time: 6 · vst6000 elevated work platform subject to exchange rate variations. b. that successful...

Agenda: Corporate & Works Committee Date: Monday 8 November 2010 Time: 6.00pm

Outline of Meeting Protocol & Procedure: • The Chairperson will call the Meeting to order and ask the Committee/Staff to present apologies or late

correspondence. • The Chairperson will commence the Order of Business as shown in the Index to the Agenda. • At the beginning of each item the Chairperson will ask whether a member(s) of the public wish to address the

Committee. • If person(s) wish to address the Committee, they are allowed four (4) minutes in which to do so. Please direct

comments to the issues at hand. • If there are persons representing both sides of a matter (eg applicant/objector), the person(s) against the

recommendation speak first. • At the conclusion of the allotted four (4) minutes, the speaker resumes his/her seat and takes no further part in

the debate unless specifically called to do so by the Chairperson. • If there is more than one (1) person wishing to address the Committee from the same side of the debate, the

Chairperson will request that where possible a spokesperson be nominated to represent the parties. • The Chairperson has the discretion whether to continue to accept speakers from the floor. • After considering any submissions the Committee will debate the matter (if necessary), and arrive at a

recommendation (R items which proceed to Full Council) or a resolution (D items for which the Committee has delegated authority).

Recommendation only to the Full Council (“R” Items) • Such matters as are specified in Section 377 of the Local Government Act and within the ambit of the

Committee considerations. • The voting of money for expenditure on works, services and operations. • Rates, Fees and Charges. • Donations • Matters which involve broad strategic or policy initiatives within responsibilities of the Committee. • Matters not within the specified functions of the Committee. • Asset Rationalisation. • Corporate Operations:-

- Statutory Reporting; - Adoption of Council's Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan; - Delegations; and - Policies.

• Tenders as per Regulation requirements. • Leases. • Matters reserved by individual Councillors in accordance with any Council policy on "safeguards" and

substantive changes. Delegated Authority (“D” Items) • General financial and corporate management of the Council, except those specifically excluded by statute, by

Council direction or delegated specifically to another Committee. Note: This not to limit the discretions of nominated staff members exercising Delegated Authorities granted by

the Council. • Statutory reviews of Council's Delivery Program and Operational Plan; • Finance Regulations, including:-

- Authorisation of expenditures within budgetary provisions where not delegated; - Quarterly review of Budget Review Statements; - Quarterly and other reports on Works and Services provision; and - Writing off of rates, fees and charges because of non-rateability, bad debts, and impracticality of collection.

• Auditing. • Property Management. • Asset Management. • Traffic Management - Works Implementation. • Works and Services - Monitoring and Implementations. • Legal Matters and Legal Register. • Parks and Reserves Management. • Infrastructure Management, Design and Investigation. • To require such investigations, reports or actions as considered necessary in respect of matters contained within

the Business Agenda (and as may be limited by specific Council resolution). • Confirmation of the Minutes of its Meetings. • Any other matter falling within the responsibility of the Corporate and Works Committee and not restricted by

the Local Government Act or required to be a Recommendation to Full Council as listed above.

Committee Membership: 7 Councillors Quorum: The quorum for a Committee meeting is 4 Councillors.

WOOLLAHRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Notice of Meeting 4 November 2010 To: Her Worship The Mayor, Councillor Isabelle Shapiro ex-officio

Councillors Andrew Petrie (Chair) Ian Plater (Deputy) Anthony Boskovitz Sean Carmichael Susan Jarnason Greg Medcraft David Shoebridge

Dear Councillors

Corporate & Works Committee Meeting – 8 November 2010 In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, I request your attendance at a Meeting of the Council’s Corporate and Works Committee to be held in the Council Chambers, 536 New South Head Road, Double Bay, on Monday 8 November 2010 at 6.00pm. Gary James General Manager

H:\Corporate & Works Committee\AGENDAS\2010\nov8-10c&wage.doc

H:\Corporate & Works Committee\AGENDAS\2010\nov8-10c&wage.doc

Additional Information Relating to Committee Matters

Site Inspection

Other Matters

Woollahra Municipal Council Corporate & Works Committee 8 November 2010

H:\Corporate & Works Committee\AGENDAS\2010\nov8-10c&wage.doc Page 1 of 1

Meeting Agenda Item

Subject

Pages

1 2 3

Leave of Absence and Apologies Late Correspondence Declarations of Interest

Items to be Decided by this Committee using its Delegated Authority D1 Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 18 October 2010 1

Items to be Submitted to the Council for Decision

with Recommendations from this Committee

R1 Supply and Delivery of One (1) 18 Metre Elevated Work Platform – Tender 10/13

2

R2 Old South Head Road, Vaucluse Stage 2 – Civil Infrastructure Project – Tender 10/15

5

R3 Queens Avenue, and Little Queens Lane, Vaucluse – Acquisitions of Roadway for Public Use – 374.G Part 2

9

R4 Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse, and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse – Acquisition of Roadway for Public Use – 68 and 489

14

R5 Chiswick Gardens Lease Tender 10/12 – Tender 10/12 20

R6 Statutory Review of Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors Policy – 18.G

26



Item No: D1 Delegated to Committee Subject: Confirmation of minutes of meeting held on 18 October 2010

Author: Les Windle, Manager – Governance File No: See Council Minutes Reason for Report: The Minutes of the Meeting of Monday 18 October 2010 were previously

circulated. In accordance with the guidelines for Committees’ operations it is now necessary that those Minutes be formally taken as read and confirmed.

Recommendation: That the Minutes of the Corporate and Works Committee Meeting of 18 October 2010 be taken as read and confirmed. Les Windle Manager – Governance



Item No: R1 Recommendation to Council

Subject: Supply and Delivery of One (1) Only 18 Metre Elevated Work Platform

Author: Mark Ramsay – Manager Depot & Waste Services File No: Tender No 10/13 Reason for Report: To recommend to Council the acceptance of a Tender Recommendation: A. That Council enters into a Lump Sum contract for $244,030.08 (incl.GST) with Aerial Access Australia Pty Ltd Pty Ltd for the supply and delivery of one (1) only Versalift VST6000 Elevated Work Platform subject to exchange rate variations. B. That successful and unsuccessful tenderers be advised accordingly. Background Councils Open Space and Trees department use an elevated work platform to assist in the trimming and pruning of trees within the municipality. This plant item consists of two parts, the cab/chassis and the elevated work platform. The original cab/chassis and elevated work platform were purchased in 1994. The cab/chassis has been replaced once in that time and it is now time to replace both the cab/cassis and the elevated work platform. This tender is for the elevated work platform only. Invitation to Tender The tender for the Supply and Delivery of one (1) only 18 metre Elevated Work Platform was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday 7 September 2010. A pre-tender meeting was not required, and no queries were raised by tenderers regarding the requirements. Tenders closed at 2:30 pm on Thursday 30 September 2010. A total of seven tenders were received prior to the closing date and time. The lump sum prices are listed in Table One. Tender Assessment The tender assessment panel comprised Mr Mark Ramsay, Manager Depot & Waste Services as the convenor and independent member of the tender panel; Mr Brian Toms, Plant and Fleet Coordinator as the Commissioning Officer, Mr Mick Jones as the operational representative of Open Space and Trees. Mr Zivan Hadjukovic, Team Leader Trees and Mr LLewallyn Jones Coordinator Assets and Park Maintenance as the operators of the equipment were included to provide advice on operational requirements and Ease of Operation criterion. Prior to the closing date, the tender weighted attribute values were developed. Council has resolved that a probity adviser should be included during the tender assessment stage for high risk, high value or sensitive projects. The tender panel agreed that a probity advisor was not necessary for this tender.



The following weighted attribute values were applied to the advertised selection criteria: Price 40%

Ease of operation, 20% Including general ergonomics, control layout, Manoeuvrability, stability and dimensions Major Service Interval Time Frames 20% Including warranty and after sale support OH & S 20%

Adherence to Australian Standards. Table One

TENDERER Tender price (Incl.GST), 1. Monitor Industries

$174,900.00

2. Telescopic Tower Enterprises Pty Ltd Terex TL55

$205,040.00

3. Aerial Access Australia Pty Ltd Versalift VST 6000 $244,030.08

4. Nifty-Lift $276,435.00

5. Nifty-Lift (Alternate) $346,560.00

6. Aerial Devices Australia Pty Ltd $298,848.00

7. Redmond Gary Pty Ltd $370,260.00 Summary of tenders: It was agreed by the Panel that 6 of the 7 tenders were capable of performing the required tasks and that the difference in the items tendered were minor in their ease of operation with the service intervals and OH&S components resulting in the largest variations. Monitor Industries, although the cheapest tender, was deemed unsuitable as the boom does not swivel 360 degrees, which would severely hamper operations. Aerial Access was selected as it scored the highest in all aspects of the selection criteria other than price. As Council already operates an Aerial Access Elevated Work Platform, the Panel deemed that the fact that staff are used to the machine and its controls, the known reliability of the machine and the service provided from the manufacturer outweighed the extra cost. Assessment of tenders All tenders were assessed by the panel using pre-set criteria. As the tenderers are based in America, clarification was sought from the tenders ranked first and second, Aerial Access and Telescopic Tower Enterprises Pty Ltd, as to what affect the exchange rate would have on the prices tendered. Aerial Access confirmed that their tendered price would remain firm. Telescopic Tower Enterprises Pty Ltd confirmed that their price was fluid and would be set at the exchange rate on the day they received the order. As this was difficult to determine, the Panel agreed to score the prices based on those provided in the tender documents and not try to allow for variations in exchange rates.



The scores for the weighted attribute values are shown in Table Two and take into account the issue summarised above. Table Two:

Tender Price Max score

40%

Ease of Operation Max score

20%

Major Service Max score

20%

O. H &S Max Score

20% Total score Ranking

1. Monitor Industries 40.0%

10%

12%

5%

67%

4

2. Telescopic Tower Enterprises Pty Ltd

34.12%

15%

14%

20%

83.12%

2

3.Aerial access Australia Pty Ltd

28.67%

18%

17%

20%

83.67%

1

4. Nifty-Lift

25.31%

14%

5%

5%

49.31%

6

5. Nifty-Lift (alternate) 20.19%

14%

5%

5.%

44.19%

7

6. Aerial Devices Australia Pty Ltd

23.41%

17%

2%

20%

62.41%

5

7. Redmond Gary Pty Ltd

18.89%

17%

12%

20%

67.89%

3

1. Price: Each tender price was scored relative to the lowest price, adjusted where necessary to include any additional

cost items so as to meet the minimum requirements. The formula to calculate the price score was (lowest price/each price) x weighting.

2. Ease of Operation: A total score for general ergonomic design, control layout, manoeuvrability, stability and dimensions.

3. Major Service Interval Timeframes: A total score based on service frequency including warranty and after sales service.

4. OH & S: Each tender was assessed on adherence to the relevant Australian Standard. Identification of Income and Expenditure: $352,000 (Incl.GST) was provided for in the 2010/2011 capital plant budget for the purchase of both the cab/chassis and the elevated work platform. A quote under Local Governemnet Procurement Contract number 1608 has been received for $106,450.90 for the purchase of the cab/chassis, with the proposed tender cost for the elevated work platform at $244,030.08. The total cost of the unit, including both the cab/chassis and the elevated work platform will come to $350,480.97(Incl GST) Recommendation: After reviewing the tender submissions and taking into consideration the result of the scored criteria and the requirements and preferences of the staff using this plant item, the panel recommends that the contract for the supply and delivery of one (1) only Elevated Work Platform be awarded to Aerial Access Pty Ltd, Versalift VST 6000, for a lump sum of $244,030.08 (inclusive GST). Mark Ramsay Manager Depot & Waste Services

Tom O’Hanlon Director Technical Services



Subject: Old South Head Road, Vaucluse Stage 2-Civil infrastructure Project.

Author: David Byatt File No: Tender No 10/15 Reason for Report:

To recommend to Council the acceptance of a Tender

Recommendation: A. That Council enter into a Contract with Melhemcorp Pty Ltd for Old South Head Road,

Vaucluse Stage 2- Civil Infrastructure Project for the lump sum of $160,087 (excluding GST), and provisional rates used.

B. That successful and unsuccessful tenderers be advised accordingly. Background Council adopted an Asset Management Strategy in 2005 which includes a detailed condition indicator analysis of all our infrastructure assets. This condition analysis identified that the road pavement, kerb and gutter; footpath and driveways, drainage pits and pipes in Old South Head Road, Vaucluse require renewal. The area of works to be carried out under this contract is shown in the location aerial photograph below:

AREA OF WORK




The road pavement in this section of road is constructed in concrete slabs. Over the last few years, this pavement has been deteriorating due to stormwater and subsoil water flowing beneath the slabs and undermining them, causing them to subside. Detailed design plans and specifications were prepared for the following works:

• Sawcut and removal and disposal of existing concrete pavement slabs; • Demolition & Disposal of existing gutter; • Rock Excavation for road pavement; • Road pavement milling and correction, patching and resheeting in asphalt; • Construction of sub-surface drainage and permanent and temporary road pavement including

all excavation, disposal of spoil; • Reconstruction of concrete gutter; • Supply and installation of geotextile encapsulated ballast drainage mat; • Installation of Jointex seal to concrete gutter inverts joints; • Adjust service covers to suit new surface levels and/or reconstruction of new service boxes

and/or lids; • Reinstatement of traffic signs, parking signs and pavement line-marking; • Protection of all existing services as required; • Protection of all existing items of heritage significance.

Invitation to Tender Tender 10/15 for the Old South Head Road Stage 2, Vaucluse was advertised in the Tenders section of the Sydney Morning Herald commencing on Tuesday 21 September 2010, and in the Wentworth Courier on Wednesday 22 September 2010. A pre-tender meeting was held on Wednesday 6 October 2010. All tenderers who had registered their interest in the tender were invited to attend. Questions raised by tenderers were answered and a record of the questions and answers was circulated to all tenderers who attended, or who were unable to attend but registered their wish to receive information. Tenders for this project closed at 2:30pm on Thursday 14 October, 2010. Four tenders were received by the closing date and time. No late tenders were received. Tender Assessment The tender assessment panel comprised Mr David Byatt as the convenor and independent member of the tender panel, Mr Sathiya Sathiyanoorthy as the Commissioning Officer, and Mr Sam Badalati as the Project Manager. Prior to the tender closing date, the tender panel agreed on the following weightings that would be used against the advertised selection criteria:

Cost and Pricing 45% Demonstrated experience and capacity 25% Program and methodology 15% Management systems (OHS, quality and environment) 10% Duration of works 5%

Council has resolved that a probity adviser should be included during the tender assessment stage for high risk, high value or sensitive projects. This project was deemed not to require a probity adviser.



The tenders were first checked for conformance and were all accepted by the evaluation panel as having met the requirements for further consideration. The tender prices were then ranked excluding any provisional amount. Provisional amounts apply where the final cost cannot be determined. All figures in the tables are net of GST:

RANKING BY PRICE

TENDERER

Lump sum tender price

Time

(Weeks)

1 Melhemcorp Pty Ltd $160,087.00 2 2 Chrisos Civil Constructions $185,426.40 4 3 Synergy Civil Constructions Pty Ltd $208,235.00 4 4 North Shore Paving Co Pty Ltd $291,857.95 12

The tender documents were then assessed in detail, including the responses to the qualitative criteria. Lump sum prices were scored relative to the lowest price. Each tender was given an initial total score out of 100. The final scores are:

CRITERIA

TENDERER

Cos

t and

pr

icin

g

(45%

) D

emon

stra

ted

expe

rien

ce

and

capa

bilit

y (2

5%)

Prog

ram

and

m

etho

dolo

gy

(15%

)

Man

agem

ent

Syst

ems

(OH

& S

, E

nvir

onm

enta

l and

Qua

lity)

(1

0%)

Dur

atio

n of

w

orks

(5

%)

T

OT

AL

SC

OR

E

(100

%)

Melhemcorp Pty Ltd 45 21.88 15 7.5 5 94.38

Chrisos Civil Constructions 38.95 18.75 7.50 9.38 2.5 77.08

Synergy Civil Constructions Pty Ltd 34.56 17.71 15 7.5 2.5 77.27

North Shore Paving Co Pty Ltd 24.68 22.92 3.75 8.75 0.83 60.93

Explanatory notes: 4. Cost and Pricing: Tenderers provided information on estimated quantities and rates that make up the lump sum

price, with a weighting of 45%. The lowest tender price received the highest score, with all other prices ranked accordingly using the formula (lowest price/each price)x 45).

5. Experience and capacity: Each tender was scored on scope and complexity of past civil experience, particularly for this type of project where drainage and site access are significant issues.

6. Program & Methodology: Information was requested on each tenderer’s approach to the project program and construction methodology to check the tenderer’s ability to meet the stated works duration.

7. Duration of Works: The shortest duration of 2 weeks received the maximum score, with others ranked according using the formula (shortest duration in weeks/each duration in weeks) x 5.

8. Management Systems: Assessment of Quality, Environment controls and OH & S, scored according to comprehensiveness of documentation and evidence of it being applied to past projects. The highest scores were allocated for systems with independent accreditation.

Comment As can be seen from the tender panel’s score the highest ranked score is achieved by Melhemcorp Pty Ltd. Melhemcorp’s submission demonstrated that the construction methodology had been well thought through.



The work will be carried out in stages with traffic management plans being provided for each stage. Melehemcorp’s time to complete the work of 2 weeks appears low. However, Melhemcorp has a proven record of being able to complete work within the time stated as has been demonstrated from the previous 5 recent projects that this company has completed for Council. Part of the work includes the clean-out, treatment and filling of all pockets where the rock surface level lies below the minimum required depth of excavation for the construction of new work. The extent of this treatment will only be apparent after excavation takes place. To cover this uncertainty, Provisional Sums have been used where the tenderers were asked to provide rates only and these rates will be applied to actual work carried out. The advantage of using a schedule of rates for the uncertain part of the work is that Council will only be paying for work that is carried out. The disadvantage is that the total cost of the work is not known before the work starts. The provisional rates provided by Melhemcorp are the lowest, maintaining this company’s costing advantage. Tender Assessment Panel Opinion Melhemcorp’s tender price is $25,339 lower than the next highest scoring tenderer, Chrisos Civil Constructions Pty Ltd and maintains this price advantage even when including provisional rates. Melhemcorp achieved the highest overall score when the qualitative factors are taken into account, including community consultation, site and construction management. The tender panel agreed that Melhemcorp Pty Ltd provides the best value to Council and recommends they be appointed to carry out the work. Identification of Income and Expenditure: All figures in this report exclude GST. The preferred tenderer’s lump sum price for this project is $160,087. In addition, a contingency amount of approximately $22,000 should be allowed for potential provisional items and variation claims and $5,000.00 for project management. To date, funds of $12,040 have been expended on design and project management. The total funding required for this project is estimated to be $199,127. A total available budget of $200,000 is allocated for this project from the Environmental and Infrastructure Works Levy, which is sufficient to cover the anticipated total project cost. Recommendation: That Council enter into a Contract with Melhemcorp Pty Ltd for the for Old South Head Road, Vaucluse Stage 2- Civil Infrastructure Project for the lump sum of $160,087 excluding GST, plus any provisional rates used. David Byatt Purchasing Coordinator

Tom Hanlon Director Technical Services




Subject: Queens Avenue & Little Queens Lane Vaucluse - Acquisitions of Roadway for Public Use

Author: Anthony Sheedy Property Officer File No: 374. Part 2. Reason for Report: To formalise the status of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse

as public roads. Recommendation: A. That Council proceed with the dedication of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane

Vaucluse under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993 as recommended by HWL Lawyers by undertaking the following actions:

a) Affixing a notice on Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse in a conspicuous

place for 28 days. b) Placing an advertisement in a local newspaper advising of Councils intention to dedicate

all of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse as public roads in accordance with Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993.

B. That Council instruct HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to execute the necessary actions to effectively

have Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse dedicated as public roads. C. That Council authorise the Mayor and General Manager to execute and affix the Council seal

to the documents required for the acquisition of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse for the public use.

Background: On 1 June 2009 a progress report was presented to the Corporate and Works Committee on action to formalise encroaching structures on the road reserve area by adjoining owners of Queens Avenue, Vaucluse. A resolution was adopted on 18 June 2009 as follows: A. That Council decline the requests to purchase the sites of encroachments on the road reserve

adjoining Nos 5, 7 and 11 Queens Avenue, Vaucluse. B. That the parking space at 11 Queens Avenue, Vaucluse be formalised by the grant of a lease

under the Roads Act, subject to payment of Council’s costs related to this matter. C. That the building encroachments at 11 Queens Avenue, Vaucluse be formalised by the grant

of an Easement to Permit Existing Structures to Remain, to continue for the life of the building, or the redevelopment of the site, or the redevelopment of the structures, whichever occurs first, subject to payment of monetary compensation and all Council’s costs related to this matter.

D. That the lease rental and easement compensation payable in regard to the encroachment by

the adjoining owners of 11 Queens Avenue, Vaucluse be determined by a registered Valuer.



E. That Council resolve to require the owner of 5 Queens Ave, to enter into a Positive Covenant in favour of Council to formalise the encroachment on the road reserve.

F. That a further report be submitted regarding the formalisation of encroachments at 5 and 7

Queens Avenue, Vaucluse, when a response has been obtained. As a follow up to point F. above, a further report was presented to the Corporate and Works Committee on 5 July 2010 to formalise encroaching structures on the road reserve area by adjoining owners of 5–7 Queens Avenue, Vaucluse. A resolution was adopted on 12 July 2010 as follows: That the building encroachments at 7 Queens Ave, Vaucluse be formalised by the grant of an Easement to Permit Existing Structures to Remain, to continue for the life of the building, or the redevelopment of the site, or the redevelopment of the structures, whichever occurs first, subject to payment of monetary compensation and all Council’s costs related to this matter. Following the adoption of the resolution in July, instructions were issued to Service First Registrations Pty. Ltd. to ascertain whether Council is the owner of the land and dedicated as public road sufficient to register an easement. In order to ensure such a situation does not occur in future, Property staff have since amended the Council easement procedure to require that a Title search is conducted before a Council easement report is prepared. The Title search report from Service First Registrations Pty. Ltd. stated that parts of Queens Avenue, Vaucluse have been dedicated to the public. These parts have been hatched out on the attached plan (Annexure 1). Service First Registrations Pty Ltd further reported that all of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane, Vaucluse marked with (A) have NOT been dedicated as public roads. Their report in relation to the road marked (A) further states that, “These parts were provided for in D.P. 4572 (circa 1904). No evidence could be found as to the formal dedication, resumption or alignment of these parts. It is noted that dedication could have occurred outside the control of the LPMA Titles Office for example, by expenditure of public monies or use by the Public. The documentary title to these parts forms part of the land remaining comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1774 Folio 57 standing in the name of Ned Harry Scott”. Legal opinion was then sought from Council’s Lawyers HWL Ebsworth who advised that “Given that these parts are provided for in D.P. 4572 ( which I understand was registered in 1904) it is open for Council to dedicate these parts as public roads in accordance with S16 of the Roads Act 1993: and no plan of redefinition will be required”. This documentation shows that Council has a common law dedication of the land comprising Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse. However, in order to formalise the encroachment, Council must acquire Torrens Title to such land and cause the land to be dedicated as public road to such standard as required by the Land Property Management Authority (LPMA) Options: After looking into the available alternatives to successfully acquire recognised ownership and dedication of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse, as roads, Council could adopt one of the following methods:



1. Application under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993. 2. Possessory Title. 3. Compulsory Acquisition. Possessory Title was considered less effective than an application under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993 because Section 45D(5) of the Real Property Act may require evidence, for example, searches on the deceased estate of the registered owner resulting in notices being served on these owners who are long deceased and further delaying acquisition by Council. Dedication pursuant to Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993 was considered to be the most beneficial to Council. Section 16 applies to land that is set aside for the purposes of a road left in a subdivision of land effected before 1 January 1907, or in a plan of subdivision that was registered by the Registrar General before 1 January 1920. Under Section 16, but subject to Section 17 of the Roads Act 1993: Council may, by notice published in the Gazette, dedicate the land as a public road. On such publication, the land is dedicated as a public road. No compensation is payable arising from the operation of Section 16; and Land may not be dedicated as a public road if the Land and Environment Court makes a

declaration under Section 17. Under Section 17: Before dedicating land as a public road under Section 16, the Council must cause at least 28

days notice of its intention to do so to be served on the owner of the land. During that period, the owner of the land may apply to the Land and Environment Court for a

declaration that the land should not be dedicated as a public road; and The Court may make such decision as it sees fit with respect to the application.

Council staff propose the following action to secure title and dedication of these roads. Council can affix notices on Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse in a conspicuous place for 28 days and place an advertisement in a local newspaper advising of Council’s intention to dedicate all of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse as public roads in accordance with Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993. In this case no plan of redefinition is required to be prepared to enable the land to be gazetted and formally recognised as public roads. Conclusion: It is recommended that Council: Proceed with the dedication of Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993 as recommended by HWL Lawyers by undertaking the following actions:

• Proceed with the placement of the notice in a conspicuous place in Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse and lodgement of the advertisement in a local newspaper.

• Instruct HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to execute the necessary actions to effectively have Queens Avenue and Little Queens Lane Vaucluse dedicated as public roads.

Anthony Sheedy Zubin Marolia Property Officer Manager – Property & Projects


Annexures: 1. Plan showing Road not dedicated and marked (A) and part road dedicated shown hatched.




Subject: BurrabirraAvenue,Vaucluse and Wentworth Road Vaucluse - Acquisition of Roadway for Public Use

Author: Anthony Sheedy Property Officer File No: 68 and 489. Reason for Report: To formalise the status of Burrabirra Avenue and Wentworth Road Vaucluse

as public roads. Recommendation: A. That Council proceed with the dedication of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and Wentworth

Road, Vaucluse under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993 as recommended by HWL Lawyers by undertaking the following actions:

i) Affixing a notice on Burrabirra Road, Vaucluse and Wentworth Avenue, Vaucluse in a

conspicuous place for 28 days.

ii) Placing an advertisement in a local newspaper advising of Councils intention to dedicate all of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse as public roads in accordance with Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993.

B. That Council instruct HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to execute the necessary actions to effectively

have Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse dedicated as public roads. C. That Council authorise the Mayor and General Manager to execute and affix the Council seal

to the documents required for the acquisition of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse for the public use.

Background: Burrabirra Avenue Acquisition On 16 June 2010 a Development Application (DA) was received by Council for the renovation of an existing residential dwelling at 9 Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse, being DA 262/2010/1. Property and Projects staff were advised that the DA showed there to be existing encroachments on the public road reserve. A completed application form together with the required fee was received from the owner of 9 Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse to formalise an existing encroachment on Council land. The property owner was advised of the estimated costs associated with the application to formalise an existing encroachment on Council land. A letter was received from the property owner accepting the estimated costs associated with the easement. Council officers attended an on site inspection to view the encroachments adjoining the property and assess whether there any other encroachments in the immediate area. The property owner agreed to have Council obtain a valuation report and pay compensation to Council.



Service First Registrations Pty Ltd were instructed to investigate and ascertain whether Council is the owner of the land in Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and whether the road has been dedicated as a public road sufficient to allow registration of an easement. The Title search report confirmed the following:

• The site of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse was provided for in Deposited Plan 9245, circa 1913-1914.

• No evidence could be found as to the formal dedication of Burrabirra Avenue as public road.

• The documentary title to the site of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse comprised in the Certificate of Title Volume 3874 Folio 224 stands in the names of William Charles Wentworth and Francis William Hixson.

Advice was then sought from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers as to Councils position. HWL Ebsworth advised the following, based on the advice from Service First Registrations Pty Ltd that the land marked (A) in Burrabirra Avenue on the Annexure 1 plan has not been dedicated as a public road; “Given this area is provided for in DP 9245 (which I understand was registered before 1920) it is open to Council to dedicate this area as public road in accordance with S16 of the Roads Act. No Plan of Redefinition will be required. The steps to achieve this are as follows: 1. Council must advertise Council's intention to dedicate the land as public road; 2. If following this, no declaration is made by the Court in accordance with S17 of the Roads

Act ,Council must resolve to dedicate the land as a public road; 3. Council must then cause the dedication to be gazetted; 4. Following gazettal, Council must request the LPMA to register the dedication and to issue to

Council a new Folio for the land”. Wentworth Avenue Acquisition As a result of Development Application DA 58/2010/1 to demolish an existing dwelling house and construction of a new house at 25 Wentworth Road, Vaucluse; encroachments were identified on the road reserve adjoining the property. A Title search by Service First Registration Pty. Ltd. was undertaken on Wentworth Road, Vaucluse before the property owner was requested to formalise the encroachments on the road reserve. This road is in the immediate area of Burrabirra Avenue. The Title search investigation disclosed that the site of Wentworth Road, Vaucluse was provided for in a private subdivision possibly known as the 7th Vaucluse Estate filed as F.P. 977727. The plan is attached as Annexure 2 with the hatched area identifying the part not dedicated. This search also concluded that no formal dedication or resumption of this road could be found. The Title search report found the road to be in the names of William Charles Wentworth and Francis William Hixson pursuant to Appointment of New Trustee No.A282653, and Notice of Death No. A337253. The date of this road is circa 1908. Legal opinion has been sought from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers as to Councils position. HWL Ebsworth advised the following (based on the information contained in the Title search report) that the land marked with cross hatching in Annexure 2 being Wentworth Road; has not been dedicated as a public road, that documentary title to this area is contained in Certificate of title Volume 1730 Folio 42, and that this title is subject to Caveat 279864.



“Given that the area is provided in DP 977727 (which we understand was registered before 1920), it is open to Council to dedicate this area as public road in accordance with S16 of the Roads Act. No Plan of Redefinition will be required. The steps to achieve this are as follows: 1. Council must advertise Council's intention to dedicate the land as public road. The method of

such advertisement should be as adopted by Council for recent other dedications including Olola Avenue, Vaucluse.

2. If following this ,no declaration is made by the Land and Environment Court in accordance with S17 of the Roads Act, Council must formally resolve to dedicate the land as public road.

3. Council must then cause the dedication to be gazetted. 4. Following gazzettal, Council must request the LPMA to register the dedication and issue to

Council a new Folio for the land. However, the Caveat 279864 will not prevent such registration (the same Caveat applied to the recent dedication of Olola Avenue, Vaucluse).”

Acquisition Options: After looking into the available alternatives to successfully acquire ownership of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse, the Council could adopt one of the following methods: 4. Application under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993. 5. Possessory Title. 6. Compulsory Acquisition. HWL Lawyers advised Council that acquisition by compulsory acquisition would expose Council to a claim for compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. Possessory Title was also considered less effective than an application under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993 because Section 45D(5) of the Real Property Act may require evidence, for example, searches on the deceased estate of the registered owner resulting in notices being served on these owners who are long deceased and further delaying acquisition by Council. Dedication pursuant to Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993 was considered to be the most beneficial to Council. Section 16 applies to land that is set aside for the purposes of a road left in a subdivision of land effected before 1 January 1907, or in a plan of subdivision that was registered by the Registrar General before 1 January 1920. Under Section 16, but subject to Section 17 of the Roads Act 1993: Council may by notice published in the Gazette, dedicate the land as a public road. On such publication, the land is dedicated as a public road. No compensation is payable arising from the operation of Section 16; and Land may not be dedicated as a public road if the Land and Environment Court makes a

declaration under Section 17. Under Section 17: Before dedicating land as a public road under Section 16, the Council must cause at least 28

days notice of its intention to do so to be served on the owner of the land.



During that period, the owner of the land may apply to the Land and Environment Court for a declaration that the land should not be dedicated as a public road; and

The Court may make such decision as it sees fit with respect to the application. The present owners are deceased. Council can secure title by affixing a notice on Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse in a conspicuous place for 28 days and place an advertisement in a local newspaper advising of Council’s intention to dedicate all of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse as a public road in accordance with Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993. In this case no plan of redefinition is required to be prepared to enable the land to be gazetted and formally recognised as public roads. Conclusion: Pursuant to the Title search report which identified that Council is not the documented owner of Burrabirra Avenue, nor Wentworth Road, Vaucluse it is recommended that Council proceed with acquiring title to Burrabirra Avenue and Wentworth Road and dedicating these roads for public use under Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993, as recommended by HWL Lawyers by undertaking the following actions:

i) Affixing a notice on Burrabirra Road and Wentworth Avenue, Vaucluse in a conspicuous

place for 28 days. ii) Placing an advertisement in a local newspaper advising of Councils intention to dedicate all of

Burrabirra Avenue and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse as public roads in accordance with Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993.

Further, that Council instruct HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to execute the necessary actions to effectively have Burrabirra Avenue and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse dedicated as public roads, and authorise the Mayor and General Manager to execute and affix the Council seal to the documents required for the acquisition of Burrabirra Avenue, and Wentworth Road, Vaucluse for the public use. Anthony Sheedy Property Officer

Zubin Marolia Manager -Property & Projects

Tom O’Hanlon Director, Technical Services

Annexures: 1) Plan of Burrabirra Avenue, Vaucluse showing the road not dedicated and marked (A) 2) Plan of Vaucluse Estate showing the part of Wentworth Road, Vaucluse (hatched) identified

as not being dedicated.




Subject: Chiswick Gardens Lease Tender 10/12

Author: Tony Myers – Property Officer (Casual) File No: Tender 10/12 Reason for Report:

To recommend to Council the acceptance of a Tender

Recommendation: A. That Council enter into a lease agreement with Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd for

a seven (7) years initial term plus a seven (7) years renewal option, at a commencement rent of $200,000 per annum plus GST, with rent review to market upon exercise of the renewal option, and to CPI in the intervening years.

B. That the lease agreement include a refurbishment commitment of no less than $2,448,000

plus GST, by Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd, subject to obtaining necessary approvals.

C. That the Lease document be amended to include a provision that any capital expenditure

below the tendered amounts will be converted to supplementary rent over the remaining period of the first term, to ensure no disadvantage to Council.

D. That the successful and the unsuccessful tenderer be advised. Background The restaurant within Chiswick Gardens formally operated as Pruniers Restaurant at 65 Ocean Street, Woollahra. Pruniers has been closed since 2008. Council has sought to re-establish the site as a quality restaurant in keeping with its prior use. The annual rental under the former lease was $110,560.08 ex GST. Public tenders were advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Wentworth Courier for a seven (7) year lease with option for extension of a further seven (7) year term. A draft Deed of Lease was included in the tender documents. The building requires major refurbishment, particularly in the kitchen area and to the main roof, guttering and downpipes plus the flat roof over part of the dining area. Work is also required to repair the brick dividing fence on the property boundary and the timber fence adjoining the Park. The air conditioning units are also aged and require servicing and in one instance replacement. The Tender also sought submissions from parties interested in investing capital into upgrading and refurbishing the building internally. Tender Assessment Two tenders were received and have been assessed by the tender panel in accordance with the selection criteria stated in the tender documents. The tender evaluation panel comprised: Paul Fraser, Team Leader – Open Space and Recreation Planning; David Byatt, Purchasing Coordinator; and Tony Myers, Consulting Property Officer.



Council has resolved that a probity adviser should be included during the tender assessment stage for high risk, high value or sensitive projects. This lease was deemed to meet this definition and it was agreed that a probity adviser should be included in the tender process. Mr Les Windle Manager – Governance, performed this role. The tenders received were as follows:

TENDERER Food Passions Pty Ltd & Solotel Pty Ltd Customs House Café Pty Ltd

Commencement rent $200,000 $76,000 (see comments below)

The Tender called for a commencement rental offer to be made, with rent review to market value at the time of exercise of the renewal option. The commencement rent would also increase with CPI in the intervening years. The tender submitted by Customs House Café Pty Ltd trading as Café Sydney provided for a commencement rental of $76,000, but an average rental of $152,000 p.a. over the two terms ( i.e. 14 years ) of the lease. The schedule submitted offered $76,000 p.a. rent for the first three years, then $152,000 p.a. for the next four years, $184,000 p.a. for the next five years and $186,000 p.a. for the final two years. The tender panel believed that the tender was non-conforming in accordance with the Local Government Tendering Regulations. This view was supported by legal advice obtained from Council’s lawyers, HWL Ebsworth, which states; “…it is clear that the Tenderer has made only one offer, namely, rent of $152k per annum excluding GST averaged over the initial term and the option term with the rent for Year 1 to be only $76k excluding GST. As the draft Lease attached to the Invitation for Tender requires annual review of rent in accordance with the CPI and a market rent review if the Option is exercised, the Tenderer's offer of rent for Years 2012 to 2024 inclusive makes the Tender non-conforming. Council is not entitled to assess the Tender on what is offered for Year 1 because the offer ignores the rent review provisions of the draft Lease which apply from and including Year 2. Council is not entitled to assess the Tender having regard to what is offered over 7 years or 14 years because the offer ignores the rent review provisions of the draft Lease and assumes that the Tenderer will not be in default under the Lease and will be entitled to exercise the Option and that the Option will be exercised. Whilst Council is entitled to request clarification of the offer, the Tenderer is not entitled to amend or revise its offer (see Item 1.15 of the Invitation for Tender).This applies even if by way of clarification the Tenderer states that the intended offer is $76k excluding GST subject to the rent review provisions of the draft Lease (because the Tenderer's offer does not state this.” Accordingly the Tender received from Customs House Café Pty Ltd trading as Café Sydney was deemed to be non-conforming by the panel and as a result was not considered formally. However, to inform the process, the tender panel informally reviewed the tender submission from Café Sydney and determined that the scores for the non price selection criteria were similar to that of the conforming tender from Food Passions and Solotel, but the capital upgrade commitment is lower by approximately $400,000 to $600,000 and the annual rental is lower by approximately $48,000.



It is clear that even if the tender from Café Sydney had been deemed conforming, it still would have been a considerably inferior offer to that of Food Passions and Solotel. The selection criteria were (in order of importance): • Rental return to Council • Demonstrated experience and capability in managing/operating a quality licensed restaurant • Comprehensive Business Plan for the first two years of the operation, including estimates of

income to be generated. • Occupational Health and Safety plan for the premises.

The tenders were given a preliminary score on each item of the above selection criteria, which resulted in a total score out of 100. Post-tender interviews were conducted with Mr Matt Moran and Mr Peter Sullivan representing Food Passions Pty Ltd and Mr Bruce Solomon representing Solotel Pty Ltd to explore their submission in detail and resolve any queries, which the panel had regarding aspects of the tenders. Following the interviews, the panel finalised the tender scores as shown in the table below:

TENDERER Rent Year One

Demonstrated Experience

and Capability

Business Plan OH&S Total Score

Maximum possible score 40 30 25 5 100

Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd 40 26 20 5 91

Explanation of scoring: Rental Return: 40% of the weighted attribute score relates to the annual rental return, with the highest rent scored highest. Demonstrated Experience & Capability: The panel evaluated the tenderer’s track record in managing and/or operating similar venues, taking into account the reference checks and the approximate value of each of the past lease agreements. Financial capacity was also assessed and further financial checks carried out as necessary. The maximum possible score for this criterion was 30% Business Plan: The panel evaluated the Two Year Business Plan. The maximum score of 25% required the Business Plan to be realistic, clearly researched and to offer a “value adding” innovative approach that included any proposed upgrades to the kitchen and service areas. Occupational Health and Safety: The OH & S Plan was worth a maximum score of 5% for demonstrated understanding of fire management, staff training and awareness of safe lifting limits, trip and slip hazards and general approach to storage and housekeeping. Tender Summary: A brief summary of the Tender submitted by Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd follows:



Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd Food Passions is owned by Matt Moran and Peter Sullivan. Solotel is owned by Bruce Solomon. This tender was submitted by the partnership of Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd. This partnership owns and operates ARIA Sydney, ARIA Brisbane, Opera Bar at Sydney Opera House and Opera Point Events. The majority of front of house staff will come from the ARIA restaurant and Opera Bar. Training will be a key responsibility of the Restaurant Manager and Head Chef under the supervision of Matt Moran, Peter Sullivan and Bruce Solomon. The main menu proposed is modern, with an emphasis on vegetable dishes, fresh seafood and poultry cooked in a double wood fired oven, which will be a key feature of the open kitchen. The menu will change daily, featuring heirloom and baby vegetables, herbs and edible flowers from the on-site market garden. The wine list will be compiled by Matt Dunne, winner of the 2010 Louis Roederer Sommelier of The Year. The restaurant will offer its own wine labels ensuring the list remains egalitarian and accessible to different budgets. A business plan was submitted with the tender which included estimates of income plus a comprehensive schedule of proposed works together with sketches and a layout of the renovated restaurant. The letters provided by the accountants acting for each of the companies spoke of the success each of these companies enjoy in their respective restaurant businesses and confirmed their ability to operate a venue of this size and type successfully. Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd offered the highest rental return, commencing at $200,000 per annum and adjusted annually thereafter at CPI. In addition, Food Passions and Solotel plan to spend between $2.4 to 2.6 million to refurbish Chiswick Gardens Restaurant, including significant upgrades to the decor and amenity of the building. The refurbishment plans submitted indicate that the refurbishment will be sympathetic to the heritage fabric of the building and will provide a significant benefit to Council as the building is in a run down condition and due for a major upgrade. Much of the works will be subject to a development application (DA). The interview panel is satisfied that Mr Moran, Mr Sullivan and Mr Soloman have a thorough understanding of refurbishing similar restaurant premises as evidenced by their efforts at ARIA Sydney and ARIA Brisbane. As in previous tenders where significant upgrades have been offered, the offer of minimum expenditure of $2,448,000 will form part of the lease conditions. The tenderer proposes to open at regular times, Tuesday to Friday lunch 12.00 to 3.00 pm and dinner 6.00 to 11.30 pm. Weekends will be all day dining, with opening hours being Saturday 12.00 to 11.30 pm and Sunday 12.00 to 10.30 pm These operators do not propose to hold any major functions. At the Post Tender meeting, the panel was able to gather more detailed information on the plans submitted for Chiswick Gardens Restaurant. Of particular note were the following points:

• Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd will create a restaurant for the local Woollahra Community with a focus on sustainable produce grown in the courtyard garden adjacent to the restaurant. The restaurant garden will provide herbs, vegetables, edible flowers and fruit for the restaurant. A full time gardener will be employed. A compost area and worm farm will reduce the restaurant’s waste and carbon footprint and rainwater tanks will trap run off from the roof to supply the restaurant garden with water. The location of the courtyard garden will be of benefit to the neighbours as it will be of a passive nature.



• The focus of Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd is to serve the local community, and they believe that the reopening of this icon specifically as a restaurant adjoining the park will revitalise the atmosphere of the gardens and surrounds and bring more people into Chiswick Park.

• The restaurant will have 150 seats in total with a mix of communal high tables at the

entrance and banquette and wooden tables in the main floor space and outside seating.

• Careful thought has also been given to reduce noise pollution that would be created by large groups entering and leaving on mass. As a restaurant and not a function centre, patrons will come and go at staggered times during the day and evening in smaller groups and numbers.

• It was further stated that Chiswick Gardens Restaurant will be a modern Australian

Restaurant and not a function centre. There will be no allowance for large functions such as weddings nor is there a dance floor.

• Parking for customers and staff was also an important consideration. Staff would be

instructed that they are expected to use public transport. The use of bicycles will also be encouraged.

• At their ARIA Sydney restaurant, they have established relationships with Sydney Taxi

companies and can call a taxi for the customer’s home journey. This service would be repeated at Chiswick Gardens Restaurant. The encouraged use of public transport would also be outlined on their website.

Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd were able to expand on their Occupational Health & Safety management plans at the post tender meeting. They are outsourced to specialist consultants. The documentation was comprehensive and appropriate for the venue. Full details of their OH&S policies and procedures have been provided. The tender evaluation panel ranked this tenderer high, with a score of 91/100 reflecting the high rental offer, together with their current and previous experience in operating similar venues. Capital Works Proposal for capital works upgrades received from the Tenderer are as follows:

Roof Works $60,198 Kitchen Works $682,049 Other Works $1,705,793 Total Cost $2,448,040

It is recommended that the proposed capital upgrade expenditure be documented in the lease to ensure that all the proposed works are carried out. Also, if the final works are deemed to have cost less than the committed figure then there will be a clause in the lease requiring additional rental return be received by Council, so that Council benefits from the full extent of the committed expenditure.



References: References were provided by Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd and the referees were contacted for comments. DJ Wear and Associates manage certain lots within the complex which houses ARIA Sydney Restaurant, some residential apartments and the Cinema complex. They state that their dealing with these tenants is excellent. Their rent is paid on time, outgoings are always promptly paid and there has been no complaints from any neighbours in the complex. They further report that the Owners’ Corporation have no issues with the operation of the Restaurant. Mr Steve Castieau the Portfolio Manager for Stockland (Queensland) which manages the latest Restaurant opened as ARIA Brisbane speaks highly of these operators. He states they have spent a considerable sum renovating this restaurant which is now highly successful. ARIA Brisbane is on a Lease with rental based on turnover. Without revealing the actual rental paid he claims that since ARIA has operated from the site, the turnover rental received by Stockland (Queensland) is substantial. When asked about any problems such as noise or unruly behaviour he said there was no problems. Conclusion: The tenderers do not plan to change the inherent nature of Chiswick Gardens Restaurant. They intend to use the facility exclusively as a restaurant and not as a function centre. Their general view is that this venue does not work as a function centre, but has potential as a Modern Australian Restaurant serving the local community. Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd have strong experience in venues like Chiswick Gardens Restaurant and have proven to be successful operators, without compromising the historic fabric of the buildings and the amenity of the areas that they operate in. They have exciting plans for the refurbishment of Chiswick Gardens Restaurant to “ensure the restaurant will have the space and functionality to give it longevity and to become again an Eastern Suburbs icon” as quoted in the submission from Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd. The work that Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd propose will improve Council’s asset and with the increased rental due in the second seven (7) year term also increase the value of the property. The tender submitted by Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd with a commencing rent of $200,000 per annum and subject to annual CPI adjustment, is a superior submission. This offer is further improved by their substantial commitment to the capital upgrading of the building. Their business plan is well thought out and based on their past history and references, we are confident that this proposal will be beneficial for Council. Matt Moran’s celebrity chef profile and the skills and experience of the management team led by Peter Sullivan and Bruce Solomon will ensure success of the restaurant. Accordingly, the panel therefore recommends that Council grant a Lease to Food Passions Pty Ltd and Solotel Pty Ltd. Tony Myers Zubin Marolia Property Officer (Casual) Manager – Property & Projects





Subject: Statutory Review of Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors Policy

Author: Les Windle - Manager Governance File No: 18.G Reason for Report: To adopt a Policy following public exhibition Recommendation: A. That the draft Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor

and Councillors Policy contained in Annexure 2 to the report to the Corporate and Works Committee on 8 November 2010 be adopted.

B. That Mayor and General Manager be delegated the authority to approve Councillor

attendance at conferences, seminars, workshops and similar functions within the budget framework.

Background: A report concerning the statutory requirement to annually review Council’s Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors Policy was considered by the Corporate and Works Committee on 13 September 2010. The recommendation from the Committee was submitted to the Council Meeting on 20 September 2010 where Council resolved as follows: A. THAT the draft Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor

and Councillors Policy contained in Annexure 2 of the report to the Corporate and Works Committee meeting on 13 September 2010 be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days as Council’s proposed policy for the ensuing twelve months, subject to the following amendments:

1. The first sentence of the “No use of council resources for political purposes” provision

being amended to state “A person’s re-election, or the seeking of any political office, is considered to be a personal interest.” (Part 2.1).

2. Retaining the wording in Council’s existing Payment of Expenses & Provision of Facilities Policy for “Approval Arrangements” which states: “Council may also resolve to delegate authority to the Mayor to appoint Councillors to attend specific conferences, seminars or similar functions.” (Part 2.1).

3. Reimbursement for mobile phone calls being increased to a maximum of $100 per month per Councillor (Part 3.3 ii).

B. THAT a further report be submitted to the Committee at the conclusion of the exhibition period.

Consultation: The draft policy was on exhibition during the period Wednesday 6 October to Tuesday 2 November 2010.



The exhibition of the draft policy was advertised in the Wentworth Courier on 6, 20 and 27 October and on Council’s website and a copy of the draft policy was available at Council’s Customer Service Centre, Council’s website and Council’s Libraries. No submissions have been received to the draft policy. Further proposal: The approval mechanism for Councillors to attend conferences, seminars, workshops and similar functions was amended by Council (see resolution part A.2 above) from that included in the proposed draft Policy. The Council Resolution reinstated the existing provision that requires Councillors wishing to attend conferences, seminars, workshops and similar functions to be nominated by resolution of the Council. This would require a report to be submitted to Council each time a Councillor requested to attend a conference, seminar, workshop or similar function. It may not always be practical or timely for a report to be submitted to Council to obtain that authority. Attendance at conferences and the like is an administrative matter and accordingly it is recommended that the Mayor and General Manager be delegated the authority to approve Councillor attendance at conferences, seminars, workshops and similar functions within the budget framework. Conclusion: It is recommended that the draft Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors Policy as exhibited and contained in Annexure 2 to this report be adopted. It is further recommended that the Mayor and General Manager be delegated the authority to approve Councillor attendance at conferences, seminars, workshops and similar functions within the budget framework. Les Windle Manager Governance

Stephen Dunshea Director Corporate Services

Annexures: 1. Report to Corporate & Works Committee 13 September 2010 2. Draft Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and

Councillors Policy recommended for adoption


POLITICAL DONATIONS DECISION MAKING FLOWCHART

FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCILLORS

Matter before Committee or Council meeting

Did the applicant, owner (if not the applicant) or someone close to the applicant make a donation in

excess of $1,000 that directly benefited your election campaign? (Code of Conduct Cl 7.23)

ActionDeclare a significant non-

pecuniary conflict of interest, absent yourself from the meeting

and take no further part in the debate or vote on the matter(Code of Conduct Cl 7.17(b))

Did the applicant or someone close to the applicant make a donation less than $1,000 that

directly benefited your election campaign?(Code of Conduct Cl 7.23)

Do you believe the political contribution creates a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest for you?

(Code of Conduct Cl 7.24)

ActionDeclare a significant non-

pecuniary conflict of interest, absent yourself from the meeting

and take no further part in the debate or vote on the matter(Code of Conduct Cl 7.17(b))

ActionParticipate in debate and vote on

the matter

Yes

No

YesYes

No

Is the matter before the meeting a Planning Matter?Yes

No

Staff to record decision process (motions/amendments) and Division

of votes for the determinative resolution or recommendation in the

meeting minutes

Staff to record decision process (motions/amendments) and determinative resolution or

recommendation in the meeting minutes

ActionConsider appropriate action required.

This could include limiting involvement by:1. participating in discussion but not in decision

making (vote),2. participating in decision making (vote) but not in

the discussion3. not participating in the discussion or decision

making (vote) 4. removing the source of the conflict

No

or


time: 6 · vst6000 elevated work platform subject to exchange rate variations. b. that successful...

Documents