NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3        DELEGATIONS—Motion to hear Delegations

4        General Manager Report

8.1     Presentation of World Rally Championship - Saturday 10 September 2011

8.2     Costing for each Councillor 2010/2011

5        Director Engineering Services Report

9.1     2011/2012 Capital Civil Works Program

9.2     Presentation from the Mid North Weight of Loads Group

9.3     Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

9.4     Paveline Patching Machine - Operation

9.5     Review on the Nambucca Shire Council Road Hierarchy    

         

 

 

Time

Description

Where

OS/CC

Item No

Page No

08.30 am

Welcome

 

 

 

8.35 am-9.00 am

Road Hierarchy Presentation and Maintenance Program

CC

9.5

38

9.00 am-9.15 am

Paveline Report July 2010 to June 2011

CC

9.4

36

9.15 am-9.30 am

2011/2012 Capital Works Program

CC

9.1

10

9.30 am-10.00 am

GHD Flood Report on Riverside Drive

CC

9.3

14

10.00 am-10.15 am

Morning Tea

 

 

 

10.15 am-11.00 am

Presentation from World Rally and Manager Business Development

CC

8.1

4

11.00 am-11.30 am

Costing for Each Councillor

CC

8.2

5

11.30 am-12 noon

Presentation from Weight of Loads Group

CC

9.2

12

12.00 noon

Lunch

 

 

 


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                                                                                             17 August 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.1      SF1560            170811         Presentation of World Rally Championship - Saturday 10 September 2011

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Wayne Lowe, Manager Business Development         

 

Summary:

 

Council at its meeting held 21 July 2011 resolved the following:

 

That Council receive a full briefing from the World Rally Organisers and the Manager Business Development covering:

 

·              final routes;

·              public consultation;

·              planning;

·              costs to Council; and

·              risk management.

 

I have added Event Management Plan, Site Plans, Traffic Management Plan, Council Resources, All Agency consultation and Budget.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note and receive the Presentation on the World Rally Championship to be held 10 September 2011.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                             17 August 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 8.2      SF270              170811         Costing for each Councillor 2010/2011

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

In report Item 8.1 to the General Purpose Committee meeting of 19 July 2011 regarding reduction in the number of Councillors from nine (9) to seven (7) at the 2012 local government elections the following was resolved:

 

That the number of Councillors remain the same.

 

And

 

That Councillors bring forward ideas for discussion for reducing Councillor costs to a future General Purpose Committee Meeting.  Further that Councillors be provided with a report on the cost of each Councillor as well as sustenance etc, as part of the report to the General Purpose Committee Meeting.

 

Councillor Flack has put forward a number of ideas.

 

Compared to many Councils, the expenditure of this Council in conducting meetings and supporting Councillors is minimal.  There will always be opportunities to reduce those costs but the likely savings will be minimal or at the expense of other objectives such as effective communication.

 

There are potential savings in the use of paper if information could be convened electronically.  However if only some Councillors accept electronic transmission the saving is minimal as the saved paper is at least offset by staff having to disseminate the information in two mediums.  A visit to the photocopier is required whether you are printing 9 pages or 4 pages.  Similarly it takes the same time to email to 9 people as it does 4 people.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the report on costing for each Councillor for 2010/2011 be received and noted.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are many potential options.  In evaluating potential savings, consideration also needs to be given to staff time.  For example a potential saving in the use of paper which requires additional staff time is not a saving.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

In report Item 8.1 to the General Purpose Committee meeting of 19 July 2011 regarding Reduction in the number of Councillors from nine (9) to seven (7) at the 2012 local government elections the following was resolved at Council’s meeting on 20 July 2011:

 

“That the number of Councillors remain the same.

 

and

 

That Councillors bring forward ideas for discussion for reducing Councillor costs to a future General Purpose Committee Meeting.  Further that Councillors be provided with a report on the cost of each Councillor as well as sustenance etc, as part of the report to the General Purpose Committee Meeting.”

 

The following is a breakdown of each Councillor’s direct costs for 2010/2011:

 


Mayor, Clr Rhonda Hoban

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

32,034.21

Motor vehicle

13,778.33

Computer

600.001

I Phone

882.002

Airfares

850.48

Conferences

855.00

Accommodation

508.19

Catering

58.11

Cabcharge

52.45

Other

45.00

Total

49,663.77

1 The computer cost $1,800 and has an estimated useful life of 3 years

2 The I phone cost $718 and on average there is $36 calls per month.  Assume 2 year life and slightly more expensive replacement.

 

 

Deputy Mayor, Clr John Ainsworth

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

9,313.37

Travel

204.40

Airport parking

29.00

Meals

50.75

Accommodation

84.00

Cabcharge

71.10

Total

9,752.62

 

 

Clr Janet Court

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

9,313.37

Travel

1,161.16

Total

10,474.53

 

 

Clr Martin Ballangarry

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

8,515.87

Travel

476.80

Total

8,992.67

 

 

Clr Paula Flack

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

9,313.37

Travel

2,940.80

Internet

474.50

Airfares

549.40

Accommodation

720.00

Taxis

147.80

Conferences

1,085.00

Cabcharge

52.44

Total

15,283.31

 

 

 


Clr Anne Smyth

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

9,313.37

Travel

1,226.88

Internet

400.00

Meals

33.00

Conferences

1635.00

Airfares

625.58

Cabcharge

109.43

Accommodation

607.96

Total

13,951.22

 

 

Clr Brian Finlayson

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

10,861.71

Accommodation

100.00

Total

10,961.71

 

 

Clr Michael Moran

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

9,313.37

Travel

59.52

Total

9,372.89

 

 

Clr Elaine South

Item

Expense ($)

Fees

9,313.37

Travel

686.72

Total

10,000.09

 

In addition to these direct costs there are indirect costs related to catering for Council meetings.  In 2010/2011 Council spent $8,157.16 on catering for Council meetings.

 

The sum of the direct Councillor costs is $138,452.81.  Adding the catering the cost comes to $146,609.97.

 

In relation to ideas to reduce costs the following ideas have been suggested by Councillor Flack.

 

Comments received from Cr Flack:

 

Some thoughts so far on means of reducing cost of Councillors for the report coming to us for discussion

 

1     Reduce the costs of catering:

 

i)        Light suppers instead of full meals during ordinary meetings or at the least reduce the size of the food ordered as there always seems to be significant left-overs, even though I acknowledge that the food is not wasted and usually goes to the staff tea room for the next day.

 

ii)       Cut out the cheeses and cakes etc for morning tea unless we have guests - tea coffee and biscuits should suffice.

 

iii)      Instead of prepared sandwiches for GPC, provide bread and salad ingredients and let Councillors make up their own sandwiches.

 

iv)      No alcohol unless it has been donated (and declared if required under the CoC).

 

v)       Councillors and staff pay for their own Xmas dinner or part thereof.

 

2    Reduce the amount of duplication of documents coming to Councillors:

 

i)        Where a document has already been provided in hard copy as a memo or attachment to a report and is referred to in a later report, then Councillors be referred to the earlier copy only so that they can either retrieve it from their own files or can request an electronic version if necessary.

 

ii)       Most reports we receive in BPs have duplicated paragraphs ie the summary section is often repeated in the discussion section.  This amounts to unnecessary printing and paper use and over the course of a year and across all BPs produced for Councillors, media, public gallery and distribution outlets would amount to an unnecessary cost (and reading).

 

iii)      For those Councillors requesting it, provide all memos, draft policies and draft and final management plans in electronic format only ie me please.

 

iv)      Reduce non compulsory training and conference budgets for each Councillor, say by half and provide a modest pool to be accessed with the approval of Council.

 

3        Make more use of online/video training especially for compulsory training if it is available

 

4        Make maximum use of GPC meeting days ie the whole day, to reduce travelling costs ie for whole or part of Council Committee meetings

 

Compared to many Councils, the expenditure of this Council in conducting meetings and supporting Councillors is minimal.  There will always be opportunities to reduce those costs but the likely savings will be minimal or at the expense of other objectives such as effective communication.

 

There are potential savings in the use of paper if information could be convened electronically.  However if only some Councillors accept electronic transmission the saving is minimal as the saved paper is at least offset by staff having to disseminate the information in two mediums.  A visit to the photocopier is required whether you are printing 9 pages or 4 pages.  Similarly it takes the same time to email to 9 people as it does 4 people.

 

The previous elected Council required that any and all correspondence which was marked to the attention of Councillors be placed in the Councillors’ trays.  This also generates considerable printing notwithstanding that it’s often conveyed a second time in the business paper or relates to an operational matter.  The staff do not exercise any discretion in relation to such correspondence, whenever it is marked to the attention of a Councillor or Councillors it is distributed in accordance with the correspondent’s instructions.

 

Colour photocopying is another additional expense which should be avoided.  The electronic transmission of documents could allow much of the expense to be avoided.

 

It is proposed that Council finally adopt a drug and alcohol policy which will result in the adoption of an alcohol free workplace.  When this occurs alcohol will not be served at any Council function including after Council meetings.  However Council’s alcohol consumption equates to about 6 cartons of low alcohol beer per annum and about 12 bottles of medium priced wine.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Comments have been received from Clr Flack.

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no significant implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no significant risks.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Other than the electronic transmission of documents, the suggestions in the report are unlikely to have any significant budgetary impact.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.   


General Purpose Committee                                                                                             17 August 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.1      SF1676            170811         2011/2012 Capital Civil Works Program

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works         

 

Summary:

 

Council adopted the budget for the 2011/2012 financial year which includes a number of Capital Work projects. The budget contains a Capital Works Program along with the revotes of works not completed from the 2010/2011 Program. The Works Program has been prepared to enhance the delivery of the 2011/2012 Program and monitor output on a month by month basis to ensure the delivery of the Program at 30 June 2012.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the information on the 2011/2012 Capital Civil Works Program.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Adopt the recommendation.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Director of Engineering Services has implemented some changes within the Department to monitor the progress and ensure the delivery of the Capital Works Program and report on progress, delays and works over the 2011/12 financial year.

 

Traditionally there have been uncompleted capital works at the end of each financial year which are carried forward into the next financial year as revotes. These works have had a number of factors that influence the completion some of which are outside of Council’s control. Utilising project management principles the Works Program has been prepared to enhance the delivery of the 2011/2012 Program and monitor output on a month by month basis to ensure the delivery of the Program at 30 June 2012.

 

The 2011/2012 Capital Program has taken a pro-active approach to works with designs and work folders developed in advance and the Program that allows for continued monitoring and flexibility for delays attributed to weather, availability of contractors such as cement stabilising, sealing and asphalting works and forecast completion dates.

 

The job folders being implemented across the Capital Works Program have been prepared for the construction teams and include the first draft of quality assurance documentation being introduced within the civil works area. Further in-depth monitoring of budgets will occur through a monthly engineering budget meeting implemented to monitor expenditure for both the maintenance and Capital Works Program and forecasting of variations in advance of the quarterly budget reviews.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              General Manager

·              Director Engineering Services

·              Manager Finance

·              Manager Assets

 

 


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The works program takes into account environmental considerations within the capital works to mitigate against impact on the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The works program takes into account risk considerations within the capital works to mitigate against impact on the liabilities to Council associated with civil works.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Unfinished capital works from the 2010/2011 financial year have been incorporated within the 2011/2012 budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Revotes for the carry over of unfinished capital works from the 2010/2011 financial year and the adopted 2011/2012 budget.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                             17 August 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.2      SF878              170811         Presentation from the Mid North Weight of Loads Group

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works         

 

Summary:

 

Council, at the April 2011 meeting resolved to continue its membership for the 2011/12 financial year with the Mid North Weight of Loads Group and seek a presentation from the executive of the Group.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the presentation from the Mid North Weight of Loads Group.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Adopt the recommendation.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council, at the April 2011 meeting resolved to continue its membership for the 2011/12 financial year with the Mid North Weight of Loads Group and seek a presentation from the executive of the Group.

 

Mr Gil Gendron from Gloucester Shire Council will provide Council with an overview of the Mid North Weight of Loads Group and answer any questions that Council may have on the Group.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              General Manager

·              Director Engineering Services

·              Manager Finance

·              Manager Civil Works

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no environmental implications associated with this report.

 

 

Social

 

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

 

There are economic implications associated with the continued membership of the Mid North Weight of Loads Group by the issue of infringement notices to transport organisations thus reducing damage to Local Roads and improving the efficiency of the transport sector and the travelling public in general.

 

Risk

 

The are no risk implications associated with this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Membership fee for the Mid North Weight of Loads Group is scaled across the member Councils and is set for the Group on the member councils. Variation to the fee is subject to the continuation of all member councils beyond the 2011/12 financial year.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The membership fee is within Council’s 2011/12 annual budget.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                             17 August 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.3      SF593              170811         Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works         

 

Summary:

 

A storm in June 2008 resulted in flooding of properties in the vicinity of Nambucca, Bismark and Piggott Streets, Nambucca Heads.  In 2009 Nambucca Shire Council commissioned GHD to undertake an investigation of this catchment. 

 

This investigation was based on available data including GIS data, site inspections and resident interviews.  It was concluded that the system is undersized and that further analysis based on detailed survey data was required in order to determine upgrading options.

 

GHD were subsequently engaged to undertake this further investigation.

 

The Phase 2 report has been received and detailed options and costs for various storm intensities sights ranging from 5 year ARI to 100 year ARI.

 

In addition to the original scope GHD has provided a preliminary assessment of flows through the Riverside Gardens Aged Care Facility.

 

In summary the existing drainage system in this area only caters for a 2 year ARI storm intensity.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          That Council note the receipt of the Flood Investigation – Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment Report and presentation.

 

2          That Council receive a further report at the October General Purpose Committee Meeting to consider and establish appropriate drainage design standards based on the information provided in the GHD document.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1          Accept the recommendations

2          Not accept the recommendations

3          Adopt different standards

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Following a storm event in June 2008 Council engaged GHD to initially prepare a report on the catchment area in the vicinity of Nambucca, Bismark and Piggott Streets, Nambucca Heads.  Subsequent to this initial report Council commissioned GHD to prepare a more detailed report to identify deficiencies in the existing system and options (including preliminary costings) for design standards and upgrading of the drainage system.

 

A representative of GHD will attend the meeting to present the report.

 

An extract of Section 8 Summary and Conclusions is provided as Attachment No 1.

 

The report provides a number of tables used to develop the options and conclusions.  Extracts of these are provided as Attachments as follows:

 


Attachment 2         Table 1                  Existing Scenario Peak Flow results

                 3         Table 3                  Existing Conditions Inundation levels

                 4         Sect 4                             Floodplain Management Measures

                 5         Table 6                  Mitigation Inundation Improvements

                 6         Table 7                  Cost Benefit Results

                 7         Appendix D            Preliminary Mitigation Option Costing

 

In addition to analysis of the original study area GHD provided a flow model for the drainage system through the Riverside Gardens Aged Care Facility.  This model provided an estimate of flows that could be expected at the culvert across Riverside Drive.

 

Based on this information Council’s Engineering Designer has analysed the culvert and his report is as follows:

 

Drainage Report

 

Location:    Culvert under Riverside Drive downstream of Riverside Gardens

 

Data:          Catchment – 28 Ha – developed urban

                   Culvert - 2400 wide X 1500 deep, 14m long, 0.7% grade

                   Tail water depth 1.2m

 

The adequacy of the culvert has been analysed numerically using the flow volumes provided by GHD and by computer modelling using the ‘DRAINS’ program.

 

The culvert was considered independently of the downstream channel and was found to be adequate in all conditions from 1 in 5 year to 1 in 100 year storm events. The upstream headwall was no overwhelmed and no bypass flow crossed the road.

 

The culvert was then considered in conjunction with the existing downstream channel conditions, using ‘DRAINS’. The existing conditions are difficult to model and the results could only be considered nominal. However the results showed the flow over whelming the upstream headwall and flowing over the road in all storm events up to a depth of 270mm.  The water downstream of the culvert    also overflowed the channel. These modelled results are in accord with anecdotal evidence.

 

The conclusion is that the capacity of the drainage system could be greatly enhanced by deepening the channel down stream of the culvert, if possible match the culvert invert level. At present the channel invert under the downstream footbridge is approx. 1.2m higher than the culvert invert.

 

Engineering Designer

 

 

In addition to this analysis GHD are undertaking a more detailed analysis of the flows through the Aged Care Facility and culvert (on behalf of Nambucca Valley Care) and verbal advice appears to generally confirm Councils Engineering Designer’s report.  In fact the limiting factor for flows appear to be the downstream outlet of the culvert.

 

With respect to the original investigation the existing drainage system only has the capacity to cater for a 2 year ARI storm.  In order to minimise the potential for flooding of private property Council needs to consider the most cost effective drainage design standard.  This standard should then be incorporated in the Stormwater Asset Management Plan and Development Control Plans.  It is proposed that Council consider the appropriate standard at the October General Purpose Committee.

 

Obviously the standard adopted will have significant costs impacts on Council’s future budgets.

 

A full copy of the report has been circulated.


CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

GHD

Council’s Engineering Designer

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no impacts as a result of this report.

 

Social

 

There are no immediate issues as a result of this report.  Future storm events can cause flooding of private property resulting and stress and financial loss for residents.

 

Economic

 

There are no immediate economic issues as a result of this report.  However the adoption of a higher design standard will have a significant impact on future budgets.  Conversely the “do nothing” option could result in increased damages claims.

 

Risk

 

Future of storm events could result in flooding of private property.  Increased pipe capacities can mitigate this risk.

 

This report is limited to one catchment.  A change of standard would have implications Shire wide.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on the current budget unless Council is determined to upgrade the drainage system.

 

Incorporation of a design storm in the Stormwater Asset Management Plan will impact on future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funds could be sourced from a stormwater levy or working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Nambucca Heads Flooding Investigation Phase 2 Report June 2011

 

2View

21588/2011 - Attachment 1 - Summary and Conclusions

 

3View

21590/2011 - Attachment 2 - Table 1 - Existing Scenario Peak Flow Results

 

4View

21591/2011 - Attachment 3 - Table 3 - Existing Conditions Inundation Levels

 

5View

21592/2011 - Attachment 4 - Section 4 - Floodplain Management  Measures

 

6View

21593/2011 - Attachment 5 - Table 6 - Mitigation Inundation Improvements

 

7View

21596/2011 - Attachment 7 - Appendix D - Preliminary Mitigation Option Costing

 

8View

21594/2011 - Attachment 6 - Table 7 - Cost Benefit Results

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Nambucca Heads Flooding Investigation Phase 2 Report June 2011

 

  Pages

 


General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 


General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 


General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 




General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 




General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 



General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 








General Purpose Committee - 17 August 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                             17 August 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.4      SF741              170811         Paveline Patching Machine - Operation

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works         

 

Summary:

 

Council at its meeting on 16 July 2009 resolved that:

 

"Council receive a report on Paveliner performance in terms of cost per cubic metre and other relevant parameters and including the Director Engineering Services' opinion on efficiency or otherwise of the machine and what is required to improve performance.  Also options for addressing loose stone and the option of a sweeper attachment.  Comparative data is to be provided for a defined period of usage."

 

The report uses data collection from Council Maintenance Management System, Reflect, for the twelve month period July 2010 to June 2011.

 

The table shows a general correlation between the target and actual rates for most criteria.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That the report on the operations of the Paveline for July 2010 to June 2011 be noted.

 

2        That a further report be prepared of the half year July 2011 to December 2011 for comparison with the same period in the previous year.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        Note the report

2        Request further information.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The statistics show the following average figures:

 

 

JULY 09 – JUNE 10

JULY 10 – JUNE 2011

Square metres patched over 12 months

28.426

34,124

Square metres per day

167.75

196.12

Cubic metres of aggregate per day

8.39

9.81

Tonne of aggregate per day

9.44

6.63

Cost per square metre of patching

20.20

NA

Cost per tonne

358.89

NA

 

Note:  These figures include some use of premix and broad area spraying not separately identified.  The broad area spraying results is an under estimation of area treated and an apparent higher cost per square metre.

 

The target or benchmark for comparison is twofold.  The initial report to Council forecasts figures of:

          i)        25,200 square metres per annum

          ii)       120 square metres per day

          iii)      6.0 cubic metres of aggregate per day

          iv)       9.0 tonne of aggregate per day

          v)       $14.50 cost per square metre of patching

          vi)       $193.33 cost per tonne.

 

The other comparison to be made is against the older style of patching using a Flowcon and Pre-mix material.  Those forecast figures are:

 

          a)       10,500 square metres per annum

          b)       50 square metres per day

          c)       2.5 cubic metres per premix per day

          d)       $44.23 cost per square metre of patching

          e)       $368.58 cost per tonne of premix.

 

As a result of the change to the Authority Finance System the costing link to the Maintenance Management System has been lost.  Discussions are being held to establish a link.  In the meantime cost comparisons are not available.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Director Engineering Services

Manager Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Raw materials are sourced from quarry/mining operations.  There are no other methods available to reduce environmental impacts.

 

Social

 

There are no issues as a result of this report.

 

Economic

 

Better road surface reduces transport costs.

 

Risk

 

Loose stone can create a traffic hazard.  More experience gained by operators will minimise the impact.  Better quality emulsion is also having a positive impact.  The truck is currently fitted with a broom to enable sweeping as required.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

As the operation improves the road system will benefit which could reduce the budget requirement in future years.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No additional funds are required as the result of this report.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                             17 August 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 9.5      SF444              170811         Review on the Nambucca Shire Council Road Hierarchy

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Peter Baynes, Manager Assets; Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

Council Officers have began to review the level of service being provided across various activities of Councils civil works section. Maintenance grading forms an integral component of the maintenance operations with the last community survey undertaken by Council rating roads “high in importance” and “low in satisfaction” 

 

The Road Hierarchy adopted by Council on 17 September 2009 determined the level of service on rural and urban roads based on the category or class of road. It is proposed to review the road hierarchy and intervention levels over the next six months to enhance the delivery of future maintenance programs and monitor output, quality of service and plant utilisation. The current work practices for maintenance grading remains predominantly dependant on weather conditions and road usage and reactive to the climatic conditions experienced in the valley.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receive and note the presentation on the review of the Nambucca Shire Council Road Hierarchy.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Adopt the recommendation

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Director of Engineering Services has implemented some changes within the Department to monitor the progress and capture the delivery of maintenance works. The Road Hierarchy adopted by Council on 17 September 2009 determined the level of service on rural and urban roads based on the category or class of road.

 

The budget also has a determining factor on the level of service being provided. It is proposed to review the road hierarchy and intervention levels over the next six months to enhance the delivery of future maintenance programs and monitor output, quality of service and plant utilisation. The current work practices for maintenance grading remains predominantly dependant on weather conditions and road usage and reactive to the climatic conditions experienced in the valley.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              Director Engineering Services

·              Manager Civil Works

·              Manager Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental considerations associated with this report

 


Social

 

There are no social considerations associated with this report.

 

 

Economic

 

Varying levels of service may result in higher vehicle operating costs.

 

Risk

 

Lower levels of service can lead to a greater risk of motor vehicle accidents and a deterioration of infrastructure assets.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Current maintenance practice activates for rural and urban infrastructure is incorporated within the 2011/12 budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Nil variance to working funds attributed to this report.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.