NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

General Purpose Committee - 20 April 2011

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3        Director Engineering Services Report

8.1     Foreshore Redevelopment - River Street, Macksville

8.2     Contribution from Council towards the 2011/2012 Rural Fire Service Budget

8.3     Request To Fund Missabotti Rural Fire Service Station Amenities    

4        General Manager's Summary of Items to be Discussed in Closed Meeting

10.1   General Manager's Performance Review

It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 ........................................................................................................................................

            a      Questions raised by Councillors at 4 above

 

       i         MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

       ii        PUBLIC VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

     TO CLOSE

       iii       CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

                   iv        DEAL WITH MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING

5        MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

6        REVERT TO OPEN MEETING FOR DECISIONS IN RELATION TO ITEMS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED MEETING.

 

Time

Description

Where

OS/CC

Item Number

Page Number

08.30am-08.45am

Introduction of Pauline Foss (Administrative Support Officer); Luke Moane (GIS Officer); Naj Hadzic (Community Services Project Officer); Ken Sippel (Parks Attendant); Ken Capell (Parks Attendant); Grant Coleman (Labourer); Adam Jefferson (Labourer); Brodie McLaughlin (Apprentice Mechanic); Liam Williams (Trainee Water Attendant); Michael Porter (Water Attendant)

Council Chambers

8.45am-9.30am

1  Ivan Perkins Rural Fire Service Budget Justification

2  Missabotti Fire Shed

Council Chambers

8.2

8.3

9

12

9.30am-10.30am

Foreshore Inspection - River Street, Macksville

On site

8.1

4

10.30am-11.00am

Morning Tea

11.00am-12.30pm

General Manager's Performance Review

Council Chambers

10.1

Closed Meeting

12.30pm-1.00pm

Lunch and Conclude meeting

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

Pecuniary – must leave chamber, take no part in discussion and voting.

 

 

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Conflict – Recommended that Councillor/Member leaves chamber, takes no part in discussion or voting.

 

 

Non-Pecuniary – Less Significant Conflict – Councillor/Member may choose to remain in Chamber and participate in discussion and voting.

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Email Address – council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

(Instructions and definitions are provided on the next page).

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

Pecuniary – An interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

A Councillor or other member of a Council Committee who is present at a meeting and has a pecuniary interest in any matter which is being considered must disclose the nature of that interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

 

The Council or other member must not take part in the consideration or discussion on the matter and must not vote on any question relating to that matter. (Section 451).

 

 

Non-pecuniary – A private or personal interest the council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act (for example; a friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

 

If you have declared a non-pecuniary conflict of interest you have a broad range of options for managing the conflict.  The option you choose will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of your interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.  You must deal with a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in at least one of these ways.

 

·        It may be appropriate that no action is taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.  However, council officials should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

·        Limit involvement if practical (for example, participate in discussion but not in decision making or visa-versa).  Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

·        Remove the source of the conflict (for example, relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict or reallocating the conflicting duties to another officer).

·        Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in section 451(2) of the Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest).

 

           


General Purpose Committee                                                                                                 20 April 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 8.1      PRF53              200411         Foreshore Redevelopment - River Street, Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

Council at the Ordinary meeting on 17 February 2011 resolved to defer the foreshore redevelopment - River Street, Macksville until the March 2011 General Purpose Committee Meeting to allow Councillors the opportunity to have an input into the revised Concept Plan.

 

A survey plan and a concept plan (based on the landscape architects design) was provided to Councillors on 3 February 2011 and four submissions were received from Councillors. As anticipated, there was a wide range of opinions as to the development of the site and a plan has been developed that meets some or all of the views expressed into a draft design.

 

It is proposed to have a staged development of the area comprising of initial foreshore improvement works (stage 1) and a longer term strategy as funding permits (being stage 2 - which incorporates traffic movement within the street in anticipation of the highway deviation).

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council receive the revised designs on the foreshore redevelopment - River Street, Macksville and place the plans on public exhibition for public comment for a period of 28 days.

 

2        That Council note that the works on the foreshore improvement will not be fully completed within this financial year and unexpended funds from the 2010/11 budget allocation will be carried forward into the 2011/12 financial year.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

·              Consider the comments raised and incorporate into the design where feasible

·              Adopt the recommendation

·              Not adopt the recommendation

·              Resolve to adopt either option A or B and place the adopted plan on public exhibition

·              Resolve to place Option C on public exhibition for comment

·              Discontinue the project in its entirety

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Councillors were supplied with a scaled survey plan of the area surrounding the Nambucca River foreshore at River Street, Macksville as well as a draft concept plan (based on the landscape architects design) on 3 February 2011 for discussion and consideration by Council

 

As anticipated, there was a wide range of opinions as to the development from both within Council and also comments raised from the General Public. It is difficult to deliver a plan that meets all views expressed and meet the constraints of budget limitations, however Council design staff have prepared a design that incorporates some or all of the  comments from Councillors following the General Purpose Committee meeting.

 

There were four universal elements from the comments received being:

 

·              Kafir plums to remain until end of their natural life;

·              Local native species preferred;

·              Limit garden beds to reduce maintenance;

·              Utilise some of the existing infrastructure and incorporate within the improvements.

            Council has also received three written submissions from the general public expressing their thoughts (these appear to have been generated from the Council Business paper reports, and will be included as comments received emanating from the public exhibition of the design).

 

Council Officers have prepared three concept plans for Council consideration as follows;

 

CONCEPT PLAN OPTION A Stage 1 - Upper and lower level footpath, seating and landscaping

This concept utilises the existing infrastructure and trees as follows:

 

·              Retains the Kafir plums (replace once they reach their natural life) this will require additional maintenance by staff to sweep and managed the fruit droppings from the trees)

·              Retains the existing fig trees

·              Retains the existing concrete retaining wall

·              Retains the existing brick steps

·              Retains the upper level as a footpath

·              Retains seating in the concrete blister island on River Street

 

Improvements within this design incorporate the following:

 

·              Plant established Cheese trees on the lower level

·              Construct two garden beds with local native species

·              Construct seating platforms adjacent to the existing bring steps

·              Construct retaining wall adjacent to the fig trees to facilitate root expansion

·              Construct stencilled footpath to the upper level, turf remaining area and plant low hedge to define the height difference between upper and lower levels (mitigates fencing)

·              Construct footpath to the lower level

·              Construct concrete terraced seating on the river bank (long term option)

·              Relocate the seating from the upper level footpath area and clean up around the existing concrete blister islands on River street

·              Installation of grates on the existing drainage pits

·              Install bumper kerbs on the road pavement to limit the overhang of parked vehicles

·              Reface the existing retaining wall with cement rendering or other decorative facing to blend with the seating platforms

 

Please note – pervious material is being investigated for the footpath area adjacent to the figs and or a raised decking to mitigate future maintenance and risk associated with the root growth of the trees.

 

 

CONCEPT PLAN OPTION B Stage 1 - Upper and lower level footpath, seating and landscaping

In essence the same design as OPTION A with the following design changes:

 

Ø   Removal of the existing brick steps;

Ø   Construction of three new steps from the upper to the lower level with planter boxes either side with native species;

Ø   Construction of new seating platforms.

 

CONCEPT PLAN OPTION C Stage 2 Traffic redesign of River street incorporating the improvements made to the upper and lower level footpath, seating and landscaping (Option A or B).

 


Summary of the submissions received from Councillors

 

River Street Foreshore Project – Summary of Submissions

Review of Councillors Submissions

Cr Smyth

Cr Court

Cr South

Cr Flack

Trees &

Kafir plums to remain until end of their natural life

ü

 

ü

ü

Gardens

Weeping figs to be removed

ü

 

 

x

 

Local native species preferred,

ü

ü

 

ü

 

Limit garden beds to reduce maintenance

ü

ü

ü

ü

 

Shade trees for parking

 

ü

 

 

 

Maximise Shade ,reduce picnic shelters

 

 

ü

ü

 

Reject Poinciana

ü

ü

x

 

 

Remove Cocos palms

 

 

ü

ü

 

Seating around trees

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decking

Recycled materials preferred

ü

 

 

 

 

Recycled plastic preferred over recycled timber

ü

 

 

 

 

Terraced Seating to river bank

 

 

x

ü

 

Additional Wharf

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footpaths

Stencilled concrete preferred over pavers

ü

 

 

 

& Steps

Steps moved from shaded areas

 

ü

 

 

 

Lawn to edge of upper pathway

 

 

ü

ü

 

Maximise access to riverbank

 

ü

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parking

Nose to kerb

ü

 

x

ü

 

Maximise Parking spaces

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South side

Provide wider footpath with trees for al fresco dining

 

ü

 

 

 

Angle Parking

 

ü

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic

One Way Hwy to Wallace Lane, One way Princess St to Wallace Lane

 

ü

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Art work

remove exg artwork

 

 

 

ü

 

Provide place for public artwork (sculpture)

 

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

West end

Include in project

 

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

·              Director Engineering Services

·              Manager Civil Works

·              Manager Technical Services

·              Councillors

·              Engineering Designer

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no issues to the environment as a result of this report.

 

The final plan will take environmental issues into account.

 

Social

 

There are no direct social issues as a result of this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no direct economic issues as a result of this report.

 

Risk

 

The final design for the site will address any public safety issues.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no direct cost to the budget as a result of this report.

 

The adoption of a final plan for the site will have budgetary implications.

 

Council has made provision for funding in the current 2010/11 and the budget for 2011/12 to undertake the foreshore improvements.

 

Retention of Kafir Plums will require an increase in maintenance expenditure.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Sourced from working funds and grant funding where available.

 

Attachments:

1View

 - CIRCULARISED PLANS

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 20 April 2011

Foreshore Redevelopment - River Street, Macksville

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Foreshore Redevelopment - River Street, Macksville

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED PLANS

 

3  Pages

 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                                 20 April 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 8.2      SF84                200411         Contribution from Council towards the 2011/2012 Rural Fire Service Budget

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

Council received a report from the General Manager at the January 2011 meeting advising that the total increase in RFS contributions across all Councils is over $4.6 million, increasing from around $25.3m in 2009/2010 to $30.1 million for 2010/11, an increase of 18.9%.

 

According to the RFS, a large proportion of the increase is the result of the NSW Government’s response to the findings of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Because of the complex and localised RFS budgetary process there are wide variations between Councils.  Some have exceptionally high increases, while some actually have decreases and the remainder are in between.  Variations range from increases of over 100% down to reductions of 25%.

 

This Council was advised of its required contribution of $215,616.38 on 14 December 2010 which was an increase of $55,523.88 or 35% on the $160,092.50 contribution in 2009/2010 and as yet has not formally accepted the RFS budget. At the January 2011 meeting, Council resolved “to write to the RFS Commissioner to gain an undertaking that increases in the RFS contributions would be subject to review by IPART” (to date Council has not received a response).

 

Council advised the RFS Area Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone that it had not accepted the budget presented to Council as the increase was beyond the general rate increase and that funding would need to be revised and justified before Council would reconsider the increase in funding. It is believed that the RFS budget has since been revised on a regional basis and the RFS have been invited to address Council at the April General Purpose Committee meeting.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council receive presentation from the Rural Fire Service Area Manager for the Lower North Coast Zone on the proposed 2011/12 Rural Fire Service contribution.

 

2        Council accept the revised 2011/12 Rural Fire Service budget.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Consider the presentation and determine whether to accept the proposed RFS budget.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Associations have been following up the concerns raised by constituent Councils regarding the 2010/2011 Emergency Services Contributions and on 7 January 2011 forwarded advice concerning the outcome of their investigations.

 

The issues identified by the Associations are:

 

1.         The total increase in RFS contributions across all councils is over $4.6 million, increasing from around $25.3m in 2009/2010 to $30.1 million for 2010/11, an increase of 18.9%.

 

2.         According to the RFS, a large proportion of the increase is the result of the NSW Government’s response to the findings of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.

 


3.         Because of the complex and localised RFS budgetary process there are wide variations between councils.  Some have exceptionally high increases, while some actually have decreases and the remainder are in between.  Variations range from increases of over 100% down to reductions of 25%.  (This Council was advised of its required contribution of $215,616.38 on 14 December 2010 which was an increase of $55,523.88 or 35% on the $160,092.50 contribution in 2009/2010).

 

4.         There appear to be numerous anomalies, discrepancies and inequities.

 

5.         Final RFS budget allocations to councils were not advised to councils until mid December 2010, half way through the financial year.  Sign off was delayed pending determination of the government’s response to the findings of the Victorian Bush Fires Royal Commission.

 

6.         The average increase of 18.9% was much higher than could have been reasonably anticipated and many individual council increases are beyond comprehension.

 

7.         Late advice and scale of increases means that they were not factored into council budgets.  Increases will have a severe impact on many council budgets necessitating cuts in other areas.

 

8.         There was a lack of consultation on the levels of increase.

 

9.         It represents a major cost shift onto Local Government.

 

10.        The situation highlights the need for the current anomalous RFS/Emergency services funding arrangements to be scrapped and replaced with a broad based property levy as advocated by the LGSA.  Such systems work effectively in other states such as Queensland, SA and WA.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              General Manager

·              Manager Finance

·              Rural Fir Service.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

According to the RFS, a large proportion of the increase is in response to risks identified in the Victorian Bush Fires Royal Commission.

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The 2010/11 budget incorporated the RFS “bid” for 2010/2011 of $210,600 which is slightly greater than the final, recently advised figure of $215,616.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There will be a relatively minor negative impact on Council’s working funds of $5,000 being the difference between the estimate and final determination for the 2010/11 budget.

 

There is a significant increase between the 2010/11 and 2011/12 RFS contribution.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                                 20 April 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 8.3      SF84                200411         Request To Fund Missabotti Rural Fire Service Station Amenities

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

The Lower North Coast Zone Rural Fire Service is seeking Nambucca Shire Council’s assistance with the construction of amenities for the Missabotti Rural Fire Service and requests Council’s consideration in funding the project.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council advise Rural Fire Service that it is unable to accede to their request to fund the Missabotti Rural Fire Service Station Amenities.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Not provide any funding for the project.

 

2        Fund the entire cost of $33,297.00 for the Missabotti Rural Fire Service Station Amenities from Council funds.

 

3        Fund only Council’s contribution of 11.7% for the project being $3,895.00.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Lower North Coast Zone Rural Fire Service is seeking Nambucca Shire Council’s assistance with the construction of the Missabotti Rural Fire Service amenities and requests Council’s consideration in funding the project.

 

The Lower North Coast Zone Rural Fire Service has a requirement to provide amenities to RFS volunteers for use at rural fire brigade stations.  An issue has arisen where a previous agreement for RFS members of Missabotti Rural Fire Brigade to use the Missabotti Hall amenities has become unatonable.

 

The current Missabotti Rural Fire Brigade Station is a two bay colour bond construction built in 1995.  At the time of construction, there was no requirement for stations to have amenities and in this particular case there was an agreement at the time with the brigade members for them to utilise the Missabotti Hall amenities.

 

Currently, the members of the Missabotti Rural Fire Brigade have sighted issues with the amenities at the Missabotti hall including access, functionally, hygiene and cleanliness.  The RFS now has a requirement to provide amenities for its volunteer members and as such has investigated construction new amenities for the Missabotti Rural Fire Brigade.

 

The RFS via Nambucca Shire Council has received quotations to construct a new disabled toilet/shower facility on the grounds of Missabotti Rural Fire Brigade.  The recommended quote totals $33,297.00.

 

Whilst the Lower North Coast Zone RFS understands that this is outside 2010/2011 adopted budget and is a significant contribution, the 2009/2010 Maintenance and Repair budget was $66,750.84 unexpended and funds were returned to Council’s general fund at 30 June 2010.  Review of previous budgets have indicated variations of “over and under” expenditures which Council has funded.  The unexpended allocation in the 2009/2010 budget is attributed to staff changes within the RFS.

 


CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Manager Finance

Rural Fire Service

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There is no risk implications to Council

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The 2010/11 budget incorporated the RFS contribution towards their operations and capital improvements.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There will be a relatively minor negative impact on Council’s working funds of $3895.00 should Council elect to fund the 11.7% contribution towards the amenities.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.