m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

2 May 2011

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 on Monday

2 May 2011 commencing at 7:00pm. 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 Win Gaffney. 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 the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, 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 2 May 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 18 APRIL 2011

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

2.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 17

SUBJECT: Results of the Consultation on the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery and Operational Plan, 2011-14 Budget, and Infrastructure Levy   

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

3.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 13

SUBJECT: Caroline Chisholm Lane Access

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

4.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

SUBJECT: Solar Photovoltaic Tender

 

5.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 13

SUBJECT: Sustainability Advisory Committee - Nominees  

 

 

 

 

                    


Ordinary Council Meeting 2 May 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 17

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 17

Subject:          Results of the Consultation on the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery and Operational Plan, 2011-14 Budget, and Infrastructure Levy      

Record No:    SU4183 - 15175/11

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the results of the consultation process for the proposed Infrastructure Levy, which indicates support for implementation of the levy. Council also undertook a separate consultation process for the Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025, Delivery Plan and Operational Plan, Budget and Fees and Charges, which are recommended for adoption, subject to a number of minor amendments.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 7 February 2011, considered Corporate Services Division Report No. 4, and resolved that:-

 

Council apply under s508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 to implement a 7.5% (Nett 6%) special variation on all rateable properties on a permanent basis.

 

The full background to the need for the Infrastructure Levy is contained in Corporate Services Division Report No. 66 considered at the Council Meeting of 6 December, 2011

 

Council at its meeting of 7 February 2011, also considered Corporate Services Division Report No. 11, and resolved that:-

“1.     Council adopt for the purpose of public exhibition, the Draft Budget 2011-14 (with an Infrastructure Levy and Without), Draft Fees and Charges 2011-12, Draft Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025, Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2011-2013, the Draft Infrastructure Works Program Facilities 2011-2016 and Draft Infrastructure Asset Works Plan 2011-2016;

2.      Council proceed to public exhibition as per the consultation strategy outlined in the report;

3.      Council adopt the 10 Year Financial Plan dated February 2011, Draft Workforce Plan 2011-2015, Draft Infrastructure Asset Management Plan Facilities dated February 2011 and Draft Infrastructure Asset Management Plan 2011, dated 24 February 2011; and

4.      Following public exhibition, the Draft Budget 2011-14 (with an Infrastructure Levy and Without), Draft Fees and Charges 2011-12, Draft Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025, Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2011-2013, Draft Infrastructure Works Program Facilities 2011-2016 and Draft Infrastructure Asset Works Plan 2011-2016 together with any submissions received, be considered at the Council meeting to be held on 2 May 2011.”

 

Discussion

 

Consultation Process – Infrastructure Levy

 

The Consultation Process for the proposed Infrastructure Levy was as follows:-

·     Briefing sessions to the leaders of local resident associations. Ten groups were represented including:- Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce, Greenwich Community Association, Lane Cove North Residents Association, Northwood Action Group, Osborne Park Progress Association, Riverview Community Association, Bike North Incorporated, Longueville Residents Association, North Shore Bicycle Group, Stringybark Creek Residents Association.

·     a Deliberative Poll of 400 ratepayers;

·     a staffed exhibition and survey over 3 days in the Plaza;

·     a front page information spread in the Council News;

·     an email to all registered 1612 e-newsletter members;

·     a website exhibition and survey;

·     static public exhibitions at the Council Administration Centre and Libraries,

·     quarter page colour public notices were placed in the North Shore Times.

 

Consultation Results – Infrastructure Levy

 

The Deliberative Poll of 400 Ratepayers was conducted by IRIS Research during February.  In short, the poll found 67% would prefer an infrastructure levy to cover the gap in funding for infrastructure renewal and maintenance. Consistent with this, 68% of respondents gave a rating of 3 or more (out of 5), in support of a levy. Mr Simon Pomfret from IRIS will be in attendance at the Council Meeting to provide a comprehensive presentation on the results of the poll.  The maximum error on proportion for the total sample is +/- 4.9%. The report on the survey results is included as Attachment 1.

Council sent an email through its enewsletter system to 1612 recipients inviting participation in a web survey and advertised it through the newspaper advertisements. There were 174 respondents to the website survey, which was undertaken using the same questions as the deliberative poll, on a ‘self select’ basis (i.e. no attempt is made to ensure a representative sample in terms of the demography of the community). All the material that was available to participants of the Deliberative Poll was available on the website together with additional fact sheets and photographs of infrastructure conditions.

The key finding of this survey is that a majority of survey participants (55%) would prefer an infrastructure levy to cover the gap in funding for infrastructure renewal and maintenance. Consistent with this, 59% of respondents gave a rating of 3 or more (out if 5), in support of a levy. A report on the survey results is included as Attachment 2.

Paper Based Surveys were issued at the staffed exhibition in the plaza, and at the Civic Centre and Libraries.  This survey was undertaken using the same questions as the deliberative poll, again on a ‘self select’ basis. There were 18 surveys completed, the key finding of this survey is that preference for the implementation of an infrastructure levy to cover the gap in funding for infrastructure renewal and maintenance is split amongst survey participants with 50% in support of a levy and 50% opposed. A report on the survey results is included as Attachment 3.

During the consultation period an article appeared in the North shore Times, in relation to the wording of the question in the survey “As a resident of Lane Cove, would you prefer to see an infrastructure levy to cover the gap in funding for renewal and maintenance of infrastructure or would you prefer a reduction in standards of infrastructure for Lane Cove?”. The issue raised by the resident in the North Shore Times, was that they believed the question to be leading as it did not allow an alternative. Council received six comments along these lines, 5 of which were received after the article

 

The survey questions were designed by IRIS Research, and this question really is asking the ultimate question, does the person support a levy. There are consequences in any decision and this question also states the consequences. Whilst it is true there are other alternative options to fund infrastructure, these were outlined in the supporting material which respondents were asked to read, this included the fact that 53% of the funds will come from Council changing its existing priorities. Ultimately, there is a limit to how much Council can do this without affecting other programs, particularly in a context where Council has endeavoured to expand support through community grants, and services, such as the new library, and provide better facilities such as the Aquatic Centre, Art Gallery and Meeting House community centre and Child Care Centre.

 

The following question in the survey “How would you rate your support for a infrastructure levy to allow Council to renew and maintain roads, footpaths, stormwater drains, cycle ways and other community infrastructure at an acceptable level?”, asks the respondent to indicate the level of support for the previous answer. In this way the respondent can say, for example, yes I support the need for a levy, but I don’t have a high level of support for a levy, perhaps due to financial circumstances etc. The results of the surveys showed little difference between the results for these two questions, there was overall however, slightly higher levels of support based on the second question.

 

During the consultation period, general submissions were invited; nine submissions were received from individuals. Two of the submissions were in support of a levy and seven were opposed. Submissions are also a ‘self select’ option.  The following table summarises the issues raised.

 

Substantive Comment

No.

Need for good communication

1

Council should live within its means / modify spending priorities

3

Adverse Financial Impact on the community

1

Explore other funding sources

1

Support Levy

1

Other

2

 

In addition six (6) submissions were received from community groups as follows:-.

 

Lane Cove North Residents Group

·     Opposes permanent levy but supports a seven-year levy.

·     Requests annual review against the goals of the Asset Management Strategy.

·     Requests Council conduct a review and update of the Asset Management Strategy in the fifth year of the Levy including an independent public audit, which should make recommendations as to whether the levy should continue.

 

Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society

·     Opposes permanent levy but supports a fixed term levy with a review in the 5th year to allow the community to comment on its effectiveness and impact on rates.

·     Council needs to be accountable for the funds.

·     Prefer Levy to fund facilities rather than Major Projects Plan.

 

North Shore Bicycle Group

·     Support Levy.

·     Requests implementation of the Bicycle Plan as a priority.

 

Lane Cove West Residents’ Association Inc

·     Opposes an Infrastructure Levy.

·     Suggests funding for infrastructure should be budgeted out of existing Council Rates.

 

Bike North Inc

·     Support Levy.

·     Requests staged implementation of the Bicycle Plan for completion within ten years.

 

Lane Cove ALIVE

·     Support Levy.

·     Suggested % of the levy be allocated to Public Artworks.

·     Concern about the cost of the levy to Commercial Property Ratepayers

 

Response to Issues Raised

 

Levy should be time limited to increase accountability

Council does not support a time-limited levy on the basis of the size of the infrastructure gap. Whilst all modeling has been based on a ten year horizon, there is nothing to suggest that beyond that period, a similar funding gap will not exist. Clearly, this issue is widespread across all levels of government and is a long-term issue.

 

Council will, as part of its annual customer satisfaction survey, track the community’s perceptions on the condition of infrastructure and the efficient application of the levy and report the results of this survey in Council’s annual report.

 

Council supports, in line with the Sustainability Levy ministerial authorisation to increase rates, a specific condition being placed on any approval to implement the infrastructure levy, which requires Council to publish the works program and associated costs in Council’s annual report.

 

Need for 5 year review of implementation progress, community support and asset management plans

This idea is supported. Council resolved in relation to the Sustainability Levy to conduct a poll of the community every five years to provide a formal opportunity for the community to review the projects that Council has funded, and Council’s commitments in relation to spending all of the money on new Sustainability initiatives. This process provides a formal opportunity for the community to review the projects that the Levy has funded, and Council’s commitment in relation to spending all of the money on infrastructure renewal.

 

The asset condition ratings for all assets will be reviewed every five years through further survey/data collection. This will allow updating of the asset management plans.

 

Funding of Bicycle Paths

Council supports funding of Bicycle Paths. Council received both support and objections to utilisation of the Infrastructure Levy for Bicycle Paths. Whilst there was a significant % in favour, the overall sample size is relatively small.  The Deliberative Poll showed low level of support for Bicycle Paths. The inclusion of Bicycle Paths as part of the renewal of footpaths is an efficient way of rolling out Bicycle Paths, as opposed to retro installing paths. The majority of paths will be shared paths, and Council has a commitment to the development of sustainable transport options.

 

Council should live within its means / modify spending priorities

Council has throughout this submission outlined its funding strategy, productivity improvements, and commitment to fund 53% of the gap from existing sources. This already involves Council readjusting its funding priorities. It is always possible to further readjust priorities, however, Council has chosen a ‘business as usual strategy’ in terms of the existing services it provides.

 

Adverse Financial Impact on the community

Section 4.4 outlines the impact on the community’s overall capacity to pay. Council has in place policies and procedures to deal with situations of hardship as outlined in Section 4.5. Deferral of decisions to address the Infrastructure backlog will cost more in the long run, as the asset deterioration model indicates assets deteriorate faster as their condition worsens.

 

Explore other funding sources

Council has throughout this submission outlined its funding strategy and its commitment to fund 53% of the gap from existing sources. In relation to using debt in lieu of a levy, funding the first 10 years of work via a series of 10 year loans would see the works cost an additional 44%, and Council would require a levy in excess of the 6% proposed, for 8 of the 19 years. Similarly if Council went for a 40 year loan, a levy of 4.9% would be required for 31 of the years to make the repayments. (Refer Attachment 9 of the IPART submission).


S94 Development Contributions

These are designed for asset enhancement not asset renewal. With the adoption of Lane Cove LEP 2009 there will be significant development with the local government area, which will require the utilisation of the relevant S94 Development Contributions for asset enhancement in the area of Public Domain, Open Space, Transport and Drainage.

 

State Government and Federal Government Grants

The level of funding to local government from the other tiers of government has been an key issue over the past three decades. Council in 2010 received $1.08M from the Federal Government and $952,000 from the State Government. Of this $2,03M, $911,000 is untied, i.e. it does not have to be used for a specific purpose. On the flip side, Council is currently required to pay $741,000 in levies to the State Government for Fire Services and Regional Open Space. This means there is very little funding available from other levels of government for diversion into Council priorities such as infrastructure renewal.

 

Private Sector Partnerships

Council delivered the new library and Market Square car park through such a partnership, but there are no models for funding general infrastructure through private sector partnerships.

 

Funding Public Art

The Levy is designed to cover core infrastructure and its funding level is based on condition surveys and asset deterioration models. No allowance has been made for the inclusion of artistic elements, this would need to be funded from General Revenue.

 

Concern about the cost of the levy to Commercial Property Ratepayers

Modelling on the financial impact of commercial properties was included in the original report to Council “In relation to the Business Rate based on a 6% levy, 85% of properties would pay $300 or less, while 58% of the 85%, pay only $41.“ It was highlighted to Council that this was not included in the website exhibition, and so this was added on 16 February, 2011, two weeks into the six week exhibition period. For clarification, the Special Rate Parking covering the Lane Cove Village is not affected and therefore will not increase as a result of the proposed levy.

 

Infrastructure Levy – Next Steps

 

A 458 page submission including the above consultation results was lodged with IPART by their stipulated deadline of 25 March, 2011 to allow them to commence their consideration of the submission. The submission in full is available on Council’s website.

 

Council must now determine whether or not to proceed with the levy. Council is required then to provide a copy of the resolution to IPART in support of the submission or withdrawing the submission

 

Consultation Process on the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Plan, Operational Plan and Budget

 

Prior to exhibition the changes outlined in the resolution were implemented. Consultation was undertaken up until 22 April 2011 as per the consultation strategy outlined in the previous report. It included:-

 

·     static public exhibitions at the Council Administration Centre and Libraries;

·     an email to all registered members of the community interested in any matter Council consults on;

·     a website exhibition and survey;

·     a Media Release was issued; and

·     two colour public notice in the North Shore Times.

 

Consultation Results on the Community Strategic Plan

 

Council received 1 submission with two separate comments on the Community Strategic Plan and only 2 of the 6 completed web surveys commented on the Plan. The Plan was developed over almost two years involving the broadest range of consultation ever undertaken by Council. The lack of comment generally, can be attributed to the success of the consultation and the effective translation of the issues raised into the plan.

 

1.         “I believe (although it is not the councils responsibility) that the Lane Cove Interchange need redesigning to support terminating buses at the interchange; therefore a simple way of turning buses at the interchange... then the extension of M20 services (our built environment 4.5) could be more easily achieved - it does seem nonsensical to terminate at Gore Hill. The draft CSP otherwise seems fair and reasonable.”

 

Comment

 

The Lane Cove Bus Interchange was designed by Theiss John Holland on behalf of Connector Motorways, to the specifications provided by the State Transit Authority. The area in question is owned by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. Council will forward the suggestion to these two State Government authorities for their consideration.

 

2.         “The inclusion of "affordable housing" may tick some politically correct boxes but I find it hard to believe that it reflects the wishes of the vast majority of constituents who chose to live in Lane Cove because it is a pleasant middle-class area, many of whom have worked and saved hard to move their families from "affordable" accommodation areas to Lane Cove.

 

Comment

 

            Affordable Housing is identified in the State Plan as being an issue for all communities, as all communities require workers to perform a wide variety of roles. For example, it is preferable for essential services workers to be able to live close to the area in which they work.  There is no easy model for the provision of affordable housing. To date, the main form of affordable housing in the Council area has been State Government provided public housing, which has been well integrated into the community and the inclusion of one bedroom units in new developments, which could be considered affordable housing in the broadest sense.

 

            As an inclusive community it is appropriate for Council to include this objective. Ultimately the form in which it is delivered will need to be consistent with all the objectives in the Community Strategic Plan to achieve the vision of , Lane Cove for a better quality of life.

 

3.   I think that having a cinema/movie complex in the area would greatly benefit the community as in people flow and entertainment for current residents. The cinema/movie complex can be owned and operated privately if not within budget - speaking to Greater Union or Hoyts cinemas etc. Also there is no easily accessible public transport to the area- such as train lines are not convenient, bus (only a couple, and on weekend is at awkward intervals).

 

Comment

 

Many of our residents have suggested that the Lane Cove area needs a cinema. Council has been actively considering this issue for some time. The new Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2009 allows for the operation of entertainment facilities – including for the cinema/movie complex in the Lane Cove Village Centre area and within the St. Leonards shopping area.  This zoning allows for Council to consider any proposal within these areas for such a complex.

In addition Council has considered the placement of a small theatre/cinema as part of any proposal that might occur on the Rosenthal Avenue site in the future. This site also has the potential for a public plaza area which has the ability to act as an outdoor screening venue. In the interim – Council screens films on an irregular basis in the Lane Cove Plaza; in the Lane Cove Library and in conjunction with Bluefit at the Lane Cove Aquatic Leisure Centre.

 

4.   If public transport was more readily accessible then people would be more inclined to come to Lane Cove. Sorry I forgot to give the example of trains – such as Macquarie is now easily accessible by train – as compared to before. And you can see that Macquarie Centre has flourished since then.

 

Comment

 

The Community Strategic Plan has strategies in place that addresses transport/ connectivity/ accessibility issues. They are:-

·           Review the adequacy of existing public and private transport networks to meet targeted increases in population growth;

·           Develop strategies for sustainable local & regional transport, including options for public transport to connect with existing transport services; and

·           Lobby for a connected, accessible, reliable, safe, sustainable and integrated transport system that will meet future needs.

 

As far as a Railway Network is concerned, the State Government has their specific plans for an extended Rail Network. St. Leonards which is part of Lane Cove Local Government Area is part of the existing Rail network. There are significant bus networks that connect Lane Cove and St Leonards and also Chatswood for train commutation, including the new Metrobus service along the Pacific Hwy. 

 

Consultation Results on the Delivery Plan, Operational Plan and Budget

 

Council received 4 fully completed web surveys and 21 submissions. All written submissions related to the Fees and Charges for Block Booking Times at the Golf Course.

 

Delivery and Operational Plan

 

1.         It's pretty formulaic & unimaginative

 

Comment

 

Council has prepared the plan to accord with the legislative requirements at the same time group issues into meaningful topic areas. The format is similar to its previous Management Plan, which has been well received by the community and staff alike.

 

Changes to the Draft Delivery Plan and Operational Plan

 

As part of an ongoing development of the Asset Management Plans, it is proposed to change the following Open Space and Urban Services performance measures in the Delivery Plan and Operational Plan to better reflect how progress of the Plans for each asset class is measured

 

Existing

New - Proposed

1. Road Pavement Condition Index

% of Road Segments upgraded to meet Asset Plan Program

2. Footpath Trip Claims

% of Footpath Segments upgraded to meet Asset Plan Program

3. Reduction in properties known to be subject to flooding

% of Stormwater pipes upgraded to meet Asset Plan Program

4. Assessment of catchments and adequacy of infrastructure.

 

Budget

 

No comments were received and no changes are proposed from the original Draft Budget.

 

Proposed Sustainability Levy Projects

 

1.         There is always a need for a levy for certain infrastructure

 

Comment

 

The comment is noted.

 

No changes are proposed to the Proposed Sustainability Levy Projects.

 

Fees and Charges

 

1          “I noticed you have increased the membership and playing fees for the Golf Club to levels equivalent to good quality 18 hole clubs but have failed to maintain or develop the course or the related facilities for years and made it very difficult for the club just about everytime it put forward initiatives to improve the facility and the value of the course and the club to council and to the community.”

 

In addition 19 written submissions were received in similar terms, to the above and one submission in support.

 

Comment

 

In relation to the Block Booking Fees for the Lane Cove Country Club, Council has met with the Club about the proposed increases and a common understanding on key issues, in principle, was reached. The Club have requested by letter dated 21 April, 2011 that consideration of setting the Block Booking Fees be deferred to a future Council Meeting to allow them to submit a proposal to Council by the end of May. As the new fees are not due to commence until 1 July, 2011, it is suggested Council agree to the deferral.

 

Draft Infrastructure Works Program Facilities and Draft Infrastructure Asset Works Plan

 

No comments were received and no changes are proposed from the original Draft plans.

 

Fixing of Rates and Charges

 

Council advertised two different rating structures, dependent on whether the Minister approves the 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy. A response from the Minister is not expected until mid June 2011. As the time required to actually levy the Rates and distribute the Rate Notices will be limited, it is proposed to adopt both rating structures, with the one to ultimately be applied, determined by the Minister’s decision.

 

Council has indicated in the Draft Delivery and Operational Plan its intention to levy two (2) Ordinary Rates - an Ordinary Residential Rate on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential and an Ordinary Business Rate on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Business; and one Special Rate - a Parking Special Rate on Business premises in Lane Cove (as per metes and bounds description).

 

Council’s Revenue Policy for 2011/2012 provides for a rating structure that is based on an ad valorem (rate in the dollar) with a minimum Rate. These Rates were advertised in the draft Draft Delivery and Operational Plan. Rates for 2011/2012 will be levied on the 1 July 2010 Base Date Valuations as recently issued by the Valuer General.

 

The Rates and Charges outlined in the recommendation to this report take into account any adjustments as a consequence of the amended and new valuations and also reflect the 2.8% annual rate peg increase approved by the Minister and if approved the additional 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy, if approved by the Minister.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The Draft Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025 be adopted.

 

2.   Council advise IPART that it wishes to proceed with an application under s508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 to implement an additional 7.5% (Nett 6%) special variation on all rateable properties on a permanent basis.

 

3.   The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2011-2013, the Draft Infrastructure Works Program Facilities 2011-2016 and Draft Infrastructure Asset Works Plan 2011-2016 without and with a 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy, as amended by the report, be adopted, the latter to apply if the Minister for Local Government grants Council’s application for a 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy;

 

4.   The Draft Budget 2011-14 without and with a 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy for the period July 2011 to June 2014 be adopted, the latter to apply if the Minister for Local Government grants Council’s application for a 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy;

 

5.   The Draft Fees and Charges for 2011-12 be adopted, with the exception of the Golf Course Block Booking Fees, which will be considered by Council at a future meeting.

 

6.   Subject to the Minister for Local Government granting Council’s application for a 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy, Council :-

 

a.   conduct a poll of the community every five years to provide a formal opportunity for the community to review the projects that Council has funded, and Council’s commitments in relation to spending all of the money on Infrastructure Renewal;

b.   discontinue the Stormwater Management Service Charge; and

c.   utilise the responses from the surveys and suggestions raised in the submissions to assist in administering the levy and the prioritisation of projects to be funded from the levy.

 

7.   Council fix the Ordinary Rates and Charges for 2011/12 as follows (the amounts in brackets are to apply if the Minister for Local Government approves the 7.5% (6% nett) Infrastructure Levy):-

 

            (a) Ordinary Rates

 

(i)    An Ordinary Residential Rate of 0.160156 (0.171853) cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $468 ($502), to yield $13,085,535 ($14,040,218).

 

(ii)    An Ordinary Business Rate of 0.698199 (0.749105) cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Business in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, with a Minimum Rate of $696 ($747), to yield $4,811,907 ($5,162,969).

 

(iii)   Council being of the opinion that works related to the construction and maintenance of car parking facilities will be of benefit to that part of the Local Government Area as defined by the metes and bounds description as advertised in the North Shore Times on 13 June, 1979, that a Parking Special Rate, of 0.174306 cents (0.174306 cents) in the dollar be made for 2011/12 on the Land Value of all rateable land within that part, in accordance with S.538 of the Local Government Act 1993, with a Minimum Rate of $2.00.

 

(b) Domestic Waste Management Charges

i.   in accordance with S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, that an annual charge of $364.00 per annum be made for the year 2011/2012, for domestic waste management services rendered to all properties categorised residential or non-rateable residential, for each once weekly 80 litre MGB (or equivalent) service;

ii.  in accordance with S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, that an annual charge of $104.00 per annum be made for the year 2011/2012, for Domestic Waste Management Services for all properties categorised residential vacant land;

iii.  in accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $5.33 per service  ($277.00 per annum) be  made for the year 2011/2012, for each additional weekly 80 litre domestic waste management service rendered to owner occupied single occupancy residential dwellings (excluding green waste and recycling service);

iv. in accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $7.00 per service ($364.00 per annum) be made for the year 2011/2012, for each extra weekly 80 litre (or equivalent) domestic waste management service rendered to other single occupancy residential properties;

v.  in accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $7.00 per service ($364.00 per annum) be made for the year 2011/2012, for each once weekly 80 litre (or equivalent) domestic waste management service rendered to non-rateable  properties;

vi. in accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $7.00 per service ($364.00 per annum) be made for the year 2011/2012, for each once weekly 80 litre (or equivalent) domestic waste management service rendered to residential units above business category premises.

 vii. in accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993 that a pay-for-use-charge of $4.00 per fortnightly service ($104.00 per annum) be made for the year 2011/12 for each extra recycling service to single residential dwellings.

 

            (c) Interest on Overdue Rates and Charges

i.   In accordance with the provisions of S.566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council hereby resolves that the interest rate to apply for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 to all outstanding rates and charges be calculated at the maximum interest rate currently 9.0% as specified by the Minister for Local Government.

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Link to Submission to IPART in support of an Infrastructure Levy

AT‑2 View

Link to Draft Community Strategic Plan, Draft Delivery Plan and Operational Plan, Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges, Draft Infrastructure Works Plans as exhibited


Ordinary Council Meeting 2 May 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 13

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 13

Subject:          Caroline Chisholm Lane Access    

Record No:    SU1849 - 16285/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council requested in March that options be presented on the means to prevent potential future vehicle access across the southern end of Caroline Chisholm Lane to private properties.

 

It is recommended that Council undertake road closure under the Roads Act 1993 of the southern portion of Caroline Chisholm Lane, indicated on the map at AT-1. It is proposed that pedestrian access be retained by a right of way to be created over the land, and a small park be created with appropriate open space zoning and community land classification.

 

Background

 

On 7 March 2011, Council resolved that a report be brought back on “options and recommendations for rezoning the unformed part of Caroline Chisholm Lane to prevent any vehicular access”.

 

Additionally, a letter has been received from Anthony Roberts, MP asking Council to look into the request by a resident as to whether “the Lane… can be rezoned to be a pedestrian way”.

 

This report describes the existing legislative controls relating to the area, and proposes options to achieve the goal of preventing vehicular access to private properties, while retaining the land’s potential for pedestrian access and other public use.

 

Discussion

 

Current Status and Use of the Land

 

The land is a vegetated area of approximately 150m2.  To its north, the formed road section of Caroline Chisholm Lane extends 95 metres to Cope Street, serving several blocks of residential flats. The unmade portion which is the subject of the report forms part of a pedestrian network linking between Cope Street, Burns Bay Road and Hartman Hill bush reserve to the east.

 

The (east-west) path between Burns Bay Rd and Hartman Hill is 3 metres wide east of its juncture with the (north-south) Caroline Chisholm Lane (adjacent to the existing flats at 292-298 Burns Bay Rd) but only 1.5 metres west of that point (adjacent to the proposed flats at 288 Burns Bay Rd) .

 

The three sets of legislation applying to the land are:-

(i)         Roads Act 1993:  Caroline Chisholm Lane is a local road, and under the Act a “road” can mean a lane or also a non-vehicular pedestrian path. Not all roads are made roads; for example, unmade roads exist across the Golf Course.

(ii)        Environmental Planning & Assessment Act: All roads in Lane Cove were required to be zoned to the adjacent zone, in this case, High Density Residential R4. This was a requirement of the NSW Standard LEP template and applies to all roads in Lane Cove, but does not indicate an intention to develop roads for residential flats, etc.

(iii)       Local Government Act 1993: Roads are classified as “operational” to allow functional infrastructure uses.

 

Based on the legislation applying to the subject land, it is proposed that the road be closed and be classified as community land by Council. The area would then comprise parkland with a footpath linking through to the existing path through to Hartman Hill.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to comply with the public notification requirements of the Department of Lands.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposed road closure.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key message givers, Immediate neighbours through to Central Ave and Longueville Rd east side between Little St and Central Ave, and Relevant Public Authorities

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, Public Exhibition, E-Newsletter, and Website Exhibition

Letters

Public Exhibition, E-Newsletter, and Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

May 2011- June 2011

May 2011- June 2011

May 2011- June 2011

 

Conclusion

 

The first part of the process would be to close that part of the unmade portion of Caroline Chisholm Lane on which Council wants to prevent vehicular access.

 

Staff would comply with the Memorandum of Understanding that Council has with the Department of Lands with respect to the road closure and then report back to Council on any submissions received during the consultation process.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.         Council commence the process to close part of the unmade portion of Caroline Chisholm Lane at its southern end in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Lands dated 28 April 2006;

2.         Council undertake community Consultation for a  period of 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

3.         A further report be received outlining the submissions received.

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Land Proposed for Road Closure

1 Page

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 2 May 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

Subject:          Solar Photovoltaic Tender    

Record No:    SU4236 - 15946/11

Author(s):       Claire  Brittain; Steve  Fedorow 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides further information requested by Council regarding the tender for the provision and installation of Solar Photovolatic Panels on the Lane Cove Library, Lane Cove Community Centre & Council Administration Centre and seeks Council’s consideration of the Tender Panels recommendation.

 

Background

 

At its meeting of 18 April 2011 Council considered an open tender report (shown attached as AT-1) for the provision and installation of Solar Photovoltaic Panels on the Lane Cove Library, Lane Cove Community Centre & Council Administration Centre and resolved that:-

“1.  The appointment of a Tenderer be deferred; and

 2.  The General Manager provide a report back to Council with the following information:-

a.   Cost/Benefit analysis between existing electricity costs and the use of Photovoltaic Panels;

b.   The pay-back period for the purchase of Photovoltaic Panels;

c.   In terms of ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ how is the reductions achieved and by how much (i.e. reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions per annum);

d.   In regard to (c), whether or not the Photovoltaic Panels have a diminishing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and if so, what is the expected Greenhouse Gas Emission life time and what is the rate of diminution; and

e.   A breakdown of the costs of the project and the funding sources be provided.”

 

Discussion

 

a.         Cost-Benefit Analysis

 

A basic cost-benefit analysis for the installation of solar panels would ideally compare the cost of electricity generated by the solar PV system and the cost of grid electricity purchased by Council for each of the facilities in question.

 

Assumptions

 

The facilities under consideration have different electricity arrangements, however all three facilities have time-of-use metering and are therefore charged different rates for peak, shoulder and off-peak electricity use.  As solar PV systems only generate electricity during sunlight hours only the peak and shoulder rates of grid electricity need be considered.

 

Peak: 2pm to 8pm weekdays

Shoulder: 7am to 2pm weekdays and 7am to 10pm weekends


 

 

 

Peak rate (c/kWh)

Shoulder (c/kWh)

Civic Centre

16.5

15.4

Lane Cove Library

18.6

15.6

Community Centre

28.8

16.8

 

The proposed solar PV system has a cost of $4,475 per kilowatt (kW) capacity of solar panels installed. A typical 1 kW solar PV system in Sydney generates 3.9 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per day (data sourced from the Clean Energy Council of Australia). Over the 25 years that the solar panels are under warranty, they can be expected to produce 35,612 kWh of electricity. The cost of electricity generated would therefore be 12.6c/kWh. This would be cheaper than both the peak and shoulder tariffs for all three buildings.

 

This basic cost-benefit analysis has been conducted based on the price of electricity as of April 2011. However, IPART has approved price increases for the cost of electricity from 1st July 2011. While the exact increase in the cost of grid electricity is uncertain, IPART estimates increases in the range of 15-20% from 1st July 2011, with further increases in the order of 10% from 1st July 2012. The main reason for the projected price increases is the increased cost of electricity distribution.

 

Any increase in the price of electricity would tip the cost-benefit analysis even further in favour of installation of solar PV systems. The installation of solar PV systems would be a way for Council to reduce the cost burden of electricity price rises in future years.

 

This cost-benefit analysis does not consider impacts of a feed-in tariff due to the current uncertainty surrounding a possible feed-in tariff in NSW. Under a feed-in tariff arrangement, Council could be eligible to receive a payment per kWh of electricity generated by the solar panels. This would further reduce the cost of electricity generated by a solar PV system.

 

In addition to any direct economic benefits, there would be a number of non-financial benefits of this project including:-

 

·     Avoided greenhouse gas emissions and the associated damage cost to the environment;

·     Opportunity for Council to demonstrate leadership in sustainability and energy conservation; and

·     Opportunity to educate and raise awareness within the community about the benefits of solar PV.

 

b.         Payback Period

 

The payback period is difficult to calculate without knowing exactly what proportion of avoided grid electricity consumption occurs during peak and what proportion occurs during shoulder periods. As an estimate however, it would be reasonable to assume that on weekdays half the avoided grid electricity purchase occurs during shoulder and half the avoided grid electricity purchase occurs during peak periods. On weekends, all of the avoided grid electricity consumption would occur during the shoulder period.

 

Based on this assumption and current electricity prices, the payback period for both the Civic Centre and the Lane Cove Library would be 19 years and the payback period for the Community Centre would be 15 years.

 

As discussed previously, if the expected price of electricity rises then the potential savings realised by the installation of solar PV systems would be greater and the payback period would therefore be shorter.

 

The solar PV panels to be supplied by the recommended Tender have a minimum performance warranty of 25 years, which is longer than the payback period for the panels. This would mean that for every year beyond the payback period that the panels continue to generate electricity there would be a net cost saving to Council.

 

c.         Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

 

Solar PV panels contribute to greenhouse gas reduction by displacing energy consumption from the electricity grid. Electricity generation from solar panels has no associated greenhouse gas emissions because the energy input is sunlight. By comparison, grid electricity in NSW is typically sourced from coal-fired power stations, which release greenhouse gases during combustion. The electricity generated by solar PV panels reduces the need to purchase an equivalent amount of electricity from the grid, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Electricity purchased from the grid in NSW has an emission factor of 0.89 kgCO2-e/kWh, which means that for every kWh of electricity purchased from the grid 0.89 kg of greenhouse gases are emitted.

 

As previously mentioned, a typical 1 kW solar PV system in Sydney would generate 3.9 kWh of electricity per day, or 1424 kWh per year. A 1 kW solar PV system would therefore reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1268 kg/year or nearly 32 tonnes over its 25 year lifetime.  When extrapolated across a 55kW installation this would equate to lifetime greenhouse gas emissions reductions of approximately 1740 tonnes of CO2e.

 

The Tender specifications state that monitoring equipment must be included with the solar panels. This means that the actual performance and avoided greenhouse gas emissions from the solar PV system can be monitored over its lifetime.

 

d.         Performance Over Lifetime

 

Solar panels continue to contribute to greenhouse gas reduction for as long as they are generating electricity and therefore avoid the need to purchase equivalent electricity from the grid.

 

In terms of performance, the solar panels from the recommended Tender come with a minimum performance guarantee of 90% over 12 years and 80% over 25 years. This means that at the end of their warranted lifetime the solar panels would still be generating at least 80% of the electricity generated when new.

 

e.         Project Costs and Funding Sources

 

This project will cost $4475 per kilowatt capacity installed for the solar PV system. This cost can be broken down as:-

 

·     $3575.00 per kilowatt capacity for the cost of materials (includes panels, inverter, mounting system, wiring and data logger); and

·     $900.00 per kilowatt capacity for installation.

 

It is recommended that Council install solar PV systems totalling 55 kW on the Civic Centre, Library and Community Centre. This would cost $246,125 (inc GST). The funding sources identified for this project are as follows:

 

·     $88,000 (inc GST) – from NSW Government’s Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments. This amount of funding has been approved by the NSW Government solely for the installation of solar PV systems and must be spent and installed before 30th June 2011;

·     $85,250 (inc GST) – initial allocation approved as part of 2010/2011 Sustainability Levy budget (Budget Ref 7665.3876.100); and

·     $72,875 (inc GST) – reallocation from 2010/2011 Sustainability Levy projects savings or did not use their full budget allocation. The majority of this funding has been reallocated from the “Meeting House – Ecologically Sustainable Development” line item where it would have been spent on sustainable technologies such as solar panels, solar hot water and rainwater tanks. (Note that funding has been allocated in 2011/2012 to allow these Meeting House initiatives to occur as planned)

Conclusion

This report provides Council with the additional information requested to enable Council to consider the Tender Panels recommendation that:-

Having recorded the highest score across all the weighted criteria and positive reference checks were received about the quality and reliability of their work, the Tender Panel recommends that:-

1.   The tender from Green Solar Group, be accepted to install photovoltaic systems at Lane Cove Civic Centre, Lane Cove Community Centre and Lane Cove Library totalling 55 kilowatts across all sites, at a cost of $246,125 (inc GST); and

2.   The General Manager be authorised to enter into contract with Green Solar Group. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council considers the recommendation from the Tender Panel for the provision of photovoltaic systems at Lane Cove Civic Centre, Lane Cove Community Centre and Lane Cove Library totalling 55 kilowatts across all sites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Report Tender for Photovoltaic Panels

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 2 May 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 13

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 13

Subject:          Sustainability Advisory Committee - Nominees    

Record No:    SU3993 - 15979/11

Author(s):       Claire  Brittain 

 

 

 

Background

 

At its meeting of 16 April 2011 Council considered a report regarding nominations for Council’s Sustainability Advisory Committee and resolved to defer the appointment of one person from the nominations as a community representative for the Sustainability Advisory Committee until the Council Meeting of the 16 May 2011.”

 

Discussion

 

All four nominations received for the Sustainability Advisory Committee were of the highest quality and each candidate was considered suitable for the committee. However, there is only one vacancy and therefore one nomination must be endorsed.

 

The criteria for membership of the SAC:-

 

·     A demonstrated interest in sustainability and related issues;

·     A commitment to sustainability in Lane Cove, Australia and/or internationally, incorporating environmental, social, economic and governance aspects;

·     Qualifications, knowledge or experience in a related field; and

·     A willingness to contribute to the management of sustainability activities in Lane Cove according to the SAC Charter.

 

As all nominees meet the general criteria for membership to the SAC, each nomination has been further considered with respect to the existing membership of the SAC and identified gaps in the knowledge and experience of the committee. A further two criteria are suggested to aid Council’s consideration:

 

Involvement in Lane Cove Community - Most of the members on the SAC have an academic and technical background with limited community involvement in sustainability at the local level. Appointing a nominee who is actively involved in sustainability in the Lane Cove community would fill this gap in the current SAC.

 

Interest in SAC priority areas - The current SAC has decided that the priorities for the next year are energy, transport and education. It is therefore also recommended that a person be nominated with an interest in these areas.

 

A confidential memorandum has been forwarded separately to Councillors outlining how each nominee meets the stated criteria.

 

Conclusion

 

Having regard to the current membership of the committee and to balance the skills that Council is able to draw upon in seeking advice on sustainability issues it is recommended that Council endorse a nominee to the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.    Give consideration to appointing one person from the nominations received as a community representative for the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

2.    Place one or more of the other three nominees on an eligibility list for consideration should a further vacancy arise during the current term of the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

3.    Notify all nominees of the outcome of the selection process and thank them for their interest in the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.