought clarification on methodology, staffing and fee schedules. At the conclusion of the three interviews, the panel was unanimous in recognising the qualitative advantage of Place Partners over the other teams.

 

Referee checks were conducted on the key companies of the two preferred consultant teams and overall both teams were considered good, although the checks for Place Partners were excellent, with one referee believing that the lead consultant, a specialist in place making, is the leader in this field in Australia.

 

The final comparison of teams was between Oculus and Place Partners as TDEP required a significantly higher contribution from Council’s staff and resources to deliver their project outcomes which eroded the value proposition they had been thought to offer. After the interviews, referee checks and final comparisons, the Project Evaluation Panel was of the opinion that Place Partners would provide the best outcome and value for Council.

 

Assessment

 

To get a comprehensive outcome, it was felt the consultant team should address access, traffic and economic issues. If these issues were to be allowed for in the Oculus fees, then using the allowances and options proposed in their submission, the Oculus fee would be $116,482 (adding interactive project website, and economics and traffic consultants).  Place Partners Fee did not include an Access Consultant however it is estimated  it is likely to cost in the vicinity of $1.4K.  To allow comparison, this has been added to the Place Partner fees and would provide an estimate cost of $127,875, a difference of $11,393 or 9.8%.

 

Place Partners offered lower hourly rates for their team members which results in more hours allocated to the project, along with a hosted interactive project website and greater allowances for community engagement interventions, printing and materials. Place Partners provided an option for the detailed survey of all retailers within the project study zone for $4,500 ex GST. The Project Evaluation Panel recommends that this additional scope is included bringing their total fee to $132,375 ex GST. The Place Partners team interviewed very well, coming across as more cohesive and integrated in comparison to the Oculus team, and demonstrating that they had a very good understanding of potential key issues such as parking and community diversity.

 

Of the 32 submissions received, 31 were led by a design consultant that was landscape oriented. The submission from Place Partners was the only one that was led by a place making oriented consultant. Whilst the landscape based firms are considered capable of delivering the project, the Panel was of the view that a firm that could provide a place making emphasis to the project would have significant advantages.

 

Notwithstanding Place Partners are dearer, they are considered by the Panel to provide a better outcome for Council as they have demonstrated a much better understanding of the brief and have taken an integrated, and holistic position on place making. Further to this, their community engagement process has a well rounded and accessible approach with the use of technology and workshops as well as face-to-face street engagement with retailers and community members.

 

This project will guide the Penrith element of the $1.6 m annual City Centres Renewal and Improvement Project. In this context, the above assessment by the Project Evaluation Panel and taking into consideration the weighting of the selection criteria emphasising quality rather than price, the Place Partners submission was considered to offer better value for Council and the community. The Project Evaluation Panel recommends the appointment of Place Partners, including the options outlined in this report.

 

Conclusion

Based on the detailed evaluation and short-listing process, the Place Partners team is recommended by the Project Evaluation Panel to undertake the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan in line with the details of this report, including the enhanced community engagement and the satisfactory negotiation of an Access Consultant.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comments

 

The details and analysis included in this report indicates that Place Partners is capable of fulfilling the Masterplan project as described. The quote provided by Place Partners represents value for money for Council when factoring in all elements required to successfully complete the applicable tasks. The project is part of the City Centres Renewal and Improvement Project. The price submitted by Place Partners of $132,375 (ex GST) is within the available budget for this element of the project.

 

Comment by Tender Advisory Group (TAG)

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager Infrastructure, Wayne Mitchell, the Group Manager Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider a tender for the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan.

 

We believe the proposed expenditure for the development of a Masterplan required a tender process to be commenced. The Project Evaluation Panel has considered extensively the quality of the work that is expected from the Consultants in reaching the conclusion that Place Partners is the recommended tenderer. Design work of this nature is heavily reliant on the quality of the work and it is accepted as a prime driver for the selection criteria in addition to ensuring value for money.

 

It is accepted that the methodology of the Project Evaluation Panel is sound and accordingly the TAG supports the recommendation.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on RFQ 11/12-04, Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan be received

2.     Council engage Place Partners to undertake the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

6

Coachmans Park Improvement Project   

 

Compiled by:               Terry Agar, Acting Centres Co-ordinator

Karin Schicht, Landscape Architecture Supervisor

Authorised by:            Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager

Jeni Pollard, Place 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

Council has adopted a St Marys Town Centre Strategy which identifies opportunities and specific actions related to the improvement of the Centre’s public domain and, in particular, the enhancement of major public spaces such as Coachmans Park. These aim to deliver a high quality public realm and vibrant public places which engender a strong sense of community pride and create a hub for community activity.

 

The adopted St Marys Town Centre Development Control Plan contains objectives to promote high quality design of public spaces and high levels of accessibility within the Town Centre connecting significant activity nodes, open spaces and surrounding areas.

 

With these aims in mind, the upgrade of Coachmans Park was supported as a major project in Council’s adopted Funding our Future (SRV) program. Consistent with Council’s adopted policies, the redevelopment of Coachmans Park aims to provide a contemporary, inviting and functional public space in the heart of St Marys. A focus has been given to improving the park’s amenity, general attractiveness and safety. The proposed enhancements follow an extensive design process and community consultation program which has ensured that many of the ideas of the community have been incorporated into the park’s design.

 

The upgrade will ensure that Coachmans Park will continue to be an important feature of the St Marys area and a focus of community activity.

 

This project will be the second City Centres Renewal project in the Funding our Future program to proceed.  The report recommends that Council endorse proceeding with the project to the tender stage so that it is ready to construct during the 2012-13 financial year.

Background

Coachmans Park is centrally located on Queen Street, St Marys and is an important local meeting place and well known landmark for the residents of St Marys. The park is frequently used by community groups and other organisations as a place to connect with the local residents and to raise the profile of services to the community.

 

The adopted St Marys Town Centre Strategy identifies opportunities and specific actions related to the improvement of the Centre’s public domain and, in particular, the enhancement of major public spaces such as Coachmans Park. These aim to create a high quality public realm and vibrant public places which engender a strong sense of community pride and create a hub for community activity. The St Marys Town Centre Development Control Plan also contains objectives to promote high quality urban design and high levels of accessibility within the town centre connecting significant activity nodes, public open spaces and surrounding areas.

 

The Funding our Future - Centres Renewal (SRV) program was developed to enable a program of civic improvements to be implemented for both the Penrith and St Marys centres to support their growth and development thus supporting local employment opportunities.  The principal aim is to stimulate visitor and business activity, enliven the centres and provide a catalyst to encourage economic growth and support new investment.  The program delivers a range of outcomes identified in the St Marys Town Centre Strategy endorsed by Council in 2006. The improvements to Coachmans Park were identified in the consultation on the SRV as a project for completion in 2012-13.

 

The project to revitalise Coachmans Park with the construction of new contemporary infrastructure is planned to build on the strengths of the community, assisting to bring more groups and events into the area for the purpose of activating and building connections.

 

The project is the first proposed project to be funded for St Marys under the Funding our Future program and the outcomes will be important to the local community including landowners and business operators.  The Coachmans Park project, since inception in early 2011, has been the subject of numerous stakeholder group discussions with ongoing design development to respond to community issues.

 

The Centres Renewal Program identified Coachmans Park as the second project to be funded in the first 3 years of the Program.  The construction of Coachmans Park is programmed to commence in February 2013. This commencement date has emerged in consultation with the St Marys Town Centre association and is aimed to avoid the St Marys Spring Fair and the Christmas trade period.

 

Council considered a report on Coachmans Park on 26 March 2012 and requested further information on the surface treatment, the accessibility of the art work, the provision of an additional heritage information sign and the repair of the rotary clock.

Coachmans Park Design

Coachmans Park will be upgraded to meet contemporary standards as an important public place, consistent with the objectives of Council’s adopted St Marys Town Centre Strategy and Development Control Plan.  The new design of the park will continue to provide multi-use spaces for relaxation and special events whilst improving accessibility, safety and amenity.

 

The Coachmans Park Masterplan, photomontage and perspective (which are included in the Appendix) show the key features of the design.  The masterplan study area included the two park allotments divided by West Lane. The eastern lot containing the established park between Queen Street and West Lane is the area proposed for upgrading as a first stage, and is the subject of this report.  The western portion will be developed in the future as a more informal area with soft landscaping and a new toilet block. This toilet block will replace the current facility located to the north on the corner of West Lane and Charles Hackett Drive. 

 

The key elements in the park design include:

·    An elevated lawn area with retained trees

·    A low paved terrace

·    Improved stage access

·    A park identity sign

·    A pergola shade structure

·    New paving

·    New lighting

·    A public artwork on the Queen Street corner which will interpret aspects of St Marys past and reflect aspirations for its future

·    Screening of the adjoining building

·    New shade trees

 

Integral to the park design has been the stated desire of the community for it to be a multifunctional space.  Central to this desire has been the retention of the stage and the improved viewing of it by audiences. This has been achieved through the creation of an elevated lawn and paved terrace. The retention of the large internal paved area allows for large gatherings or space for temporary seating for stage performances. The pergola area provides shade and informal seating with some tables for people to meet at and for workers to eat their lunch.  The raised lawn bed and the steps fronting it provide informal places for people to sit and meet. The lawn bed in combination with the trees and colourful plantings in raised beds will soften the presentation of the park to Queen Street.

 

In combination, the artwork, the level changes, stage, pergola, lighting, pavement changes, plantings and screening create a more functional, interesting, inviting and safer place in the heart of St Marys.

 

In parallel with the project, a drainage upgrade will be installed under the park to ‘future-proof’ it as part of the required Queen Street precinct stormwater enhancements.  Funding for the drainage upgrade component would be from the new Stormwater Management Charge, if approved by Council for implementation next financial year.

Community Consultation

A community engagement process was undertaken to assist in preparing a masterplan for the Coachmans Park site, and a related communications strategy developed.

 

The first round of consultation for the new Coachmans Park masterplan commenced on Saturday 2 April 2011 with the consultant interviewing park users in the park about their aspirations for the site.  Local businesses in Queen Street and nearby residences were notified of the consultation by letter box drop and notices in the local newspapers.

 

A more formal stakeholder meeting was convened on 7 April 2011 with the following interest groups attending:

 

·    St Marys Town Centre Association

·    St Marys Development Committee

·    St Marys Historical Society

·    Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce

·    Department of Housing

 

The stakeholder responses identified a number of key matters which we have addressed in the formulation of the design. Those included:

 

·    Retention of the stage and viewing area

·    Retain shade trees, flower beds and greenery in the Park

·    Provision of accessible seating and lunch facilities

·    Recognising the pedestrian access linkages through the Park

·    Increase perceptions of safety and visibility into the Park

·    Retain asphalt surfaces

·    Include new Park furniture and pergola

·    Heritage information signage

·    Incorporate interpretive information depicting heritage information about the place

 

Following discussions with East Ward Councillors, the community was notified a second time about the evolution of the new park design.  Public notification was undertaken in accordance with a comprehensive communications strategy, from 2 September 2011 up to 30 September 2011.  The notification was supplemented with letters to the stakeholders that attended the previous stakeholder’s workshop. Further briefings of the St Marys Town Centre Association and the St Marys Development Committee were also undertaken. One submission was received from the St Marys Town Centre Association during the notification period expressing their support for the project.

Access Committee

The Coachmans Park design was referred to the Access Committee on 1 June 2011.  The Access Committee raised issues relating to provision and types of seating, pedestrian desire lines and movement, lighting and the luminance contrast of materials in the park.  These matters have been addressed in the design.

 

The Committee did not identify any issues with the spacing of the artwork poles.  The spacing of the poles has, however, been checked by Council officers and found to comply with the current standard for accessibility. In other words, they will not impede the movement of people in wheelchairs between them.

Councillor Briefings

East Ward Councillors were briefed on the progress of the new masterplan for Coachmans Park on 21 July 2011, 14 November 2011and 12 March 2012.

 

At the 14 November 2011 briefing the East Ward Councillors considered the latest masterplan drawings and requested further information on particular aspects of the design.  In particular a new photomontage and perspective drawing were requested to assist in understanding the vision for the place. At this time further information on the background to the public art, bitumen pavement detailing and tree replacement species was also requested.  This information was presented at the 12 March 2012 East Ward Councillors briefing.

 

A Councillor Bulletin was issued on 30 March 2012 which responded to specific queries and concerns raised by Councillors.

 

Asphalt Surface Treatment

The previous proposal to use concrete slabs to break up the expanse of asphalt surface has been replaced with a proposal for an imprinted surface treatment which is applied to the finished asphalt at completion.  A graphic art design exercise will be undertaken to develop graphic treatment proposal options for recommendation.  Provisional sums will be allowed during tender for the proposed surface treatment with the details of the graphic art design to be presented to East Ward councillors at an appropriate time which is now possible to be later in the implementation programme due to the flexibility of the proposed surface treatment.  A detailed programme for the graphic art design exercise is under development.

 

Heritage Information

An additional heritage panel, as proposed at the Queens Street entry to the park, will be placed at the western boundary of the project site to inform people entering the park from the west. This information will be the same as that displayed at the corner of Queen Street and Charles Hackett Drive.

 

Rotary Clock Repair

Although not part of the Coachmans Park Improvements, the Rotary clock will continue to be repaired and maintained.  The City Works Manager has advised that the clock is currently working and showing Eastern Standard Time.  The clock’s time will be changed to Daylight Savings Time with all of Council’s public clocks at that time.

Project Timeframe and Cost

The project is scheduled to commence in February 2013, and our estimate is that project could take at least 6 months which is subject to the outcomes of the tender and negotiations with the successful contractor. This would result in completion extending into July/August 2013.

 

Feedback from the community and local groups has clearly indicated that the St Marys Spring Fair is the key date to avoid any construction on site or disruption to the area. Also, the construction period will avoid the Christmas period and related promotional activities that the St Marys Town Centre Association undertake in the Park.

 

It is important that the new design for Coachmans Park is endorsed this year to enable the process to advance to finalise the necessary construction documentation and the calling of tenders. This will allow for an orderly commencement of the landscape and drainage construction early in 2013.

 

The total estimated cost of the project is $1.1m including design components and contingencies.

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

The approved Special Rate Variation (SRV) will be incorporated into the 2012-13 Operational Plan.  As reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 27 June 2011, the approval from IPART was for a SRV slightly lower than requested by Council and as a result adjustments have been made to the programs included.  An allocation of $1.6m annually has been provided from the City Centres Upgrade and Renewal program.

 

The improvements to Coachmans Park were identified in the consultation on the SRV as a project for completion in 2012-13.  This report confirms the scope of works and the estimated cost of $1.1M is within the provisional budget for inclusion in the 2012-13 Operational Plan.

Conclusion

An upgrade of Coachmans Park was identified as a major project in Council’s adopted Funding our Future program. Coachmans Park plays an important role in the local community as a meeting place and increasingly is being used for community and other events.  The redevelopment of Coachmans Park will provide a contemporary, inviting and functional public space in the heart of St Marys. This project will be the second City Centres Renewal project in the Funding our Future program to proceed.

 

The proposed enhancements follow an extensive design process including wide community consultation ensuring that many of the ideas of the community have been incorporated into the Park’s design. The upgrade will ensure that Coachmans Park will continue to be an important feature of the St Marys area and a focus of community activity.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Coachmans Park Improvement Project be received.

2.     The Coachmans Park Improvement Project design documentation be finalised and proceed to tender to enable construction to commence in February 2013 with funding being allocated from the City Centre Upgrade and Renewal Program.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

7

Tender Reference 11/12-14, Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner   

 

Compiled by:               Michael Doggett, Supply Co-ordinator

Ken  Myhill, Fleet Coordinator

Hans Meijer, City Works Manager

Authorised by:            Hans Meijer, City Works Manager   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

A City with infrastructure that responds to community needs (17)

Strategic Response

Improve the City's drainage network (17.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

A tender for a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner was advertised on 9 February 2012 and closed on 8 March 2012.

This report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that none of the tenders received be accepted because they did not meet the specifications as detailed within the tender.

After consideration of the tenders received the Tender Evaluation Committee met for the purpose of reviewing the equipment specifications within the “Request for tender documents” to ensure that they clarified to prospective tenderers the exact nature and purpose of the equipment that the Council required. Following this review, it was determined that the technical specifications should be revised to ensure that future tenderers would be compliant and conforming with the tender specifications.

 

The Tender Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that the current tender process did not realise the expected outcomes of the tender. Accordingly, the Committee believes that revising the tender specifications and calling fresh tenders will be the most advantageous outcome for Council.

Background

Tenders were advertised in the Western Weekender and the e-Tendering website on 9 February 2012 and the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 February 2012 for one suction eductor pit cleaner. Tenders closed on 8 March 2012.

 

Tenderers were required to submit their tender on a standard pro-forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria. Tenderers were also required to complete a price schedule including whole life costs and specifications for the suction eductor pit cleaner.

 

Tender Evaluation Committee

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Ken Myhill (Fleet Coordinator), Matthew Nicholson (Senior Works Coordinator), Michael Doggett (Supply Coordinator) and Laura Schuil (Supply Officer – Contracts).

 

Tender Evaluation Criteria

The selection criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received were:

Tenderers Information

·    Tenderers Profile

·    Contact Details

Declarations

·    Conforming Requirements

·    Conflict of Interest

·    Conditions of Participation

·    Required Declaration

·    Compliance statement

·    Insurances

Evaluation Criteria

·    Scope of Requirements

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Delivery Time

·    Equipment Specifications & Demonstrated Compliance

·    Documentation and Training

·    Safety

·    Service, Spare Parts & Warranty

·    Operator Acceptability

Price

·    The Lump Sum Tendered Price

·    Whole of life cost including operating & repair cost, depreciation, end of life recovery price

·    Trade in Valuation

·    Imported Content/Exchange Rate Variation

Management and Administration

·    Environmental Performance of Organisation

·    Occupational Health & Safety and Public Liability Management

·    Quality Assurance System

 

 

 

Summary of Tenders Received

A total of 5 submissions (3 tenders were received from Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd) were received from the following respondents (listed in alphabetical order):

 

                   Company

       Tendered Price $ (ex GST)

MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd

                    252,559

Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd- Merlin

                    234,855

Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd- Mistral*

                    238,913

Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd- Mistral#

                    254,913

Vermeer Sales & Service (NSW) Pty Ltd

                    215,500

 

*The Scarab Mistral is on a Euro 4- Nissan UD MK 6 Auto Chassis

# The Scarab Mistral is on a Euro 5 – Hino 500 FG 1628 Auto Chassis

 

Evaluation of Tenders

Following a detailed analysis of all completed responses, each tender was evaluated against the evaluation criteria. The pre-determined evaluation criteria were then used to determine a final ranking for each tender.

 

The tendered price submitted by Vermeer Sales and Service (NSW) Pty Ltd was for a stand alone Excavator Unit without supplying a truck.  Additionally, the Company failed to complete a large number of the tender selection criteria requirements and, accordingly, the tender was non-conforming and could not be considered any further. The tender specifications stipulated that tenderers were required to provide a “truck” as well as a suction eductor pit cleaner.

 

The tender response from MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to be non-conforming as the Company failed to complete a large number of the tender selection criteria requirements for the tender, and accordingly, the tender was non-conforming and could not be considered any further.

 

As highlighted earlier Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd submitted three tender responses to the Council’s advertised tender. The Company offered two models of the Scarab Mistral, as well as the Scarab Merlin.

 

On 28 and 29 March 2012 demonstrations of a Scarab Mistral were conducted both at the Kingswood depot and at a site in Greenbank Drive, Werrington Downs.  The demonstrations were attended by the Tender Evaluation Committee as well as Council Supervisors and plant operators.

 

The demonstration and inspection of the Scarab Mistral resulted in several issues being identified with the proposed unit. Issues included:

-     The snorkel pipe did not meet the minimum  specified size of 150mm internal diameter

-     Not enough suction

-     Sharp bend at snorkel hose could be prone to blockages

-     Snorkel tube handles not practical

-     Snorkel turret not in centre of the hopper limits reach to one side

-     Filters clogged easily

-     Suction fan too small

-     No lock on turret allowing uncontrolled swing of the snorkel

-     No room for tool boxes

-     No room for signs to be carried

-     No room allowed for tool box across the chassis as specified for extra snorkel tubes

-     Control cord too short restricting operation

-     No crane for pit lids demonstrated however a picture was supplied at a later date but is side mounted and it is considered that this will compromise the operation.

 

The Scarab Merlin was not demonstrated as the hopper and eductor equipment is identical to the Mistral and the eductor operation would be the same as demonstrated however this unit uses a single engine (the truck) to drive the truck and to power the eductor instead of using and auxiliary engine to drive the hopper, sweep gear and eductor.

 

Having regard to the demonstration and the assessment made, the Tender Evaluation Committee formed the view that the purchase of this unit would not meet Council’s specifications.

 

After consideration of the tenders received the Tender Evaluation Committee met for the purpose of reviewing the equipment specifications within the “Request for tender documents” to ensure that they clarified to prospective tenderers the exact nature and purpose of the equipment that the Council required. Following this review, it was determined that the technical specifications should be revised to ensure that future tenderers would be compliant and conforming with the tender specifications.

 

Tender Assessment Group

 

The Tender Assessment Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager, Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider a tender for a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner.

 

The TAG made further enquiries with members of the Tender Evaluation Committee to appraise themselves of the tenders received and of the results of the demonstrations carried out on the Scarab Mistral.

 

On the basis of the enquiries made, the TAG supports the recommendation made by the Tender Evaluation Committee that a fresh tender be called for a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner.

 

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Committee are of the opinion that a fresh tender be called following a review of the specifications for the Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 11/12-14, Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner be received.

2.     A new tender be called for the supply of al Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

8

Grant Funding - Erksine Park High School   

 

Compiled by:               John Gordon, Parks Manager

Authorised by:            Tracy Chalk, Waste and Community Protection 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

Penrith City Council was successful in obtaining grant funding from the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RCLIP) - Round 3 for playing field enhancements at Erskine Park High School. The funding ($50,000) was to match funds obtained by Erskine Park High School to upgrade the school oval playing surface and install floodlighting, making the site available for use by both the school and community sporting organisations.

 

Initial project scoping and works programs were developed directly between the School Principal and Council’s Parks Department. Subsequent involvement by the NSW Department of Education and Communities (DEC) necessitated the development of a deed of agreement between Council and the Department of Education and Communities. This process has taken 12 months to date and is yet to be finalised. As a result, the allocated grant funds cannot be expended prior to the nominated funding deadline (30 June 2012).

 

Council’s options for the allocated funds are to –

·    Use the funds for another eligible project

·    Use the funds to increase the scope of other approved RLCIP Round 3 projects

·    Return of funds

 

It is proposed to use the funds for another eligible project. The identified project is the installation of a new playground facility at Shepherd Street Park, Colyton. This site has been identified as a priority on the Parks Asset Renewal program and can be completed within the identified timeframe. Works would include the installation of new playground equipment, rubberised softfall, shade planting and seating. These works would compliment proposed oval resurfacing works and floodlighting upgrades at the adjacent sporting fields.

 

The upgrade of the Erskine Park High School Oval remains a priority and is consistent with a number of the key elements identified in the recently adopted Sportsground Management Strategy. Alternate funding sources for Council’s contribution towards the project will need to be identified.

 

Background

Council received funding under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) Round 3 to partner Erskine Park High School in the upgrade of the school oval to accommodate community sporting use.  The scope of the project was presented in a report to Council on RLCIP Round 3 priorities as follows -

 

Erskine Park High School playing field enhancements (East Ward) Priority A Grant request: $50,000

 

The NSW Department of Education has approved $50,000 towards enhancement of the sporting fields at Erskine Park High School. Council’s submission would be for assistance to construct a new playing surface, including the supply and incorporation of recycled organics (1,000 T) to create a suitable growing medium ($25,000), returf the oval surface (12,000sqm - $20,000) and undertake a topdressing program ($5,000). These funds would supplement the school’s grant funding, which would be utilised for earthworks, retaining works and irrigation. This RLCIP funding will be directed at a discrete component of the project. This project meets the RLCIP’s eligible category of recreation facilities (sports grounds and facilities).

 

This project represents an opportunity which has arisen as a result of an unexpected grant of funds from the NSW Education Department to this school, to provide the school community with enhanced facilities. The contribution of an additional $50,000 would enable the facility to be developed to a standard that the community sporting organisations could utilise after school hours and on weekends, addressing the needs of the local sporting community and assisting in playing field sustainability. The school has indicated a willingness to partner Council in this project to achieve that broader community benefit.

 

NSW Education Department grant:                                          $50,000

Playing surface (Priority A):                                                      $50,000

Project cost (total):                                                                   $100,000

 

Current Situation

Following approval of the grant funding Council’s Parks Department and the School Principal proceeded to finalise the project scope and project timeframe. The project timeframe is a critical element of the project as the works need to be undertaken to minimise the impact on the delivery of the school curriculum and meet horticultural requirements. Works were initially planned to be undertaken in early 2011, following the reconstruction of Peppertree Oval, Erskine Park. Peppertree Oval is located adjacent to Erskine Park High School and can provide an alternate location for the conduct of school activities during the day while the school oval was being reconstructed and established.

 

Following further consultation with the school and the Asset Management section of the Department of Education and Communities it was determined that for the project to proceed a ‘Deed of Agreement for Refurbishment and Joint Use of Oval’ between Penrith City Council and the Department of Education and Communities was required. To date, a number of draft agreements have been prepared by the Department of Education and Communities legal representatives. These agreements have been the subject of ongoing discussions, however at this point in time all the elements of the legal document do not satisfy Council or DEC requirements. The timeframe for the finalisation of this matter is unclear. As a result, the project cannot be completed within the period specified under the terms of the RLCIP funding agreement.

 

 

Project Options

Council’s Parks Manager has had discussions with the grant officer in the relevant federal government department  in relation to the challenges facing Council in the delivery of this project within the timeframe specified (30 June 2012). The following options have been presented to Council in relation to the use of the funding –

 

·    Use the funds for another eligible project

·    Use the fund to increase the scope of other approved RLCIP Round 3 projects

·    Return of funds

 

Given the timeframe in which grant funding must be expended it is recommended that Council consider utilising the funding ‘for another eligible project’. The proposed project is the installation of a new playground facility at Shepherd Street Park, Colyton. The scope of works would include new playground equipment, rubberised softfall, shade planting and seating. The estimated cost of these works is $50,000. The works would also compliment the upgrade of the fields and floodlighting being undertaken in the 2012/13 financial year at the adjacent sporting fields.

 

This site has been listed for upgrade under the Parks Asset Renewal Program and is included in the program of works to be funded under the Special Rate Variation. Funding this project would accelerate the overall completion of the Parks Asset Renewal program. The project is located in the same Federal electorate as the Erskine Park High School project and provides Council with the opportunity to upgrade playground infrastructure to a contemporary standard.

 

Erskine Park High School Playing Field Upgrade

Despite the delay in finalising the deed of agreement in relation to the refurbishment and joint use of the oval at Erskine Park High School, the fundamentals on which the project was developed are still valid. In fact, the recently adopted Sportsground Management strategy identifies the joint use of school playing fields as a key element in meeting the future demand for community sporting activities and as a means of providing quality, sustainable sports fields across the City.  In order to fund Council’s contribution ($50,000) towards the project it is recommended that Council consider funding the project from the Telecommunications Access Fees (TAF).

 

Telecommunications Access Fees (TAF) 

A number of Council’s sportsgrounds have mobile phone transmitters co-located on their floodlight poles. Mobile phone providers pay Council an annual rental fee for co-location. In accordance with Council’s adopted policy these fees are “utilised to upgrade facilities on the areas where the income was raised and to nearby reserves when identified works are completed.”

 

Available funds in the TAF reserve significantly exceed the funds required to match the Erskine Park High School’s contribution towards the proposed project.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comments

The reallocation of the grant to the proposed project will ensure that the grant funds secure can still be utilised to enhance facilities within the City.  The TAF Reserve has sufficient funding to support the proposed allocation with the projected balance of the Reserve as at 30 June 2012 being $153,815.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Grant Funding - Erksine Park High School be received.

2.     Council support the reallocation of RLCIP grant funding to a new site at Shepherd Street Park for the upgrade of playground facilities and that a formal approach be made to the Federal Government to amend the grant location.

3.     Council allocate $50,000 from the TAF Reserve as matching funds to Erskine Park High School project subject to the satisfactory finalisation of a Deed of Agreement for Refurbishment and Joint Oval Use of Oval between The Department of Education and Communities and Penrith City Council.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

9        Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review Implementation - Governance Arrangements

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

A Vibrant City

 

 

9

Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review Implementation - Governance Arrangements   

 

Compiled by:               Terry Agar, Acting Centres Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Jeni Pollard, Place Manager   

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

A City with opportunities to engage, participate and connect (23)

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

Council is currently implementing the recommendations of the Review of the Management of the Penrith and St Marys Centres in accordance with Council’s resolutions of 5 December 2011.  This report recommends that the new City Centre entities be established as companies limited by guarantee and that the supporting Independent Review Panel overseeing their establishment and operation be established as a section 377 committee of Council.

Background

Council considered a report on 5 December 2011 on the findings and recommendations of the Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review.   At that meeting Council resolved to do the following:

 

·    Create two new centre management entities with new governance arrangements, to be operational by 1 July 2011;

·    Set up an Independent Review Panel (IRP) to oversee the transitional arrangements and ongoing operational reporting of the two new entities; and

·    Authorise the General Manager to advance the establishment of the new entities and associated management arrangements and bring the new final agreements back to Council for endorsement. 

 

An internal working party driven by Place Management, and including representatives from Legal and Governance as well as Financial Services, has been working on the development of the new model. The working group’s more detailed investigation of the governance arrangements has resulted in two recommendations with regard to the new structures. Firstly, the new centre entities should be formed as corporations limited by guarantee. Secondly, the Independent Review Panel (IRP) would be best formed under the structure of a section 377 committee of Council.

 

Recommended Governance Structure

Central to the successful implementation of any centres management model is good governance arrangements.  To achieve the agreed long term visions for Penrith and St Marys it is essential that the management entities are transparent and accountable.  Equally important is defining the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders to build a partnership of management.

 

The management review recommended a governance structure comprised of the following components:

 

·           New Agreements between Council and the new centre entities

·           New Council Centres Management Policy

·           An Independent Review Panel

·           3-year Strategic Plans and Annual Operations Plans for each new entity with annual reviews

 

Corporations Formation

The internal working party has given considerable thought to the development of the new entities and, after weighing the options, it is recommended that the new City Centres organisations are incorporated as a company limited by guarantee in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001. There are a number of considerations which include providing a formal but flexible structure that recognises the important professional standing of the organisations. Consideration was also given to the current company status of the Penrith Business Alliance (PBA) and it was felt that the new entities will need to represent their membership base with equal stature.

 

The corporations once established would make decisions independent of Council, much like the arrangements of the PBA and the existing Centres Associations. It is proposed that the deed of agreement with the new corporations will be drafted in a way which prescribes clear lines of responsibility and performance links to strategic outcomes.  In addition, the Independent Review Panel will provide an additional check and balance to their operation with regular monitoring and assessment of performance.

 

To establish these new companies Council is required to endorse an approach to the Division of Local Government to make an application seeking the consent of the Minister for Local Government.  Such an application would need to be made if Council were to set up the new entities as incorporated associations.  In applying for the Minister’s consent, Council must demonstrate that the formation of the corporation is in the public interest and provide information that satisfies the following criteria:

 

1.   Is the proposal consistent with the functions of the council or an existing service that the council provides?

2.   Will the proposed entity be legally separated from the council?

3.   Is the council currently financially viable?

4.   What is the impact of the proposal on existing council staff?

 

The application process will require considerable documentation and advice from the Division is that assessment and approval of an application by the Minister may then take up to 12 months. This may delay the establishment of the new entities past the proposed 1 July 2012 commencement date.  Whilst this is unfortunate, both City Centres Associations have been advised of the potential delay and are continuing to work on activities and projects with a timeframe that is well into the 2012-13 period.  Interim arrangement options are currently being explored with the existing Associations to be put in place in the event that approval from the Minister is not received in time for the proposed 1 July 2012 commencement date.

 

Independent Review Panel

Council resolved on 5 December 2011 to set up an Independent Review Panel (IRP) composed of Council and community representatives to advise Council on the transition to the new governance arrangements including recommendations on the initial membership of the new boards. Further to this the IRP will support good governance of the new structures through reviewing the annual performance of the entities in the achievement of their 3-year strategic management plan objectives and annual operation plan performance measures.

 

The IRP will provide an “arms length” assessment of the true performance of the new entities and a solid platform for consideration of their financial accountability.

 

The internal working party has reviewed the management recommendation for the new governance model and determined that the IRP terms of reference should include the following:

 

Establishment Phase

·    Review the preparation of the agreements between the new entities and PCC

·    Review the preparation of the 3 year Strategic Plan for each entity

·    Interviewing and recommending the Board Members for each new entity

 

Operational Phase

·    Annual review of the operational plans of the new entities and their alignment with the 3 year strategic plans

·    Annual reporting to Council on the performance of the new entities

 

The IRP membership was reviewed by the internal working group and confirmed the management review’s recommendation of it being comprised of the following 5 members:

·    General Manager or delegate

·    Councillor

·    Prominent Penrith local business leader

·    Prominent St Marys local business leader

·    Prominent local community representative from the Penrith LGA

 

The internal working party recommends that the IRP should be established as a section 377 Committee of Council.  This will ensure that the actions of the IRP are open and transparent with the formal reporting of their decisions to Council. The impartiality of the IRP will be supported by this arrangement, particularly when the annual performance review of the new entities is undertaken.  Establishment of the IRP as a committee of Council would also add a status and prestige and assist with attracting its three community members.

 

Next Steps

The formation of the Independent Review Panel is the next step in the process of implementing Council’s new governance arrangements for the management of the City Centres.  Expressions of interest will be sought soon for the community and business leaders positions on the Independent Review Panel.  The appointment of a Councillor member to the Panel is also a recommendation of this report. 

 

After the IRP is in place, the process of seeking expressions of interest for the board members for the new entities, interviewing potential candidates and making recommendations for appointment will take place.

 

Conclusion

The internal working party has given considerable thought to the development of the new entities.   After weighing the options it recommends that the new City Centre entities are established as companies limited by guarantee. This structure will support a formal but flexible operation that has appropriate stature to represent member organisations. Although obtaining the consent from the Minister for Local Government to establish the corporations may delay their inception, it is considered more important to ensure that long term the governance arrangements are sound.

 

The working party further recommends that the supporting Independent Review Panel overseeing their establishment and operation be established as a section 377 committee of Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review Implementation - Governance Arrangements be received.

2.     Council make an application to the Division of Local Government seeking the Minister for Local Government’s consent to establish corporations for the management of the Penrith and St Marys centres.

3.     Council appoint a Councillor representative to the Independent Review Panel.

4.     Council establish the Independent Review Panel as a section 377 committee under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday April 23 2012

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                        1

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Easement for Underground Gas Main for Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd over part of Ched Towns Reserve, William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Shop 3, 134-138 Henry Street, Penrith

 

4        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Assignment of Licence over Part of Tench Reserve for a Mobile Food Unit (Kiosk)                                                                                                  3

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                    23 April 2012

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 - Council Property - Easement for Underground Gas Main for Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd over part of Ched Towns Reserve, William Howell Drive, Glenmore Park

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        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Shop 3, 134-138 Henry Street, Penrith

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.

 

 

 

 

4        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Assignment of Licence over Part of Tench Reserve for a Mobile Food Unit (Kiosk)

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY