ordinary meeting of council agenda - city of … meeting of council agenda 28 february 2017 3 b...

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

AGENDA

28 FEBRUARY 2017

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL AGENDA 28 FEBRUARY 2017

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ............................................................................................... 2

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY .............................................................................. 2

3 ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................... 2

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ....................... 3

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ...................................................................................................... 3

6 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...................................................................... 3

7 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................ 4

8 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING – AS

CIRCULATED ............................................................................................................................ 4

9 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR ................................................................................... 5

10 PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS ......................................................... 7

CCS236 PETITION – FUNDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF MEDICAL SHARPS

CONTAINERS .............................................................................................................. 7 CCS241 PETITION – PROPOSED ANIMAL MANAGEMENT FACILITY ............................. 10

11 REPORTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES .................................. 13

DCS316 NOMINATIONS FOR MID-WEST WHEATBELT (CENTRAL) JOINT

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL .................................................................. 13 DCS317 MEDICAL SHARPS CONTAINERS ........................................................................... 16 DCS318 ADVOCACY FOR A PLASTIC BAG BAN - WA ......................................................... 19 DCS319 IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING TIME RESTRICTIONS FORREST STREET 22

12 REPORTS OF CORPORATE & COMMERCIAL SERVICES .......................................... 25

CCS237 DEREGULATION OF GENERAL RETAIL TRADING HOURS ................................ 25 CCS238 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 31 JANUARY 2017 ........................... 36

13 REPORTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES ................................................................ 38

IS135 RFT 13 1617 SUPPLY OF PAVEMENT MARKING, BOLLARD AND GUIDEPOST

INSTALLATION SERVICES ....................................................................................... 38 IS136 GERALDTON TENNIS CLUB – FINANCIAL SUPPORT ......................................... 41 IS137 GERALDTON SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB FINANCIAL SUPPORT ........................ 48 IS138 LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS .................................... 54 IS139 ANIMAL MANAGEMENT FACILITY LOCATION .................................................... 57

14 REPORTS OF OFFICE OF THE CEO .................................................................................. 63

15 REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED ............................................................................................... 64

16 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS ................................................................................................. 66

17 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

..................................................................................................................................................... 67

18 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .............. 67

19 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY PRESIDING MEMBER OR BY DECISION OF

THE MEETING ........................................................................................................................ 67

20 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................. 67

APPENDIX 1 – ATTACHMENTS AND REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED ..................................... 68


2

CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2017 AT 5.00PM

CHAMBERS, CATHEDRAL AVENUE

A G E N D A

DISCLAIMER: The Chairman advises that the purpose of this Council Meeting is to discuss and, where possible, make resolutions about items appearing on the agenda. Whilst Council has the power to resolve such items and may in fact, appear to have done so at the meeting, no person should rely on or act on the basis of such decision or on any advice or information provided by a Member or Officer, or on the content of any discussion occurring, during the course of the meeting. Persons should be aware that the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (Section 5.25(e)) and Council’s Meeting Procedures Local Laws establish procedures for revocation or recision of a Council decision. No person should rely on the decisions made by Council until formal advice of the Council decision is received by that person. The City of Greater Geraldton expressly disclaims liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of relying on or acting on the basis of any resolution of Council, or any advice or information provided by a Member or Officer, or the content of any discussion occurring, during the course of the Council meeting.

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

I would like to respectfully acknowledge the Yamaji people who are the Traditional Owners and First People of the land on which we meet/stand. I would like to pay my respects to the Elders past, present and future for they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Yamaji people.

3 ATTENDANCE

Present: Mayor S Van Styn Cr N McIlwaine Cr N Colliver Cr J Critch Cr S Douglas Cr L Freer Cr R D Hall Cr M Reymond Cr V Tanti Cr T Thomas Cr G Bylund Cr S Keemink Officers: K Diehm, Chief Executive Officer P Melling, Director of Development & Community Services


3

B Davis, Director of Corporate and Commercial Services R McKim, Director of Infrastructure Services S Moulds, PA to the Chief Executive Officer/Minute Secretary Others: Members of Public: Members of Press: Apologies: Cr L Graham* Leave of Absence: Cr D Caudwell Cr R Ellis

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Questions provided in writing prior to the meeting or at the meeting will receive a formal response. Please note that you cannot make statements in Public Question Time and such statements will not be recorded in the Minutes. Our Local Laws and the Local Government Act require questions to be put to the presiding member and answered by the Council. No questions can be put to individual Councillors.

6 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Existing Approved Leave

Councillor From To (inclusive) Date Approved

Cr D Caudwell 24 January 2017 28 March 2017 24/01/2017

Cr R Ellis 24 January 2017 28 February 2017 24/01/2017

Cr L Graham 21 March 2017 22 March 2017 24/01/2017

Cr S Douglas request for Leave of Absence for the period 10 July – 10 August 2017 be approved. Cr B Hall request for Leave of Absence for the period 14 April – 30 April 2017 be approved. Cr N McIlwaine request for Leave of Absence for the period 13 April – 26 April 2017 and 23 August – 2 October 2017 be approved. Cr Renee Ellis request for Leave of Absence for the period 1 March 2017 to 30 March 2017 be approved. Cr L Graham request for Leave of Absence for the period 28 February 2017 to 11 March 2017 be approved.


4

Cr S Keemink request for Leave of Absence for the period 7 March 2017 to be approved.

*Note: If Elected Members’ application for leave of absence is for the meeting that the request is submitted, they will be noted as an apology until Council consider the request. The granting of the leave, or refusal to grant the leave and reasons for that refusal, will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting

7 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Cr N McIlwaine declared a proximity interest in Part A & Part B of IS139 Animal Management Facility Location as he is an employee of a business situated on Flores road next to proposed facility location. Cr S Douglas declared an impartiality interest in IS139 Animal Management Facility Location, as his wife is a volunteer with Dog Rescue.

8 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING –

as circulated RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 24 January 2017, as previously circulated, be adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings.


5

9 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR Events attended by the Mayor or his representative

DATE FUNCTION REPRESENTATIVE

25 January 2017 ABC Radio Interview – Outcomes of Council Meeting

Mayor Shane Van Styn

25 January 2017 Radio Mama Interview – Outcomes of Council Meeting


26 January 2017 Australia Day Citizen of the Year Awards – Mullewa


26 January 2017 Australia Day Citizen of the Year Awards and Citizenship Ceremony – Geraldton


29 January 2017 Men’s Shed Announcement Mayor Shane Van Styn

29 January 2017 Midwest Development Commission Royalties for Regions Funding Announcements


1 February 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper Round Table Discussion


1 February 2017 Photo Opportunity – QPT Booklet Mayor Shane Van Styn

1 February 2017 Photo Opportunity - Spalding Community Centre


1 February 2017 Funtavia Tops Picks Video Screening Mayor Shane Van Styn

2 February 2017 Regional Capitals Australia City Deals Video Screening


3 February 2017 CGG Elections Priority 2017 Meeting with the Labor Party Candidates


6 February 2017 Regular Catch Up with Media and Marketing Mayor Shane Van Styn

6 February 2017 Regular Catch Up with the CEO Mayor Shane Van Styn

6 February 2017 CGG Elections Priority 2017 Meeting with Paul Brown, National Candidate


6 February 2017 CGG Elections Priority 2017 Meeting with Ian Blayney, Liberal Candidate


7 February 2017 Midwest Economic Summit Mayor Shane Van Styn

7 February 2017 Concept Forum Mayor Shane Van Styn

7 February 2017 Radio Interview with 6PR regarding the AFL match in Geraldton 25 February 2017


7 February 2017 CGG Elections Priority 2017 Meeting with Martin Aldridge, National Candidate


9 February 2017 ABC Interview with Megan Woods regarding Licensing fees


9 February 2017 Geraldton Boat Lifters Ltd - Shed Official Opening


9 February 2017 What The Funtavia Opening Night Gala Mayor Shane Van Styn

10 February 2017 West Australian Regional Capital Alliance Meeting – Perth




13 February 2017 IT Program Meeting with Councillor Graham Mayor Shane Van Styn

13 February 2017 Camel Bar Soft Opening Mayor Shane Van Styn

14 February 2017 Feedback and workshop of Capital Budget Mayor Shane Van Styn

16 February 2017 Batavia Regional Emergency Management Committee Meeting


16 February 2017 Growth Plan Project Meeting Mayor Shane Van Styn

16 February 2017 Catch up with the Mayor and CEO Mayor Shane Van Styn

16 February 2017 Official Opening of Foodbank Mayor Shane Van Styn

17 February 2017 Citizenship Ceremony - February 2017 Mayor Shane Van Styn

17 February 2017 Silver Whisper Cruise Ship - Plaque Handover Mayor Shane Van Styn

17 February 2017 Art Gallery Exhibition Opening: FOCUS - Geraldton Camera Club



6

20 February 2017 WALGA Northern Country Zone – Face to face meeting – Mingenew


20 February 2017 Food Safety Information and Awards Mayor Shane Van Styn



21 February 2017 Regional Capitals Australia Executive Board Meeting


21 February 2017 ABC Interview regarding heavy rains and damaged infrastructure


21 February 2017 Meeting with stakeholders regarding Animal Management Facility


21 February 2017 Audit Committee Meeting Mayor Shane Van Styn

21 February 2017 Agenda Forum Meeting Mayor Shane Van Styn

22 February 2017 Opening of Brick by Brick Library Exhibition Deputy Mayor Neil McIlwaine

24 February 2017 Breakfast with the West Coast Eagles Mayor Shane Van Styn

24 February 2017 Midwest Development Commission Board Meeting


24 February 2017 Museum of Geraldton Site Advisory Committee Meeting


24 February 2017 Batavia Coast Maritime Heritage Association Update


24 February 2017 Meeting with Cricket Australia Mayor Shane Van Styn

25 February 2017 AFL West Coast Eagles Vs Fremantle Dockers match – Geraldton


25 February 2017 Longboat Sailing Mayor Shane Van Styn

27 February 2017 Meeting with Western Power – Mullewa Mayor Shane Van Styn

27 February 2017 Meeting to discuss increasing trend of shark fishing at local beaches


27 February 2017 Meeting with Geraldton Shark Hunters Mayor Shane Van Styn

28 February 2017 Regional Capitals Australia Overview to Regional University Network Vice-Chancellors meeting




28 February 2017 Meeting with Western Power – Geraldton Mayor Shane Van Styn

28 February 2017 Ordinary Meeting of Council Mayor Shane Van Styn


7

10 PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS

CCS236 PETITION – FUNDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF MEDICAL SHARPS CONTAINERS

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-07344 AUTHOR: P Bennett, Administration Officer

Corporate Services EXECUTIVE: B Davis, Director Corporate &

Commercial Services DATE OF REPORT: 27 January 2017 FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0003 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

A. Petition – Funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the receipt of a petition requesting the City to reinstate funding for the collection and safe disposal of medical sharps containers via the existing community pharmacy network. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. RECEIVE the petition in relation to the reinstatement of funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers by the City of Greater Geraldton; and

2. REVIEW the report on funding for the disposal of medical sharps, the subject of the petition – Item DCS317.

PROPONENT: The proponent is Paul Buise, Pharmacy 194 as the promotor of the petition. BACKGROUND: A petition has been presented to the Mayor and Members of the City of Greater Geraldton in support of reinstating funding for the collection and safe disposal of medical sharps containers. As of 1 August 2016, the City ceased funding for a sharps collection and disposal service to Geraldton pharmacies. Petitioners are requesting that Council recommence the payment of costs involved for residents of Geraldton to collect and dispose of all medical sharps waste via the existing community pharmacy network. The reasons provided for the request are:


8

By removing this funding, consumers have to bare this cost, which for a standard S2 sharps container provided by most pharmacies is approximately $12.20;

Many local residents who are on a pension are already struggling with the increase cost of living and annual increases to the patient co-payment and safety net. Many patients must now decide whether or not to spend that money on a sharps container or spend it on their prescription medication ($12.20 is equivalent to two pension prescriptions); and

As a health professional it is my fear that this will ultimately result in medical sharps being disposed of inappropriately resulting in sharps ending up in local land fill and posing a risk to public health.

The report which addresses the matter that is the subject of the petition is Item DCS317. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Please refer to Item DCS317 for a detailed analysis of economic issues associated with reinstating funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers.

Social: Please refer to Item DCS317 for a detailed analysis of social issues associated with reinstating funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers.

Environmental: Please refer to Item DCS317 for a detailed analysis of environmental issues associated with reinstating funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers.

Cultural & Heritage: Please refer to Item DCS317 for a detailed analysis of economic issues associated with reinstating funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers.

RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Council have previously received petitions – most recently CCS123 28 July 2015. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: The petition is signed by 482 people. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Please refer to Item DCS317 for a detailed analysis of legislative/policy implications.


9

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: Please refer to Item DCS317 for a detailed analysis of financial and resource implications associated with reinstating funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Governance Community Engagement

Strategy 5.1.2 Promoting community involvement in decision making so it is collaborative and transparent

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Please refer to Item DCS317 for a detailed analysis of regional outcomes associated with reinstating funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers. RISK MANAGEMENT Risk is minimised if the City follows the process outlined in the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2011. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS Section 5.10 Meeting Procedures Local Law 2011 stipulates that a petition is to —

a) be addressed to the Mayor or CEO; b) be made by at least 50 electors of the district; c) state the request on each page of the petition; d) contain the name, address and signature of each elector making the

request, and the date each elector signed; e) contain a summary of the reasons for the request; and f) state the name of the person to whom, and an address at which,

notice to the petitioners can be given. The attached petition does not contain the date each elector signed. Council has the option of rejecting the petition on the basis that it is non- conforming; however, considering the number of electors that have signed the petition, there is a public interest factor to be considered. On that basis, the Executive recommend that the petition be received in good faith.


10

CCS241 PETITION – PROPOSED ANIMAL MANAGEMENT FACILITY

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-12216 AUTHOR: P Bennett, Administration Officer

Corporate Services EXECUTIVE: B Davis, Director Corporate &

Commercial Services DATE OF REPORT: 21 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0003 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

A. Petition – Proposed Animal Management Facility

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the receipt of a petition regarding the development of the proposed Animal Management Facility to be located on Bradford Street. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. RECEIVE the petition in relation to the development of the proposed Animal Management Facility on Bradford Street; and

2. REVIEW the report on the Animal Management Facility Location, the subject of the petition – Item IS139.

PROPONENT: The proponent is Mrs Judy Caudwell as the contact for the petition. BACKGROUND: A petition was presented to the Mayor on 21 February 2017 relating to the development of the proposed Animal Management Facility. Petitioners urgently and respectfully request the Council of the City of Greater Geraldton: ‘immediately defer any activities associated with the development of the proposed Animal Management Facility, as identified in Item DCS313 of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 20th December 2016, until such time as the Wonthella Progress Association Inc members, and all residents, business proprietors and community clubs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location of the Animal Management Facility have been afforded the opportunity to meet with the Council and the City to discuss what has been proposed by the City and endorsed by Council, according to the minutes referred to above.’ It is noted in the petition that the proposed Animal Management Facility is to be located on Bradford Street, in the vicinity of the Eastern end of Seventh and


11

Eighth Streets Wonthella, the Geraldton Turf Club and the Geraldton Golf Course. The ratepayers and residents of Geraldton identified in the petition are extremely concerned about the serious impact Council’s decision may have in regard to:

Diminishing the peaceful enjoyment of the residents of nearby homes

The potential devaluation of residential property within the immediate vicinity

The proposed use of land on the old railway reserve that is inconsistent with Council’s previous decision to acquire the land solely for public recreational use and enjoyment

Lowering the amenity and visitor impression of the community’s premier large outdoor entertainment venue, the Wonthella Oval, which has recently been upgraded by the Council at significant expense to accommodate State, National and International standard events.

The report which addresses the matter that is the subject of the petition is Item IS139. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Please refer to Item IS139 for a detailed analysis of economic issues associated with the proposed Animal Management Facility.

Social: Please refer to Item IS139 for a detailed analysis of social issues associated with the proposed Animal Management Facility.

Environmental: Please refer to Item IS139 for a detailed analysis of environmental issues associated with the proposed Animal Management Facility.

Cultural & Heritage:

Please refer to Item IS139 for a detailed analysis of economic issues associated with the proposed Animal Management Facility.

RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Council have previously received petitions – most recently CCS123 28 July 2015. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: The petition is signed by 273 people.


12

LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Please refer to Item IS139 for a detailed analysis of legislative/policy implications.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: Please refer to Item IS139 for a detailed analysis of financial and resource implications associated with the proposed Animal Management Facility.

INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Governance Community Engagement

Strategy 5.1.2 Promoting community involvement in decision making so it is collaborative and transparent

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Please refer to Item IS139 for a detailed analysis of regional outcomes associated with the proposed Animal Management Facility.

RISK MANAGEMENT Risk is minimised if the City follows the process outlined in the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2011. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS No alternative options have been considered, this petition meets the criteria as stipulated in the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2011.


13

11 REPORTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

DCS316 NOMINATIONS FOR MID-WEST WHEATBELT (CENTRAL) JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-08794 AUTHOR: M Connell, Manager Urban & Regional

Development EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director Development &

Community Services DATE OF REPORT: 8 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: LP/9/0017 ATTACHMENTS: No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current appointment of all local government Development Assessment Panel members is due to expire on 26 April 2017. This report seeks nominations for membership to the Mid-West Wheatbelt (Central) Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) for up to a 3-year term, expiring on 26 April 2020. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to Regulation 26 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, RESOLVES to:

1. ADVISE the Minister for Planning that it nominates:

a. and b. as the City of Greater Geraldton local

government representatives on the Mid-West Wheatbelt (Central) Joint Development Assessment Panel; and

2. ADVISE the Minister for Planning that it nominates: a. and b. as the City of Greater Geraldton

alternate local government representatives on the Mid-West Wheatbelt (Central) Joint Development Assessment Panel.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the Development Assessment Panels who report directly to the Minister for Planning. BACKGROUND: On 1 July 2011, 15 Development Assessment Panels (DAP) came into operation in order to determine development applications that meet a certain threshold value. In the case of the City of Greater Geraldton for development applications with an estimated cost of $10 million or more, it is mandatory that they are determined by a DAP. For applications $2 million or more and less than $10


14

million, the applicant has the option of having the application determined by a DAP or the local government. Each DAP comprises 5 members; 3 specialist members, one of which is the presiding member, and 2 local government members. Appointments of all current local government DAP members expire on 26 April 2017. Council is requested to nominate 4 elected members (comprising 2 local members and 2 alternate local members) to sit on the JDAP as required. Nominations are required to be received by 28 February 2017, however the DAP’s secretariat has since advised verbally that the nominations are not due until 17 March 2017. Following receipt of all local government nominations, the Minister for Planning will consider and appoint all nominees for up to a 3-year term, expiring on 26 April 2020. All appointed local members will be placed on the local government member register and advised of DAP training dates and times. It is a mandatory requirement, pursuant to the DAP regulations, that all DAP members attend training before they can sit on a DAP and determine applications. Local government representatives who have previously been appointed to a DAP and have received training are not required to attend further training. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic issues. Social: There are no social issues. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural: There are no cultural issues. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Council at its meeting held on 22 November 2011 nominated Mayor I Carpenter and Councillor N McIlwaine as the City’s local government representatives on the JDAP, and also nominated Councillor R Ramage and Councillor N Messina as alternate local government representatives. Council at its meeting held on 29 January 2013 nominated Mayor I Carpenter and Councillor N McIlwaine as the City’s local government representatives on the JDAP, and also nominated Councillor L Graham and Councillor S Van Styn as alternate local government representatives.


15

Council at its meeting held on 27 January 2015 nominated Mayor I Carpenter and Councillor N McIlwaine as the City’s local government representatives on the JDAP, and also nominated Councillor L Graham and Councillor S Van Styn as alternate local government representatives. Council at its meeting held on 27 October 2015 nominated Mayor S Van Styn and Councillor N McIlwaine as the City’s local government representatives on the JDAP, and also nominated Councillor L Graham and Councillor S Douglas as alternate local government representatives. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: There has been no community/councillor consultation. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Part 11A of the Planning and Development Act (2005) introduced Development Assessment Panels into the Act and this is supported by the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial and budget implications. DAP members are entitled to be paid for their attendance at DAP training and at DAP meetings. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Governance Planning and Policy

Strategy 5.2.6 Supporting decisions to create a long term sustainable city

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: There are no regional outcomes. RISK MANAGEMENT: If Council fails to nominate any elected members, the Minister for Planning can appoint any representative of the local government who is an eligible voter and who the Minister considers has relevant knowledge or experience. This would further remove any decision making power from the Council. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS: The option not to nominate any elected members is not supported as the City is required, under Regulation 26 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, to nominate elected members to sit on the JDAP as required. The option to defer is not supported as nominations are required to be received by 17 March 2017.


16

DCS317 MEDICAL SHARPS CONTAINERS

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-16-08463 AUTHOR: H Williamson, Coordinator Environmental

Health and Waste EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director Development and

Community Services DATE OF REPORT: 13 February 2016 FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0003 ATTACHMENTS: No EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On 3 January, the City received a petition requesting the City to reinstate funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers. Please refer to agenda item number - CCS236 Petition - Funding for the disposal of medical sharps containers. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. PROVIDE a 120L sharps disposal bin at Meru for residents and Pharmacies to dispose of sharps.

PROPONENT: The proponent is Pharmacy 194. BACKGROUND: Through a scheme funded by the State Government, the City provided a free of charge, sharps disposal service to the then nine pharmacies in Geraldton. This service included providing new unused sharps bins to pharmacies for them to have the used sharps containers collected and disposed of on a monthly basis. Since the State scheme has ceased the City has been bearing the cost of the service. This program costs the City an estimate of $31,000 per annum. The Executive Management Team on 16 March 2016 endorsed the recommendation to cease providing a sharps collection and disposal service to Geraldton Pharmacies. The pharmacies were notified on 2 June 2016 via a letter that this service would cease and the City’s disposal contractor was informed to cease the service on 1 August 2016. Since removing the sharps collection and disposal service a 120L sharps bin has been provided at Meru for disposal of sharps from any City staff activities such as illegal dumping. The current sharps bin at Meru costs $100 per service and at this point in time is serviced every two months.


17

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: To reintroduce this service as outlined in the petition would have a financial impact on the City (possibly increased due to a known 10 pharmacies now in existence. An extension to the current Meru container option is anticipated to only have a minor increase in costs over a 12 month period but it will require the pharmacy to deliver Sharps to Meru. Social: Consumers on low incomes may have a reduced quality of life due to inability to access cheap and affordable sharps disposal. Environmental: There has been no noticeable rise in the number of illegal disposal of sharps since the program ceased in August 2016. The City currently has 66 sharps disposal units in and around the City.

Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: On 16 March 2016, the Executive Management Team (EMT) endorsed the City to ceases the service of sharps medical containers. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: All pharmacies involved were informed by the City on 2 June 2016 that the program would cease on 1 August 2016. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: It is not a legal requirement of Local Government to engage in this service. The City has engaged with the Waste Authority and Department of Health who have advised that both agencies are unaware of any Local Governments that run this type of sharps disposal service to the community. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: The City was paying approx. $31,000 to provide the service to nine commercial Pharmacies. The recommendation will cost the City $100 per service of the sharps bin. The City does not have the data to estimate how often the bin will need to be emptied at Meru. At present the bin is serviced once every two months but this could increase with the demand of the recommended service. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Social Community Health and Safety

Strategy 3.5.3 Promoting healthy life style initiatives and living standards


18

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Consumers from other regions who use Geraldton facilities including pharmacies may have to take on the cost of the disposal service. RISK MANAGEMENT Concerns have been raised about inappropriately discarded needles and syringes and the possibility of contracting HIV or hepatitis C from a discarded used needle. The chance of a member of the public contracting either HIV or hepatitis C from a discarded used needle is extremely low. Worldwide, there has never been a reported case of a member of the public contracting HIV in this way. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS The following options were considered by City Officers: Continue with the current situation with pharmacies organising their own arrangements for their sharps disposal. The other alternatives considered:

The City provides all pharmacies within the City, (which is believe to be 10 pharmacies), with one 120L sharps disposal bin a month. Each bin would cost the City $9.27 per month;

The City provide all ten pharmacies with collection and disposal of used sharps bins. The collection and disposal service will cost the City $100 per service; and

Budget approx. $12,112.41


19

DCS318 ADVOCACY FOR A PLASTIC BAG BAN - WA

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-08816 AUTHOR: H Williamson, Coordinator Environmental

Health and Waste EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director Development and

Community Services DATE OF REPORT: 6 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: WM/9/0001 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

A. Discussion Paper Plastic Bag Ban 2016 x 1 D-17-08135

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Municipal Waste Authority Council (MWAC) are investigating the interest of Local Government within WA in banning plastic bags. MWAC wish to know the City’s position on supporting the implementation of an industry developed Local Laws within the City to enforce a plastics ban. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. SUPPORT the advocacy position of WALGA as outlined in their Discussion Paper of August 2016.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton - Waste Management Department on behalf of Municipal Waste Advisory Council (MWAC). BACKGROUND: All plastic waste in Geraldton ends up at the landfill or in our lands and waterways. In 2016, the City’s Waste Audit report stated that 25.6% of the average household weekly bin contents are made up of various types of plastic. The State Authority’s Zero Waste Policy aims at diverting as much waste as possible from landfill to ensure longevity of landfills. Coral Bay, Esperance, Exmouth and Port Hedland Local Governments have implemented a voluntary ban on plastics.

In May 2009, South Australia prevented all retailers from providing single‐use lightweight polyethylene bags. The ban excluded lightweight barrier bags and the heavyweight bags typically used in department stores. Northern Territory implemented an identical ban on September 1, 2011 followed by ACT in November 2011 and Tasmania in November 2013. A number of WA Local Governments have expressed an interest in putting in place Local Laws to ban plastic bags. The City of Fremantle presented a plastic bag reduction local law to the Joint Standing Committee who were unable to reach a determinate and referred the matter to the Legislative Council. The


20

legislative Council disallowed the Local law, based on the clause permitting retailers to charge a 10c minimum fee for a compliant biodegradable bag. In response, the Association, through the Municipal Waste Advisory Council (MWAC) has undertaken research on options for plastic bag bans and the range of issues associated with plastic pollution. The next step in this process is for MWAC and the Association to ascertain the appropriate level of advocacy on this issue from WA Councils and the extent to which the City of Greater Geraldton considers plastic pollution to be of concern. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The Local Laws banning plastics would enforce a tax or levy to the retailer who could then pass that cost on to the consumer. In the end the reduction of plastics to landfill with increase the longevity of the current landfill. Contamination due to plastic bags has seen the City reduction in the sale of compost as 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years saw the City green waste mulching program process more than 24 000m3 of green waste, 40% of the product could not be sold due to high plastic contamination levels. Social: A study from the National Centre (2012) for Policy Analysis claims that a ban on plastic bags used by grocers and retailers can negatively affect sales in the banned area and increase sales among stores just outside the bag ban region. Under threat of fines or penalties, bans and taxes on plastic bags could force local businesses to comply with government regulations that mandate measuring, counting, reporting, and maintaining records related to enforcement of these possible local laws. Environmental: The 2015/16 National Litter Index survey reports the results of biannual litter counts at the same, undisclosed 983 sites across the country in order to build a better profile on what is being littered nationally. These results indicate that in Tasmania and ACT who have implemented bans on plastic bags its litter number significantly decreased and continue to do so. The Australian Marine Debris Database is a standardised national database on marine debris that shows the postcode for Geraldton having 90% of our marine debris are from plastics. Data from the Beach Clean Up report attached shows that the second largest material found is plastic after remanet’s of commercial fishing.


21

Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Northern Agricultural Catchment Council (NACC) have been an advocate for the Plastic Bag Ban and have proposed to collaborate with the City to facilitate the engagement of the program with the local retailers. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no legislative/policy implications at this stage until development and implementation of local laws. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: Enforcing the plastic ban may require additional budgets to be set aside, either paid for by Local Government or State funding. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Environment Reduce Reuse Recycle

Strategy 2.2.2 Promoting, researching and implementing green practices such as improved and innovative waste management, water reuse and renewable energy production

Strategy 2.3.4 Fostering cultural change leading to more environmentally sustainable consumption

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: The Regional Kerbside Waste collection contract is managed by Toxfree Solutions and includes Geraldton (Including Mullewa), Shire of Irwin, Chapman Valley and Northampton waste that is all taken to Meru Landfill. A formal Plastic Bag Ban may require further consultation with our neighbouring shires, but for now, we are only required to determine the level of advocacy for a Plastic Bag ban. RISK MANAGEMENT There are no foreseeable risks associated with this proposal. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS The following options were considered by City Officers: Council does not support the WA Plastic Bag Ban, but may revisit the item after reviewing the WA State Waste Strategy.


22

DCS319 IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING TIME RESTRICTIONS FORREST STREET

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-08866 AUTHOR: N Beer, Coordinator Ranger Services EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director Development and

Community Services DATE OF REPORT: 8 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: PM/7/0007 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the proposed parking restriction implementation along Forrest Street to accommodate infrastructure development, small business expansion and parking improvements within the community. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. IMPLEMENT a two (2) hour time restriction parking in Forrest Street commencing from the corner of Foreshore Drive to the Western end of Forrest Street.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: As the City of Greater Geraldton continues to improve and expand local business through social and economic vibrancy, the necessity for Council to provide fair and accessible parking options for the community also continues. It has been brought to the City’s attention by businesses in the locality of Forrest Street of the need for time-restricted parking. With the lack of parking time limit restrictions in this area, employees from nearby businesses are utilising the parking bays for the entire day, therefore limiting parking availability for the community and patrons to the area.


23

Proposed restrictions are indicated by red line depicted in the below picture.

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic impacts. Social: There are no social impacts. Environmental: There are no environmental impacts. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: The City of Greater Geraldton Council pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995, resolved to make the Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2012 on 26 June 2012. The Local Law was printed in the Government Gazette on 4 September 2012. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Should Council agree to endorse the parking restrictions contained in this report, local public advertising advising of the new parking restrictions will be conducted prior to implementation. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 - Performing Executive Functions whereby a local government is to satisfy itself that the services and facilities that it provides are managed efficiently and effectively.


24

The City of Greater Geraldton Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2012; Section 1.8 Powers of the Local Government. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:


Strategy 5.2.5

Supporting the creation of a 20-minute city where community infrastructure is accessible by car, bike or foot

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: The proposed item will assist in alleviating parking congestion in the Central Business District. RISK MANAGEMENT There are no identified specific risks regarding this proposal. The proposal reduces the City’s exposure to risk by ensuring the City’s statutory obligations are met. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS The alternative option considered is to not implement the two-hour time restriction in Forrest Street. This option was discounted as it is not consistent with the Parking Management Plan adopted by Council and does not provide fair and accessible parking to the community.


25

12 REPORTS OF CORPORATE & COMMERCIAL SERVICES

CCS237 DEREGULATION OF GENERAL RETAIL TRADING HOURS

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-07696 AUTHOR: P Vorster, Coordinator Economic

Development EXECUTIVE: B Davis, Director Corporate and

Commercial Services DATE OF REPORT: 8 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: ED/3/0003-02 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

A. Set Shopping Free – WA CCI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report seeks consideration by Council of rescission of the decision made by Council on 28 May 2013, OP0045 Deregulation of Trading Hours, and proposes submitting an application to the Minister for Commerce for the deregulation of trading hours in the City of Greater Geraldton, aligning with general retail trading hours currently approved for the Perth Metropolitan area. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: PART A: That Council by 1/3rd Majority pursuant to Section 5.25 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to CONSIDER to RESCIND Point 3 of the Council Decision made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 May 2013:

That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

3. NOT consider the matter of deregulated trading hours until such time that the population of City of Greater Geraldton reaches a minimum of 50,000 people.

PART B: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 5.25 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to RESCIND Point 3 of the Council Decision made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 May 2013:


3. NOT consider the matter of deregulated trading hours until such time that the population of City of Greater Geraldton reaches a minimum of 50,000 people.


26

PART C: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to:

1. SUBMIT an application to the Minister of Commerce for the deregulation of trading hours for General Retail Shops in the City of Greater Geraldton, for a Trial Period of 12 months effective from 1 July 2017, to align with the trading hours currently approved for General Retail Shops in the Perth Metropolitan area, as follows: a. All shops are regarded as general retail shops unless they fall

under any one of the other categories including: small retail shops, special retail shops, filling - service stations or motor vehicle shops;

b. Traders do not have to open, however may choose when they open within the specified trading hours;

c. 8.00 am – 9.00 pm on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday Thursday and Friday;

d. 8.00 am – 5.00 pm on Saturday; e. 11.00 am – 5.00 pm on Sunday; f. 11.00 am – 5.00 pm on public holidays; g. Closed on Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day; and

2. REQUEST that a review be conducted at the end of the 12 months trial period as to the effectiveness of deregulation of general retail trading hours as a means to stimulate economic activity and meet Community needs and preferences, with the review to include engagement of the Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry and retail stakeholders, and include a survey of Community views on retail trading hours, with a report to Council by or before September 2018.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: A report regarding the deregulation of Trading Hours was submitted to Council on 28 May 2013. The Council of that time did not support the deregulation of the trading hours and an application for the deregulation of the trading hours was not submitted to the Minister of Commerce. The resolution passed by Council was as follows:

1. RECEIVE the two petitions on the deregulated trading hours; and 2. NOT SUBMIT an application to the Minister for Commerce for the

deregulation of trading hours in the City of Greater Geraldton area; a. Makes the determination for the following reasons: that

deregulation of trading hours is not supported in Geraldton. 3. NOT consider the matter of deregulated trading hours until such time

that the population of City of Greater Geraldton reaches a minimum of 50,000 people.


27

Points 1 and 2 of the resolution passed on 28 May 2013 were acted upon at the time and cannot be rescinded. It is proposed that Council consider rescinding Point 3 of the resolution:

“NOT consider the matter of deregulation of trading hours until such time that the population of City of Greater Geraldton reaches a minimum of 50,000 people”.

Since May 2013, economic circumstances in the State and in the Mid West region have changed, reflecting the transition from a significant mining investments boom period, with mines going from development into production, coinciding with a downturn in global mineral commodity prices. The level of development activity in the region’s mining sector has declined, with multiplier effects across supporting industry sectors and the general regional economy. Since 2013, the unemployment rate in the City region has consistently exceeded 7%. State Government focus has shifted towards diversifying regional economies to provide resilience and offset the impacts of cyclical transitions associated with mineral commodities. Priority attention is being given to strengthening agriculture and agri-businesses, growing interstate and international tourism, and growing other traded sectors of regional economies. Development of the Growing Greater Geraldton Plan was funded from Royalties for Regions under the State Government’s Regional Centres Development Program Stage 2 (RCDP2). Development of the growth plan commenced in February 2016, with the penultimate draft adopted by Council in late 2016, and its finalisation only requiring feedback by the State’s RCDP overseeing body and edit for final presentation. The Growing Greater Geraldton Plan was officially launched at the Regional Economic Summit, mounted by the Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 7th February 2017. As part of the growth plan process, Councillors were provided with key research reports that informed framing of the City’s growth plan. The reports on revitalisation of the City Centre, Tourism, and stopping leakage of expenditure from our local economy, revealed a common theme – the need to deregulate general retail trading hours. This need goes beyond minor reforms, such as adding a few more days a year for Sunday trading. General retail businesses need the flexibility to decide when they want to open, to meet the varying needs of our resident urban community, our non-urban community, and a diverse range of visitors – including tourists that travel by road, air and sea. Flexibility is needed for retail businesses because the patterns of visitation change through the year. Aligning general retail trading hours with those currently approved for Metropolitan Perth would provide the required flexibility.


28

For the information of Councillors and stakeholders, via its website the Department of Commerce currently advises the following in relation to Retail Trading Hours:

“Retail trading hours provide times when retailers in Western Australia can open for business. In some cases, the type of business can dictate the hours which the business can be open to customers. There are also times throughout the year which extended trading may apply such as Easter and Christmas.

Extended trading The following hours apply to general retail shops in the Perth metropolitan area.

Australia Day Thursday, 26 January (public holiday) 8am-6pm

General trading hour’s information Closed-for-trading days: All general retail shops must be closed on, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day. Trading hours by retail type The Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 applies to retail shops in Western Australia south of the 26th parallel. It sets out the trading hours and rules covering various categories of retail outlets.

The trading hours of the following store types are not covered by the Act:

restaurants, cafes, takeaway food shops, short-term markets (set up and dismantled in one day), and shops on Rottnest Island

You must apply for a certificate if you want to trade as a small retail shop, a special retail shop or a small filling station. Qualified applications will be processed promptly and free of charge. Traders can also request these application forms by calling us on 1300 30 40 54 or by email.

General retail shops All shops are regarded as general retail shops unless they fall under any one of the other categories including: small retail shops, special retail shops, filling - service stations or motor vehicle shops.

Trading hours for general retail shops in the Perth metropolitan area

8.00 am – 9.00 pm on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday Thursday and Friday

8.00 am – 5.00 pm on Saturday

11.00 am – 5.00 pm on Sunday

11.00 am – 5.00 pm on public holidays

CLOSED on Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day

http://slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1996_homepage.html

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/26th-parallel

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/publications/certifcate-small-retail-shop-application

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/publications/certificate-special-retail-shop-application

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/publications/certificate-small-filling-station-application

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/metropolitaareamap.pdf


29

Note: Traders do not have to open, however may choose when they open within the specified trading hours”.

Small retail shops In part, small retail shops are shops owned by up to six people who operate no more than four retail shops, in which up to 25 people work at any one time (people employed as apprentices are not included in maximum permitted staffing numbers). Small retail shops may sell any goods other than motor vehicles.

To trade as a small retail shop, a certificate is required. Qualified applications will be processed promptly and free of charge. Shops in this category can trade 24 hours a day, every day of the year.

Special retail shops Special retail shops are considered necessary for emergency, convenience or recreation goods. Special retail shops include:

pharmacies; garden nurseries; hardware and home improvement shops; newsagencies and bookshops; video shops; art and craft shops; souvenir and duty free shops; shops at sports venues; boating shops; motor vehicle spare parts shops; and shops at international standard hotels.

To trade as a special retail shop a certificate is required. Qualified applications will be processed promptly and free of charge. The list of the goods able to be sold are prescribed in the regulations. Trading hours: 6.00 am – 11:30 pm every day of the year

Filling stations – service stations Filling stations include any business that sells motor fuel. Filling station trading hours are deregulated in all areas. There are restrictions on the range of non-petroleum goods which may be sold from filling stations after general retail shop trading hours. The list of the goods able to be sold are prescribed in the regulations.

Motor vehicle shops – car yards A motor vehicle shop includes any shop where motor vehicles are sold. Trading hours:

8.00 am – 6.00 pm on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday

8.00 am – 9.00 pm on Wednesday

8.00 am – 1.00 pm on Saturday

https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1996_homepage.html

https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1996_homepage.html


30

CLOSED on Sundays and public holidays

Non-metropolitan areas Local government authorities outside the Perth metropolitan area can apply to Consumer Protection to extend the trading hours for general retail shops in their district beyond those stipulated in the Act.

Permits Extended trading permits are available under certain conditions. These include, for example, swap-meets, trade fairs and industry expos.” [End Extract]

State Chamber of Commerce & Industry Position

The Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) strongly advocates for deregulation of trading hours in Western Australia. This is reflected in a key media release by the CCI Chief Executive Officer in January 2017:

CCI Chief Executive Officer Deidre Willmott has again called for full deregulation of WA’s trading hours. “While business welcomes further reforms to retail trading, what the Western Australian business community really want is for governments to stop chipping away at the edges – Western Australia needs full deregulation of retail trading sooner rather than later,” she says. “WA still has the most restrictive retail trading laws in the country – business owners face bizarre and antiquated red tape that restricts not only when they sell, but what they sell. This is simply red tape that stifles business activity, hinders job creation and that is totally out-of-step with the needs of a modern economy.” Research proves consumers consistently prefer being able to shop outside of regulated trading hours. As the law still stands, small retail shops can trade whenever they like, but general retail shops can only be open between 8am and 9pm on weekdays and between 11am and 5pm on Sundays and public holidays. Special retail shops can trade between 6am and 11.30pm any day of the year, but are restricted by what they can sell. “The reforms did not make any changes to limited Sunday trading, which continues to particularly disadvantage working mothers who would no doubt relish the flexibility that extra shopping hours on the weekend would give them – CCI does however welcome the government’s commitment to extend Sunday trading should they win the March state election,” Willmott says. “Western Australia’s retail trading laws should be fully deregulated to give consumers and business owners’ freedom about when they choose to shop and trade – full deregulation will lower prices for


31

consumers, create convenience and more jobs for local workers, boost economic growth and make Western Australia a more attractive place to live and do business.”

CCI WA has long argued that business owners should decide when they open for business, not governments. This would ultimately create jobs, lower prices and create convenience for both business owners and consumers.

Supporting its campaign for deregulation of retail shopping hours, the CCI released a booklet with the theme ‘Set Shopping Free’. A copy is provided for Councillors with this report.

Other Regional Centres Already Deregulated

Trading hours for general retail shops in Bunbury, Kalgoorlie and Mandurah

have been deregulated.

In all centres above the 26th parallel, general retail trading hours are

unregulated.

Albany and Geraldton remain the only two regional centres in WA with

regulated trading hours that restrain trading hours on week-days, and exclude

trading on most Sundays and public holidays.

Greater Geraldton Circumstances It is the case that there are divergent views regarding trading hours, amongst Retail business proprietors in the City. Some general retailers want full deregulation; some want partial deregulation; others oppose deregulation entirely. Proprietors of ‘small retail shops’ - (owned by up to six people who operate no more than four retail shops, in which up to 25 people work at any one time, and are able to sell any type of goods other than motor vehicles) are able to trade 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They would prefer not to compete with larger retailers, to protect the general retail monopoly they currently enjoy outside the permitted trading hours as currently approved for larger retailers. A key issue in dialogue on trading hours tends to focus on the questions of whether or not a retail business is obliged to be open for trading for the full scope of deregulated trading hours. The answer of course is No, they are not so obliged; they can open at any time within the range of permitted trading hours, to suit their own business model, and the cycles and preferences of their customers. There are similarly divergent views amongst the general community. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the broader community is generally in favour of deregulated trading hours – and more particularly so when they understand that a business is not obliged to open if they do not want to.


32

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The Greater Geraldton Growth Plan (GGGP) was founded on collaborative action to bring more wealth into our regional capital. Under this plan, by 2036. “Greater Geraldton will have grown into a thriving regional capital with a powerhouse economy. The local population will have increased to 65,000 and businesses will be delivering exceptional services and high quality produce to Western Australia, the rest of Australia and the world. The foreshore and central city streets will be a welcoming hub of commerce, leisure and entertainment for residents and visitors alike. The distinctive heart of our City will reflect our maritime identity and heritage” The GGGP identified three focus areas vital to its success, which includes:

a growth engine, which entails identifying and growing Greater Geraldton’s niche specialities;

a healthy Circulation, which is aimed at retaining wealth within Greater Geraldton and minimise economic leakage; and

a strong heart which includes the revitalision of the Greater Geraldton city centre as a distinctive and magnetic place for residents, businesses and visitors and transforming the city centre an active destination embracing Geraldton’s nautical history and assets

Social: Residents and visitors to the City of Greater Geraldton are currently denied the amenity and liveability available to residents and visitors in Perth Metro, deriving from significantly more flexible general retail trading hours that activates business areas, with multiplier effects flowing into food, hospitality and entertainment sectors. Growth of these sectors generates revitalisation of tired legacy retail precincts – a key goal of the City’s growth plan. With unemployment exceeding 7% consistently since 2013, city centre revitalisation, and growing tourism visitation are seen as important strategies in growing the availability of jobs – an important social imperative, to reduce the long-term negative impacts of sustained high unemployment levels. Environmental: There are no significant environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: There are no significant cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Councils from time to time consider rescission of previous decisions, consistent with the provisions of the Act and Regulations, having regard to changed circumstances and the aspirations of the Community.


33

COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: There was ongoing consultation with members of the city centre community, which includes landowners, shop proprietors and Councillors during development of the City Centre Revitalisation Strategy. Councillors have been provided with the research study reports that informed framing of the Growing Greater Geraldton Plan. Reform of retail trading hours is a common thrust of the city centre revitalisation and tourism studies, and is reflected as a key action in the Plan. The Retail Committee of the Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MWCCI) was consulted. Across the members of that committee there are significantly divergent views on general retail trading hour deregulation, largely reflecting the interests, nature and size of businesses. Those that have trading hours constrained want deregulation; those that do not have trading hours constrained do not want more competition in the hours where they can trade and others cannot. Commercial proprietor interests dominate the respective opposing views – and from their individual business perspectives, their views are legitimate. Neither the City nor the MWCCI per se will ever be able to resolve these commercial tensions. The Council role in that context is thus to govern in the better interests of the broader Community. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 governs trading by retail shops in Western Australia south of the 26th parallel. Areas above the 26th parallel have fully deregulated trading hours. Below the 26th parallel, retail trading hours in non-metropolitan areas are regulated by Section 12 (1) of the Act and trading hours in the metropolitan area are regulated by Section 12 (3) of the Act. An application for deregulated trading hours must be submitted to the Minister for Commerce, should a decision seeking deregulation be made by the Council. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial or resource implications for the City. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Economy Dynamic, Diverse and Sustainable Economy

Strategy 4.1.3 Revitalising the CBD through economic, social and cultural vibrancy

Strategy 4.1.5 Developing and promoting Greater Geraldton as a preferred cultural, environmental and agri/aqua tourism destination

Strategy 4.3.4 Supporting economic development initiatives and promotion of the region

Strategy 4.4.4 Encouraging the development of innovative entrepreneurs and new business models


Strategy 5.2.6 Supporting Decisions to create a long term sustainable city


34

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: The Growing Greater Geraldton Plan aims to strengthen and grow the traded sectors of the City region economy. Alignment of general retail trading hours with Metro Perth will deliver economic benefits from stimulation of stronger economic activity, strengthening the attraction of the City to Tourists, and stopping some of the retail bleed to the metro area. Deregulation of general retail trading hours sufficiently to align with Metro Perth will significantly enhance the amenity and liveability of Geraldton for its residents and visitors. RISK MANAGEMENT The City must comply with the provisions of the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987. Should Council make a decision seeking deregulation of general retail trading hours, a submission will be required, seeking approval of the Minister for Commerce. There is strategic risk to Greater Geraldton in doing nothing, and perpetuating limited general retail trading hours. Visitor perception (per the Visitor Perceptions Study report prepared by TNS as part of the Growth Plan Process) is that Geraldton is ‘closed for business’. This puts at risk continued inclusion of Geraldton as a Cruise Ship destination, perpetuates the image of Geraldton as a drive-by fuel-stop on the way somewhere else, offers no options for proprietors for development of flexible retail business models aligned with customer preferences, and effectively negates interest by potential investors in discount department store development in the City. The risk inherent in taking a short-term position to appease particular interests, ignoring broader interests, is that future development will be stifled. That risk scenario is something that the Council can do something about. To compete as a place to live and work and recreate, and grow its population, the City must be able to offer the same cosmopolitan amenity enjoyed in other urban centres in WA – including Mandurah, Bunbury and Kalgoorlie. Deregulated trading hours provides some of that amenity, and enhances liveability of a place. To grow Greater Geraldton, to attract business investment in transformation of existing businesses, or establishment of new businesses that create employment, change is needed to a new City image – Open for Business. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS These options were considered:

Not rescinding point 3 of the previous Council resolution of 28 May 2013 on deregulation of retail trading hours, and continuing to operate on the basis of no deregulation of trading hours until the City population exceeds 50,000 people. This would perpetuate the past practise of making submissions to the Minister every year to gain approval for a few extra specified days of Sunday trading;


35

Rescinding point 3 of the May 2013 decision, and seeking only partial deregulation of general retail trading hours to a level less flexible than that enjoyed by Perth Metro retailers;

Rescinding point 3 of the May 2013 decision, and seeking only partial deregulation of general retail trading hours to a level at least aligned with that enjoyed by Perth Metro retailers; and

Rescinding point 3 of the May 2013 decision, and seeking full deregulation of general retail trading hours.

Doing nothing, maintaining the current approach, was discounted, being inconsistent with the thrusts of the Growing Greater Geraldton Plan, which aims to revitalise the City Centre, stimulate more economic activity, grow the traded sectors of the regional economy including tourism, and reduce retail leakage to Perth. Minor partial deregulation was discounted for the same reason. City Executive assessment is that much more is required. At the other extreme, full deregulation of general retail trading hours (as applies above the 26th parallel) was seen to be moving too quickly, when there is opportunity to provide some time to enable the retail sector to adjust. Making a significant move down the deregulation path – delivering the same retail amenity to the City’s community as is enjoyed in Metro Perth, but doing it on a 12 months trial basis – with a review and report back to Council – is seen as a practicable compromise.


36

CCS238 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 31 JANUARY 2017

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-09077 AUTHOR: A Van Der Weij, Financial Accountant EXECUTIVE: B Davis, Director Corporate and

Commercial Services DATE OF REPORT: 9 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0012-05 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

A. Monthly Management Report January 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The attached financial reports provide a comprehensive report on the City’s finances to 31 January 2017. The statements in this report include no matters of variance considered to be of concern. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION; That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to:

1. RECEIVE the 31 January 2017 monthly financial activity statements as attached.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The financial position at the end of December is detailed in the attached report and summarised as follows relative to year-to-date budget expectations:

Operating Income $133,604 0.2% Positive Variance Operating Expenditure $1,805,586 3.9% Positive Variance Net Operating $1,939,189 Capital Expenditure $776,031 3.0% Positive Variance Capital Revenue $362,889 3.4% Negative Variance Cash at Bank – Municipal $29,056,096 Cash at Bank – Reserve $10,327,730 Total Funds Invested $33,878,387 Net Rates Collected 85.96%


37

The attached report provides explanatory notes for items greater than 10% or $50,000. This commentary provides Council with an overall understanding of how the finances are progressing in relation to the revised budget. The financial position represented in the January financials shows a positive variance of $1,939,189 in the net operating result. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic impacts. Social: There are no social impacts. Environmental: There are no environmental impacts. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Council is provided with financial reports each month. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: There has been no community/councillor consultation. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require that as a minimum Council is to receive a Statement of Financial Activity. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: Any issues in relation to expenditure and revenue allocations or variance trends are identified and addressed each month. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:


Strategy 5.2.7 Ensuring efficient and effective delivery of service

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: There are no impacts to regional outcomes. RISK MANAGEMENT There are no risks to be considered. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED There are no alternative options to consider.


38

13 REPORTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

IS135 RFT 13 1617 SUPPLY OF PAVEMENT MARKING, BOLLARD AND GUIDEPOST INSTALLATION SERVICES

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-09624 AUTHOR: M Fates, Project Manager EXECUTIVE: R McKim, Director Infrastructure Services DATE OF REPORT: 27 January 2017 FILE REFERENCE: RO/4/0029 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x4)

A. CONFIDENTIAL Evaluation Report Separable Portion – Pavement Marking D-17-09712 B. CONFIDENTIAL Evaluation Report Separable Portion – Bollards and guidepost D-17-09713 C. CONFIDENTIAL Submitted Rates Line Marking D-17-9653 D. CONFIDENTIAL Submitted Rates Bollards & Guidepost D-17-09652

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to award RFT 13 1617 Separable Portion A - Supply and Application of Pavement Markings and Separable Portion B - Supply and/or Installation of Bollards and Guide Posts to the preferred tenderers. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. AWARD the contract for RFT 13 1617 - Separable Portion A - Supply and Application of Pavement Markings to the preferred tenderer;

2. AWARD the contract for RFT 13 1617 - Separable Portion B - Supply and/or Installation of Bollards and Guide Posts to the preferred tenderer; and

3. RECORD the tendered rates for RFT 13 1617 - Separable Portion A - Supply and Application of Pavement Markings and Separable Portion B - Supply and/or Installation of Bollards and Guide Posts in the meeting minutes.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: RFT 13 1617 sought prices for the supply and application of pavement marking services and the supply and/or installation of bollards and guideposts. The tender was divided into two separable portions to allow tenderers to tender on each portion separately or on both portions.

http://grail/trim/link.tr5?ID=D-17-09712





39

RFT 13 1617 is an annual supply contract. It will have a two (2) year and six (6) month duration commencing from date of award and has a one-year extension option at the discretion of the City. The Tender process and assessment was completed in accordance with Council’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy (CP010). The RFT was advertised in The West Australian Newspaper and TenderLink on Saturday 17 December 2016, the closing date was 23 January 2017. Eighteen (18) suppliers registered to receive a copy of the RFT, three (3) submissions were received for Separable Portion A and four (4) submissions were received for Separable Portion B. All three (3) submissions for Separable Portion A were compliant; however, only three (3) of the four (4) submissions for Separable Portion B were deemed compliant as one tenderer failed to complete the full schedule of rates. The City’s procurement and risk team undertook the compliance evaluation. The tender assessment was undertaken by a panel of four (4) of the City officers three (3) voting and one (1) non-voting to ensure an optimum decision was reached. The tender selection criteria is as follows:

A. Relevant Experience (15%); B. Tenderer’s Resources (15%); C. Safety and Environmental Management (15%); D. Community and Economic Benefit (15%); and E. Price (40%).

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The awarding of this tender will result in thousands of dollars of the City’s own funds along with State and Federal funds being injected into the local road network and the local economy. A well-maintained road network also reduces driver costs associated with tyre and vehicle wear and tear. Social: A well-maintained road network contributes significantly to the community’s social wellbeing. It provides the ability for community members to undertake commercial activities and social activities locally and through the region.

Environmental: Environmental impacts will be managed through the contract conditions and the tenderer’s environmental management policies and procedures.

Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts.


40

RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: In 2016, the City advertised a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for the Supply of Line Marking Services for the 2016/2017 financial year (VP48909 dated 26 April 2016). COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Community and Councillor Consultation occurs as part of individual road construction projects. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Local Government Act and City’s Procurement Policy were observed when preparing and awarding this tender. Safety and Environmental legislative requirements will be observed as part of the construction activities. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: Historically, the City has spent approximately $320,000 per annum on line marking, bollards and guidepost installation. These funds are sourced through Regional Road Group Grants, the Roads to Recovery Program and the City’s annual maintenance and capital budgets. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Economy Transportation

Strategy 4.2.1 Developing more efficient transport options that are secure and safe to sustain our lifestyle

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: To develop a functional and safe road network throughout the City of Greater Geraldton which enhances the comfort and safety of road users. RISK MANAGEMENT A procurement plan was developed for this tender and approved by the Executive Management Team on 2 December 2016. This plan contained a risk assessment that considered both the risks associated with the procurement process and the risks associated with construction activities. Steps were taken to address the risks as part of the tender (contract) documentation. Further risk mitigation will also occur through City oversight of construction projects. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS This tender was called to enable the efficient delivery of services whilst complying with legislative and Council procurement requirements. The alternative is to undertake individual procurement activities for each project. This option is not supported due to the required administrative effort, the resulting project delays and the potential for higher costs associated with smaller volume purchases.


41

IS136 GERALDTON TENNIS CLUB – FINANCIAL SUPPORT

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-09637 AUTHOR: D Emery, Manager Sports and Leisure EXECUTIVE: R McKim, Director Infrastructure Services DATE OF REPORT: 9 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: RC/3/0003 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x6)

A. CONFIDENTIAL Financial Report 30 June 2016 D-17-09106 B. CONFIDENTIAL Review of CG Funding D-17-09107 C. CONFIDENTIAL Forward Estimates 2016-17 & 2017-18 D-17-09108 D. CONFIDENTIAL Sporting Membership Fees D-17-09109 E. CONFIDENTIAL Correspondence D-17-09110 F. List of Signatories D-17-09633

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In accordance with Council’s decision (April 2016), the purpose of this report is to seek a Council decision on the future of the City’s financial contribution (currently $41,345 annually) to the maintenance of Geraldton Tennis Club’s grass courts. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. ADVISE the Geraldton Tennis Club that from 30 June 2017, all conditions of the previous Community Group Land Lease/Licence Policy will apply to their new lease with conditions phased in over a three-year period;

2. ADVISE that the current ground maintenance grant will be phased out in instalments over three years (75% of current in 2017/18; 50% in 2018/19; 25% in 2019/20 and ceasing from 2020/21 onwards); and

3. ADVISE the Geraldton Tennis Club that funding may be available for the Easter Tennis Tournament from Federal, State and Local Government grant schemes.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the Geraldton Tennis Club. BACKGROUND: The City had growing concerns that the current distribution of City resources such as staff time, equipment and materials into operating and maintaining sporting facilities was inequitable. Subsequently City officers, in consultation








42

with the Mid West Sports Federation (MWSF) and individual sporting groups, completed a review of the levels of service provided to sporting facilities. The MWSF were included on the panel for the sporting facilities review to ensure sporting clubs were represented in the discussions. The review of the sporting facilities was completed in April 2016 and presented to Council. Part of the Council resolution was as follows:

“AMENDMENT MOTION MOVED CR GRAHAM, SECONDED CR REYMOND That Council amend Item 2. LAND LEASES Point (C) to advise the Geraldton Tennis Club that their lease with current conditions will be extended on a month by month basis until 30 June 2017, and from 30 June 2017, all conditions of CP049 will apply to their new lease with conditions phased in over a three-year period (i.e. the current ground maintenance grant will be phased out in instalments over three years (75% of current in 2017/18; 50% in 2018/19; 25% in 2019/20 and ceasing from 2020/21 onwards.)” “REASON FOR VARIATION TO THE EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION to allow the club to present a fully documented business case to Council on the impact that the phasing out of the current grant will have on the Club.

There are currently thirty-four sporting leases between the City and sporting clubs. Leases are applied where the intention is to grant exclusive possession of a property or part thereof. These facilities, or part thereof, may be fenced and are not generally accessible to the public (the courts at the Geraldton Tennis Club are currently fenced and not generally accessible to the public). Council’s position on leases is articulated in previous CP049 Community Group Land Lease/Licence Policy. CP049 stipulates that the Lessee is responsible for all maintenance, cleaning, repairs and operational costs of the leased area/s. The Geraldton Tennis Club has 23 grass courts and 2 hard courts. In combination with all four tennis clubs located within the City of Greater Geraldton, there are 27 grass courts and 14 synthetic and/or hard courts. (Tarcoola Tennis Club has four grass courts). The following comparison with other Western Australian Regional Cities is provided:

Albany has 0 grass courts and 15 hard courts;

Kalgoorlie has 0 grass courts and 21 hard/synthetic courts; and

Bunbury has 27 grass courts, 17 synthetic & hard courts. The Bunbury Tennis Club’s facilities are of similar size to the Geraldton Tennis Club (GTC). The Bunbury Tennis Club have 250 senior members (fees - $280 per year) and 150 junior members (fees - $100 per year). The Bunbury Tennis Club also has a lease with the City of Bunbury as follows:


43

The Bunbury Tennis Club pays $3,000 per year to the City of Bunbury.

The Bunbury Tennis Club’s maintains their own courts without any support from the City of Bunbury.

The Bunbury Tennis Club have a few large-scale events, but hold many smaller satellite events for members and surrounding clubs. They also hire out their facilities frequently, which provides them with their most profitable source of revenue. The current annual membership fees of other Western Australian Tennis Clubs in comparison to the Geraldton Tennis Club follow:

Club Junior Fee Senior Fee No Grass Courts

Geraldton Tennis Club $55.00 $200.00 23

Bunbury Tennis Club $100.00 $280.00 27

Midland Tennis Club $155.00 $310.00 12

Claremont Tennis Club $175.00 $500.00 18

South Perth Tennis Club $100.00 $360.00 12

There are currently four (4) tennis clubs within the City of Greater Geraldton.

1. Geraldton Tennis Club; 2. Tarcoola Tennis Club; 3. Spalding Park Tennis Club; and 4. Walkaway Tennis Club.

The City only provides financial support to the Geraldton Tennis Club. Other local clubs have not signed their lease awaiting Council’s decision on this matter. The Geraldton Tennis Club has advised that the main reason for requiring the large number of grass tennis courts is to facilitate the Geraldton Easter Tennis Tournament.

The Geraldton Easter Tennis Tournament attracts over one hundred players to the City and is recognised as a high-grade Tennis West tournament. With the current structure of the tournament, all divisions scheduled are played on the twenty-three grass courts at the Geraldton Tennis Club.

An alternative option structure for the tournament may be as follows:

Run the Geraldton Easter Tournament as a ‘Festival of Tennis’ ensuring that each club in Geraldton has the opportunity to showcase what it has to offer to players from outside of the City;

Play top-level divisions on grass courts at the Tarcoola and Geraldton Tennis Clubs; and

Play lower level divisions on synthetic grass and hard courts at Geraldton, Mt Tarcoola and Spalding Park Tennis Clubs.


44

This structure would:

Ensure the City still secured the Easter Tournament;

Reduce the need for all twenty-three grass courts at the Geraldton Tennis Club;

Evenly distribute benefits of the tournament to all tennis clubs;

Initiate relationships between clubs to build the sport as a whole rather than working against one another;

Potentially reduce maintenance costs for Geraldton Tennis Club without forgoing all economic benefits; and

Allows the opportunity for a smaller number of courts to be maintained at a higher standard.

The existing lease between the City and the Geraldton Tennis Club expired on 30 June 2015. The following information was requested of the Geraldton Tennis Club by officers to allow the Council to consider make an informed decision.

2015/16 Financial Statements;

Projected Financial Statements for 2016/17 and 2017/18 Financial Years;

Quantified impact on the club of the Council not financially supporting them; and

Consideration of alternative funding sources. The information subsequently provided to the City is attached to this report. The information provided shows that the Geraldton Tennis Club currently has $103,123.27. The club secured approximately $9,000 of sponsorship for the Easter Tournament however secured no additional financial sponsorship throughout the remaining financial year.

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are in excess of 180 Sport & Recreation incorporated groups in Geraldton. Providing financial support to one club for maintenance sets an unachievable precedent for Council. Social: The Geraldton community prides itself on the range, diversity and quality of its sporting facilities. These sporting facilities are valued and appreciated by the community and the City and adds significantly to the social fabric of Geraldton. The City has limited funding available to it. The City needs to ensure that these funds are distributed to deliver social equity and funding equity to the sporting community at large. Environmental: There are no environmental impacts.


45

Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Precedents to consider when making this decision would include:

1. The Sporting Facilities Support Review report adopted by Council in 2016; and

2. That no financial support is provided to the other three local tennis clubs.

COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Communications with the Geraldton Tennis Club since May 2016 are detailed as follows:

Date Time Communication

19/5/2016 2.55pm Request to schedule a Geraldton Tennis Club meeting

24/5/2016 11.38am Follow up email request to schedule a Geraldton Tennis Club meeting

25/5/2016 11.47am Club Health Checklist – Australian Sports Commission

15/6/2016 3.30pm Geraldton Tennis Club meeting – minutes attached

21/6/2016 5.08pm Succession Planning Information & Meeting Minutes

21/6/2016 5.13pm Acknowledgement of email to City of Greater Geraldton

12/8/2016 2.47pm Grant funding available to clubs

22/8/2016 2.20pm Playground equipment – response to George Giudice

25/8/2016 3.44pm Resurfacing works at Geraldton Tennis Club car park

30/8/2016 8.52am Resurfacing works at Geraldton Tennis Club car park

30/8/2016 9.58am Further funding opportunities for GTC

11/10/2016 4.16pm Club Management Guide + DSR Online Registration

31/10/2016 2.41pm Business Plan Submission to Council – due February 2017

2/11/2016 11.32am Business Plan Submission to Council reminder

8/12/2016 12.00pm Geraldton Tennis Club Business Plan letter

11/1/2017 1.08pm Reminder – Business Plan Submission to Council – Due February 2017

The Geraldton Tennis Club provided a list of signatories to the City on the 8 February 2017. The documents provided by the Geraldton Tennis Club demonstrate those whom support a continuance of the court maintenance agreement, this is included in the supporting attachments.


46

LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no legislative requirements for Local Governments to financially support tennis club activities. Council’s position on leases was articulated in previous CP049 Community Group Land Lease/Licence Policy (see attachment G - CP049). FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: The City’s financial contribution to the maintenance of Geraldton Tennis Club grass courts is $41,345 with annual CPI increases. These funds have been provided in the current financial year. As requested by the City, Geraldton Tennis Club provided audited financial statements for 2015 and 2016 for analysis. The club’s records indicate that the club’s profit for the last two years has been between $15,000 and $20,000, and that they currently have approximately $100,000 in retained earnings. These figures suggest that the club is in a sound financial position. This position however has been aided by the City’s annual contribution of approximately $40,000. If the City were to remove its funding and the club does not alter its current business plan, the club would make a loss of approximately $20,000. City officers believe there is scope to make the required changes and that a reduction in Council’s contribution to the club over a three year time period is appropriate. During the 2015/2016 tennis season, the Geraldton Tennis Club recorded 170 registered members. This equated to $229.08 per person that City rate payers were funding towards club members. Sporting groups and community groups that use the City’s ovals, pay a fee of $10 per child (aged 9-17 years) and $25 per adult for this use (please refer to the City’s fees and charges schedule). INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Environment Revegetation-Rehabilitation-Preservation

Strategy 2.1.2

Sustainably maintaining public open spaces and recreational areas

Title: Social Recreation and Sport

Strategy 3.1.1

Supporting the strong sporting culture that has shaped Greater Geraldton’s identity and lifestyle.


Strategy 5.2.6

Supporting decisions to create a long term sustainable city

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: The Geraldton Easter Tournament is a regional event that forms part of Geraldton’s sporting calendar.


47

RISK MANAGEMENT Financially supporting the Geraldton Tennis Club presents a reputational risk to the Council as not being seen as fair and equitable with the level of support offered to community and sporting groups. To address this perception in the community, the City completed the Sporting Facilities Support review in 2016. Financially supporting the Geraldton Tennis Club presents a financial risk to the Council if similar levels of funding are subsequently provided to other local sporting and community groups (no funding is provided to the three other local Tennis Clubs. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS City Officers considered the following options:

1. Remove annual funding contribution as of July 2017 with no phasing out, therefore advising Geraldton Tennis Club to source alternative funding;

2. Continue a scaled back annual funding contribution to the Geraldton Tennis Club to a nominal amount; and

3. The City does not pay any grass maintenance however sponsor the Easter Tournament.


48

IS137 GERALDTON SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB FINANCIAL SUPPORT

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-09641 AUTHOR: D Emery, Manager Sports and Leisure EXECUTIVE: R McKim, Director Infrastructure Services DATE OF REPORT: 9 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: RC/3/0003 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x5)

A. Review of Service letter D-17-09675 B. City letter requesting additional information D-17-09676 C. CONFIDENTIAL - 5 January 2017 – Follow up letter from GSLSC D-17-09591 D. CONFIDENTIAL - Annual Report D-17-09593 E. CONFIDENTIAL – Three year profit and loss analysis D-17-12964

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is for Council to consider its position on financial support to the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club (GSLSC). EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. FUND the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club to the value of $10,000 in the current financial year subject to a suitable level of service being entered into;

2. RECONSIDER future contributions as part of 2017/18 budget preparations; and

3. ADVISE the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club that funding may be available for specific activities from Federal, State and Local Government grant schemes.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club. BACKGROUND: In preparation for the 2016/17 City budget, a number of Councillor workshops were held to review all of the services (mandatory and non-mandatory) provided by the City. The review considered which services would be extended, which would be reduced and which would no longer be offered. At its April 2016 meeting, the Council also approved a report reviewing the support offered to sporting facilities. In the 2015/16 financial year, the City provided the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club a grant of $21,000. This grant was part of the Service Partnership’s funding agreement, which the City reviewed annually with each funding partner.







49

This financial year, the club was advised that the City would no longer financially contribute to the club. The club approached the City and asked for this decision to be reviewed. In previous financial years, the City also contributed approximately $40,000 to the Western Australian Surf Life Saving Association (2016/17 payment was $42,871.64 plus GST). This contribution has not been continued. Please find attached correspondence exchanges between the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club and the City. These documents outline the City’s current position, and advice from the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club. The major issues associated with providing ongoing funding to the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club are summarised as follows:

1. The Council did not approve a funding allocation in the 2016/17 adopted Budget

2. The Club did not meet the service obligations with respect to the last service agreement, namely: a. Condition 4 – The Club did not demonstrate that they were

being pro-active in looking for additional funding (noting though that the Annual report mentioned two additional sponsorships but did not indicate the nature of the sponsorship and whether it was financial or in-kind),

b. Condition 5 – A representative of the City was not invited to sit on the Club’s Board,

c. Condition 7 – The club did not demonstrate that it was continuing to build its membership base,

d. Condition 8 – The Club did not have at least one representative on the Local Emergency Management Committee,

e. Condition 12 – The club did not provide the evidence of their activities, or only partly supplied the evidence required by the due date;

3. Even with an ongoing financial contribution of $20,000 from the City, the Club does not appear financially sustainable. In particular, the following concerns are raised with respect to the attached projected income and expenditure of the club: a. Limited additional income has been projected with no increase

in membership revenue b. Administration costs have doubled c. The majority of costs, including electricity and water costs,

have not been indexed for inflation d. There is no provision for building maintenance expenditure;

4. There is an apparent lack of business planning with respect to the Club’s operations and no clear plan in relation to how they intend to raise sufficient revenue to address the following matters: a. Leaking roof of new club house b. Seals falling out of windows on the new club house c. Replacement of carpet and dance floor at the new club house d. Painting of internal walls at the new club house


50

e. Repair water damaged ceilings at the new club house f. Rusting eaves at the new club house g. Repairs and maintenance of older structures h. Maintenance and replacement of more than $274,000 in short

lived assets; 5. Providing the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club with ongoing support

is inequitable to the Champion Bay Surf Life Saving Club and other community and sporting groups that do not receive funding support from the City;

6. The information provided by the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club does not meet the standard normally required for continuous funding by the City; and

7. The provision of life saving services is not a core function of local government.

A review of surf life saving provisions by local governments in regional and metropolitan areas provided the following:

Town of Port Hedland did not financially commit funds to the patrolling of their beaches for surf life saving activities;

City of Bunbury did not provide financial support for patrolling of beaches by their surf life saving club. The COB provided ranger services for local government local law enforcement, signage and emergency management;

City of Cockburn provided the capital infrastructure that included club facilities, function rooms, gym and café. The City of Cockburn do not provide annual funding towards surf life saving activities these funds are raised by the club through memberships and hiring of their facilities;

City of Stirling provides funding of $65,000 to each Scarborough and Trigg Island surf life saving clubs for patrolling and beach safety management; and

City of Joondalup provide annual funding of $60,000 to each Sorrento & Mullaloo surf life saving clubs. The City of Joondalup supplement weekend voluntary patrols with paid lifeguards that they contract directly with Surf Life Saving WA.

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic impacts.

Social: The Geraldton community prides itself on the range, diversity and quality of its sporting facilities. These sporting facilities are valued and appreciated by the community and the City and add significantly to the social fabric of Geraldton. The City has limited funding available to it. The City needs to ensure that these funds are distributed to deliver social equity and funding equity to the sporting community at large.


51

Having a financially sustainable Surf Life Saving Club at Back Beach provides a recreational pursuit for local residents whilst improving ocean activity safety.

Environmental: There are no environmental impacts. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Precedents to consider when making this decision would include:

1. The Sporting Facilities Support Review report adopted by Council in 2016; and

2. That no financial support is provided to the Champion Bay Surf Life Saving Club.

COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Copies of the communications between City officers and the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club are attached to this report. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no legislative requirements for Local Governments to financially support surf life saving activities. At its meeting of 25 August 2015, the Council adopted Policy CP033 – Community Funding. This policy provides a framework for support to community groups as follows:

Recurrent service agreements up to and not exceeding a value of $100k per annum to recipients as nominated in the new policy;

An annual allocation of $150,000 for signature events as nominated in the new policy;

$40,000 annual allocation for project support to allow sponsorship of smaller requests tied to community use of City of Greater Geraldton facilities and activities such as Community Christmas Lunch;

$235,000 annual allocation for Community Grants based on one funding round per annum (September); and

2015-16 budget allocation in the amount of $15,000 for the Mayoral Discretionary Fund.

The Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club was the recipient of a three year service agreement to the recurrent Community Grant Program which in 2014/15 being the final year of the funding program.


52

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: The Council made it very clear to the City of Greater Geraldton Executive that large rate rises are unacceptable and continuing to the run the City in a deficit position is unacceptable. As a result, the City has taken measures to reduce its annual operating expenses and reduce rate increases. The Council also wanted to ensure that there was equity between different sporting clubs and noted that the Champion Bay Surf Life Saving Club operates without any support from the City. Council’s decision on this matter may have financial implications on the City’s current budget and future budgets. There is also the potential of flow on affects associated with financial support to other community and sporting groups. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Social Recreation and Sport

Strategy 3.1.1

Supporting the strong sporting culture that has shaped Greater Geraldton’s identity and lifestyle


Strategy 5.2.6

Supporting decisions to create a long term sustainable city

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: There are no impacts to regional outcomes. RISK MANAGEMENT Financially supporting the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club presents a reputational risk to the Council as not being seen as fair and equitable with the level of support offered to community and sporting groups. To address this perception in the community, the City completed the Sporting Facilities Support review in 2016. However, not supporting the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club presents a reputational risk to the Council if community members see this decision as being unreasonable. Financially supporting the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club presents a financial risk to the Council if similar levels of funding are subsequently provided to other local sporting and community groups (no funding is provided to the Champion Bay Surf Life Saving Club that operate on the Geraldton foreshore). Having a financially sustainable Surf Life Saving Club at Back Beach reduces the risk of drowning at this location. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS The following alternative recommendations were considered:

1. That the decision to not fund the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club in the current financial year stand, but that the matter be re-consideration as part of 2017/18 budget discussions;

2. That a three (3) year service agreement be entered into with both resident life saving clubs (Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club and the Champion Bay Surf Life Saving Club) to undertake patrols;


53

3. That the 2015/16 financial support commitment of $21,000 to the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club be maintained for the next three years; and

4. ENTER a three (3) year service agreement with the Geraldton Surf Life Saving Club to the value of $35,000 with payments as follows: 2017/18: $20,000, 2018/19: $10,000, 2019/20: $5,000, with no further payments thereafter.


54

IS138 LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-09613 AUTHOR: B Wilson, Coordinator Emergency

Management EXECUTIVE: R McKim, Director Infrastructure Services DATE OF REPORT: 13 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: ES/8/0003 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x3)

A. Local Recovery Plan D-17-09601 B. Local Emergency Management Agreements D-17-09602 C. Mullewa Emergency Management Plan (sub-plan of #1) D-17-09603

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Following support from the Batavia Regional Emergency Management Committee and the WA Office of Emergency Management, the purpose of this item is to seek Council endorsement of the City of Greater Geraldton’s Emergency Management Plans. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. ENDORSE the revised Local Emergency Management Arrangements;

2. ENDORSE the revised Local Recovery Plan; and 3. ENDORSE the Mullewa Emergency Management Plan (sub-plan 1).

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The City’s Local Emergency Management Arrangement documents were last updated in December 2011. In April 2016, the (then) WA State Emergency Management Committee (now WA Office of Emergency Management) noted that the City of Greater Geraldton Local Emergency Management Arrangements were due for review to ensure the accuracy, suitability and compliance of the arrangements. This review was undertaken in 2016, resulting in the afore-mentioned documents being presented for endorsement. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Strong, efficient and effective emergency management arrangements support regional economic growth and minimise economic loss in times of disaster. This is especially important in a State where bush fire management is critical.





55

Social: Strong, efficient and effective emergency management arrangements allow the community to respond to and recover from an emergency event. The arrangements allow for a quick recovery, which is critical to maintaining social links within the community. Environmental: Reducing the risk of major bushfires is important in the protection of the regional natural bushlands. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: The City’s Local Emergency Management Arrangements were last formally reviewed and updated in December 2011. A further formal review will be required in five years’ time. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: The plans were initially reviewed by City of Greater Geraldton officers and local Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) officers. The documents were then presented to the members of the Batavia Regional Emergency Management Committee for their review and comment. The member organisations of this committee include:

Shire of Chapman Valley;

Shire of Northampton;

Western Australian Police;

St John Ambulance;

Parks and Wildlife;

Mid-West Port Authority;

Department of Health;

Aurizon;

Brookfield Rail;

Department of Child Protection and Family Support;

Red Cross;

Salvation Army;

Dept. of Fisheries;

Main Roads;

Telstra;

Water Corporation and

Western Power. Upon the completion of this consultation, the District Advisor of the Office of Emergency Management (Mid–West/Gascoyne) reviewed the documents. The finalised documents were approved by the Batavia Regional Emergency Management Committee on 17 November 2016.


56

It is now a procedural requirement that these documents be presented for Council’s endorsement in accordance with the Emergency Management Act 2005. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The preparation and maintenance of Local Emergency Management Arrangements is a legislative requirement per Sect. 36(a) of the Emergency Management Act 2005. This Act assigns this function to all Local Government Authorities in Western Australia. Endorsing these arrangements will make the Council compliant with this legislative requirement. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: Funding for the City’s emergency management activities is provided in the Council’s annual operational budget. INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Social Community Health and Safety

Strategy 3.5.5 Creating safer communities

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: The endorsement of the afore-noted arrangements will enable the consolidation of Local Emergency Management Arrangements from the City, Shire of Chapman Valley and Shire of Northampton, to form the ‘Batavia Regional Emergency Management Arrangements’, as agreed by the Batavia Regional Emergency Management Committee. RISK MANAGEMENT Maintaining current and accurate Local Emergency Management Arrangements is a legislative requirement of all WA local governments. Failing to maintain current arrangements may result in censure from both the state government and the community. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS Maintaining these arrangements is a legislative requirement. No alternative options were considered.


57

IS139 ANIMAL MANAGEMENT FACILITY LOCATION

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-11028 AUTHOR: G Sherlock, Manager Project Design &

Delivery EXECUTIVE: R McKim, Director of Infrastructure

Services DATE OF REPORT: 15 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: PM/4/0076 ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x3)

A. CONFIDENTIAL - Commercial Development Layout D-17-11064 B. AMF layout sketch D-17-11063 C. CONFIDENTIAL - Sale financials D-17-11069

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report seeks consideration by Council of rescission of the decision made by Council on 20 December 2016, DCS313 Proposed Animal Management Facility, and recommends location of the Animal Management Facility on the current Pass Street pound site. Reference is also made to item CCS241 (Animal Management Facility Petition) tabled on this agenda. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: PART A That Council by 1/3rd Majority pursuant to Section 5.25(1)(e) of the Local Government Act and Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to CONSIDER to RESCIND the Council Decision made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 20 December 2016 being:

That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to: 1. ENDORSE the location of part railway reserve Bradford Street, Utakarra as the

preferred location of the proposed Animal Management Facility subject to long term tenure being secured over the proposed site for the life of the animal management facility from PTA;

2. ENTER into a LICENCE with the Public Transport Authority for an area of 7219m² over portion of railway reserve, Bradford Street, Utakarra;

3. SET the proposed conditions as: a. That the term is for an initial period of 10 years commencing 1 December 2016; b. That the PTA and the City of Greater Geraldton acknowledge that the PTA is in the process of rationalising the railway reserve land with the intent that this land be transferred to the City of Greater Geraldton when practicable; c. The licence fee is $1.00 per annum; d. The licensee to pay preparation fees of $350.00; and 4. APPROVE the co-location of the Geraldton Dog Rescue





58

PART B Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 5.25(1)(e) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to RESCIND the Council Decision made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 20 December 2016 being:


1. ENDORSE the location of part railway reserve Bradford Street, Utakarra as

the preferred location of the proposed Animal Management Facility subject to long term tenure being secured over the proposed site for the life of the animal management facility from PTA;

2. ENTER into a LICENCE with the Public Transport Authority for an area of 7219m² over portion of railway reserve, Bradford Street, Utakarra;

3. SET the proposed conditions as: a. That the term is for an initial period of 10 years commencing 1 December 2016; b. That the PTA and the City of Greater Geraldton acknowledge that the PTA is in the process of rationalising the railway reserve land with the intent that this land be transferred to the City of Greater Geraldton when practicable; c. The licence fee is $1.00 per annum; d. The licensee to pay preparation fees of $350.00; and 4. APPROVE the co-location of the Geraldton Dog Rescue

PART C That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ENDORSE the location of Portion Lot 3123 (future Lot 6) Pass

Street, Wonthella as the preferred location of the proposed Animal Management Facility.

2. ENTER into an agreement with Megara to purchase the portion

of Lot 3123 (future Lot 6) Pass Street, Wonthella (where the existing pound is located) for $400,000.

3. APPROVE the relocation/ leasing of the Geraldton Volunteer

Dog Rescue operation to the Davies Road facility (Portion Lot 107) with no contribution from the City.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The City currently has a number of small isolated buildings being used to house animals (Pass St, Davies Rd, Edward Rd, and Hall Rd). These facilities are not up to the required RSPCA guidelines for housing animals, and are not enabling the efficient and effective delivery of compliant animal management services to the residents of our community. To resolve this issue, Council provided funds to construct a new Animal Management Facility (AMF).


59

In 2015/16 Council approved a budget allocation of $1,250,000 based on the information available at the time. This amount was subsequently carried over into the 2016/17 budget. Based on detailed scoping and design works, and knowledge of the required costs of servicing the proposed location, an additional $300,000 was provided in the mid-year budget review for this project. Finding a suitable location for a new AMF is not a straight forward. Over the last two years, a number of locations have been considered. These included, Flores Road (old landfill site), at the Meru landfill, Davies Road (ex Shire Greenough pound) and at the airport adjacent to the City Depot. Each of these sites were investigated and then discounted. The primary reason each site was discounted follows:

1. Flores Road (old landfill site): too many issues with building over contamination and obtaining approvals and clearance – became cost prohibitive.

2. Meru: The proposed site at Meru is classed as contaminated as it forms part of the existing Meru Landfill Facility lot. In accordance with statutory requirements, a further site investigation would need to be undertaken to identify potential environmental hazards. The cost of this investigations is approximately $20,000. If contamination is found, then a detailed investigation will be required at an additional cost between $80,000 and $200,000. In addition, there are no water, sewer or internet services in the vicinity of this site. The cost to supply water and internet to Meru at this time would further increase the costs of the project. Operationally, it is also a lot further distance for the Rangers to drive each day resulting in operational inefficiencies.

3. Davies Road: Discounted due to current leasing tenure with SES and restricted area remaining on site. This site is also classed as contaminated due to previous use of underground hydrocarbon tanks and therefore will require preliminary site investigations and potentially further detailed investigations.

4. Airport (adjacent to current depot): not seen a compatible use with other activities at the airport plus operational service issues.

If the issues associated with constructing on the old landfill at Flores Rd could have been sustainably resolved, this would have been a very good option. As such, the recommendation was made to Council to adopt a location on the rail corridor in front of this site thus avoiding the contaminated site issues whilst retaining the general location. The City endorsed this recommendation at its meeting of 20 December 2016 subject to securing a long term lease of the site from the Public Transit Authority (PTA). There have been a number of developments since this decision that require the Council to reconsider this decision. The primary concern officers have faced is trying to obtain iron clad certainty on the former rail corridor land tenure. This is proving problematic and has the potential to significantly extend the time before construction can commence.


60

Given the potential for delay in the timeline, the City approached Megara (the purchasers of the former City depot site) seeking an extension to the time period for leasing back the existing AMF at Pass Street, Wonthella. During this negotiation, Megara offered an alternate option. They offered that the City buy back the portion of the property on which the current AMF is located for $400,000. This is a very favourable and competitive price. The new block would have sufficient room to accommodate the proposed AMF and vehicle impound yard. The offer from Megara will also provide the City with a serviced site, which will reduce the construction costs for the facility by an estimated $300,000 to $1.25M. Should the City agree to the proposal from Megara and endorse the recommendation to relocate Geraldton Dog Rescue to the Davies Road facility with no contribution from the City, then the costs can be further reduced by $40,000 leaving a net difference of $60,000. The new Megara development on the remainder of the site will range from Fast Food Outlets through to a supermarket and fuel station. It is not anticipated there will be any major issues from these developments with the AMF (the nearest use will be a fast food outlet/ coffee drive through). The proponent had proposed warehouse/ service industrial type units on the potential AMF. The other activities are the new Fire Station, the Main Roads depot and Water Corp depot. In the future, if these sites were to be redeveloped the zoning is Service Commercial and would front the North West Coastal Highway. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic impacts. Social: Social impacts associated with the proposed location at Flores Road have been raised by residents from Wonthella and representatives from Geraldton Clay Target/Pistol Club. Officers have been advised that residents in Wonthella and the Clay Target/Pistol club are organising a petition objecting to the location of the Animal Management Facility on the PTA land.

The City has a social responsibility to ensure the humane management of animals under its control.

Environmental: The location of the site at the Meru Landfill would trigger contaminated site studies. As the Pass St site is already being used as a dog pound, no new environmental issues are expected. Cultural & Heritage: The State Heritage Office have advised that they will require a Heritage Impact Statement to be prepared for the Flores Road site because it was formerly part of the rail corridor. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Councils from time to time consider rescission of previous decisions, consistent with the provisions of the Act and Regulations, having regard to changed


61

circumstances and aspirations of the community. This report seeks consideration of rescission of DCS313 Proposed Animal Management Facility – Issue of PTA Licence – Portion of Railway Reserve, Bradford St Utakarra. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: The issues around the animal management facility have been discussed with Councillors at concept and agenda forums. City Rangers have taken the opportunity to discuss the proposed new facility with representatives from Geraldton’s veterinary community and with local representatives from the RSPCA all of whom endorse the proposed new facility. More recently the City has discussed the facility and its proposed location with residents from Wonthella and representatives from Geraldton Clay Target/Pistol Club. Please also refer to item CCS241 (petition). LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no legislative implications. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: In 2015/16 Council approved a budget allocation of $1,250,000. These funds were carried over into the 2016/17 budget. An additional $300,000 was provided in the 2016/17 mid-year budget review. It is forecast that the construction cost of the project will reduce back to $1.25 million if the recommendation of this report is endorsed. However, when taking into account the purchase price of the land, there is a net cost increase of approximately $100,000. A further $40,000 saving is made by no longer requiring to provide services and fences for the Geraldton Dog Rescue Flores Rd option. This reduces the net cost increase to $60,000. In addition, the Pass St option includes a location for the abandoned vehicles (not included in the Flores Rd proposal). INTEGRATED PLANNING LINKS:

Title: Environment A sustainable built form and natural environment

Strategy 2.3.2 Delivering projects utilising best practice to ensure timely, cost effective and quality outcomes

Title: Governance Inclusive civic and community engagement and leadership

Strategy 5.2.1 Responding to community aspirations by providing creative yet effective planning and zoning for future development

Strategy 5.2.6 Supporting decisions to create a long term sustainable City

Strategy 5.2.7 Ensuring efficient and effective delivery of service

REGIONAL OUTCOMES: There are no potential impacts, either positive or negative to regional outcomes.


62

RISK MANAGEMENT The key risk is associated with the Flores Road/ Bradford St option is securing tenure from the PTA. This has still not been resolved and will further delay the development of the AMF at this location. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY CITY OFFICERS Alternative options are detailed within the body of the report.


63

14 REPORTS OF OFFICE OF THE CEO Nil


64

15 REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED

REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-17-09876 AUTHOR: K Diehm, Chief Executive Officer EXECUTIVE: K Diehm, Chief Executive Officer DATE OF REPORT: 13 February 2017 FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0012-04 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x3)

A. DCSDD119 Delegated Determinations – Application for Development Approvals

B. CCS239 – Corporate Business Plan Second Quarter Report

C. CCS240 – List of Accounts Paid under Delegation January 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To receive the Reports of the City of Greater Geraldton. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: PART A That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.22 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to

1. RECEIVE the following appended reports: a. Reports – Development & Community Services:

i. DCSDD119 Delegated Determinations and Subdivision Applications for Development Approval

PART B That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to Sections 5.13 and 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 RESOLVES to:

1. RECEIVE the following appended reports: a. Reports – Corporate and Commercial Services:

i. CCS239 – Corporate Business Plan Second Quarter Report; and

ii. CCS240 – Confidential Report – List of Accounts Paid Under Delegation January 2017

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton


65

BACKGROUND: Information and items for noting or receiving (i.e. periodic reports, minutes of other meetings) are to be included in an appendix attached to the Council agenda. Any reports received under this Agenda are considered received only. Any recommendations or proposals contained within the “Reports (including Minutes) to be Received” are not approved or endorsed by Council in any way. Any outcomes or recommendations requiring Council approval must be presented separately to Council as a Report for consideration at an Ordinary Meeting of Council. COMMUNITY/COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. LEGISLATIVE/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Not applicable.


66

16 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Pursuant to Section 5.2 (i) of the Meeting Procedures Local Law February 2011, please note this part of the meeting will be closed to the public, if applicable, where confidential discussion is required. Livestreaming will be turned off.


67

17 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

18 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

19 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY PRESIDING MEMBER OR BY DECISION OF THE MEETING

20 CLOSURE


68

APPENDIX 1 – ATTACHMENTS AND REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED Attachments and Reports to be Received are available on the City of Greater Geraldton website at: http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/

http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/

ordinary meeting of council agenda - city of … meeting of council agenda 28 february 2017 3 b...

Documents