ordinary council meeting tuesday 25 january...

Shire of Esperance

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 2

DISCLAIMER

No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the Shire of Esperance for any act, omission or statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. The Shire of Esperance disclaims any liability for any loss whatsoever and howsoever caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission or statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council or Committee meeting does so at that person’s or legal entity’s own risk. In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by a member or officer of the Shire of Esperance during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the Shire of Esperance. The Shire of Esperance warns that anyone who has any application lodged with the Shire of Esperance must obtain and should only rely on written confirmation

of the outcome of the application, and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Shire of Esperance in respect of the application.

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Council is committed to a code of conduct and all decisions are based on an honest assessment of the issue, ethical decision-making and personal integrity. Councillors and staff adhere to the statutory requirements to declare financial, proximity and impartiality interests and once declared follow the legislation as required.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 3 Table of Contents/ Index

ITEM PAGE NUMBER ITEM HEADING NUMBER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 OFFICIAL OPENING 5 2.0 ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF

ABSENCE: 5 2.1 Present: 5 2.2 Apologies: 6 2.3 Notification of Granted Leave of Absence: 6 3.0 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE: 6 4.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION: 6 5.0 DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS: 6 5.1 Declarations of Financial Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60A 6 5.2 Declarations of Proximity Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60B 6 5.3 Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34C 7 6.0 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME: 7 7.0 PUBLIC ADDRESSES/ DEPUTATIONS: 7 8.0 PETITIONS 7 9.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: 8 9.1 Ordinary Council Meeting December 2010 8 10.0 DELEGATES REPORTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION: 8 10.1 DELEGATES REPORTS 8 10.2 CITIZEN OF THE MONTH 9 11.0 MATTERS REQUIRING A DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL: 9 11.1 Public participation 9 11.1.1 Duke of Orleans Caravan Park - Proposed Modification of Restrictive Covenant 9 11.1.2 Variation of project funded through the Community Development Fund 17 11.1.3 Adventureland Park - Proposed Shade Shelter 19 11.2 EXECUTIVE SERVICES 30 11.2.1 Forward Capital Works Plan 30 11.2.2 Community Perception Survey 33 11.2.3 Organisational Structure 45 11.3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 58 11.4 COMMUNITY SERVICES 58 11.4.1 Request for Council Support for a Caretakers Residence at Lake Monjingup

Reserve 58 11.5 ENGINEERING SERVICES 63 11.5.1 Support for Strategic Road Routes - Great Eastern Zone 63 11.6 Corporate Services 67 11.6.1 Financial services report 67 11.7 Advisory Committee Recommendations 67 11.7.1 Esperance Museum Management Committee 67 11.7.2 Lake Monjingup Development Community Group 68 11.7.3 Esperance Tourism Advisory Committee 68 11.7.4 Esperance Tourism Advisory Committee 69 11.7.5 Esperance Roadwise Committee 70 11.8 INFORMATION BULLETIN 69 11.9 ELECTED MEMBER CORRESPONDENCE 70 12.0 MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 70 12.1 Minutes Greater Sports Ground Redevelopment Committee 70 13.0 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY DECISION: 71 14.0 MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: 71

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 4 15.0 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME: 71 16.0 CLOSURE: 71


SHIRE OF ESPERANCE

MINUTES

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011

COMMENCING AT 4:00pm 1.0 OFFICIAL OPENING The Shire President declared the meeting open at 4:01pm The President welcomed Councillors, staff, guests and members of the public to the meeting. 2.0 ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF

ABSENCE: 2.1

PRESENT:

Members: Cr I S Mickel, JP President Rural Ward Cr W J Rodgers Deputy President Town Ward Cr T Furniss Rural Ward Cr P J Paxton Town Ward Cr B N Pearce Town Ward Cr M Penny Town Ward Cr R (Doc) Reynolds Town Ward Cr C M Smith Rural Ward Cr G E Starcevich Town Ward Cr B L Stewart, JP Town Ward Shire Officers: Mr M J (Mal) Osborne Chief Executive Officer Mr D Kennedy Executive Manager Corporate Services Mr S McKenzie A/Executive Manager Engineering Services Mr R T Hilton Executive Manager Community Services Mr R Hindley Executive Manager Development Services Mr G Golinski Manager Governance & Strategic Projects Mrs B Hoey Minutes Secretary Mrs B O’Callaghan Manager Financial Services – part of meeting Members of the Public & Press Mrs Wendy Royle & refer item 11.1.1 (Page 9) Duke of Orleans C/Park – Mr Vernon Butterly Proposed Modification of Restrictive Covenant


Mr Jodee Marsh & re proposed car and motor bike show to be held in Mr Peter Hurley Esperance in 2012 Mr John Henderson & refer item 11.1.2 (Page 17) Variation of Project Mr Eric Slade Funded Through the Community Development Fund Mr Bob Jones refer item 11.1.3 (Page 19) Adventureland Park

Proposed Shade Shelter Mr Andrew Waters refer item 12.1.1 (Page 73) Consideration of Lights on

Little Lords Mr John Gratwick Observer – part of meeting Mr Merv Andre Observer – part of meeting Mr Kevin Dwyer Observer – part of meeting Mr David Reichsten Observer - part of meeting Ms Cheryl Long Esperance Express Mr Tim Slater Kalgoorlie Miner – part of meeting 2.2

APOLOGIES:

Cr N C Walker - Rural Ward Mr G Harris – Executive Manager Engineering Services (long service leave) 2.3

NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

3.0 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Cr Rodgers advised verbally that he will be absent for the Ordinary Meeting of Council scheduled to be held on 22 February 2011. 4.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION: Nil announcements 5.0 DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS: 5.1

DECLARATIONS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS – LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT SECTION 5.60A

No financial declarations 5.2

DECLARATIONS OF PROXIMITY INTERESTS – LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT SECTION 5.60B

No proximity declarations

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 7 5.3

DECLARATIONS OF IMPARTIALITY INTERESTS – ADMIN REGULATIONS SECTION 34C

Cr Reynolds O0111-1552 as he is a tourism operator

Refer item 11.1.1 (Page 9 ) : Duke of Orleans C/Par – Proposed Modifiction of Restrictive Covenant

Cr Rodgers O0111-1552 as he is a past owner of the Duke of Orleans

Caravan Park

Cr Stewart O0111-1553 as her husband is a member of the Mechanical Restoration Group

Refer item 11.1.2 (Page 17) : Variation of Project Funded Through the Community Development Fund

Cr Stewart O0111-1554 as her husband is a member of the Adventureland Park Management Committee

Refer item 11.1.3 (Page 19) : Adventureland Park – Proposed Shade Shelter

Cr Pearce O0111-1558 as he is an executive member to the Esperance Small Business Centre

Refer item 11.2.2 (Page 33) : Community Perception Survey

Cr Pearce O0111-1563 as he is Council’s delegate to this committee Refer item 11.7.1 (Page 67) : Esperance Museum Management Committee

Cr Reynolds O0111-1565 as he is a Tourism Operator Refer item 11.7.3 (Page 68) : Esperance Tourism Advisory Committee

Cr Reynolds O0111-1566 as he is a Tourism Operator Refer item 11.7.4 (Page 69) : Esperance Tourism Advisory Committee

6.0 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME: Nil questions 7.0 PUBLIC ADDRESSES/ DEPUTATIONS: Nil this month 8.0 PETITIONS Nil this month

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 8 9.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: 9.1

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 2010

Moved: Cr Reynolds Seconded: Cr Rodgers O0111-1551 That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 14th December

2010 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

F10 - A0 CARRIED

Voting Requirement: Simple Majority

10.0 DELEGATES REPORTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION: 10.1 Cr Mickel

DELEGATES REPORTS

15.12.10 Presented Shire Award to Gemma Schlink at the Condingup Primary School Presentation Evening.

19.12.10 Attended Carols by Candlelight. 22.12.10 With CEO and David Spencer met with Mr Chip Murray to discuss upgrade to

Murray Road south. 12.01.11 Attended the briefing by Tourism WA on visit by the Miers Group (German Tourism

Marketers) to Esperance 2 – 6 March 2011. Cr Reynolds 12.01.11 Attended the briefing by Tourism WA on visit by the Miers Group (100 German

Tourism Marketers) to Esperance 2 – 6 March 2011 Cr Pearce 17.12.10 Attended the Seafarers monthly meeting. 25,000 seaman have utilised the facility

since 2001. 12.01.11 Attended the breakfast meeting of the Small Business Centre. 19.01.11 Attended the Seafarers monthly meeting. Cr Furniss Attended the Port Consultative Committee meeting whereat an update was given in

relation to Galaxy Resources project.


CITIZEN OF THE MONTH

The Shire President will be making a presentation to the outgoing Museum Curator, Mrs Dorothy Andre, in appreciation of her services in this position over a number of years prior at 6:00pm. Elected Members who wish to make a presentation of the Citizen of the Month Award for the month of February 2011 please advise the CEO or Executive Assistant Chantelle Spain. 11.0 MATTERS REQUIRING A DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL: 11.1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Mr Vernon Butterly, Manager – Town Planning Whelans addressed the Council in relation to this matter and requested that members give consideration to supporting Option 3 as outlined in the report as this proposal is for a tourism village typical of other eco-lodge examples such as the Mackeral Islands, Ningaloo Reef, Bungle Bungles etc. Mr Butterly asked that Council consider:

• This proposal is to only vary the restrictive covenant boundary i.e. reduce the area, • The proposal as outlined in the draft Subdivision Guide Plan will add to the economic

advancement of Esperance, • This will increase rates for the Shire, • This will provide a tourist related boost to the municipality, • If the covenant is retained in its present form the site will remain in its present state and

size, it must be appreciated this is already a large caravan park but occupying only 35% of the site available,

• The Covenant was applied 11 years ago and times and town planning controls have been strengthened to usurp the need for such a covenant,

• The Departments of Planning and Tourism have stated they will consider such a development proposal and rezoning based on its merits, and

• The Department of Regional Development and Lands are of the view to retain a covenant but with a reduced boundary.

Cr Reynolds declared an impartiality interest in the following item as he is a tourism operator. Cr Rodgers declared an impartiality interest in the following item as he is a past owner of the Duke of Orleans Caravan Park.

11.1.1

DUKE OF ORLEANS CARAVAN PARK - PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT

Applicant: Department of Regional Development and Lands Location/Address: Lots 1 and 5 Wharton Road, Condingup


File Ref: WHA1/LT0001-02; WHA1/LT005 Reporting Officer/Position: Richard Hindley - Executive Manager Development

Services Objective: This report recommends that the request for the modification of the restrictive covenant to allow a wide range of short and long term residential development on a portion of the site not be supported. Background: The former reserve which contained the Duke of Orleans Caravan Park (Lots 1 and 5) was converted to freehold title in 1999 with a restrictive covenant placed under s15 of the Land Administration Act to protect the site as a ‘Special Site – Caravan Park’ in perpetuity. The policy at the time of the freeholding of the site provided general direction to:

• Encourage private enterprise to develop caravan parks by offering secure tenure. • Ensure that appropriate levels of caravan park accommodation are maintained

throughout the State. • Provide for Crown land, which contains strategic tourist accommodation, to be retained

as a community asset. • To protect public access to foreshores where freehold is contemplated of coastal and

river line caravan parks. • Consult with Local Government, Tourism and Planning. • Ensure appropriate safeguards are placed on freehold title over a strategic site to retain

its use as a caravan park. In accordance with the above principles a restrictive covenant was placed on the site as part of the freeholding process restricting the use of the site to ‘Special Site – Caravan Park’.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 11 The Shire has been approached by the Department of Regional Development and Lands following a request to modify the restrictive covenant from the land owner and their representative (Attachment A shows the proposed boundary for the restrictive covenant). To facilitate the expansion of the development on the site to include permanent residential requires the restrictive covenant to be removed from those portions of the site. Officer’s Comment: Lots 1 and 5 Wharton Road, Condingup currently have a restrictive covenant lodged on the Certificate of Titles. This restrictive covenant was lodged by the State of Western Australia (Hon. Minister for Lands) in April 1999 specifically referencing that the lots cannot be used for any other purpose other than as a ‘Special Site – Caravan Park’. The reason for the covenant being lodged was that the subject allotments used to be Crown Land (reserves vested in the Shire for the purpose of Caravan Park & Chalet), and when a request was received to Freehold the allotments both the State and the Shire considered it was paramount to protect the fundamental development purpose on the site. A submission was lodged on behalf of the owners of Lots 1 & 5 Wharton Road in 2008 in relation to the then draft Local Planning Scheme No. 23 which stated the following:

Tourism WA has identified the subject site as being a potential strategic tourist site for Esperance.

• Tourism WA’s full support for the provision of a range of tourist accommodation (including a resort complex) is subject to the following:

• Adherence to sustainable environmental planning; • There being no permanent residential development within the development;

and • Separate strata titling not being pursued or supported and the entire

development operating under a single management system. • ... is requested that the site be recognised as a strategic tourism site and

permit the full range of tourist accommodation. This submission on the Scheme identified the site as a strategic tourism site. The proposal to modify the restrictive covenant would not be consistent with the Tourism Planning Taskforce Report nor the above submission points that were provided in seeking Council’s support to modify the zoning of the site during the advertising of Local Planning Scheme No. 23. It should also be recognised that a subdivision guide plan (Attachment B) has been prepared on behalf of the owner. This plan will be subject to separate review as part of a Scheme Amendment which may result if the Restrictive Covenant is modified to only apply to the specified area of Caravan Park rather than the entire site. A number of issues have been identified with the subdivision guide plan that is being used to support the removal of the restrictive covenant. The main concerns with the subdivision guide plan based on the initial review are as follows:

• The proposal provides for strata lots however in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 23 ‘Grouped Dwellings’ are an “X” (non permitted) use in the ‘Tourist’ zone.

• It is not considered ideal that permanent residential sites are accessed via a road network provided through the caravan park site – preference would be for road reserves to be created (refer comments below about public/private realm interface).

• In order to clearly distinguish the public and private realm, it is considered appropriate that the road networks provide such interface rather than having private allotments directly abutting the adjoining foreshore reserves;

• Appropriateness of proposed strata lot sizes would need to be addressed, particularly having regard to effluent disposal arrangements and noting that residential development forms in Condingup Townsite develop to an R10 density;

• Permanent residential and tourism interface issues


• Servicing & infrastructure requirements that would need to be addressed with any development proposal include: o Appropriate water supply arrangements; o Appropriate power supply arrangements – currently there is only single phase

power available to the existing caravan park development; o Road upgrading – sections of Orleans Bay Road are currently single lane width

only; o Appropriate effluent disposal arrangements; o Rubbish disposal arrangements – noting that the Condingup Tip has recently been

closed; o Fire management arrangements

• A search of Department of Indigenous Affair’s Aboriginal Heritage Sites register identified the existence of two registered sites on Lot 1 Wharton Road.

• Any proposals for boardwalk and jetty infrastructure which are proposed to become Shire assets would need to include Asset Management Plans to enable due consideration of “whole of life” costing associated with such infrastructure.

The intensification of development on the site that would be facilitated by the modification of the restrictive covenant will place additional pressure on servicing. Water is sourced from groundwater and some limited rainwater catchment with power requiring an upgrade if the development was to be expanded. Significant infrastructure upgrades will be required for effluent disposal to support any expanded use of the site and additional pressure will be placed on the road network. For the intensification of development as proposed the subject site needs to be rezoned. The document needs to provide sufficient details and justification for the proposal to allow for formal environmental comment and public comment. If the proposed modification is supported it would be appropriate to defer consideration until the Scheme Amendment process has reached Final Approval stage after advertising. At this juncture it can be determined whether or not Council support the amendment (and hence proposal) in the light of public and agency comment. One other consideration that must be made if an amendment is pursued is the Western Australian Planning Commissions Position Statement on State Planning Policy 2.6 – State Coastal Planning Policy Schedule 1 Sea Level Rise. This position statement has revised the coastal setback from 100m to 150m based on projected sea level rises between 2000 and 2100. The impact on the subject site is shown on the following image:


This change in position of the WAPC has the potential to significantly impact on the future development potential of the coastal side of the caravan park and will need to be considered in any Scheme amendment. The removal of the restrictive covenant from a large portion of the site will be the first step in allowing increased development to occur at the Duke of Orleans Caravan Park. The introduction of permanent and temporary accommodation along with short stay apartments and an eco tourist resort will place significant demands on infrastructure and servicing. The scale of development would be such that the development of the Wharton Townsite could be to the detriment of service provision in Condingup. Any Scheme amendment, if the proposal proceeds that far, will need to take into account any potential impact on Condingup.

Options

1. Refuse the request to modify the restrictive covenant.

This is the officer recommendation for the reasons outlined in this report.

2. Seek further information in relation to the request for all outstanding issues including but not limited to coastal setback, effluent disposal and servicing prior to referral back to Council for determination.

3. Defer the consideration of the request until such time as a Scheme Amendment has

been formally advertised and brought back to Council for consideration of Final Approval. The Scheme Amendment is to cover all issues raised in this report in addition to all statutory requirements. Considering the removal of the covenant at this stage will ensure that adequate community and servicing agency comments have been received prior to a decision being made.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 14 Attachment/s: ‘A’ - Proposed boundary for the restrictive covenant ‘B’ - Subdivision guide plan Consultation: Development Control Unit

Briefing Session presentation by proponent Strategic Implications: Local Planning Strategy The Local Planning Strategy identifies the Caravan Park and the servicing constraints that are present. The Strategy does not identify any expansion of uses on the site. Statutory Environment: Land Administration Act 1997 Policy Implications: There are no policy implications relating to this item Environmental Considerations: There are potentially significant environmental impacts that may result from the intensification of development that would be partially facilitated by the modification of the restrictive covenant. More detailed investigation would be required with particular emphasis on effluent disposal, water and vegetation clearing if the covenant is modified and a Scheme Amendment pursued. Asset Management Implications There are no asset management implications relating to this item although further investigation would need to be undertaken if more intensive development is undertaken. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications relating to this item if the request is declined. If the request is supported more detailed asset management implications will be determined when considering the specific of the development as part of a Scheme Amendment and associated subdivision guide plan. Officer’s Recommendation: That Council advise the Department of Regional Development and Lands that it does not

support the modification of the Restrictive Covenant on Lot 1 on Deposited Plan 182598 and Lot 5 on Deposited Plan 187974.

Voting Requirements: Simple Majority General consensus of Elected Members was that the proposal would enhance tourism in the Duke of Orleans area and should be supported and the following resolution was moved. Moved: Cr Furniss Seconded: Cr Reynolds O0111-1552

That Council defer the consideration of the request until such time as a Scheme Amendment has been formally advertised and brought back to Council for consideration of Final Approval. The Scheme Amendment is to cover all issues raised in this report in addition to all statutory requirements. Considering the removal of the covenant at this stage will ensure that adequate community and servicing agency comments have been received prior to a decision being made.

F10 - A0 CARRIED

Voting Requirements: Simple Majority


ATTACHMENT A


ATTACHMENT B

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 17 Mr Hurley and Ms Marsh advised Council that the proposed Car and Motorbike Show that they were planning for 2011 has now been postponed and will be held over the March 2012 long weekend. This will be staged as a fundraising event and invitations are in the process of being sent out to all interested Clubs. If the show is a success in 2012 then they are hoping that this event will become a bi-annual event for Esperance. Mr Hurley and Ms Marsh left the Chambers at 4:40pm and did not return Mr Henderson addressed Council in relation to the following matter and requested that members consider favourably the following variation. He also requested if Council were in a position to construct the shed and bear the costs. He also advised that another alternative was that the project be member funded and would Council consider the Group putting in an application for funding to reimburse the members who initially put the money ‘up front’. The President advised Mr Henderson that the Mechanical Restoration Group put in a formal request to Council on these issues and they will be considered. He also advised that there maybe an opportunity for the Group to apply for further funding via the 2012 CDF programme. Cr Stewart declared an impartiality interest in the following item as her husband is a member of the Esperance Mechanical Restoration Group 11.1.2

VARIATION OF PROJECT FUNDED THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Applicant: Esperance Mechanical Restoration Group Location/Address: Pt Reserve 44921 McLean Road, Esperance File Ref: OAC.19.1 Reporting Officer/Position: Renae Rance - Community Services Officer Objective: This report recommends approval for a variation of project which has been funded through the Community Development Fund. Background: At the Community Development Fund Special Council meeting of June 8, 2010, Council approved funding to the value of $7,645 towards the installation of a concrete floor at the Esperance Mechanical Restoration Shed on McLean Road. Since then, the Esperance Mechanical Restoration Group (EMRG) has been fortunate to receive materials at a very reasonable cost to build a large, purpose built shed solely to display their restored engines, vehicles, bikes, tractors, tools and memorabilia. The EMRG has indicated that they are unable to extend their existing shed as it would require a firewall to be installed, which is cost prohibitive and unachievable, and that building a new purpose built facility would allow them to expand as their club grows. Plans of the proposed shed are being drawn up for submission to Council for approval. The flooring of the proposed shed will be levelled out and constructed from compacted limestone. The EMRG is seeking approval from Council to transfer the use of their allocated Community Development Fund (CDF) grant to purchase the materials for the proposed new shed. Erection and completion of the shed will be through volunteer labour and in-kind contributions. An amended application has been submitted which complies with CDF requirements. Attachment/s: Nil

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 18 Strategic Implications: There are no strategic implications relating to this item Statutory Environment: There are no statutory considerations relating to this item Policy Implications: There are no policy implications relating to this item Environmental Considerations: There are no known environmental considerations arising from the recommendations of this report Asset Management Implications There are no asset management implications relating to this item Financial Implications: There are no financial implications relating to this item Officer’s Recommendation/ Council Resolution: Moved: Cr Smith Seconded: Cr Furniss O0111-1553 That Council endorse the change of purpose of the Esperance Mechanical

Restoration Group’s 2010/2011 Community Development funding of $7,645 allocated for the purpose of concrete floor works, to the purchase of construction materials for a new exhibition and display shed, subject to the group obtaining the required development and building approvals.

F10 - A0 CARRIED


ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 19 Mr Bob Jones on behalf of the Adventureland Management Committee addressed Council in support of their application advising that this proposal will enhance what is already in place at the Adventureland Park and will provide more shade for the public and hopefully expand the use of this area. Cr Stewart declared an impartiality interest in the following item as her husband is a member of the Adventureland Park Management Committee. 11.1.3

ADVENTURELAND PARK - PROPOSED SHADE SHELTER

Applicant: Adventureland Park (R.E. Jones) Location/Address: Pt Reserve 28207

File Ref: R28207-03; 10.2010.1589.1 Reporting Officer/Position: Richard Hindley - Executive Manager Development

Services Objective: This report recommends the approval of the Shade Shelter at the Adventureland Parks subject to a number of conditions. Background: Development Application 10.2010.1589.1 was lodged with Planning Services on 29 November 2010 for the construction of a Shade Structure on portion of Reserve 28207 (refer Attachment A). The applicant has the consent of the Esperance Ports – Sea and Land (refer Attachment B) as the landowner. The consent of the Shire is also required as they are the holders of the lease to the land. The proposal is to build a shade shelter in front of the existing children’s playground and it will also serve as a pick up point for the miniature railway.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 20 Officer’s Comment: In accordance with Local Planning Scheme No. 23 (LPS 23), the subject site is reserved for ‘Parks, Recreation and Conservation – Local’. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Reserve (in accordance with Section 3.3.2 of LPS 23 the local government is to have due regard for the ultimate purpose intended for the Reserve). The subject site is a reserve that is vested in the Esperance Ports – Sea and Land and is leased to the Shire of Esperance. Support was given by the then CEO of the Port in 2008 for the extension of a lease until 30th June 2024. To date this lease extension has not been legally executed. An extension of lease document was prepared to extend the existing term for a further term of 7 years and 8 months, commencing on 1 November 2016 (the day following the expiry date of the existing lease) until 30 June 2024. This document has been with Esperance Ports – Sea and Land since February 2009. It should be noted that the effect of Section 28 of the Port Authorities Act 1999 is that the Port Authority must obtain the Minister’s approval before it grants an extension of a lease beyond 5 years. It is not apparent from the correspondence received to date that the Port Authority has obtained the Minister’s approval for this extension. Officers recommend that consideration be given to require Esperance Miniature Railway Society (Inc) to sub lease the area developed by it. This area incorporates the Clock Tower, Railway Sheds, granite paving, the Ticket Office and this proposed development. A sub lease would make the group responsible for these structures and for their removal should the land revert back to Port usage in the future. A draft lease area is proposed as follows. (Attachment C) Given the potential for uncertainty as to land ownership in this park, it is recommended that this sub lease requirement be a condition of this development application.

Options

1. Approve the proposed shade structure subject to conditions including a sub lease being put in place so that Council is not responsible for the proposed structure.

2. Approve the proposed shade structure subject to conditions (without a condition

requiring a lease to be entered into). In this option the Shire will retain responsibility for the proposed structure along with other structures on the site.

3. Refuse the application on the basis of no lease being in place.

Attachments: ‘A’ - Development Application Plan ‘B’ - Letter of Consent from Esperance Port Sea & Land ‘C’ – Draft Lease Area Consultation: Development Control Unit

Applicant Strategic Implications:

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

31. Through strategic allocation of resources and rationalisation, aim for continuous improvement in the standard of parks and gardens.

Statutory Environment: Local Planning Scheme No. 23 Policy Implications: There are no policy implications relating to this item

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 21 Environmental Considerations: There are no known environmental considerations arising from the recommendations of this report. Asset Management Implications The Minutes of the Adventureland Park Working Group have indicated that Esperance Miniature Railway Society (Inc). will build the structure and then hand over ownership to the Shire with the Shire then maintaining and insuring the structure. It should be noted that the Working Group believe the structure (based on materials) will have minimal maintenance requirements and would have of life of 100 years. Should Council decide to support this option then the asset management implications would be as follows –

Capital Annual Comments Capital $91,000 Gifted from Adventureland Park Depreciation (ongoing costs)

$910 Not proposed to be replaced1

Maintenance (ongoing cost) $4,000 Cleaning $4,000 Maintenance and Vandalism Repair $100 Insurance $9,010 Per year The annual operating costs would be approximately $9,010. This cost will fall to the Shire unless the approval is conditional on the development being contained within a lease area. It should also be noted that if the vesting of the land is not transferred to the Shire, and if the Port seeks to utilise the land, the Shire will be responsible for the removal of any structures, unless a sub lease is arranged. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications relating to this item if a lease is assigned to the Esperance Miniature Railway Society (Inc). Officer’s Recommendation/ Council Resolution: Moved: Cr Pearce Seconded: Cr Furniss O0111-1554

That Council: 1. Support the construction of the Shade Structure on Pt Reserve 28207

subject to all funding being obtained prior to the commencement of construction.

And

2. That Council approve Development Application 10.2010.1589.1 submitted

by Adventureland Park (R.E. Jones) for a Shade Structure at Pt Reserve 28207 subject to the following conditions: a. That the Esperance Miniature Railway Society (Inc) agree to enter

into valid sub lease of the Area as shown in Attachment C prior to the commencement of development.

b. Development shall be in accordance with the stamped approved plans unless otherwise required or agreed in writing by the Shire of Esperance (Planning Services).

1 The annual cost for replacement is based on the Shire of Esperance becoming responsible for the structure in the future (i.e. if a lease is not entered into).


c. All earthworks and/or associated drainage details shall be undertaken in accordance with plans and specifications certified by a qualified engineer as being consistent with standard engineering practices, to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Building/Engineering Services).

d. Whilst undertaking site preparation works, all areas of exposed sand must be sufficiently treated against possible sand drift through the use of sprinklers or other suitable means. All sand must be contained on-site to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Planning Services).

e. All stormwater and drainage run off from all roofed and impervious areas are to be retained on-site to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Building Services).

And the following Advice Notes:

a. This is not a Building Licence. An application for a building licence is required to be submitted and approved by the Shire of Esperance (Building Services) prior to any works commencing on-site.

b. Water Corporation approval is required to be obtained on the site plan and lodged with the Shire of Esperance (Building Services) as part of the building licence submission documentation.

c. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that building setbacks correspond with the legal description of the land. This may necessitate re-surveying and re-pegging the site. The Shire of Esperance will take no responsibility for incorrectly located buildings.

d. It is the responsibility of the developer to search the title of the property to ascertain the presence of any restrictive covenants that may apply.

e. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a period of two years from the date of this approval, the approval shall lapse and be of no further affect.

f. Where an approval has so lapsed, no development shall be carried out without the further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained.

F9 - A1 CARRIED

(Against Cr Penny) Voting Requirements: Simple Majority

Messrs Henderson, Slade & Jones left the Chambers at 4:53pm and did not return.


ATTACHMENT A


ATTACHMENT B


ATTACHMENT C

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 29 The President asked if any other members of the public would like to address Council on any agenda item. Mr Reichstein requested if he could put a couple of questions to Council that were not pertaining to Agenda items. The President advised that he was prepared to take Mr Reichstein’s questions. Mr Reichstein advised that on reading the Minutes of the All Purpose Committee meeting of 7 December 2010: I note that Council is seeking freehold titles for the land in Museum Park and retains the option of selling of both the Civic Precinct and the Museum Park Village; my question is:

1. Has any report been presented to Council for information or debate on the rationalisation of land holdings in the townsite and in particular the possible sale of whole or part of Museum Village?

The President advised that at present the Public Transport Authority currently own the land and the Shire is negotiating to purchase. To date there has been no report to Council to consider the sale of land within the Museum Park Precinct. Mr Reichstein asked that in order to allay fears within the community, can the Council give an assurance that in relation to the Grace Darling Park no change to the vesting of the site will be sought and no moves to sell of the Park will be made by Council? The President advised that he would have to take this question on notice. Mr Andrew Waters from the Esperance Soccer Association addressed Council in relation to lighting on Little Lords and requested Council support. He also advised that the closing date for submissions for funding close before the February round of Council meetings. The President advised that as this item is a late item to this Agenda it will be dealt with by Council later on in the agenda and that Mr Waters comments would be taken into account at that time. Mr Reichstein, Mr Waters, Mr Gratwick, Mr Butterly and Mrs Royle left the Chambers at 4:59pm and did not return. Mrs O’Callaghan (Manager Financial Services) left the Chambers at 5:00pm and did not return.


EXECUTIVE SERVICES

11.2.1

FORWARD CAPITAL WORKS PLAN

Applicant: Executive Services Location/Address: N/A File Ref: OAG.4.5 Reporting Officer/Position: Mal Osborne - Chief Executive Officer Objective: For Council to endorse the attached Forward Capital Works Plan (FCWP) for the Shire of Esperance, which is a prerequisite for obtaining future Country Local Government Fund (CLGF) monies from the WA Government. Background: The WA Government has developed the Royalties for Regions (R4R) funding program where the equivalent of 25% of the mining royalties raised in the State are provided for projects that benefit regional areas. A percentage of the R4R funding program is available to local government under the CLGF. The total quantum of funds under the R4R funding scheme is variable and is dependent upon a number of factors, such as the quantity of minerals extracted and the exchange rate of the Australian Dollar, as royalties are calculated in US dollars. When the scheme was first introduced, the allocation in the first year (2008/09) was linked to the royalty take in that year, and the Shire of Esperance received an allocation of $1,692,177. As the funding pool is volatile, variations in the exchange rate and mineral extraction as a result of the global financial crises resulted in the fund having insufficient funds to fully continue the CLGF in 2009/10. As an alternative, the WA Government made $35,000 available to each local government in 2009/10 to assist with the development of FCWPs, and a progression towards long term financial planning. The Shire used these funds to employ the services of CT Management to develop a FCWP, as well as progress works towards the development of a long term financial plan. The preparation of a FCWP is a requirement to receive future CLGF allocations and the FCWP must be adhered to and updated in order to receive future year allocations. A copy of the Shire’s FCWP is contained at Appendix A. Officer’s Comment: The FCWP is designed to meet the requirements of the Department of Regional Development & Lands’ funding criteria for the 2009/10 and future CLGF allocations. The FCWP covers one major project, being the Esperance Foreshore Protection & Enhancement Project (EFPEP), to which the Shire of Esperance has previously committed its future CLGF allocations (refer O1109-1335). The FCWP has been prepared following a desktop analysis of the Shire’s infrastructure assets in order to ascertain the ongoing demand for asset renewal and the current funding gap. The FCWP represents the beginning of asset management and long term financial planning for the Shire of Esperance, and provides a sound basis upon which to continue to refine over time to build a robust planning tool, which will be kept up-to-date and which will form the foundation of the Shire’s long term sustainability. It is important to note that the FCWP is a dynamic document, and as such will be refined every year as further information becomes available.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 31 Attachment/s: ‘A’ (Tabled separately) – Shire of Esperance Capital Works Plan Consultation: Executive Management Team CT Management Department of Regional Development & Lands Strategic Implications: The EFPEP project is synonymous with the Shire of Esperance Strategic Action Plan 2007-2027:

No. 36 Acknowledge and value the Esperance foreshore as the focal point of Esperance life and develop it to enhance its attraction for recreation and families, providing a seamless connection with the central business district.

Statutory Environment: N/A Policy Implications: There are no policy implications arising from the recommendations of this report. Environmental Considerations: There are no environmental considerations resulting from the recommendations of this report. Asset Management Implications: The FCWP identifies that the Shire’s current infrastructure asset portfolio has a renewal value of $405,525,000. The current annual average renewal demand generated by the asset portfolio is $12,876,000 per annum. The Shire is currently funding $5,575,000 of this demand per annum, leaving a $7,301,000 funding gap. It is estimated that the Esperance Foreshore Enhancement Project will add a further $780,000 per annum in increased renewal and consequential maintenance demand. In order to fund the $7,301,000 per annum funding gap, rates would need to rise (additional to the amount required to keep pace with CPI assumed to be an increase of 4.7%) by approximately 4.85% each year for 19 years. Financial Implications: The Shire of Esperance will forgo its future year CLGF allocations if a Council-endorsed FCWP is not provided to the Department of Regional Development and Lands by 28 February 2011. Moved: Cr Pearce Seconded: Cr Stewart O0111-1555 That Standing Orders be suspended.

F8 - A2 CARRIED

(Against Crs Paxton & Starcevich) Voting Requirement: Simple majority Moved: Cr Pearce Seconded: Cr Starcevich O0111-1556 That Standing Orders be resumed

F10 - A0 CARRIED

Voting Requirement: Simple majority

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 32 Officer’s Recommendation/ Council Resolution: Moved: Cr Stewart Seconded: Cr Penny O0111-1557 That Council:

1. Endorse the Shire of Esperance Forward Capital Works Plan as presented at Appendix A (tabled separately).

2. Requires the EFPEP project stages to be returned for deliberation by Council.

F10 - A0 CARRIED


ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 33 Cr Pearce declared an impartiality interest in the following item as he is a member of the Executive of the Esperance Small Business Centre 11.2.2

COMMUNITY PERCEPTION SURVEY

Applicant: Executive Services Location/Address: Shire of Esperance File Ref: OAS.15 Reporting Officer/Position: Mal Osborne, Chief Executive Officer Objective: This report recommends that the Shire of Esperance undertakes a community survey to guide longer-term strategic planning for the Shire of Esperance. Background: This subject has been presented for further consideration following Council’s decision to not conduct a community perception survey. Whilst the Officer’s recommendation was not supported at the November 2010 Ordinary Council meeting, Council provided no alternative direction as to how it wishes to consult with the community and meet its obligations pursuant to the Shire’s Strategic Plan, and the Department of Local Government’s Integrated Planning & Reporting Framework (attachment A). In 2008 and 2009, Bevan Bessan Consulting was engaged to undertake short-term future planning, and to also assist in integrating the outcomes of this planning with the Chief Executive Officer’s annual Key Performance Indicators. Whilst this process has worked very well in previous years, in 2009 it was suggested that some additional planning for the longer-term would be prudent. This argument has been strengthened over the last twelve months while asset management principles are being developed, structural reform of local government is on the agenda, and because it has become apparent that there is a need for a more defined and cohesive long-term vision for the community. The Shire of Esperance last undertook a comprehensive strategic planning process in 2002 with its current Strategic Action Plan (2007-2027) being a review of the original document that was endorsed by Council via resolution on the 27th March, 2007. More recently, the Department of Local Government has released its Integrated Planning and Reporting framework and guidelines. The guidelines carry a clear expectation that each local government will adopt as a minimum, a 10 year Strategic Community Plan. The Minister for Local Government, the Hon. John Castrilli, MLA (the Minister) has signalled his intention to amend the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) to mandate this expectation. At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 November 2010, an Officer’s recommendation to undertake a community perception survey was not supported. Notwithstanding, the Shire’s Strategic Plan (No. 100) indicates that the Shire will undertake a community survey every five years, with the last one due in 2006 (which was never undertaken). This item is now presented to allow Council the opportunity to determine whether community surveys are considered valuable in assisting to guide longer-term strategic planning. If Council considers there is value in proceeding with a survey, then the issue of the medium used and the sample size, amongst other things, needs to be resolved.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 34 If Council resolves that community surveys are inappropriate and unnecessary, a mechanism for consulting with the community and identifying the community’s long term vision and project priorities needs to be identified. Attachment/s: ‘A’ - Department Of Local Government, “A short guide to strategic planning by local governments.” Officer’s Comment: Regular community perception surveys are undertaken by a number of local governments in Western Australia. This process is also undertaken in eastern states Councils as part of mandatory community consultation and benchmarking exercises. Many Local Governments use the results and trends emanating from their survey results to determine their policy and strategic directions in community and place planning exercises. Survey questions typically provide both qualitative and quantitative data, which enables an organisation to tangibly measure the response to a particular question, as well as ascertain general community perceptions. This then assists Councils and their Executive in determining resource allocations in the annual budgeting process and longer-term financial planning exercises. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has previously signalled his intent to amend the Act to make the development of Strategic Community Plans compulsory, the benefits of undertaking a community perception survey include:

• Receipt of better information direct from equally represented demographics, and not just vocal minorities;

• Assistance with the decision-making process; • Validation of current direction and future initiatives; • Providing a mechanism to identify and prioritise issues (areas on which to focus); and • Providing the ability to benchmark against other local governments, as well as internally

over time. There are essentially four methods of undertaking a community perception survey, being either via phone, mail, online, or holding focus group sessions. Following discussion with a number of market research providers, Officer’s conclude there are three key elements to obtaining good-quality information from any survey:

1. Choosing an appropriate sample size (sample size of 400 provides data at the 95% confidence level);

2. Obtaining survey information from equally represented demographics; and 3. Asking the right questions.

Further to this is the issue of timeliness, and how long it would take to undertake the survey, and consolidate the data into a meaningful report. The table below considers each of these elements for each of the four methods of survey.

Survey Method Ability to Obtain

Adequate Sample Size

Even Demographic Spread

Ability to Generate Quality Information Timeliness

Phone

(likely to get sufficient responses)

(keep ringing until requisite cohorts have

responded)

(honest answers likely when anonymous)

(8-10 weeks to receive final report)

Mail

(likely to get sufficient responses)

?

(unlikely to get an even demographic spread)


?

Internet/Online

?

(peoples’ access to computers viz Skywest

registrations)

?



?

Focus Groups ? ? ? ?


(cannot guarantee how many would attend)


(would people be open and frank in a group

environment)

(large time commitment out of hours, as well as

time in consolidating data viz Essence of Esperance in 2002)

It is clear that undertaking a community perception survey via telephone is most likely to result in the receipt of quality information, particularly if one considers it essential to target an even cross-section of the community. The other methods each have their limitations as outlined briefly within the table. In terms of the Shire of Esperance’s strategic planning process, the community perceptions survey would be the first stage of a course of action that is intended to meet the requirements of the Minister’s Integrated Planning and Reporting project. This would entail the following steps:

1. Community Perception Survey; 2. Council Strategic Planning Forum (Bevan Bessan); 3. Long-term Financial Planning (including Forward Capital Works Program); 4. Community Consultation; and 5. Development of a Council Action Plan

The questions to be asked within the proposed survey would be the subject of a further report for consideration, or the subject of a dedicated Council briefing session. It is important to note that for cross-local government benchmarking to take place, the survey would need to be conducted by a market research organisation that has previously undertaken similar work for other local governments within WA, and that questions are derived from a generic list. It is equally important to note that this would not preclude the Shire adding in specific “Esperance” questions should Council see the need. The questions that Council need to consider in this regard can be simplified to:

1. Does Council see value and relevance in conducting a community perception survey? 2. If not, how will Council consult with the community in regard to its aspirations, vision

and project priorities? 3. Does Council see benefit in having the results of its community perception survey

benchmarked against that of its industry peers? 4. If not, does Council see benefit in benchmarking its own community perception survey

results over time, which would require recurring surveys to be undertaken every 2-3 years?

Council agree to undertake a telephone based Community Perception Survey as part of its strategic planning process – cost $25,000.

Option 1

Council agree to undertake a Community Perception Survey via mail and/or website as part of its strategic planning process – cost $8,000 (mail) and $11,000 (mail and online).

Option 2

Council agree to undertake a Community Perception Survey through running a series of focus group sessions as part of its strategic planning process.

Option 3

Council does not agree with conducting a Community Perception survey as part of its strategic planning process.

Option 4

Option 1 is the Officer’s recommendation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 36 Attachment/s: A - Integrated Planning Framework Consultation:

• Executive Management Team • Community Survey Companies • Council Briefing Session • ECCI (letter to Shire President highlighting the benefit of engaging with the community

to ensure that future strategic planning aligns with the needs and desires of the community.

In addition to the above, the CEO has held discussions with Bevan Bessan – Strategic Planning Consultant and Ian Gardner, Manager Small Business Centre – South-East Coastal, in relation to this matter. Bevan Bessan strongly advocated using community perception surveys as a strategic planning tool to identify the Shire’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as a method of identifying community priorities, in order to guide Council’s focus and its long-term decision-making. Ian Gardner, who has a background in market research, was an equally strong advocate of seeking the community’s input into Council’s future planning, and suggested that a sample size of 400 was appropriate for such an exercise. Officer’s have also have been advised that the Auditor General also recommends a sample size of 400, as it provides a robust and representative sample of the population, having an associated sampling error of +/- 5% at the 95% confidence interval. Ian did however highlight the importance of question selection as well as ensuring a good cross-section of responses were obtained from the various demographics within the community. Strategic Implications: The following actions are identified in the current Strategic Action Plan that are relevant to the recommendations of this report.

100. Endeavour to conduct Council business in a caring, responsive and consultative manner a) Seek community input in the development and planning of Council infrastructure,

services or initiatives b) Develop protocols to keep residents and landowners informed of developments

that may affect them or their area c) Conduct an “Essence of Esperance” survey every five years (Comment – due to

be taken during 2006) Service Delivery – Through benchmarking, community consultation, and continual improvement, aim for a standard of services and service delivery that is assured of quality, innovation and consistency Future Facilities – Ensure measured and predictable allocation of resources to asset acquisition, construction, and maintenance through proactive planning and a sustainable budgetary commitment

114. Investigate and plan for the future development of community facilities as the need arises, taking into account the priorities identified by Councillors and the community in the Essence of Esperance process

Statutory Implications: Whilst there are no current statutory implications arising from the recommendations of this report, the Minister for Local Government has signalled his intention to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to require Local Governments to undertake community consultation. Policy Implications: There are no current policy implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 37 Environmental Considerations: There are no known environmental considerations arising from the recommendations of this report. Asset Management Implications: The results of a community perception survey could be used to determine future levels of service within asset management plans. Financial Implications: Quotations for conducting a community perception survey comprising a sample of 400; conducted via telephone, as well as incorporating the preparation of a comprehensive report is $25,000. It is intended to fund this increase in expenditure by increasing account 03/05845/104 (Consultancy Expenses) by $25,000. This will reduce Council’s projected 2010/11 budget surplus by that amount. Officer’s Recommendation:

That Council: 1. Supports the undertaking of a Community Perceptions Survey to the value of

$25,000 (GST exclusive). 2. Amends the 2010/2011 budget as follows;

Description Budget Figure Amended Figure Variation

Account: Consultancy Expenses 03-

05845-104

Operating Expense $5,000 $30,000 $25,000

Net result Reduced Surplus

($25,000)

Voting Requirements: Absolute Majority General consensus of members was that $25,000 spent on a telephone survey was not value for money as people no longer actively took part in this form of survey and felt that there were other options to conduct a survey. Moved: Cr Starcevich Seconded: Cr Penny

That Council: 1. Supports the undertaking of a Community Perceptions Survey to the value

of $11,000 (GST exclusive) via mail and/or website. 2. Amends the 2010/2011 budget as follows;


Account: Consultancy

Expenses 03-05845-104


Net result Reduced Surplus ($11,000)

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 38 AMENDMENT

Moved: Cr Reynolds Seconded: Cr Stewart


of $11,000 (GST exclusive) via mail and online. 2. Supports the undertaking of CPS through the running of a series of focus

group sessions as part of its strategic planning process. 3. Amends the 2010/2011 budget as follows;



Expenses 03-05845-104



AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND WAS F7 - A3

CARRIED

(Against Crs Furniss; Pearce & Smith) AMENDMENT Moved: Cr Furniss Seconded: Cr Starcevich


of $8,000 (GST exclusive) via mail. 2. Supports the undertaking of CPS through the running of a series of focus




Expenses 03-05845-104



AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND

F3 - A7 LOST

(Against Crs Rodgers; Paxton; Mickel; Reynolds; Penny; Stewart & Smith)

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 39 THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION READING Moved: Cr Reynolds Seconded: Cr Stewart O0111-1558


of $11,000 (GST exclusive) via mail and online. 2. Supports the undertaking of CPS through the running of a series of focus




Expenses 03-05845-104



WAS PUT AND

F8 - A2 CARRIED

(Against Crs Smith & Furniss) Voting Requirement: Absolute Majority


ATTACHMENT A

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 45 At 5:55pm The Shire President made a presentation to Mrs Dorothy Andre, outgoing Curator of the Esperance Museum, a position that she has held since 1996 and for the contribution that she had made over the last 40years to the Esperance Bay Historical Society and the Esperance Museum. The meeting adjourned at 6.05pm for tea. The meeting resumed at 7:21pm with all those present prior to the adjournment returning to the meeting except Tim Slater (Kalgoorlie Miner). Kevin Dwyer and Merv Andre entered the meeting at 7:21pm 11.2.3

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

Applicant: Executive Services Department Location/Address: Shire of Esperance File Ref: OAS.3.43 Reporting Officer/Position: Mal Osborne, Chief Executive Officer Objective: This report seeks Council support for the proposed Organisational Structure. (Attachment A) Background: Following on from discussions with Council as to organisational personnel changes and a new structure, adjustments have been made to some key areas within the Shire of Esperance. The attached Organisational Structure 2011 (Attachment B) contains those amendments and can be referenced against the previous structure, dated July, 2009. (Attachment C) Attachment/s: ‘A’- Executive Organisational Structure 2011 ‘B’- Organisational Structure 2011 ‘C’ - Organisational Structure 2009 Officer’s Comment: This report has been prepared to finalise changes made to Officer’s titles, reallocation of some tasks and the deletion of the position of Manager Tourism and Culture from the Organisational Structure. All Executive Managers have had their positions re-titled to Director, which is in keeping with the most commonly used titles within mid-size to larger Local Governments and additionally, removes any confusion in being able to differentiate between the role and status of Directors and Managers. The key tasks that were the responsibility of the Manager Culture and Tourism have been reallocated. The Manager Library Services will now be the Shire contact and liaison role for Esperance Arts groups and for the Historical Society. This position has been retitled to Manager Library and Culture. The Co-ordinator of the Civic Centre will now be the primary contact for all Tourism and Civic Centre matters. This position has been retitled to Co-ordinator Tourism and Events. After a review period, this position may be considered for promotion to “Manager” status. The Manager Engineering Administration now has the lead role in Asset Management planning and implementation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 46 Consultation: Consultation was undertaken with all affected Staff in relation to this item. Council has been previously briefed on some of these adjustments to title and responsibilities. Strategic Implications: Strategic Action Plan 2007 – 2027

No. 110: Preserve and develop the knowledge and skills in the organisation and provide a workforce that is stable, welcoming and fulfilling.

a) Maintain a corporate structure that is flexible and efficient in meeting the needs of the community and the statutory obligations of the Council.

Statutory Implications: The statutory implications associated with this item are contained within the Local Government Act whereby Section 5.2 requires the Council to ensure that there is an appropriate structure for administering the local government. Policy Implications: Should Council endorse the attached organisational structure, Council Policy EXEC 008: Senior Employees will also need to be amended to reflect the title changes from Executive Managers to Directors. Environmental Considerations: There are no known environmental considerations arising from the recommendations of this report. Asset Management Implications: There are no known asset management implications arising from the recommendations of this report. Financial Implications: There are no known financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report. Officer’s Recommendation/ Council Resolution: Moved: Cr Penny Seconded: Cr Starcevich O0111-1559

That Council: 1. Endorse the organisational structure for the Shire of Esperance as contained

within Attachment A. 2. Amend Council Policy EXEC 008: Senior Employees to reflect the title changes

from Executive Managers to Directors.

F6 - A4 CARRIED

(Against Crs Furniss; Rodgers; Smith & Pearce) Voting Requirements: Simple Majority

ATTACHMENT A

SHIRE OF ESPERANCE

EXECUTIVE SERVICES

VISITOR CENTRE RECREATION HOME CARE

TOURISM RANGERS LIBRARY MUSEUM

CIVIC CENTRE VOLUNTEERS

PLANNING DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING ENVIRONMENT

HEALTH BUILDING MAINTENANCE

AIRPORT ENGINEERING

PARKS & GARDENS CONSTRUCTION

DEPOT ASSET MANAGEMENT

RURAL WASTE SERVICES

FINANCE IT

ADMINISTRATION RECORDS

AUDIT TRANSPORT LICENSING

RATES

DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

Rod Hilton

DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Richard Hindley

DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

Darren Kennedy

DIRECTOR ENGINEERING SERVICES

Gavin Harris

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Mal Osborne

ELECTED MEMBERS GOVERNANCE MAJOR PROJECTS HUMAN SERVICES STRATEGIC PLANNING EMERGENCY SERVICES


ATTACHMENT B

EXECUTIVE SERVICES-2011

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 49 CORPORATE SERVICES-2011

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 50 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES-2011

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 51 ENGINEERING SERVICES-2011


COMMUNITY SERVICES-2011


ATTACHMENT C

EXECUTIVE SERVICES-2009

EXECUTIVE MANAGER CORPORATE SERVICES

Darren Kennedy

EXECUTIVE MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Richard Hindley

EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES

Rod Hilton

MANAGER HUMAN SERVICES

Lee Anderson

HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER

(Vacant)

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Janet Done

EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR

Rachael Brice

MANAGER GOVERNANCE & STRATEGIC PROJECTS

Greg Golinski

OSH & EM OFFICER

Ian Liddle

COMMUNITY EMERGENCY SERVICES OFFICER

Melissa Ammon

EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES

Gavin Harris

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Mal Osborne


CORPORATE SERVICES-2009

CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICERS

Kerryl Ross Alison Middleton

Jo Smith Cathy Murray

Heather O’Brien

EXECUTIVE MANAGER CORPORATE SERVICES

Darren Kennedy

PAYROLL & PROPERTY COORDINATOR

Dave Scheer

MANAGER FINANCIAL SERVICES

Beth O’Callaghan

MANAGER RECORDS SERVICES

Mark Caporn

MANAGER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Russell English

IT SUPERVISOR

Andrew McKenzie

IT SUPPORT OFFICER

Marcus Kirby

RECORDS & RATES OFFICER

Andrew Fletcher

JUNIOR RECORDS OFFICER

Kiera Grundy

PAYROLL OFFICER

Allison Guild

SENIOR RATES OFFICER

Annette Slade

FINANCE OFFICER

Christina Francis

ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT

Avnish Shah

JUNIOR FINANCE OFFICER Eden McGill

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 55 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES-2009

EXECUTIVE MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Richard Hindley

MANAGER PLANNING SERVICES

Vacant

MANAGER BUILDING SERVICES

David Giles

MANAGER ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH

Paul Clifton

TOWN PLANNING OFFICER

Prue McTaggart

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION OFFICER

Bev Hoey

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROJECT OFFICER

Priscilla Davies

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER/S

Chrystal Lethbridge

Asst Building Surveyor

Philip Jones

TOWN PLANNING OFFICER

Matthew Ipkendanz

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANT

Chantal Spittle

BUILDING MAINT. TRADE STAFF

Rob Suter

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICER

Nicholas Kleinig

TRADE ASSISTANT

William Horton


ENGINEERING SERVICES-2009

EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES

Gavin Harris

WASTE MANAGEMENT SUPERVISOR

David Klingberg

ENGINEERING SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER

Jennifer Parry

RECYCLING PROMOTIONS OFFICER

Georgia Ryan

RURAL TECHNICAL OFFICER (vacant)

DESIGN DRAFTERS Mary Parker

Noeline McNamara

RETICULATION LEADING HAND

Jonathan Hainsworth WASTE MANAGEMENT

CREW D Campbell, P

Clements, D Skeer, S Hourn, L Field, S Edwards, R Woods,

L Stewart, R Pembleton, D

Bland

BITUMEN & MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

John Dinning

BITUMEN WORKS CREW

R Haynes M Reemts

RURAL CONSTRUCTION

SUPERVISOR Bruce Warren

RURAL CONSTRUCTION CREW C Mulvay, S Baxter, G Webb, P Wrigley, N Edwards, L Desmond, B Desmond, L Gibbs, D Jamieson, G White, W McDonald, D Dace

RURAL MAINTENANCE CREW

G Skipworth, D Jacka, B Wright, B King, G King, M Sayers, A Bonney, M Buswell

LEADING HAND Harold Russell

RURAL MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

Craig Shearer

PARKS & GARDENS SUPERVISOR

Mark Haberecht

PARKS & GARDENS CREW J Boyes, J Atkins, B Corlett, C Barlow, A Dinning, G King, S Alvarez, D Outram, S Dundon, T Tion, M Sambo

ENGINEERING SURVEYOR Peter Cull

ASSISTANT SURVEYOR

Ted Allsopp

TOWN CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE CREW P O’Rourke, R Grainger, R Schmitt, L Bowerman, S Ashcroft, P Hasch, S Turrell

TOWN CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR

Garry Larmour

LEADING HAND Dennis Kelly

DEPOT STORE Andrew Murray

Peter Driver

AIRPORT MANAGER Bill Lance

MANAGER ENGINEERING ASSETS

Neil Williams

MANAGER ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATION

Scott McKenzie

MANAGER ENGINEERING OPERATIONS David Spencer

WORKSHOP SUPERVISOR

Graham Dellaca

WORKSHOP Frank Boyes Paul Lander


Community Services Officer

Renae Rance

EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES

Rod Hilton

RECREATION & YOUTH SERVICES HOME CARE

LIBRARY & INFORMATION

SERVICES VOLUNTEER

MANAGEMENT

MANGER Karen Milligan

MANAGER Thuriyya Ibrahim

MANAGER Jayne Arnold

MANAGER Erica Austen

RANGER SERVICES

RANGERS

Leanne Shepherd Dale Burgess Jason Rhodes

LEISURE CENTRE STAFF

HOME CARE STAFF

HOME CARE VOLUNTEERS

LIBRARY STAFF

LIBRARY VOLUNTEERS

VOLUNTEER CENTRE STAFF

CENTRE VOLUNTEERS

TOURISM AND CULTURE

MANAGER German Ugarte

CIVIC CENTRE STAFF

VOLUNTEERS

MUSEUM STAFF

VISITOR CENTRE STAFF

Junior Administration Officer

Tore Castledine

SENIOR CITIZONS CENTRE

VOLUNTEERS

SENIOR CITIZONS CENTRE CO-ORDINATOR

COMMUNITY SERVICES-2009

11.3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES These items were dealt with under Public Participation refer items: 11.1.1 (Page 8) : Duke of Orleans Caravan Park – Proposed Modification of

Restrictive Covenant ; and 11.1.3 (Page 18) : Adventureland Park – Proposed Shade Shelter

11.4 COMMUNITY SERVICES

11.4.1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR A CARETAKERS RESIDENCE AT LAKE

MONJINGUP RESERVE Applicant: Lake Monjingup Development Community Group Location/Address: Lake Monjingup Reserve No. 23043 File Ref: OAC.3.23 Reporting Officer/Position: Rod Hilton - Executive Manager Community Services Objective: This report seeks Council approval for the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group to proceed to the funding application stage for the construction of a caretaker’s residence on the Monjingup reserve. Background: In April 2010 Council invited the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group to investigate the costs associated with locating a caretaker and residence on the Monjingup Reserve as a means to protect the Reserve and on site infrastructure from vandalism. (Ref. O0410-1443) The Development Group wishes to make an application to the Royalties for Regions Goldfields Esperance Regional Grants Scheme which closes on 10th March 2011. Attachment/s: ‘A’- Proposal for a caretaker’s house on Monjingup Reserve including capital, operating and whole of life costs, and a funding strategy. Officer’s Comment: The Lake Monjingup Development Community Group requires Development Approval for a caretaker’s residence on reserve 23043 to enable it to proceed with a funding application to GERGS. Attached is an estimate of the costs of constructing and operating the proposed caretaker’s residence. The capital financing strategy suggests a deficit of $95,000 to be funded either by Council or other grant funds. It is perceived that funding applications to external bodies will be more successful if it can be demonstrated that Council both supports the project by way of giving development approval and by contributing financially to the project. In considering this proposal Council should consider if this project is a priority and if by supporting the project will funding be diverted away from other higher priority projects in the community. Council staff are investigating the potential for GERGS funding to be utilised for redevelopment of coastal camping grounds, foreshore redevelopment, Adventureland Park etc. There is currently no process to prioritize projects to avoid competitive funding applications. Council is therefore placed in the position of being asked to decide if the Monjingup caretaker’s residence should be given priority over other council projects. In this particular instance there is also the risk of being unable to employ a caretaker on the reserve and therefore the exposure to additional vandalism to infrastructure namely the house itself.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 59 It may also be prudent for Council to consider the future of the Lake Monjingup Reserves. This project proposal promotes a succession plan to the current volunteer caretakership provided by Brian Warren. There will be a point in the future whereby Council will need to make a decision on accepting responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and development of the reserves either with or without a volunteer management committee. Alternatively, if the members of the volunteer management committee decided to resign, Council would be left to make an immediate decision to either accept responsibility for maintenance and ongoing development of the reserves in accordance with the Landscaping Plan, or, to rationalise its involvement. This also suggests that Council needs to clearly articulate its priorities so as to provide clear guidance to staff and its management committees. Options:

1. Advise the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group that the construction of a caretakers residence on the Monjingup Reserves cannot be considered until a decision is made to include the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan into Council’s Forward Capital Works Plan and a time line for implementation is prioritised against other Council projects.

2. Support the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group with its implementation of the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan by –

a. supporting the construction of a caretaker’s residence on the Monjingup Reserve and the employment of a caretaker;

b. supporting a funding application to GERGS for the capital cost of constructing a care takers residence on the Monjingup Reserve; and

c. committing to a capital financial contribution of $95,000 in the 2011/12 financial year budget if the GERGS funding application is successful.

Note: This would require and absolute majority decision 3. Advise the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group that the construction of a

caretakers residence on the Monjingup Reserves is not supported as it is considered a low priority when it is prioritised against other Council projects.

Consultation: The community was consulted on 21st September 2008 as a part of the process in the development of the lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan. Strategic Implications: Strategic Action Plan 2007-2027

No. 67 (d) Develop and implement a plan to further develop the Lake Monjingup Reserve to protect and enhance the environment of the area and capitalise on its potential as a prime ecotourism location.

Statutory Implications: There are no known statutory implications arising from the recommendations of this report. Policy Implications: There are no known policy implications arising from the recommendations of this report. Environmental Considerations: There are no known environmental considerations arising from the recommendations of this report. Asset Management Implications The attachment indicates the whole of life costs associated with this project. Financial Implications: The funding strategy relies on Lotterywest and Royalties for Regions funding as the basis of its finance. The attached strategy indicates a capital deficit of $95,000 to be funded either by Council or from other funding sources. The objective of this proposal is the accommodation of a caretaker on the Monjingup Reserve. Therefore the second component of this project is the employment of a caretaker.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 60 The attachment indicates the cost of employing and equipping a staff member to provide caretaker services. These costs combined with funding of the whole of life costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the house and equipment leaves an operating deficit of $37,140. Council annually budgets $35,200 for maintenance of the Monjingup Reserves. For the additional cost of $2,000 Council should receive value returned by way of the protection of infrastructure, more frequent maintenance and improved presentation of the reserve, and, an additional employee who may be available to supplement staff in other areas i.e. road verge slashing or parks & gardens. Committee Recommendation: That Council support the construction of a caretaker’s residence on Monjingup Reserve no. 23043 as identified under section 6.2 of the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan and endorse the submission of funding applications to the Goldfields Esperance Regional Grants Scheme and other relevant funding bodies to finance the construction. Officers Recommendation/ Council Resolution: Moved: Cr Starcevich Seconded: Cr Penny O0111-1560

That Council advise the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group that the construction of a caretakers residence on the Monjingup Reserves cannot be considered until a decision is made to include the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan into Council’s Forward Capital Works Plan and a time line for implementation is prioritised against other Council projects.

CARRIED

F6 - A4 (Against Crs Reynolds; Furniss; Mickel & Smith)



ATTACHMENT A PROPOSAL FOR A CARETAKERS HOUSE ON MONJINGUP RESERVE NO. 23043 In May 2009 Council endorsed the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan as a guide to development of the Monjingup Reserves. (Resolution (O0509-1618) That Council: Endorses the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan as a guide to the future development and management of the Lake Monjingup Reserves; and Supports the endeavours of the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group and the Esperance Community Arts partnership in obtaining sponsorships and grants to implement the recommendations contained within the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan.) On Tuesday 13th April 2010 the Lake Monjingup Development Community Group met and resolved that its next priority, as identified under section 6.2 of the Lake Monjingup Landscape Master Plan, is to construct a caretakers residence and engage a caretaker to protect infrastructure and maintain the reserves. This priority is justified by the following recent vandalism incidents: Fires being lit during prohibited and restricted burning periods Unauthorised parties leaving litter and on site damage Hooning on gravel roads within reserve Stolen gas bottles on 3 occasions over past 12 months Theft of chess pieces Costs associated with construction of a caretaker’s residence are estimated as below. The objective is to prepare a submission to Royalties for Regions-Goldfields Esperance Regional Grants Scheme which closes on the 10th March 2011. Capital

• Site preparation & preliminaries $ 20,000 • Minimum of 3 bedrooms, office, 2 bathrooms $122,000 • Carport $ 6,000 • Fixtures, fittings, & painting $ 27,000 • Shed for equipment storage $ 15,000 • Plumbing & Septic tank system $ 18,000 • Rain water tanks & pumps $ 10,000 • Electrical $ 12,500 • Landscaping paving & fencing $ 25,000

Subtotal $255,000 • Power supply (grid) $ 60,000 • Communications $ 3,000 • Road access $ 10,000

Total capital $328,000 Operating Costs per annum

• Ongoing operating & maintenance costs o Power $ 3,600 o General maint $ 1,500 o Communications $ 1,500 o Insurance $ 400

Annual Maintenance & Operating $ 7,000

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL: MINUTES TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011 Page 62 Asset Management

• Renewal o Paint (10 years) $8,000 $ 800 o Floor coverings & blinds (10 years) $10,000 $ 1,000 o Roof (25 years) $8,000 $ 320 o Wiring (30 years) $12,500 $ 420 o Plumbing & tanks (50years) $20,000 $ 400 o Septics (50 years) $8,000 $ 160

• Replacement 75 years $328,000 $ 4,373

Annual Renewal & Replacement Cost $ 7,473 Total operating cost per annum $ 14,473 Caretaker Role and function of caretaker: Provide an onsite presence to deter vandalism and nuisance behavior. Perform basic maintenance functions

ordinary council meeting tuesday 25 january...

Documents