late agenda items for ordinary council meeting · 2016-02-17 · late agenda items for ordinary...

LATE AGENDA ITEMS

FOR

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

Time and Date: 10:30AM on 5 February 2016 Venue: Great Southern Room, State Library of WA, Perth

Anthony Friday Chief Executive Officer !!!!!!!

1 of 42

Level 1, 300 Newcastle Street PERTH WA 6000

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2

1. FLIGHT WATCH ADVOCACY AND SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN REPORT ........................................ 3

2. PRC MOTOR VEHICLE ....................................................................................................................... 9

3. PILBARA TRANSFER OF BUSH FIRE CONTROL TRIAL .................................................................... 11

4. PRIORITY TRAILS RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 13

5. PUBLICATION OF GIFT REGISTER .................................................................................................. 16

6. REGIONAL GREEN WASTE CONTRACT ......................................................................................... 18

TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS

3.1 MOU – PILBARA TRANSFER OF BUSH FIRE CONTROL TRIAL ...................................................... 21

4.1 PILBARA TRAILS INTERIM REPORT ................................................................................................. 29

P-018 – TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION EXPENSES ................................................................. 40

!!

2 of 42

Regional Airfares - Flight Watch Advocacy and Social Media Campaign Report Responsible Officer: Mr Tony Friday, Chief Executive Officer Action Officer: Mr Alexis Guillot, Deputy CEO Officer Disclosure of Interest: Nil Attachments: Nil Purpose: To provide Council with a summary of the ‘Flight Watch’ social media campaign statistics and related advocacy activities. Background: All members are aware of the high cost of regional airfares to and from their population centres, with these costs acting as a deterrent to tourism and other regional initiatives. The PRC has conducted its own research into regional airfares, and has held a number of discussions with regional tourism authorities to determine potential courses of action. At the PRC Ordinary Council Meeting held on the 23rd of November 2015, Council resolved to deploy the ‘Flight Watch’ social media campaign. This item presents the results of the campaign to Council. Comments/Discussions Australia’s North West Tourism’s Chairperson Ian Gay will be meeting Mr Alan Joyce, Chief Executive Officer of Qantas on Wednesday, 3rd of February 2016 to discuss the issue of pricing for North West flights. Facebook and Twitter social media channels were used as the preferred vehicles to reach the broader audience. The campaign made use of high contrasts, high impact images to attract immediate attention of the users. Target audience was specifically set to serve content to 18+ years old across Western Australia, Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra. Government, aviation and tourism industries were preferred market segments for Facebook publications. Aggregated statistics per platform are presented below:

+ +

REACH / IMPRESSIONS POST CLICKS ENGAGEMENTS

24,757 2,705 352

Aggregated data from Facebook and Twitter, extracted on: 29 Jan 2016 9.30 am.

The campaign generated engagement activities with several media outlets, North West Telegraph, WA Today, the Hon. Paul Brown, Member for the Agricultural Region of WA, the Hon. Peter Katsambanis MLC, Member for North Metropolitan Region, and Ms Melissa Price MP. Media engagement included interviews with the Pilbara News, Kalgoorlie Miner, ABC radio, and Fairfax media.

3 of 42

Direct tweets were targeted at the following accounts:

• The West Australian • Perth Now • WA Today • ABC News Perth • 9 News Perth • 7 News Perth

• North West Telegraph • Pilbara Echo • ABC North West • ABC News 24 • Qantas

NAME ROLE Hon. Martin Aldridge MLC Member for the Agricultural Region

Hon. Colin James Barnett MLA BEc (Hons), MEc Premier; Minister for State Development; Science Hon. Paul John Brown MLC Member for Agricultural Region Dr Antonio De Paulo (Tony) Buti MLA BPE (Hons), DipEd, MIR, LLB (Hons), DPhil

Member for Armadale

Mr Vincent Catania MLA Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Water; Forestry

Hon. James (Jim) Edward Chown MLC Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport

Mr Roger Hugh Cook MLA Deputy Leader of the Opposition Shadow Minister for Health

Mr Murray John Cowper MLA Member for Murray-Wellington Hon. Mia Jane Davies MLA BMM Minister for Water; Sport and Recreation; Forestry Hon. Stephen Noel Dawson MLC Shadow Minister for Disability Services; Mental

Health; Child Protection Hon. John Howard Dadley Day MLA BSc, BDSc Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts Hon. Suzanne (Sue) Mary Ellery MLC Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative

CouncilShadow Minister for Education; Children's Interests

Ms Josephine (Josie) Farrer MLA Member for Kimberley Ms Janine Marie Freeman MLA BEc, GradDipOH&S Member for Mirrabooka Mrs Glenys Jenolan Godfrey MLA FIPA, GAICD Member for Belmont

4 of 42

Hon. Dave Grills MLC Member for the Mining and Pastoral Region Hon. Colin (Col) James Holt MLC Minister for Housing, Racing and Gaming Mr William (Bill) Joseph Johnston MLA Shadow Minister for State Development; Energy;

Mines and Petroleum; Ports Hon. Peter Argyris Katsambanis MLC Member for North Metropolitan Region Mr David (Dave) Joseph Kelly MLA BA Shadow Minister for Water; Fisheries; Youth Mr Sean Kimberley L'Estrange MLA BEd, DipT, MEd, Member for Churchlands Mr Ronald (Shane) Shane Love MLA Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for

Regional Development; Lands; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development

Hon. Lynn Ellen MacLaren MLC Member for South Metropolitan Region Ms Alannah MacTiernan Member for Perth Hon. William (Bill) Richard Marmion MLA BE, MBA Minister for Finance; Mines and Petroleum Hon. Ricky (Rick) John Mazza MLC Member for Agricultural Region Hon. Mark McGowan MLA BA, LLB, GradDipLegPrac Shadow Minister for Regional Development;

Economic Reform; Public Sector Management Ms Simone Frances McGurk MLA BA Shadow Minister for Community Services;

Children's Interests; Women's Interests Ms Elizabeth (Libby) Mettam MLA BA, MPA Member for Vasse Ms Andrea Ruth Mitchell MLA BPE, DipEd, FAICD Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Mental

Health; Disability Services; Child Protection Mr Nathan Wray Morton MLA BSc; GradDipEd Member for Forrestfield Hon. Dr Michael (Mike) Dennis Nahan MLA BEc, MS, PhD Treasurer; Minister for Energy; Citizenship and

Multicultural Interests Hon. Dean Cambell Nalder MLA BBus, GradDip(AppFin&Inv)

Minister for Transport

Ms Melissa Price MP Member for Durack, Western Australia Ms Margaret Mary Quirk MLA LLB (Hons), MA Shadow Minister for Emergency Services; Bushfire

Preparedness; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests; Seniors and Ageing

Hon. Donald Terrence (Terry) Redman MLA BSc, DipEd Minister for Regional Development; Lands; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development

Ms Rita Saffioti MLA Shadow Minister for Planning; Finance; Transport; Infrastructure

Hon. Anthony (Tony) James Simpson MLA Minister for Local Government; Community Services; Seniors and Volunteering; Youth

Hon. Dr Sally Elizabeth Talbot MLC BA (Hons), DPhil, ARCM Member for South West Region Mr Christopher (Chris) John Tallentire MLA BAgribus (Hons) Shadow Minister for Environment; Climate

Change Mr David Alan Templeman MLA DipTchg, BEd Shadow Minister for Local Government;

Volunteering; Heritage; Peel; Wheatbelt; Mid West; Whip

Mr Peter Charles Tinley AM, MLA BA, MDefStud Shadow Minister for Science; Trade; Asian Engagement; Lands; Gascoyne; Goldfields-Esperance

Hon. Kenneth (Ken) Dunstan Elder Travers MLC Member for North Metropolitan Region Mr Peter Bruce Watson MLA Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation; Great

Southern; Veterans Issues Hon. Darren Legh West MLC Member for Agricultural Region Mr Benjamin (Ben) Sana Wyatt MLA LLB, MSc Shadow Treasurer; Shadow Minister for Aboriginal

Affairs; Native Title; Kimberley; Pilbara; Cost of Living; Government Accountability

Hashtags are used as a way to narrow conversations and making it easier to find in Twitter searches. The following hashtags were used as a way to categorise the tweet:

• #Pilbara • #Tourism • #Qantas

5 of 42

Campaign messages focused around the following statements:

• Mining companies are a valuable and respected part of the Pilbara communities and are part of the lifeblood of the local economy. But their balance sheets and resolute focus on shareholder return can have an adverse impact on the local economy. Perhaps it is time for all areas of government to get together and consider ways we can level the playing field for residents (airfares).

• Most mining dollars flow out of the Pilbara as shareholder returns. Most tourism dollars stay in the Pilbara as local income. Is it fair that tourists are punished at the expense of FIFO workers whose fares are paid by the company?

• Why do local workers have to pay the same price for flights into the region as the mining execs who earn thousands more?

• Kidney dialysis requires regular treatments, and there is a shortage of machines right across the North, why do we force sick residents to pay thousands for medical treatment when the same flights on the east coast is a fraction of the cost?

• The Pilbara’s wealth comes from its remoteness; it needs the resident population to host resources companies so why are we penalising those residents for their contribution?

• Why are airlines allowed to punish this region with airfares that routinely have the highest cost/km in the country?

6 of 42

Policy Implications: Nil Legislative Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Nil budget implications for the PRC, as all advocacy activity is carried under an existing budget for this purpose. Strategic Implications: This item is relevant to the PRC’s approved Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan. In particular the Operational Plan provided for this activity: Key Focus Area: Voice for the Pilbara Strategic Outcome: Identify critical issues and provide comment to our member councils to facilitate a

regional discussion and response. This item is relevant to the ‘Enabling’ regional pillar, which forms part of the ‘Economic Infrastructure’ approach to growth and development of the Pilbara Regional Development Blueprint. This item is also relevant to several items under the Pilbara Tourism Product Development Plan (PTPDP).

7 of 42

Impact on capacity: There is no impact on capacity or resourcing to carry out the Officer’s recommendation. Conclusion: Nil Voting Requirement: For noting only.

8 of 42

PRC Motor Vehicle Responsible Officer: Mr Tony Friday, Chief Executive Officer Author Name: Mr Tony Friday, Chief Executive Officer Disclosure of Interest: Nil Attachments: Nil Purpose: To seek consideration of the purchase of a motor vehicle for the use of executive and project managers to attend meetings as required. Background: The Pilbara Regional Council previously had a motor vehicle assigned exclusively to the CEO when the PRC only had two full-time employees. At the time of the new CEO commencing, it was determined that this was an unnecessary expense, and the vehicle was disposed by public advertisement. The business of the PRC has changed considerably over the past four years, and now employs eight full-time employees, with a commensurate level of activity. The CEO, Deputy CEO and project managers travel to and from meetings on a daily basis, with locations spread across the metropolitan area (eg: IT Vision in Applecross, Horizon Power in Bentley, Ministerial offices in West Perth, AAC in Malaga, etc). At present, travel to and from these meetings is conducted using the CEO’s personal motor vehicle, or (if this is not available) the Deputy CEO’s personal motor vehicle. Neither the CEO nor the Deputy CEO have minded this arrangement to date, and no claim for expenses relating to the prior use of the CEO’s (or Deputy CEO’s) vehicle has been made during the past four years, nor is any claim anticipated. Comments/Options/Discussions: A recent insurance review conducted by the CEO has indicated that there are some risks associated with continuing this approach. Both the CEO and Deputy CEO’s personal vehicles are licensed and insured for private use as opposed to business or commercial use. In the event of an accident involving another vehicle, the relevant insurers covering these vehicles could potentially decline coverage on the basis that their use was not consistent with the terms and conditions of the policies. In this circumstance, the risk would crystallise for the individual driver of the vehicle at the time (CEO, Deputy CEO or project manager). Clearly this is not a tenable level of risk to impose on PRC staff, and until this matter is resolved the CEO has instructed that all meetings requiring travel are to be attended either with the CEO driving (who will assume the interim risk) or via taxi or other public transport. The PRC proposes the purchase of a modest motor vehicle suitable for attending business meetings and occasional regional travel as required. The CEO has a beneficial interest in the decision of Council in this matter , as the CEO’s personal vehicle is currently used on a regular basis for Council business. Policy Implications: The PRC would need to revisit internal policies and procedures around use of a Council motor vehicle, ensuring that the use is well-governed, safety-focused, and maximizes benefit for the Pilbara Regional Council. Legislative Implications: Nil

9 of 42

Financial Implications: Financial cost for the purchase and maintenance of a Council vehicle illustrated in the table below. FY16 costs (including purchase) are able to be accommodated through efficiencies achieved in the FY16 budget to date (refer attached mid-year budget review). Operating expense would need to be budgeted for subsequent financial years. Capital Expense Cost Purchase of motor vehicle $20,000 Total $20,000 Operating Expense Cost Registration $500 Maintenance, fuel and operating costs $3,000

Insurance $500 Total $4,000 To further reduce operating expense, the PRC proposes to limit insurance coverage to only named drivers; including Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, CEO, Deputy CEO, and PRC Project Managers. Strategic Implications: Nil Impact on capacity: Nil Conclusion: Continuing to use CEO and D/CEO personal motor vehicles for Council business offers a level of risk that is (in the opinion of the CEO) unacceptable to the individual owners of these vehicles and to the staff that operate them. Purchase of a modest motor vehicle to accommodate Council business requirements is requested to remove this risk.

Officer Recommendation: OPTION 1 That Council endorse the purchase of a motor vehicle for the Pilbara Regional Council for a sum not

exceeding $20,000. OPTION 2 That Council endorse the purchase of a motor vehicle for the Pilbara Regional Council for a sum not

exceeding $__________. OPTION 3 That Council do not endorse the purchase of a motor vehicle for the Pilbara Regional Council and

instruct the executive to continue the current practice of utilising CEO and D/CEO vehicles. OPTION 4 Any other option that Council deems appropriate. Voting Requirement: Simple majority Council Resolution: Moved: Seconded: Result:!

10 of 42

Pilbara Transfer of Bush Fire Control Trial Responsible Officer: Mr Tony Friday, Chief Executive Officer Action Officer: Mr Tony Friday, Chief Executive Officer Officer Disclosure of Interest: Nil Attachments: MOU - Pilbara Transfer of Bush Fire Control 3 year Trial V1 Draft Purpose: To seek Council’s consideration of the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), formalising the participation of the Pilbara region into the DFES proposed bush fire transfer of control trials. Background: The participation of the Pilbara region into the DFES proposed bush fire transfer of control trials was discussed at the 2015 Pilbara/Kimberley Forum (held in Darwin). Noted as an outcome of the forum was the initiation of a correspondence with DFES in order to formalise the region’s participation into the trial. This process requires a formal request to the DFES Commissioner Wayne Gregson APM for WALGA Pilbara’s expression of interest. DFES would subsequently discuss, determine and progress appropriate additional resources in the Pilbara region to undertake the transferred bush fire operational management and response capability and role. This arrangement will be formalised in a form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the individual member local governments and DFES. Under DFES and WAPOL responsibilities, this Shire of Exmouth falls within the boundaries of the Pilbara region, with and DFES Pilbara management currently oversee all Emergency Service Volunteer Brigades, groups and units in Exmouth (VFRS, SES, BFB & VMRS) of out their Karratha Regional Office. Comments/Discussions: At the August 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting, Council resolved to invite the Shire of Exmouth to the discussion and instructed the PRC Chief Executive Officer to draft the correspondence to the DFES Commissioner seeking to participate in a Pilbara trial on behalf of the four members’ local government. The Shire of Exmouth has joined the Pilbara members to the expression of interest and the PRC has has been working with DFES to progress the proposal through the joint development of an MOU. The initial discussions were centred around a two (2) year trial; DFES would like to explore the opportunity to increase the trial period for three (3) years on the rationale that it will line up with the extension period being proposed for the Kimberley region. It is important to note that formal DFES approval regarding this extension is still required. Options:

• Option 1: As per Officer’s recommendation. • Option 2: That Council resolve to defer consideration of the MOU until individual member Councils have

individually endorsed it. • Option 3: Any other option that Council deems appropriate.

Policy Implications: Those changes may a have knock on impact on existing members’ policies and procedures. It is envisaged the the Local Government, supported by DFES continues to undertake fire prevention inspections and administer that part of the Bush Fires Act 1954 that relates to the mitigation of bush fire hazards across all land tenures. Legislative Implications:

11 of 42

Bushfires Act 1954 Emergency Management Act 2007 Financial Implications: It is envisaged that all aspects of the Emergency Services Levy (application for, budgeting, oversight of expenditure and acquittal) fort the Volunteer Bush Brigades and the State Emergency Services (SES) would be undertaken by DFES. Strategic Implications: This item is relevant to the PRC’s approved Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan. In particular the Operational Plan provided for this activity: Key Focus Area: A Voice for the Pilbara Strategic Outcome: We provide regional advocacy for the Pilbara, to facilitate positive change in the Region

and champion the interests of our member councils. Strategy: We will identify critical issues and provide comment to our member councils to facilitate

a regional discussion and response. We will work with other organisations and agencies to promote the Pilbara Region.

Impact on capacity: There is no impact on capacity or resourcing to carry out the Officer’s recommendation. Relevant precedents: The transfer of control of some of the current Bush Fire Legislative responsibilities from all four local governments in the Kimberley to DFES was approved by DFES and started in August 2013. Conclusion: Nil

Officer Recommendation: That Council by simple majority resolves to: • Endorse the draft MoU and proposal of a three-year trial. • Instruct the CEO to work with the individual members’ CEOs to formalise the arrangements. Voting Requirement: Simple majority Council Resolution: Moved: Seconded: Result:!

12 of 42

Pilbara Trails Blueprint: Priority Trails Recommendations Responsible Officer: Mr Alexis Guillot, Chief Executive Officer Action Officer: Ms Amelia Waters, Project Officer Officer Disclosure of Interest: Nil Attachments: Pilbara Trails Interim Report Purpose: To seek Council’s consideration of the four recommended priority trails for the Pilbara Trails Blueprint in continuation of the Contribution to the Pilbara Tourism Product Development Plan (PTPDP) project. Background: Tourism Trails are one of the three areas of responsibility for the PRC under the Pilbara Tourism Product Development Plan (2014). Consequently, the FY16 Project, Contribution to the Pilbara Tourism Product Development Plan, names trails as one of the deliverables for this project. Having sourced funding from Lottery West under the Trails Masterplan category, the PRC are developing a Pilbara Trails Blueprint to ensure a clear path forward for tourist trails in the region. The stages completed to date include:

• A detailed desktop research and literature review on all Pilbara Trails • A physical inspection. The consultants have spent two weeks in the Pilbara walking sections of all the trails

and conducting a detailed infrastructure appraisal • Stakeholder consultation: including detailed consultation with Local Government employees as follow:

o City of Karratha: John Verbeek, Economic Development Advisory, Leigh Cover, Manager Leisure Services and Kate Bach, Project Officer - Community Services

o Town of Port Hedland: Nicole Davis, Acting Manager Community Recreation Facilities and Services and Paul Howrie (Manager Community Development

o Shire of Ashburton: Neil Hartley, Chief Executive Officer, Kylie Hartley (Corporate Communications and Media Advisor) and Chantelle Bryce (Facilities Manager)

o Shire of East Pilbara: Allen Cooper, Chief Executive Officer, Pip Parsonson, Manager Community Wellbeing and Barbara O’Driscoll, Manager Visitor Centre

Comments/Discussions: Four trails have been recommended, with one priority in each LGA. Rationale for each priority trail is detailed in the attachment. In order to facilitate the continuation of this project a detailed plan including maintenance, management and interpretation (and associated costs) will be developed for each trail. The identified trails include those listed below.

• City of Karratha: Point Samson Heritage Trail – a detailed development plan for the Point Samson Heritage Trail (as seen in recommendation 11 of the Shire of Roebourne Trail Masterplan).

• Town of Port Hedland: ‘Foreshore Path’ – a detailed plan linking Port Hedland to Pretty Pools via the continuation of foreshore footpaths and the development of a boardwalk or bridge across Pretty Pool.

• Shire of Ashburton: Onslow Boardwalk – a detailed plan for the completion of the Onslow Boardwalk including a schedule of topics for interpretation along the walk.

• Shire of East Pilbara: Newman Sculpture Trail – a detailed plan for the development of the trail through Newman incorporating the public art sculptures and a modification of the proposed Newman Cultural Heritage Trail.

13 of 42

These recommendations are a result of detailed investigation and consultation with consideration for a number of additional factors including:

• Land that can be or is managed by the local government • Observations and recommendations from the experienced consulting team at Transplan • Likelihood to attract tourist and visitors as well as service the local community • Those in accordance with adopted local government plan including existing Trail Masterplan and other

Development Plans • Accessibility for vehicles and people • Consideration for the Warlu Way and resulting thematic experiences • Other important considerations specific to each local government

Options:

• Option 1: As per Officer’s recommendation. • Option 2: That Council resolve to reconsider these recommendations and provide alternative suggestion

for inclusion into the Priority Trails. • Option 3: Any other option that Council deems appropriate.

Policy Implications: Nil Legislative Implications: Nil Financial Implications: All activities are consistent with endorsed budget. The PRC has successfully leveraged $70,000 (ex. GST) worth of funding from Lottery West under the Trails Masterplan category. Strategic Implications: This item is relevant to the PRC’s approved Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan. In particular, the Operational Plan provided for this activity: Key Focus Area: A voice of the Region Strategic Outcome:

We provide regional advocacy for the Pilbara, to facilitate positive change in the Region and champion the interests of our member councils.

Strategy: The development of a proportion of the tourism market currently being missed/under used, which through provision of services will contribute to the greater tourism profile of the Pilbara.

This item is relevant to the ‘Tourism’ regional pillar which forms part of the ‘Diversifying’ approach to growth and development of the Pilbara Regional Development Blueprint. In particular, to the following objectives:

• The Pilbara’s natural and man-made environment is invested in and leveraged to offer a larger and more diverse range of tourism products, including national parks, trails, adventure, museums, industrial tourism, ocean-based tourism, cultural and old town sites (2020).

• The Pilbara is recognised as offering quality and diverse tourism products, including national parks, trails, adventure, museums, industrial tourism, ocean-based tourism, cultural and old town sites (2035)

14 of 42

This item is relevant to several items under the Pilbara Tourism Product Development Plan (PTPDP). In particular, the following activities:

• Regional Tourist Trails: Themed tourist trail that will highlight the variety and depth of individual tourism experiences and products through the region.

Impact on capacity: There is no impact on capacity or resourcing to carry out the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer Recommendation: That Council by simple majority resolves to: 1. Endorse the four recommended trails as the top priority trails for the Pilbara Trails Blueprint. 2. Endorse further planning for each of these trails for inclusion in the final Pilbara Trails Blueprint. 3. Deliver a further report (including full detailed implantation plans) to Council following the completion of the

Pilbara Trails Blueprint for endorsement.

Voting Requirement: Simple majority Council Resolution: Moved: Seconded: Result:!

15 of 42

Publication of Gift Register Responsible Officer: Mr Tony Friday, Chief Executive Officer Action Officer: Mr Tony Friday, Chief Executive Officer Officer Disclosure of Interest: Nil Attachments: Nil Purpose: To seek Council’s consideration of the proposed publication of the gift register to the PRC website. Background: To further enhance the PRC’s good governance and transparency it is considered appropriate to adopt the practice of uploading its gift register to its website as a mean of making it available for public inspection. This practice will be mandatory as part of the proposed change to the gift and travel disclosure provisions expected to come into effect in early 2016 (Source: DLGC’s Governance Bulleting, Issue 10, December 2015). Local government legislation in Western Australia already requires the Chief Executive Officer of a local government to keep and make publicly available for inspection a register of notifiable gifts (including hospitality). Uploading this register to the PRC’s website will simply make it easier for our community and customers to inspect this information and ensure future compliance should the proposed amendments come into effect. Comments/Discussions: Rules governing the acceptance, disclosure and recording of gifts by Council Members and employees are set out in Sections 5.82 and 5.94(u)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1995, Regulations 25, 29(1)(bb) and 34B of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 and the Pilbara Regional Council’s Code of Conduct for Council Members and Employees. Generally speaking, these rules require that “notifiable gifts” are to be disclosed by the recipient and recorded in a register by the Chief Executive Officer, which is to be made available for public inspection. The rules also require Council Members and staff to refrain from accepting “prohibited gifts”, being those of a certain type and value. A “notifiable gift” is defined as a gift worth between $50 and $300 (including multiple gifts received from the same giver within a 6-month period with a combined value equivalent to these limits). Notwithstanding, it is common practice for employees and Council Members to disclose and register all gifts that have been accepted, regardless of their value, even though there is no statutory requirement to do so. Because the Act already requires the Gift Register to be made available for public inspection, uploading that register to the PRC website will only improve accessibility to the Register. The Chief Executive Officer supports the proposed officer recommendation and if adopted by Council, the online version of the register would be updated simultaneously with the hard-copy register. Options:

• Option 1: As per Officer’s recommendation. • Option 2: That Council resolves to defer the publication of the register until the changes to the legislation

are passed.

16 of 42

Policy Implications: The PRC’s Code of Conduct is relevant to this agenda item. Legislative Implications: Sections 5.82 and 5.94(u)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulations 25, 29(1)(bb) and 34B of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Financial Implications: Nil Strategic Implications: This item is relevant to the PRC’s approved Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan. In particular the Operational Plan provided for this activity: Key Focus Area: Efficiency & Effectiveness Strategic Outcome:

We promote good governance and meet all compliance requirements.

Strategy: - We will fairly and transparently report back to our stakeholders on activities and performance. - We will continually review internal systems and processes to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness.

Impact on capacity: There is no impact on capacity or resourcing to carry out the Officer’s recommendation. Relevant precedents: There are no relevant precedents related to this matter. Conclusion: Nil

Officer Recommendation: That Council requests the Chief Executive Officer to, by 1st March 2016, make the Pilbara Regional Council’s gift and travel register to Council Members and Employees publicly accessible on the PRC’s website. Voting Requirement: Simple majority Council Resolution: Moved: Seconded: Result: !

17 of 42

Regional Green Waste Contract Responsible Officer: Mr Carroll Melia, Project Manager Action Officer: Mr Alexis Guillot, Deputy CEO Officer Disclosure of Interest: Nil Attachments: Nil Purpose: To inform Council of progress made against the proposed regional green waste processing contract. Background: Expressions of Interest (EOI) arose from a PRC Steering Committee formed to discuss a shared pool of regional equipment. The Committee identified green waste processing as a service that was required across the Pilbara. It was determined that a regional services arrangement would deliver a more cost effective outcome than purchasing a shared asset for the works. In June 2015, the PRC issued an EOI to the market with respect to a regional green waste processing contract. Nine (9) submissions were received during that period and these were evaluated by a panel comprising of waste management staff from the PRC Member Councils and a PRC representative with a view to shortlisting suitable proponents for a Tender process. A Public Tender was subsequently called in October 2015 with five (5) submissions received during the tender period. Following an evaluation of the tender submissions by the panel of waste management staff from PRC Member Councils, a preferred respondent was nominated. The PRC are in the process of managing contract negotiations with the preferred respondent on the basis of the estimated green waste volume amounts, detailed in the table below. The Pilbara Local Government Members accepted approximately 43,555 cubic metres of raw green waste annually for disposal in FY14/15. The table below shows the estimated volume amounts (cm3) of “raw/unprocessed” green waste disposed of across the Pilbara region.

The key objective of the procurement was to identify suitable contractors to provide mulching services for green waste currently disposed at Waste Management Facilities, operated by PRC Member Councils. The benefits of providing such a service include:

• Providing a product suitable for use by the general public and in Council parks and gardens; • Reducing waste to landfill in accordance with the WA Waste Strategy; • Reducing landfill emissions and leachate production; and • Promoting sustainability within the community.

The general requirements of the procurement were as follows:

• Stockpiled green waste is to be processed by the Contractor on-site at the various Waste Management Facilities (WMFs);

• Large items not able to be mulched are to be set aside and disposed of to landfill; • Finished product to be stockpiled into windrows of uniform width and height;

18 of 42

• Final mulched product to be fit for purpose for use by the Parks Departments of the Member LGAs and potentially for distribution to the general public; and

• Contractor to visit each WMF and mulch all stockpiled green waste at a quarterly minimum. Policy Implications: The tender has been managed in accordance with the PRC Policy PO-012 - Purchasing. Legislative Implications: The PRC is a Statutory Local Government Authority and the proposed RFT will be in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 11 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Financial Implications: Following a review of the current estimated green waste volumes by the Member LGAs in January, the overall green waste volume amount for the region was revised down by 23% (from 43,555 m3 to 33,700 m3). Subsequently the flat rate pricing initially provided by the preferred respondent (as part of the RFT process) has increased from $5.50 to $6.70 per m3 (Excl. of GST) for the 100mm product, and from $6.50 to $7.90 per m3 (Excl. of GST) for the 50mm product. The additional pricing for a 50mm product was requested by the Member LGAs at the start of the contract negotiations, and therefore was revised by the preferred respondent following the provision of the revised green waste volumes. These revised rates include all the costs associated with the processing of the green waste, including commissioning and decommissioning charges. It is proposed that payment under the proposed Contract be made by applying the above flat rate to the measured volume of the mulched/processed green waste pile, rounded up to the nearest whole cubic metre. The Member LGAs would survey the stockpile of mulched green waste within seven (7) days of the completion of mulching. All expenses associated with the measurement for payment would be borne by the Member LGA’s. The preferred respondent has requested the following conditions be included as part of the contract negotiations:

• Further visits (given 60 days advanced warning) will incur mobilization costs of $8,000.00 plus GST, inclusive of six sites from Kalgoorlie return for two semi-trailers,

• If 1 site withdraws, a pro rata calculation could be used to accommodate the change when the amount of cubic metres involved is provided.

• A 1 hour fixed charge of $180.00 per changeover will apply for cases where mulch is required in different sizes.

The below table gives an indicative price based on two agreed commissioned visits to the 6 sites, as outlined through the RFT process. The pricing has been calculated on the estimated ‘processed’ volume amounts (m3) per Member LGA. The volume difference between an unprocessed’ and ‘processed’ green waste stockpile equates to approximately 50%, this is dependent on content and composition of the green waste stockpile. The final costings will depend on the green waste totals from the Member LGAs. Member LGA Estimated Processed

Green Waste Volume* (m3)

Total Cost at 100mm (excl GST)

Total Cost at 50 or 80mm (excl GST)

Total Cost^ (80% at 100mm, 20% at 50mm) (excl GST) ^Excl of changeover fee

Karratha 6,200 $41,540.00 $48,980.00 $43,028.00 Port Hedland 4,500 $30,150.00 $35,550.00 $31,230.00 Ashburton 3,650 $24,455.00 $28,835.00 $25,331.00 East Pilbara 2,500 $16,750.00 $19,750.00 $17,350.00 Total 16,850 $112,895.00 $133,115.00 $116,939.00 *For the purposes of the indicative pricing above, the processed stockpile volume has been calculated at 50% of the unprocessed stockpile volume (m3).

19 of 42

The PRC is contributing $60,000 towards by leveraging funding from the WA Waste Authority. The funding is proposed to be split equally among the member LGAs, as part of this regional contract. Formal commitments from individual members LGAs for the financial support of the contract, for the duration of the contract, will be obtained. Impact on capacity: There is no impact on capacity or resourcing to carry out the Officer’s recommendation. Relevant precedents: Council has previously endorsed the PRC to call and manage other Tenders and contracts. Conclusion: The contract negotiations are currently being finalised and have involved extensive consultation with the green waste processing panel members. Under this arrangement, it is proposed that the PRC will enter into contract with the preferred respondent on behalf of the four Local Government Members and perform the central contract management functions and manage the service levels in consultation with the various Waste Management facility representatives. The Shire of Ashburton is currently reviewing its waste services budget and has not yet formally confirmed its participation this regional green waste processing contract. Pending formal commitments from the members LGAs, the contract is forecasted to be in operation as early as March. Voting Requirement: For noting only. !

20 of 42

!

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

between the

STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ACTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

AND

SHIRE OF ASHBURTON

AND

SHIRE OF EAST PILBARA

AND

SHIRE OF EXMOUTH

AND

CITY OF KARRATHA

AND

TOWN OF PORT HEDLAND

FOR

MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF BUSH FIRE BRIGADES AND BUSH FIRE AND

EMERGENCY SERVICES IN THE PILBARA REGION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

21 of 42

!

2!

!

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to document an agreement between the Shire of Ashburton, the Shire of East Pilbara, the Shire of Exmouth, the City of Karratha and the Town of Port Hedland (collectively the local governments) and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) for the purpose of DFES assisting the local governments to carry out their responsibilities for management and control of bush fire brigades and bush fire response within the Pilbara region under the Bush Fires Act 1954. These arrangements will address administration, management, training and incident response activities. This MOU does not constitute and shall not be deemed to constitute any legally binding or enforceable obligations or relations between the parties. This MOU is instead a non-legally binding and unenforceable statement of current intent.

2. DEFINITIONS & INTERPRETATION

In this MOU:

BF Act means Bush Fires Act 1954

FES Commissioner means the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner referred to in section 3 of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998

Local Governments means the Shire of Ashburton, the Shire of East Pilbara, the Shire of Exmouth, the City of Karratha and the Town of Port Hedland and includes all agents or contractors working for or under the control of the Shire of Ashburton, the Shire of East Pilbara, the Shire of Exmouth, the City of Karratha and the Town of Port Hedland.

Words or phrases used in this MOU, and defined in the BF Act, shall bear the same meaning attributed to them in the BF Act.

!

3. MOU OBJECTIVES

The intent of this agreement will be for the Local Governments to work collaboratively with the FES Commissioner to achieve the following objectives:

a) For a period of three years consider a trial of graduated handover of all fire fighting capability to the control of Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES)

b) The FES Commissioner will work with the Local Governments in the Pilbara region to consider amendments to legislation during the trial period to see a finalised transition at the conclusion of the trial to achieve agreement of a centralised emergency management agency under the control of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services.

22 of 42

!

3!

!

While the Local Governments will work with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services on the intent of this MOU throughout the trial period, the Local Governments expect that the Department of Fire and Emergency Services will provide a leadership role in all matters affecting fire and emergency management services and incidents in the Pilbara.

4. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

Local Government has legislative responsibility under the BF Act for the prevention, control and extinguishment of bush fires in their local government area.

Under section 38A of the BF Act, the FES Commissioner may designate a person employed in the Department as Chief Bush Fire Control Officer. Pursuant to that section:

(1) At the request of a local government the FES Commissioner may designate a person employed in the Department as the Chief Bush Fire Control Officer for the district of that local government.

(2) Where a Chief Bush Fire Control Officer has been designated under subsection (1) for a district the local government is not to appoint a Chief Bush Fire Control Officer under section 38(1).

...

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND UNDERTAKINGS BY THE LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS 5.1 Chief Bush Fire Control Officer The Local Governments will each request the FES Commissioner to appoint a CBFCO under s38A of the BF Act for the duration of this arrangement.

The Local Governments acknowledge that any prevention functions under Part III of the BF Act will remain the primary responsibility of the Local Governments.

5.2 By-Laws The Local Governments will maintain by-laws (where applicable) to ensure the CBFCOs have overall management and control of bush fire brigades for the duration of this arrangement.

5.3 Workspace If from time to time the CBFCOs are required to work from the local government offices, the Local Governments shall ensure a workspace is made available for their use.

5.4 Reporting of Incidents If a local government becomes aware of an incident they are to promptly inform DFES of the incident and, if possible, the bush fire brigade shall attend at the incident and commence a response to the incident in accordance with any directions that may be given by the CBFCO.

5.5 Ownership of Assets and Vehicles

23 of 42

!

4!

!

All appliances, equipment and apparatus of bush fire brigades will remain the property of the Local Governments.

5.6 Insurance The Local Governments will continue to maintain a policy of insurance for volunteer bush fire brigade members and for all appliances, equipment and apparatus of bush fire brigades in accordance with section 37 of the Bush Fires Act 1954.

! !

24 of 42

!

5!

!

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND UNDERTAKINGS BY DFES 6.1 Nominated DFES Personnel Upon receiving a request from a local government, the FES Commissioner will appoint a member of DFES staff as CBFCO for the local government for the duration of this agreement.

DFES utilises the Australasian Interservice Incident Management System (AIIMS) for incident management. DFES Personnel nominated for appointment as CBFCO will be trained to the competencies identified by DFES as being required to effectively manage incidents.

6.2 Administration and Management of Bush Fire Brigades The CBFCO will carry out administration and management of bush fire brigades, including reporting and financial activities, on behalf of the local government.

6.3 Training DFES will provide training to bush fire brigades through the CBFCO. Training could be conducted on the local government’s land or premises.

6.4 Suspension of 000 Service Agreement The 000 Service Agreement between DFES and the Local Governments will be suspended for the duration of this arrangement. Emergency calls received by the DFES Communications Centre will be managed by the CBFCO at brigade level during this time.

7. DURATION AND AMENDMENT This MOU will remain in force for an initial period of three (3) years with an option to extend for a further period by written agreement of all parties. This MOU shall not be altered, varied or modified in any respect except by agreement in writing signed by all parties.

8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties must first attempt to resolve any dispute arising between them in relation to any matter the subject of this MOU, by way of conference and negotiation. The parties must confer and negotiate within seven days after receiving a notice from the other party setting out the nature of the dispute.

If the issue cannot be resolved by negotiation then the matter of dispute is to be conferred, deliberated and resolved by the FES Commissioner and the Local Governments’ CEOs.

9. TERMINATION This MOU may be terminated by:

(a) mutual agreement of both parties in writing at any time; or

(b) at any time for any reason by either party by giving one month’s notice in writing to the other party.

25 of 42

!

6!

!

10. NOTICES Notices or other communications by each party to each other and under this MOU must, unless otherwise notified in writing, be addressed and forwarded as follows:

DFES

FES Commissioner Department of Fire and Emergency Services PO Box P1174 PERTH WA 6844

SHIRE OF ASHBURTON

Chief Executive Officer Shire of Ashburton P.O. Box 567 TOM PRICE WA 6751 SHIRE OF EAST PILBARA

Chief Executive Officer Shire of East Pilbara PMB 22 NEWMAN WA 6753

SHIRE OF EXMOUTH

Chief Executive Officer Shire of Exmouth P.O. Box 21 EXMOUTH WA 6707

CITY OF KARRATHA

Chief Executive Officer City of Karratha P.O. Box 219 KARRATHA WA 6714 TOWN OF PORT HEDLAND

Chief Executive Officer Town of Port Hedland P.O. Box 41 PORT HEDLAND WA 6721

11. ASCENDANCY OF LEGISLATION The parties recognise that the relevant legislation of or applicable in Western Australia (including subsidiary legislation) prevails over this MOU to the extent of any inconsistency.

26 of 42

!

7!

!

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is made

BETWEEN THE

State of Western Australia acting through the Department of Fire and Emergency Services

20 Stockton Bend COCKBURN CENTRAL WA 6164

AND

Shire of Ashburton Lot 246 Poinciana Street

TOM PRICE WA 6751

AND

Shire of East Pilbara Cnr Kalgan & Newman Dives

NEWMAN WA 6753

AND

Shire of Exmouth 22 Maidstone Crescent

EXMOUTH WA 6707

AND

City of Karratha Welcome Road

KARRATHA WA 6714

AND

Town of Port Hedland 13 McGregor Street

PORT HEDLAND WA 6721 and will take effect from the date of the last signature

SIGNED for and on behalf of the State of Western Australia Department of Fire and Emergency Services by:

WAYNE GREGSON APM ___________________________ ____________ COMMISSIONER Signature Date SIGNED for and on behalf of the Shire of Ashburton by:

27 of 42

!

8!

!

NEIL HARTLEY ___________________________ ____________

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Signature Date

SIGNED for and on behalf of the Shire of East Pilbara by:

ALLEN COOPER ___________________________ ____________


SIGNED for and on behalf of the Shire of Exmouth by:

BILL PRICE ___________________________ ____________


SIGNED for and on behalf of the City of Karratha by:

CHRIS ADAMS ___________________________ ____________


SIGNED for and on behalf of the Town of Port Hedland by:

MAL OSBORNE ___________________________ ____________


!

!

28 of 42

Pilbara Region Trails Master Plan Interim Report

Transplan Pty Ltd and Mike Halliburton Associates 1

Meetings and consultations

Consultation meetings were held with representatives of each of the 4 local governments:

City of Karratha

John Verbeek (Economic Development Advisor), Kate Bach (Project Officer – Community Services) and Leigh Cover (Manager – Leisure Services)

Shire of Ashburton

Neil Hartley (CEO), Kylie Hartley (Corporate Communications and Media Advisor) and Chantelle Bryce (Facilities Manager)

Shire of East Pilbara

In Newman: Allen Cooper (CEO), Pip Parsonson (Manager Community Wellbeing) and Barbara O’Driscoll (Manager Visitor Centre).

In Marble Bar: Kate Fowler (Customer Service Office – Marble Bar)

Town of Port Hedland

Nicole Davis (A/Manager Community Recreation Facilities and Services) and Paul Howrie (Manager Community Development)

! !

29 of 42



Issues Arising from Consultations and Fieldwork

General

! Two Councils in the region (City of Karratha and the Town of Port Hedland) have Trails Master Plans that clearly lay out priorities for each Council and have been endorsed by each Council. Consequently those documents and priority projects have some status. As a matter of principle, the consultants believe that the best approach is to implement trails identified in agreed and endorsed Trails Master Plans rather than suggesting other (new) trails that could be a priority in those two Council areas.

! Conversely, the other two Councils (Shire of Ashburton and Shire of East Pilbara) do not have an endorsed Trails Master Plan so therefore identification and prioritisation of priority trails is a different process. In both cases, meetings the consultants had with staff of these Councils included the CEO who could provide a level of endorsement to the identified priority trail within that Council.

Town of Port Hedland

! The Town of Port Hedland (ToPH) priorities are for providing for local residents rather than for visitors. The Town has prepared and endorsed a Trails Masterplan with 3 priority trails. In phone discussions prior to fieldwork, ToPH staff indicated a preference for developing the South Hedland Loop – a trail that provides very limited opportunities to attract and keep visitors. On meeting with ToPH staff (note that the officers who met the consultants do not sit on the Project Steering Committee), a number of important considerations emerged:

o It was acknowledged that the Pilbara TMP project was primarily focussed on visitors and therefore the South Hedland Loop was not the appropriate trail to put forward for this project.

o The Trails Masterplan for the town was prepared with limited scope and it was primarily confined to delivering outcomes for residents rather than visitors. The consultants who prepared the Plan were directed to consider new trails only, rather than upgrading existing trails (such as the “foreshore path” and the Port Hedland Cultural and Heritage Trail).

o Development of the Pretty Pool Loop (one of the three identified trails in the Town’s Trails Masterplan) would serve the needs of residents, but the Plan identified options for the trail (such as construction of a bridge/boardwalk over Pretty Pool) that could be seen to attract visitors as well.

o The Council officers the consultants spoke to believe that the completion of the “foreshore path” including some elements of the Pretty Pool Loop could attract and hold visitors. Such a project would be consistent with the Foreshore Redevelopment Master Plan for the Town and would implement elements of the Trails Masterplan.

o These officers also did not think the Cultural and Heritage Trail worth upgrading in terms of attracting visitors.

30 of 42



o The development of a bridge or floating boardwalk between Pretty Pool and Cooke Point would enable residents of Pretty Pool to more easily access commercial and recreational areas of the town by bike or walking. It would also enable school children to walk or cycle to schools rather than being driven.

o The issue of competing priorities (residents versus visitors) did not therefore present the issue perceived. (Again, it is worth noting that Council officers on the Pilbara TMP Project Steering Committee did not attend this meeting).

! Related to this is the dearth of outstanding trail locations in and around Port Hedland. None of the 3 trails identified in the Port Hedland Trails Masterplan offer outstanding opportunities. However, on meeting staff and looking at possibilities, the completion of the “foreshore path” (i.e. completion of “missing links”) with a connection to Pretty Pool does provide a high quality opportunity for delivering a trail that has industry and resource, European heritage and natural history elements (and partially delivers on the Pretty Pool Loop identified in the ToPH Trails Masterplan).

City of Karratha

! The City of Karratha has also completed a Trails Master Plan (which has been endorsed by Council). The City is implementing the Plan generally in accordance with the schedule included within the Plan. The Trails Master Plan recognises both the needs of residents and visitors.

! In initial considerations, it was felt that the upgrade of the Yaburara Heritage Trail (in the hills immediately abutting the residential areas of Karratha) should be the priority project. Trail inspections indicated work still needed to be done in accordance with the Yaburara Heritage Trail - Trail Upgrading Plan prepared in 2013. However, discussions with Council officers responsible for the trail indicated that there had been, and would continue to be, extreme difficulties in further upgrading due to issues associated with the requirements of Traditional Owners. This means that the trail cannot be developed to a standard higher/better than an Australian Standard Class 4; this severely limits its attractiveness to the target markets.

! Similar issues are anticipated with the development of Mulataga Trail (on the opposite side of Karratha Rd) so this trail (identified in the Trails Master Plan) is unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future.

! Traditional Owners views on disturbing the natural surfaces and rocks impact critically on the implementation of the Trails Master Plan for the City.

! The City of Karratha has already completed a complete revamp of the Cossack Heritage Trail, and that trail was excluded from further consideration.

! The proposed Ieramugadu Bush Tucker Trail in Roebourne is already in its planning and implementation phase, and will be based out of the soon-to-be-completed Cultural Centre in Roebourne. It was excluded from further consideration.

! The Roebourne Heritage Trail is another high level priority identified in the Trails Master Plan – a trail that would primarily appeal to visitors. Implementation of this trail is underway and negotiations with key indigenous

31 of 42



stakeholders is at a critical stage. This project will be (hopefully) completed shortly and inclusion of it in the Pilbara TMP will be redundant. There is also a concern that involvement by the consultants in trail planning (the next phase) will make a difficult situation of negotiation more difficult.

! Overall (and notwithstanding the implementation issues around a number of trails), the City of Karratha has made significant progress in implementing the Trails Master Plan. This means that Council’s priority trail for inclusion in the Pilbara Trails Master Plan does not include the more obvious higher priority trails such as the Yaburara Heritage Trail, the Cossack Heritage Trail, the Ieramugadu Bush Tucker Trail, and the Roebourne Heritage Trail.

! In examining the suite of available trails across the Pilbara, the most obvious missing trail is a facility for mountain biking. The City of Karratha Trails Master Plan includes the development of a Mountain Bike Park as a priority project. Implementation of this proposal is proving difficult for Council. There are a range of land tenure and land management issues associated with implementing this proposal, which means that it is not a priority project at this stage for Council. The target market of visitors to the Pilbara is more likely to be looking for “gentle” (or perhaps easy or comfortable) riding experiences (such as provided by the Red Roo Dual Use Trail in Millstream Chichester National Park).

! Council’s position is that it wants trails identified in the Trails Master Plan implemented rather than nominating new trail projects.

! The result of all these factors is that the priority trail identified for inclusion in the Pilbara Trails Master Plan is the Point Samson Heritage Trail (listed for implementation in Year 9 of a 10 year program). This project is unlikely to have been listed as a high priority from a regional perspective if Council had not implemented so much of its Trails Master Plan.

! Point Samson has been the subject of several recent plans (Structure Plan; Foreshore Works Plan; Foreshore Enhancement Plan) which will influence trail design.

Shire of Ashburton

! As noted in the general section above, the Shire of Ashburton does not have an endorsed Trail Master Plan, therefore identification and prioritisation of priority trails is a different process. The meeting with shire staff to discuss the Pilbara Trails Master Plan included the CEO who provided some endorsement to the identified priority trail within the Shire. (It should be noted that the CEO attended for the duration of the meeting with the consultants).

! Trails discussed at the meeting included the completion of the Onslow Boardwalk, and the development and upgrading of trails in Tom Price (including Mt Nameless Walk Trail, mountain biking possibilities and the Tom Price Walk Trail considered by Council in 2010 and subsequently rejected by a Council meeting).

! Land tenure in Tom Price is a major issue with the discussed trails all falling on land owned by mining companies.

32 of 42



! Land tenure is also an issue at Onslow as the land on which the existing boardwalk is constructed is not all owned by the Council – however this issue is currently being resolved.

! The Council is looking for a ‘transition’ plan for Onslow once the major construction phase by Chevron is finished. Completion of the boardwalk would complement other tourism-related projects within the town, including the substantial upgrading of the caravan park. Council is looking to put Onslow “on the map” in terms of tourism attractions and sees the boardwalk as a key element of this desire.

! The consultants suggested that the boardwalk could be developed as a highly interpreted boardwalk focusing on Resources and Industry theme (which also lends itself to European historical perspectives in particular).

! The meeting endorsed the Onslow Boardwalk completion as the priority project for the Shire of Ashburton.

Shire of East Pilbara

! As noted in the general section above, the Shire of Ashburton does not have an endorsed Trails Master Plan, therefore identification and prioritisation of priority trails is a different process.

! Trails discussed at the meeting included the (proposed) Newman Cultural Heritage Trail (building on the large number of sculptures donated by BHP to the town and a range of other sites throughout the town), improvement to the Radio Hill Lookout Trail (also known as the Stan Hilditch Walk Trail), and improvements to the Marble Bar Heritage Trail.

! As in Tom Price, there are land tenure issues and safety issues associated with the Radio Hill Lookout Trail (Stan Hilditch Walk Trail).

! Attendees at the meeting nominated the ‘Newman Sculpture Trail’ (a modified version of the originally proposed Newman Cultural Heritage Trail) as the priority project due to a number of factors:

o The sculptures are in place but scattered all over town and have no meaning for visitors;

o Such a trail would be seen as a way of attracting and keeping visitors;

o The trail would use the existing path network in town;

o There is a feeling that Newman needs something to attract and keep visitors and Council is looking at ways of attracting tourists (a key market is likely to be visitors in the VFR – Visiting Friends and Relatives – category); and

o Council previously committed to the preparation of design work for a Cultural Heritage Trail (although it was not progressed).

! A key disadvantage is that Newman is not shown as being on the Warlu Way (as per the Warlu Way Tourism Catalogue). It should be noted that a spur to Newman was included on the original Warlu Way plan/map and is in fact shown on web material promoting the Warlu Way (see for example http://www.australiasnorthwest.com/Destinations/The_Pilbara/The_Warlu_Way/Warlu_Way_map).

33 of 42



! Council’s CEO was invited to the meeting to discuss the project and confirmed that the Newman ‘Sculpture Trail’ is Council’s top priority trail within the framework of the Pilbara Trails Master Plan.

34 of 42



Procedural issues

! A Mountain Bike Park was mentioned as a possible priority project for the City of Karratha. Planning a mountain bike park is a specialist and time-consuming project, which could not feasibly be undertaken within the confines of the project brief. Ultimately, consideration of this project for the Pilbara TMP is redundant as the City of Karratha feels that, given the significant issues associated with the project, it should not be treated as a priority at this time.

! Timing of the Pilbara TMP. The City of Karratha (in particular) is now ready to prepare funding applications for implementation of various trail projects for a range of reasons – e.g. the opening of trails to coincide with town settlement anniversaries (such as Roebourne’s 150th anniversary). The preparation and endorsement timeframe for the Pilbara Region Trails Master Plan means that its usefulness in supporting applications is limited due to the time available for funding applications and implementation of trail projects. Staging of trail development for some trails was explored. This would involve developing priority trails in stages – stage 1 would be funded shortly (without any reference to the Pilbara TMP) but subsequent stages could be developed with reference to the Pilbara TMP. However, this was not considered possible.

! The City of Karratha Trails Master Plan lays out the process for planning the Point Samson Heritage Trail – it includes consultation with the Point Samson Community Association. It could be problematic to undertake detailed trail development planning within the timeframe allowed in the brief and fully include all necessary consultation (this situation is likely to apply to all priority trail projects). Necessary (but only limited) consultation will be able to be undertaken for the next stage of work within the brief.

!!! !

35 of 42



Recommended Trails

The priority projects listed below are recommended for development as a result of the consideration of a number of factors including:

An audit and overview of all existing trails within the Pilbara Region and a determination of ‘gaps’ in the provision of trails, particularly in towns.

Proposed trails are located on land that is or could be under the management of the respective local government (and is therefore not on land managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife).

Personal observations by the consulting team and an awareness of trends in the supply of trails, the demands of trail users and the aspirations of visitors to the region.

Local government staff consulted during the preparation of the Trails Master Plan support the recommended trails.

Proposed trails are likely to be attractive to visitors/tourists, as well as having high potential for use by local people.

A close association with the current (and probable) future route of the Warlu Way.

Projects have good accessibility (i.e. proximity to major roads and/or significant populations).

Can be developed in a short timeframe.

Are in accordance with an adopted local government Trails Master Plan (if one exists).

Are accessible to a wide range of people.

The 4 priority trail projects are:

Shire of Ashburton – a detailed plan for the completion of the Onslow Boardwalk (including a schedule of topics for interpretation along the boardwalk)

Rationale:

Suggested and strongly supported by Shire of Ashburton staff.

Council keen to develop additional tourist activities in Onslow.

Assists Council on its desire for Onslow to transition from a ‘mining town’ to a town more focused on tourism.

Start of boardwalk is immediately adjacent to the caravan park, which is about to undergo major renovations and upgrading, so therefore easily accessible to visitors staying there.

Boardwalk is only partially upgraded and project needs to be completed.

Town is rich in history and additional interpretation would enhance the experience of visitors.

Boardwalk lends itself to a series of interpretive panels (none exist along boardwalk at present).

The heavily interpreted boardwalk could be linked/extended to an in-town heritage trail, which at present only exists by means of a map obtainable from the Visitor Centre (but only when it is open).

36 of 42



Ideal opportunity to make a ‘link’ to Old Onslow via interpretation and build on projects already underway at Old Onslow.

Other potential trails were considered and discussed (including trails in Tom Price), however the upgrading of the Onslow Boardwalk was regarded by the staff as the project that should be progressed.

Shire of East Pilbara – a detailed plan for the development of the Newman Cultural Heritage Trail (or ‘Sculpture Trail’).

Rationale:

Project was strongly suggested and supported by Shire of East Pilbara staff.

Council is keen to attract visitors to Newman and keep them longer.

Trail would link a series of currently disconnected and isolated sculptures and various other attractions of the town.

Minimal cost to develop as paths already exist as do sculptures and various cultural sites.

Helps implement the recently proposed (but not progressed) Newman Cultural Heritage Trail.

Assists Council’s desire for Newman to transition from a ‘mining town’ to one more focused on tourism.

Other potential trails were considered and discussed (including an upgrade to the Marble Bar Heritage Trail), however the Newman Cultural Heritage Trail was regarded by the staff as the project that should be progressed.

City of Karratha – a detailed trail development plan for the Point Samson Heritage Trail.

Rationale:

Project suggested (and supported) by City of Karratha staff.

Implements one of the trails included in City of Karratha Trails Master Plan.

Next ‘cab off the rank” in the Trails Master Plan, as higher priority projects have already been completed (or are in process of being implemented or have some implementation difficulties).

Point Samson has been subject to several recent planning and development strategies and trail is regarded as an integral component of changes at Point Samson.

Would serve local residents as well as visitors to Point Samson.

Point Samson is rich in history and additional interpretation would enhance the experience of visitors.

Majority of proposed trail route is in place.

Town of Port Hedland – a detailed plan for the completion of missing links in the Pretty Pool to Town Centre Trail (i.e. ‘foreshore path’), including a boardwalk or bridge across Pretty Pool.

Rationale:

The merits of each of the trails proposed in the ToPH Trails Masterplan were considered, but given the imperative to fulfill a tourist attraction the point-to-

37 of 42



point foreshore path was thought to be the project that would deliver most to local people and visitors.

Proposed trail (including completion of missing path links) is in accordance with Town of Port Hedland Cycle Plan.

Proposed trail is in accordance with the Town of Port Hedland’s Consolidated Foreshore Redevelopment Master Plan.

Project implements a significant portion of a project in Town of Port Hedland Trails Masterplan.

Would cater for use by local residents as well as being an attraction to visitors.

Coastal path is very close to many of Port Hedland’s accommodations and hence highly accessible to visitors.

Coastal path passes a number of buildings and sites already included (and interpreted) on the Port Hedland Cultural and Heritage Trail thus raising the profile of parts of this trail and building on work already done.

Coastal path is already extremely well used albeit that several discontinuities exist.

Would provide a much-needed non-motorised connection between the Pretty Pool residential area and the remainder of Port Hedland.

Would enable local residents to access businesses of the town and also provide school children of Pretty Pool residential area with a more direct, non-motorised connection to schools.

38 of 42



Next Phase

Following agreement to the recommended top priority trail projects, it is anticipated that the second field trip will occur between 16 February 2016 and 22 February 2016.

This 7 day fieldtrip will involve the preparation of detailed trail development plans for each of the recommended trail projects including, where appropriate, recommendations for interpretation along each of the trails.

The detailed trail development plans will include a comprehensive works list for each trail complete with estimates of quantities and cost estimates.

39 of 42

!

!PRC DOC ID Macintosh HD:Users:Support1:Desktop:Late Agenda Items:Attachment P-018 - Travel and Accomodation Expenses.docx

Level 1 300 Newcastle Street Perth WA 6000

+61 8 9467 2456 www.prc.wa.gov.au

ABN 92 353 247 081

POLICY Travel and Accommodation Expenses

Policy Number P-018 Responsible Officer Chief Executive Officer Authorisation Council Council adoption Council on dd/mm/yyyy (resolution FY16-0xx). Review cycle Annually Reviewed / Modified June 2015 Relevant Council Delegations #11 Relevant Sub-delegations #11 (Administrator)

1. Objectives To ensure that Councillors and Employees are provided with appropriate travel and accommodation expenses when travelling on official Council business. 2. Policy !Councillors and Employees will only claim or accept travelling and sustenance expenses arising out of travel-related matters which have a direct bearing on the services, policies or business of the Regional Council in accordance with Council policy and the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995. (PRC Code of Conduct, s. 7.2) The onus is on the Councillor or Employee to substantiate why the travel expenditures may be necessary in circumstances where this may not be clear. In addition to any duties or entitlements that may be set out in any relevant policies, the Employee will keep such records of expenses, travel and motor vehicle use as required by the PRC. (PRC Employment Contracts: Expenses, s. 9.2) Corporate credit card holders are expected to pay for meals and incidental expenses using the corporate credit card. Where road travel is selected, paid ride-sharing services must not be used to conduct Council business.

!Approvals The CEO is required to approve in advance, all Councillor and direct reports travel/accommodation bookings. The CEO is required take into consideration budgeted allocations provided for each individuals professional development and the available funds remaining. The Chairperson is required to approve in advance, all Chief Executive Officer travel/accommodation bookings. Travel by all other employees must be approved by their relevant Line Manager. Consideration must be given to professional development opportunities identified for Employees within their development plans and available budgets.

40 of 42

of 3

All employees’ interstate and international travel is to be approved by the CEO. Bookings The most cost effective travel arrangements should be used at all times with the booking of concessional fares being pursued where available. Government rates are to be utilised where available and appropriate. No amendments are to be made after the booking has been confirmed except with the approval of the Line Manager or CEO as appropriate. No personal arrangements are to be made by the PRC. Employees and Councillors are responsible for making their own arrangements with regards to accommodation, car hire etc. for personal use. Travel & Accomodation Air travel shall be based on "economy" class of a commercial air carrier. Any upgrade in travel class shall be at the expense of the Councillor or Employee. Air travel costs will include passenger bookings, departure and arrival taxes where applicable, insurance on cancellations and baggage claims. The Employee or Councillor is responsible for providing the correct information when booking air travel. Accompanying persons travelling with the Councillor or Employee will not be covered by the PRC. Payment for such persons will be at the cost of the Councillor or Employee. Accommodation is to be met by the PRC for those days that the Councillor or Employee requires accommodation because the travel cannot be completed in one day. Subject to relative cost, accommodation should be booked in as close proximity to the function, conference, course or meeting as possible. This ensures that the use of external travel options are minimised. Councillors and Employees are encouraged to use public transport or walk to the function, conference, course or meeting wherever possible. Accompanying persons travelling with the Councillor or Employee may be included in the accommodation booking, however if an upgrade is required for additional bedding configurations, the Councillor or Employee will be required to reimburse the Council for the cost differential. Meal, parking and incidentals Meals, parking costs and incidentals including public transport, and taxi fares attributable to business purposes will be reimbursed on provision of satisfactory proof of expenditure. Use of a mini-bar facility or purchase of accommodation services, for example, movies, gym and personal services shall be at the cost of the Councillor or Employee. No incidentals will be covered that are incurred by a third party including any family member or friend travelling with the Councillor or Employee. Tacking on of leave These arrangements can only be made if operational requirements allow and if the Employee has sufficient leave accrued. Leave must be approved by the relevant Line Manager or CEO as appropriate. If an Employee ‘tacks on’ any extra days at the end of the work related event, the reimbursements will cease at the completion of the engagement. If the leave is ‘tacked on’ prior to the commencement of the work related engagement, the reimbursements commences the morning of the engagement.

41 of 42

of 3

Miscellaneous If the training or conference is cancelled the airfares and accommodation may be cancelled or utilised for other PRC travel. 3. Scope This policy applies to all Pilbara Regional Council employees, and all of PRC activities. This policy does not apply to contractual professional development entitlements. 4. Related Documents Related Policies and Other documents

!! PRC Employment Contract ! PRC Code of Conduct ! PRC – P–017 – Working and driving in remote locations policy ! PRC – G–017 – Working and driving in remote locations guidelines

42 of 42