m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

16 March 2009

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, Lower Ground Floor, 48 Longueville Road, Lane Cove on Monday 16 March 2009 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Ian Longbottom. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm of the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items of the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under section 12(6) of the Local Government Act, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 16 March 2009

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

MATTERS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED COMMITTEE

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Human Services Division Report No. 4

SUBJECT: 2008 Lane Cove Citizenship Awards

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and that the report specifically details the names of nominations for the 2008 Awards.

  

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for 3 minutes.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 2 MARCH 2009

 

Orders Of The Day

 

3.       Order Of The Day No. 3

SUBJECT: Citizenship Ceremony - 8th April 2009

 

4.       Order Of The Day No. 4

SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - April 2009

 

5.       Order Of The Day No. 5

SUBJECT: Report on Planning Legislation - Skills and Knowledge LGSA Training Course

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

6.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 12

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

7.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 11

SUBJECT: Flying Fox at Burns Bay Reserve, Riverview

 

 

 

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

8.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

SUBJECT: Street Name Proposal - off Burns Bay Road

 

9.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Motion - Problems With High Front Guttering

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

10.     Human Services Division Report No. 3

SUBJECT: Shorelink Library Network Restructure and Shorelink Policies

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

 

 

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Order Of The Day No. 3

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 3

Subject:          Citizenship Ceremony - 8th April 2009    

Record No:    su28 - 6925/09

Author(s):       Anita Holesgrove 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Mayor will conduct a Citizenship Ceremony in the Council Chamber on Wednesday 8th April 2009 commencing at 7:00pm.

 

A Councillor is required to attend the Ceremony and speak to the new citizens about local government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a Councillor nominates to attend the Citizenship Ceremony on 8th April 2009 and speak to the new citizens about local government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Order Of The Day No. 4

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 4

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - April 2009     

Record No:    SU1915 - 7005/09

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

The Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for April 2009 is proposed as follows:-

 

April     4                      Inspection Committee

 

April     6                      Ordinary Council

                                    Planning and Building Committee

                                    Services and Resources Committee

 

April     20                    Ordinary Council

                                    Planning and Building Committee

                                    Services and Resources Committee

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for April 2009 be adopted.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Order Of The Day No. 5

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 5

Subject:          Report on Planning Legislation - Skills and Knowledge LGSA Training Course    

Record No:    SU2520 - 7377/09

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer; Councillor Shauna Forrest 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the LGSA training course attended by Councillors Palmer and Forrest.

 

Discussion

 

On Saturday 7th March, Councillor Forrest and Councillor Palmer attended the course “Planning Legislation – Skills and Knowledge” conducted by Learning Solutions for the LGSA.

 

The presenter was Gerry Holmes, a barrister of the Supreme Court NSW and former lecturer in Local Government Studies and Law at the University of Canberra.

 

Land use planning is a very important and sensitive issue for councils.   The course looked at Councillors’ responsibility to reconcile the competing interests of a number of stakeholders while considering the legislative framework including ecological, environmental and heritage factors.  

 

Interesting case studies illustrated how Councillors can better understand the following:-

 

·     potential conflicts of interest

·     environmental planning instruments (EPIs) including the new LEP template

·     assessing the potential impacts of climate change and the Threatened Species Conservation Act on permitted land use

·     consideration of the public interest in development assessment (EP&A Act Section79C)

 

With this knowledge, Councillors’ should be better able to fulfil their responsibilities, particularly as members of the Planning & Building Committee.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillors Pam Palmer and Shauna Forrest

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

    


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 12

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 12

Subject:          Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee    

Record No:    SU2932 - 7008/09

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to advise that the Lane Cove Country Club has nominated Rick D’Amico to be the community representative on the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee.

 

Background

 

Council considered nominations for community representatives on council committees at its meeting on 17 November 2008.  At that time no nomination had been received for the position of community representative of the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee.

 

Discussion

 

The charter of the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee provides for a local resident as a community representative, who plays golf at least occasionally and who is not a member of the Lane Cove Country Club. 

 

At the Golf course Advisory Committee Meeting on 25 November 2008, the Committee suggested that as no nominations had been received that Rick D’Amico be approached to fill this vacancy.  Rick D’Amico has agreed to fill this position and be the community representative on the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the recommendation of Rick D’Amico as the community representative for the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 11

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 11

Subject:          Flying Fox at Burns Bay Reserve, Riverview    

Record No:    SU328 - 7232/09

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the previous Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 March 2009, Council resolved that a report be prepared on options for suitable controls for the Flying Fox at Burns Bay Reserve, Riverview. This resolution was a result of a petition from residents of Kooyong Road that requested the Flying Fox be locked between Sunset and Sunrise every day. This report examines the options available, and seeks Council’s determination on the most suitable one to be employed.

 

Background

 

The Flying Fox and other playground equipment, suitable for children over 6 years of age, was installed at the northern end of Burns Bay Reserve in August 2007.  A complaint regarding night time use, and associated inappropriate behaviour, of the Flying Fox was received in January 2008. The complainant requested that the Flying Fox be removed due to the use of inappropriate behaviour by some adolescents during the night-time (late PM/early AM). Police intervention was sought, but was ineffective from the complainant’s viewpoint. As a result of this complaint, Council undertook a survey of the residents of Kooyong Road to gauge their views on the Flying Fox. Seven (7) replies were received, six (6) of these were positive about the equipment. One (1) response was negative.

 

A number of further complaints have been received from the same residence over the past 12 months, regarding additional incidents of poor behaviour by young adults in the vicinity of the Flying Fox. The complainant also claims that the Police have not been able to respond to the concerns raised in a reasonable time, such that the ‘trouble-makers’ are gone by the time the Police arrive. This has culminated in the petition, as tabled at the previous meeting, calling for suitable controls to be engaged to prohibit use of the Flying Fox between Sunset and Sunrise.

 

If Council agrees this is a problem, there are two main issues to consider in resolving it. The first is to identify a suitably safe method/control of locking the Flying Fox to meet with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard. The second is identifying the most suitable party/parties able to regularly lock/unlock the Flying Fox at Sunset and Sunrise respectively.

 

Discussion

 

To comply with safety requirements of the Australian Standard for Playground Equipment, Council will need to request the manufacturer to design a suitable and safe method to attach the chain to restrict its use. The methods to do this would either:

 

(i) require a very long chain that could be linked back to the support structure, which is highly undesirable due to the risk of strangulation, entrapment or allowing access to a higher part of the structure that could cause injury; or

(ii) require a specially designed loop on the landing platform to padlock the seat to, which would need to be specifically designed to avoid finger or clothing entrapment.

 

The playground equipment was supplied to Council through a Sydney representative, from a Queensland based company. Staff has spoken to the supplier’s local representative who could not offer any advice as to the best way to lock up the Flying Fox, whilst complying with the safety requirements of the Standard. The representative stated that they have not been posed with this problem before, even though numerous sets have been installed throughout Sydney. Council has contacted the supplier’s head office in Queensland for further advice, and anticipates having a response for the most suitable method for safely locking the Flying Fox in time to inform Councillors at the Council Meeting.  The locking/unlocking of the Flying Fox to coincide with the Sunset/Sunrise request is more problematic. Councillors would be aware that these times will change, dependent on the time of the year and it would be impossible for members of Council staff to undertake the necessary duties if this requirement is maintained.

 

Rather, it is considered more appropriate to make the lock up/unlocking times for the Flying Fox consistent. It would not be unreasonable to make the time about 7pm for lock up, and 7am for unlocking. The Council Gardener, who looks after the playground area, has her tool store at Burns Bay Reserve and so is there most weekday mornings at around 7am. She would be able to unlock the equipment on weekday mornings at this time. Locking the Flying Fox up at night, and locking/unlocking it on weekends, is more difficult from a Council resourcing point of view. The Council Gardener finishes work at 4pm on weekdays and does not work weekends. Council’s Regulatory Service Officers have numerous other duties to perform at those times that would remove this from consideration.

 

As such, it is considered that other alternatives will be required to lock up the Flying Fox on weekdays, and undertake both the locking/unlocking of the equipment on weekends; As the residents of Kooyong Road reside in close vicinity to the Flying Fox, it may be possible that a representative/s would be able to organise the locking/unlocking of the Flying Fox at the designated times.

 

Consultation

 

Council will consult with the residents of Kooyong Road to gauge whether they will accept responsibility for locking/unlocking the Flying Fox, at times when Council’s staff are unable to perform this task, chiefly in the evenings and on weekends.  Council will write to all residents of Kooyong Road to gauge their interest in performing this task. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with locking/unlocking of the Flying Fox and subsequently, whether a further report will be required to inform Council of the need for alternate options.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council write to the residents of Kooyong Road, requesting their assistance in finding an interested party to lock/unlock the Flying Fox when Council staff are unable to perform this task, specifically on weekday afternoons and on weekends.

 

2.   Upon successfully finding an interested party to lock/unlock the Flying Fox, Council notify the public of this by signposting that the Flying Fox will be locked between 7pm and 7am.

 

3.   If no interested parties come forward, a further report be prepared for Council on the status of the Flying Fox issue and whether further action is required.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

Subject:          Street Name Proposal - off Burns Bay Road    

Record No:    SU1075 - 6411/09

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is asked to resolve a request from a concerned local resident in the vicinity of 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove to name a small portion of adjacent unnamed road on the grounds of current confusion and difficulties caused by its lack of a street name.

 

Background

 

Description

 

Council has a received a request to provide a street name to a portion of unnamed road commencing at the traffic lights approximately 250m north of Carisbrook House, on the eastern side of Burns Bay Road. It has an area of approximately 280m2. The road provides access to residential and industrial properties and is shown on the maps at AT1 and AT2.

 

History

 

The portion of road to be named comprises two small sections:

 

i)          150m2 of public road (not named) zoned Industrial Special 4(c) created under LEP Amendment No.43 (gazetted in 2000); and

 

ii)         130m2 of Lane Cove Council land zoned residential, not yet formally declared a public road, which is part of an acquired strip of land.

 

By around 2000, Council had acquired 750m2 of land south of 296 Burns Bay Road and north of Council’s disused bowling green, now Lot 101 in DP 1013285, to improve future access to its allotment at 304 Burns Bay Road (the bowling green). In return, a long narrow portion of land along the eastern side of the bowling green was transferred from Council ownership to the owners of Strata Plan No.6522 for parking in relation to the residential properties.

 

Context

 

The naming of this street is being considered in the broader context of the proposed rezoning of part of the disused bowling green and the surrounding industrial zone, including the former TUTA site, currently with the Department of Planning as part of the Draft LEP.  It is Council’s intention under the Draft LEP to rezone that part of the locality to high density residential development.  The small portion of road to be named will at a later date continue south through the planned residential development. It is also possible that the new road would reconnect with Burns Bay Road via a slip lane.

 

Discussion

 

Grounds for the Request

 

The request has been made by a concerned local resident on two grounds:

 

1.   That an ambulance was delayed in attending to a medical emergency in this locality; and

 

2.   That large items of rubbish were not being collected by contractors with the assumed reason being difficulties in locating the addresses. On investigations with council officers, it would appear that locating the addresses was not the issue. The issue relating to rubbish collection involved large items being put out when tenants moved out and then other residents adding to the pile of items. This issue has been resolved with council officers arranging specific household rubbish pick up dates with the body corporate of the residential flat buildings.

 

Benefits of the Proposal

 

The subdivision pattern in this part of Lane Cove is unusual in that numerous properties, both residential and non-residential, all have access converging at one point: the link road. However, the link road between these properties and Burns Bay Road currently has no name. Its naming would provide a legible focal point for vehicles seeking these properties off Burns Bay Road.  An added benefit would be ease of access for people looking for the newly enhanced public park proposal, which will not be clearly visible from Burns Bay Road.

 

The following properties would be likely to benefit from the naming of this small piece of road adjacent to the lights:

 

Residential -

 

292 - 298 Burns Bay Road

300A, B and C Burns Bay Road

302 Burns Bays Road

316 Burns Bay Road

 

Industrial -

 

288 Burns Bay Road

290 Burns Bay Road

296 Burns Bay Road

300 Burns Bay Road

 

Additionally, the following properties would be affected if the road is extended to the south:

 

304-314 Burns Bay Road

316A Burns Bay Road

318 – 332 Burns Bay Road

 

It is not proposed that the longer, private section of the road be renamed as this is a matter for the bodies corporate, and would require a large number of residents to change their addresses possibly giving rise to confusion for service providers.

 

Signage

 

Council should consider the need for clearly designed signage to both Burns Bay Road addresses and the new roadway. A photo of the existing sign is shown at AT3.

 

Proposed Street Name

 

Names proposed by Council staff include Harry Howard Way. If Council supports the street naming, a further report could provide details of the history of this name and other options.


Procedure

 

The formal procedure for naming the street, if Council supports the request, is to advertise the proposal in a local newspaper and to notify the Geographical Names Board, and other relevant public authorities, with one month’s notice, in accordance with the Roads Act 1993 and Regulation 1994. This period would be extended to six weeks under Council’s Consultation Policy. See also Community Consultation section below.

 

Referrals

 

The proposal has been referred to the following Council staff / departments:

 

·     Traffic Manager;

·     Property Section;

·     Special Projects Manager;

·     Open Space Manager.

 

The above staff / departments report no history of complaints received regarding current street numbering, with the exception of the issue raised by the concerned resident outlined above.

 

Comment

 

While the reasons for wanting to name the portion of road are understood, concern is raised over whether this will actually cause more confusion for residents, owners and tenants in the vicinity than is currently experienced. These properties will retain their Burns Bay Road addresses while visitors to the sites will be turning off Burns Bay Road into a street with a different name to gain access to Burns Bay Road sites.  It may be more prudent to name the road when the extension to the new development (through Council’s land and the TUTA site) is underway. Then the street name would not only pertain to the small portion of road the subject of this report, but also to the road which is likely to proceed through the new residential development possibly linking up with Burns Bay Road.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that Council determine whether it wishes to proceed towards naming the road. If so, staff could report back to Council after detailed investigations (i) with service providers (for example, the Ambulance Service and Energy Australia) regarding their views on the proposal to improve emergency and other service access and (ii) regarding potential names for the road.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council resolve whether it wishes to proceed towards naming the road portion referred to in this Report;

 

2.   If Council wishes to proceed as in Resolution No.1, a further report be provided by staff describing:-    

 

(i)         the views of service providers as to the benefit of naming the road referred to in this report for improving access and

(ii)        a more detailed report be provided to Council on potential names for the new road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Map

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Aerial Photograph of Locality

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Existing Burns Bay Road Signage

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

Subject:          Response to Notice of Motion - Problems With High Front Guttering    

Record No:    SU1440 - 6924/09

Author(s):       Peter Thomas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

·     At the Council Meeting of 2 March 2009, Councillor Forrest Notice of Motion in relation to problems encountered with high fronted guttering.

·     The question was raised whether Council could amend its standard conditions to ensure that any future approvals complied with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

·     The issue of high fronted guttering is dealt with in Section 3.5.2.4(d) of the Building Code of Australia.

·     The existing conditions of consent for all development applications and a prerequisite for Complying Development is compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

Background and Discussion

 

It was resolved at the Council Meeting of 2 March 2009, that:-

 

On the Motion of Councillors Forrest and Bennison that report be brought back to Council as to how Council can immediately amend the standard conditions of consent to explicitly ensure that all new approvals for building works involving new or replacement guttering comply with the building Code of Australia.

 

In relation to the Building Code of Australia, this issue is dealt with as follows:-

 

3.5.2.4 (d)       Where high-fronted gutters are installed, provision must be made to avoid any overflow back into the roof or building structure by installing slotted gutters or the like.

 

This requirement is called up, with other structural type issues via the Council’s standard condition which states:-

 

All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

This condition is applicable to all Development consents.  A prerequisite for Complying Development is that it also must comply with the Building Code of Australia. Detailed specific Building Code requirements are not placed on consents.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 

Conclusion

 

The use of high fronted guttering is permitted under the Building Code of Australia, provided it has a slotted front to allow excess water to escape away from the building’s roof or wall cavity.  The Council’s existing conditions require compliance with the Building Code of Australia and this requires builders and Certifiers to ensure that this occurs.  Otherwise the building is in breach of the Building Code of Australia.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2009

 

Human Services Division Report No. 3

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 3

Subject:          Shorelink Library Network Restructure and Shorelink Policies    

Record No:    SU1738 - 7181/09

Author(s):       Jennifer Bice 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Shorelink is a computer network that links the five Lower North Shore Council Libraries of Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, Stanton (North Sydney) and Willoughby. The Network was established in1983 when the five participating Councils signed a Deed of Agreement. Shorelink is renowned for innovation and excellence in the provision of library information technology and is recognised as an outstanding example of local government co-operation.

 

Since July 2006 North Sydney Council has been the Agent Council for the Shorelink Library Network. The Agent Council is designated by the Shorelink Committee and manages the Shorelink administrative function on behalf of the five Councils. Contracts and tender arrangements on behalf of the Shorelink Library Network are managed by North Sydney Council.

 

In November 2007 Shorelink began investigating a restructure with services being moved to a managed services model and staff hours being reduced. The restructure relocates hardware and communications management to suppliers and enables Shorelink staff to concentrate on developing the network - utilising emerging technologies and enhancing Shorelink’s reputation for innovation.

 

The recommended model was endorsed by the Shorelink Committee in June 2008 – Lane Cove is represented on this Committee by Councillor Win Gaffney and Manager – Library Services, Jennifer Bice. The Shorelink Library Network Manager requested and was granted voluntary redundancy in December 2008.  This report details the progress of the restructure and asks Council to endorse changes to Council Policy L02023 Shorelink Policies and Procedures.

 

Background

 

At the November 2007 Shorelink Committee Meeting a confidential memo from the Library Managers was tabled and discussed. This memo recommended a review of the Shorelink Office to place Shorelink on a more sustainable footing, with a cost neutral result. This would involve a new structure combining the services of reduced Shorelink staff hours and increased services from the software and communications systems suppliers. At this Meeting the Committee resolved:-

 

RESOLVED: 2007/2008: 14 

 

THAT the Shorelink Library network resolves in principal to restructure the Shorelink Office and that the proposals and issues outlined by the Shorelink Library Managers be investigated and reported back to the Shorelink Committee in February 2008.

 

After much investigation by the Library Managers of the five Shorelink Libraries, with the assistance of the IT Managers of North Sydney and Willoughby Councils the Committee made the decision to proceed with the move to the restructure at the June 2008 Shorelink Committee Meeting.

 

Communications

 

Quotations were received from three telecommunication providers and the current provider was able to offer a complete service with significantly increased bandwidth at a very attractive price. Aside from price, the recommended supplier, Netforce’s advantage over the other submissions included a willingness to support the ancillary services (and hardware).

 

In December 2008 North Sydney Council advised the Shorelink Library Managers that the telecommunication contract would not require a tender process. The NSW Procurement Client Support Centre advised that Netforce services could be purchased under Government Contract 2069.

 

Library Management System

 

While the proposed restructure did not recommend a change of Library Management Systems (currently SirsiDynix) it did require a move to the SAAS (software as a managed service) delivery model.  Because Shorelink was to sign a three year contract with the existing supplier the Shorelink Secretary, Mosman’s Library Manager sought legal advice on tender requirements.  She was advised by Pike Pike & Fenwick, that Shorelink did not need to go to tender. The advice cites Section 55 (3) of the Local Govt. Act.  This view was supported by advice from the Agent Council, North Sydney.

 

Utilising the SaaS delivery model will allow Shorelink to obtain system management expertise for SirsiDynix products by SirsiDynix-certified systems administrators. By using SirsiDynix to host the Library Management System the network will gain the advantages of these technologically advanced products, but without having to be directly responsible for the time and skill intensive tasks of managing the software, hardware, and databases. The SirsiDynix SaaS product adds valuable services – such as capacity on demand, redundant systems, disaster recovery and 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year support – as well as reducing total cost of ownership. The intention is to let SirsiDynix take the burden of basic administration, leaving the Shorelink staff able to focus on more strategic goals.

 

This model of Library Management System delivery is common in the USA and Europe and has been chosen by several Australian libraries and Library consortia. As part of Shorelink’s investigation of SaaS all of the Library Managers and IT Managers from North Sydney and Willoughby Councils visited Yarra Plenty (large Victorian regional library service) and Goulburn Valley Public Library Service (member of SWIFT consortia). Both the standalone library service and the consortia member reported high levels of satisfaction with the SaaS product.

 

The SWIFT consortia was formed in 2006 by 9 Victorian public libraries and  utilises the SirsiDynix SaaS product. It is interesting that the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils group of libraries (16 LGAs) are currently considering joining the SWIFT consortia. The SWIFT consortia is confined to the purchase of Library Management System modules and shared access to collections  – the SWIFT consortia does not currently share a borrower database but they intend to follow the Shorelink example (twenty six years with shared borrowers) in the near future.

 

In addition to the basic services offered by SWIFT the Shorelink consortia also purchases and/or supports a number of other technology solutions including Internet provision, wireless access, Internet filtering, eBooks, Talking Technologies, PC Reservation systems, etc. The Shorelink restructure will allow Shorelink to seek further opportunities for co-operative arrangements within the network.

 

Staffing

 

Towards the end of 2008 the Shorelink Network Manager requested a voluntary redundancy and left Shorelink in December. The new position of Shorelink Co-ordinator has been advertised and interviews are scheduled in March 2009. The new Co-ordinator will be assisted by appropriate support staff, particularly during the restructure.

 


Restructure Scheduling

 

The restructure will be implemented in two stages, commencing with relocation of Telecommunications and Internet services to an external host site. When this component is up and running and has been fine tuned, the move of the Library Management System to the SirsiDynix remote hosting site will take place. The Shorelink Secretary is negotiating an implementation schedule with Netforce and SirsiDynix.

 

Shorelink Policies

 

The attached revised Policies Manual was adopted by the Shorelink Committee in November 2008.

 

The five Shorelink Libraries operate independent library services and have their own policies for most areas of operation - e.g. Library hours, period of loans, collection, censorship, fees & related income, etc. Lane Cove’s policies are listed in the Lane Cove Policy Manual L02001 – L02024.  However, there are some shared Shorelink polices that are determined by mutual agreement between the member Councils.

 

The Shorelink Policies Manual sets out the policies and procedures that member councils have agreed are necessary to ensure the smooth running of the network.  The revised Shorelink Policies Manual will replace Lane Cove Council Policy L02023 Shorelink Policies and Procedures.

 

Conclusion

 

As an innovative library consortium Shorelink has undergone many changes since 1983. As new technologies have evolved Shorelink has utilised them to produce outstanding outcomes for the member Councils’ communities. The three libraries with the highest loans per capita in NSW are all Shorelink libraries (Lane Cove, Willoughby and Mosman) and the other two Shorelink libraries (North Sydney and Manly) feature in the top fifteen.

 

The restructure will ensure 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year operations support (Telecommunication and Library Management System) and improved capacity planning (monitored by supplier).  It is intended that the Shorelink restructure will allow the network to concentrate on strategic goals and better utilising emerging technologies, putting it in a stronger position to face the next twenty six years of development.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Note the report.

 

2.         Endorse the Shorelink Policies Manual as Council Policy LO2023 Shorelink Policies and             Procedures.

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Shorelink Library Network Policies Manual

21 Pages