m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

15 July 2013

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 15 July 2013 commencing at 7.00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Scott Bennison. 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 on 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 on 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 15 July 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 JUNE 2013

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       Amendment to Car Parking Requirements

 

3.       Sister City Visit Hu Zhou City, China

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

4.       Illuminated Advertising on Construction Site Cranes

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

5.       Dog Walking Companies in Lane Cove

 

6.       Review of Tree Preservation Controls

 

7.       Proposed Fee for Commercial Car Share in Lane Cove

 

8.       Works Schedule - Section 94 Plan

 

9.       Participation and Community Engagement (PACE) Program - Partnership with Macquarie University

 

10.     Local Government NSW Conference 2013

 

11.     External Auditor Appointment for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019

 

12.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 June 2013

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

13.     Council Snapshot   

 

 

        


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Amendment to Car Parking Requirements

 

 

Subject:          Amendment to Car Parking Requirements    

Record No:    SU3474 - 31486/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

I seek Council’s support to make two changes to Council’s Planning Controls in relation to car parking. The first relates to better aligning the parking requirements in commercial areas the second relates to increasing the parking requirements for units.

 

Parking Requirements for Commercial Areas

 

One of the key indicators of the economic health of our village is the level of vacancies, which have been impacted by the turbulent economic environment and pressure from online shopping. Council introduced Lane Cove ALIVE with a view to ensuring our village is a vibrant, sustainable shopping precinct, however, my attention has been drawn to an area in which Council’s policy is impacting on the competitiveness of the village to attract tenants compared with neighbouring councils.

 

The issue relates to the provision of car parking for shops and cafes. At the moment Council’s policy requires the provision of additional parking for restaurants/cafes compared to other retail uses. This means that where a landlord wishes to change the shop use to a Café/Restaurant, a requirement for provision of additional parking (or payment of a Section 94 contribution in lieu of this) is triggered. As no actual construction normally takes place, a s94 contribution is required in the form or an upfront payment, which is often a deterrent for the potential tenant.

 

I have asked staff to check, and neither North Sydney nor Willoughby have similar differentiation. North Sydney actually requires less parking for cafés/restaurants than general commercial/retail, while Willoughby has the same rates, however they do require additional spaces for staff for Restaurants. Unlike these two councils, the commercial properties within the village also pay an additional parking levy as part of their Rates, which currently generates around $179,000 per year.

 

In reality there has not been significant revenue raised from the s94 contributions from changes of use, while the parking levy provides a secure ongoing contribution by the commercial properties to parking. Therefore, I do not see why Council should continue to differentiate on this basis and retain the deterrent for businesses to come to our area. Should any additional floor space be added, then s94 contributions will still be payable

 

I propose that Council make the car parking requirements for Retail and Restaurants/Cafes the same. To do this, an amendment to the Development Control Plan will need to be advertised.

 

Parking Requirements for Units

 

With the large number of units to be built under Council’s LEP, I am concerned that Council’s current parking requirements for units will not provide sufficient spaces to stop the overflow of parking onto the surrounding streets. This is a common problem in areas where there is a concentration of units, and I believe it is an outcome that can be avoided if Council simply better aligns the parking requirements to the reality that couples and families living in units will more than likely have two cars.  For this reason I propose that Council increase the requirements for car parking to be 1.5 spaces for 1 and 2 bedroom units (1 bedroom units currently only require one space). The requirement for 2 spaces for a 3 bedroom unit will remain unchanged. This change still provides flexibility to developers whether to allocate the additional spaces to the 1 or 2 bedroom units and will reduce the impact on surrounding streets. 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Make the following amendments to the Development Control Plan (DCP)”-

 

a.   Part D, Clause 1.4.2 Car Parking – Commercial in all other areas, remove “(III) Restaurants – 1 space per 4 seats”, and amend the description of (I) to, “Retail/Restaurants/Commercial Uses – 1 space per 40m2 of gross floor area”.

 

b.   Part C, Clause 3.12 a) - Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces, be amended to “II. 1 bedroom dwelling = 1.5 spaces”

 

2.   Undertake the necessary public consultation to implement the proposed changes to the Development Control Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Sister City Visit Hu Zhou City, China

 

 

Subject:          Sister City Visit Hu Zhou City, China    

Record No:    SU4964 - 32624/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a response in relation to forming a ‘Sister City’ relationship with Hu Zhou City in China. The following is a translation of the letter:-

 

“Wu Zhou Foreign Affair and Overseas-Chinese Office reply to the Mayor Scott Bennison, and the Mayor will have a business visit together with some of our local business group within this year. Having the ideas and or discussion for the joint venture and or business with their locals in the areas of economic, education, cultural and technology. They will give you a warm welcome and introduce the provinces government officials (i.e. the leader of the city and all the management level official ) and also, meeting their local business corporation and some seminars and forums and a tour the city.”

 

At our last meeting, Council determined it will not pay any expenses for Councillors related to an overseas Sister City visit unless:-

1.  There is a justifiable and measurable social or economic benefit to Lane Cove; and

2. The Division of Local Government Guidelines on the Provision of Facilities and Payment of Expenses to Mayors and Councillors and related Council policies are met for transparency purposes.

 

I would like to form a working party of Councillors to consider what can possibly be achieved through a ‘Sister City’ relationship with Hu Zhou City, with a view to a formal report being considered by Council as to whether or not to proceed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That :-

 

1.         Council form a Working Party of Councillors to consider what can possibly be achieved through a ‘Sister City’ relationship with Hu Zhou City; and

 

2.         A report on the outcomes be submitted to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Illuminated Advertising on Construction Site Cranes

 

 

Subject:          Illuminated Advertising on Construction Site Cranes    

Record No:    SU1802 - 32892/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Daniel Strassberg; Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That any and all illuminated signage on any crane or machinery that is operating on a construction site, only be illuminated during the hours of construction as approved by the Development Application. The only signage that is permitted to be illuminated outside these hours are those that are required for work, health and safety reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Dog Walking Companies in Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Dog Walking Companies in Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU1277 - 27358/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

There are a number of commercial Dog Walking businesses using Council’s parks and reserves to operate their business. Currently, Council does not have a policy which sets out conditions for the use of its parks and reserves by these businesses, including any requirement for these businesses to provide details of their public liability insurance.

 

A draft policy has been developed outlining a registration system whereby commercial dog walkers must register with Council and then be required to comply with certain conditions in order to operate their business in Council’s parks and reserves.

 

Background

 

It was resolved at the meeting of 20 May 2013 that Council prepare a Draft Commercial Dog Walking Policy and make a recommendation for an appropriate annual fee to be charged.

 

Discussion

 

Both the Local Government Act 1993 and the Crown Lands Act 1989 have provisions which govern the use of Public Open Space for various specified activities/prescribed purposes and the requirement for any person engaging in these various activities/purposes to obtain Council approval.

 

Council has obtained legal advice as to whether it is able to require dog walking businesses to register their dog walking activity with the Council in the circumstances where that activity takes place on crown land falling under the operation of the Crown Lands Act 1989. The advice received is that:-

“There is no legal precedent that the author is aware of in which a local government authority has sought to regulate the activity in the manner described. That said, in my legal opinion it would be possible to regulate the activity having regard to the operation of both Section 45 and 156 of the Crown Lands Act. Such a regulatory regime will, however, necessitate further discussions and liaison with the Department of Lands and the Minister administering the Act.”

There is no intention to require local residents who exercise their dogs or their neighbour/friend’s dogs in the off-leash dog exercising areas in Lane Cove to register.

 

The Companion Animals Act 1998 includes the following relevant sections in respect of the proposed policy:-

 

13(5) Exempts a dog from being on a lead if a dog accompanied by some competent person in an area declared to be an off-leash area by a declaration under this section (but only if the total number of dogs that the person is accompanied by or has control of does not exceed 4),

 

Council can declare certain dogs to be restricted under Division 6 of the Act. Council declared restricted dogs refer to any dog where the council is of the opinion that a dog is of a breed or kind of dog on the restricted dog list or a cross-breed of any such breed or kind of dog, as shown attached as AT 1. Whilst these restricted breeds are not allowed to access the Leash Free areas, there are no provisions which allow Council to determine other breeds to be restricted in public places, the only restricted breeds are American Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Toza, Argentinean Fighting Dog and Brazilian Fighting Dog.

 

A Draft Policy having regard to the legislation has been developed and has been included as AT 2. The annual fee under the policy could be similar to that for commercial fitness groups and personal trainers, that is, an initial registration application fee of $50 and an annual fee of $200.

 

There is no area set aside in Lane Cove LGA exclusively as a dog exercise area. All the existing off leash dog areas are either playing fields or parks and are used by the community for a range of different recreational activities. The playing fields are used most weekends for organised games and for training mid week throughout the year.

 

 At Kingsford Smith Oval, there is potential for a reconfiguration of the park area off to the south of the playing field on the Stuart St frontage, where the existing children’s playground, tennis practice wall and basketball hoop are located. The existing children’s play equipment is scheduled to be upgraded in the near future, allowing an opportunity to move the playground area away from its current location. There is enough area to provide for a fenced dog exercise area of around 750 square metres and could include specialised dog agility equipment including hurdles, ramps and platforms. A fenced area here specifically for dogs would be a replacement for the use of the playing field as an off leash area and this would then become solely an area for recreation. 

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the draft policy and determine whether there is community support for introducing this policy and associated fee. The consultation will also include questions relating to the possibility of a fenced dog agility area at Kingsford Smith Oval to the south of the playing field. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with or amend the draft policy and registration fee.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Dog walking businesses currently using Lane Cove Public Open Space

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

 

Notification Letters and

Brochure / Letterbox Drop

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Survey

 

Indicative Timing

August to September 2013

August to September 2013

August to September 2013

 


Conclusion

 

Currently, Council does not have a policy which sets out conditions for the use of its parks and reserves by commercial Dog Walking businesses, including any requirement for these companies to provide details of their public liability insurance.

 

This can be achieved by utilising a policy and registration system whereby commercial dog walkers must register with Council and provide Council with a copy of the approved public liability insurance for a minimum of $10 million and produce documentary evidence of this.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.    Endorse the Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses dated 8 July 2013 and shown attached as AT 1, for the purpose of public exhibition.

2.    Place the Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report.

3.    Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation.

4.    Develop a plan to create a separate leash free area at the southern end of Kingsford Smith Oval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Brochure - Dangerous and Restricted Dogs

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Draft Policy for Commercial Dog Walking Businesses

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Review of Tree Preservation Controls

 

 

Subject:          Review of Tree Preservation Controls    

Record No:    SU729 - 28971/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A review has been undertaken of Council’s current Tree Preservation Controls, comparing these to the tree preservation requirements in nine (9) comparable Councils and with the requirements set out in State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

A number of recommended changes to the existing controls are proposed to achieve a greater consistency to the requirements with neighbouring and nearby councils and to align with the current NSW Government approach in the NSW Housing Code. It is proposed that, subject to community consultation, these changes be introduced on a trial basis for 6 – 12 months to assess the impact on the landscape character of Lane Cove.

 

It is also proposed that Council engage an Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Level 8 Arborist to act as an arbitrator in disputed tree matters between Council and residents.

 

Background

 

A review has been completed on Council’s Tree Preservation Controls formerly known as the Tree Preservation Order (TPO). This included a review of the controls and processes of nine (9) comparable Councils’ TPO provisions in relation to exempt tree species, size of trees that are exempt, proximity of trees to structures, tree health and type of actions and provisions for pruning and removal. Included as AT 2 is a summary comparison of the tree controls of other councils reviewed.

 

This review was prompted by a number of factors including the inconsistency between Council’s current requirements regarding tree preservation and those included in State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. Clause 3A.7 of this SEPP states that:-

 

A complying development certificate for complying development under Division 1 is taken to satisfy any requirement under this Policy for a permit or development consent to remove or prune a tree or other vegetation if the tree or vegetation:-

 

(a) is within 3 metres of the proposed development;

(b) is less than 6 metres high; and

(c) is not listed on a significant tree register or register of significant trees kept by the council.

 

Discussion

 

Tree Preservation Controls are developed to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values. The existing tree canopy is a major factor defining the local character of Lane Cove, in particular the existing significant trees, including both native and exotic species.

 

Most comparable councils allow for more self assessment against one or more exemption categories than Lane Cove, with a height limit greater than the 4 metre minimum height set out in Council’s controls and a larger number of exempt species. A number of changes are proposed to the Tree Preservation Controls following the recent review, which are expanded below:-

 

1.   Height Limit

The most significant recommendation is to raise the minimum height limit requiring a permit from Council to prune or remove a tree, from the existing 4 metre to a proposed 6 metre minimum height, consistent with the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes). Any reference to trunk diameter would be deleted. The height of canopy trees in Lane Cove is on average greater than 6 m and such a change is unlikely to impact negatively on the overall landscape character of the area. However, this would exempt the large shrubs and small trees that are commonly used as screening between properties from needing approval from Council before they can be pruned or removed. Council would then no longer be involved in decisions regarding this type of vegetation.

 

There has been a trend in landscaping to not include trees, but rather focus on large shrubs and small trees which in the longer term could reduce the overall canopy, with replacement trees not being available. It is understood that one of the reasons for this, is the concern of owners that the current restrictions apply for relatively small (4 metre) trees. It is hoped that by increasing the height it will encourage increased utilisation of trees in landscaping.

 

2.   Exempt Trees

 

It is proposed to extend the number of tree species exempt from the controls, to include all tree species that are noxious weeds and those tree species that are rarely refused. A number of trees species, specifically camphor laurel, silky oak, jacaranda and liquidambar would only require a permit if they were landmark trees, defined in this case as over 10m in height.

 

3.   Pruning

 

The Pruning of branches overhanging the roofline of houses would be exempt for some species, but all Eucalyptus, Angophora, Corymbia and Syncarpia species would require a permit. These species need to be pruned to an appropriate specification as set out in a permit from Council. It is considered that allowing pruning of these trees, which are in many localities the defining landscape element, to be done without any assessment by Council staff could have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the LGA. Species other than the ones listed, could be pruned back to within 2 m of the building line.

 

4.   Dead Trees

 

Whilst some of the councils reviewed provide for dead trees to be exempt from the controls, it is not recommended. Trees are often incorrectly identified as dead when they are in fact deciduous (i.e. lose their foliage in the colder months). Some of the other councils’ Exempt Trees policies allow for a tree to be certified as dead by an arborist. However, the cost to the resident for a private arborist to certify that a tree is dead would exceed the cost of making an application to Council under the current Tree Preservation Controls. Accordingly, it is not proposed to include this exemption in Council’s policy.

 

5.   Trees Adjacent to Buildings

 

A blanket exemption of trees within 3 metres of a dwelling was considered but it is not recommended. In many parts of the LGA, buildings were built some decades ago in amongst the trees. The roots of these mature trees are no longer actively growing and, if there is no evidence of structural damage now then the tree will likely not cause damage in the future. A blanket exemption is considered to be likely to have negative consequences for the local landscape character of Lane Cove.

 

6.   Permit Expiry Period

 

As part of the review, it was also identified that other council permits have a longer expiry period. It is proposed that the validity of the issued permit should be extended from 6 months to 12 months from the date of issue.

 

The draft amended tree preservation controls, incorporating these recommendations, are shown attached as AT 1.

 

Implementation

 

The proposed changes outlined above represent a significant change to Council’s Tree Preservation Controls. Rather than amend the Development Control Plan LEP, to implement these changes it is proposed that for a 12 month trial period, the changes will be implemented by way of practice guidelines. To achieve this, it will still be necessary for applicants to lodge an application with Council, however the application will be lodged free of charge, and where it meets any of the new criteria the permit will be issued without inspection. This will allow Council to track the impact of the policy changes in terms of the number of trees falling within the new parameters. The free application process will include a requirement for photographs of the tree to be submitted and a permit will be issued normally within 3 days.

 

Documentation

 

As part of the overall review it was identified that Council’s documentation around Tree Preservation Controls could also be improved in particular with guides on how to undertake pruning. New forms and supporting brochures will be developed as part of the implementation of this new policy.

 

Review Process

Whilst a number of reviews requested by members of the public are not significant, there is no formal review process for tree preservation applications. Ultimately an applicant can go to the Land and Environmental Court as Tree Preservation Controls are regulated under the Environmental Planning Assessment Act. In practice however, most applicants seek a review undertaken by Council.

 

Going forward it is proposed that should an applicant be not satisfied with the original determination, they can discuss the matter with a more senior staff member. However, should they  still be not satisfied it will be necessary for them to lodge a formal appeal with Council. Such an appeal would not be considered by a Council staff member, but an independent appointed arborist who will have authority delegated by the General Manager to determine the application. Council staff have identified an AQF Level 8 arborist, the highest level qualification, who has indicated a willingness to assist in accessing disputed tree matters between Council and aggrieved residents. This arborist is experienced at all levels of the NSW Courts including the Lane and Environment Court and the Supreme Court.

 

The costs to engage this Level 8 arborist would be up to $1,000 per matter. It is proposed that the initial costs could be borne 50/50 between Council and the resident, with the ‘losing’ party picking up and additional costs (for extra site visits, research, etc).

 

 

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the proposed amended Tree Preservation Controls and determine whether there is community support to undertake a trial of the proposed changes to the tree preservation application process. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with a 6 – 12 months trial of a ‘fast track system for approvals for trees that fit the specific categories between the current and draft standards.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Advisory Committees

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, eNewsletter, press release and fact sheets.

Presentation

 

Survey, public exhibition/website exhibition.

 

Indicative Timing

August to  September 2013

August to  September 2013

August to  September 2013

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed amended Tree Preservation Controls will be exhibited for a period of 6 weeks and following that a report will be submitted to Council on the results of the community consultation before Council proceeds any further with changes to the Tree Preservation Controls.

 

It is also proposed that Council engage the AQF Level 8 arborist on a six (6) month trial to deal with a number of unresolved tree matters that exist between Council and aggrieved residents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Endorse the Proposed Amended Tree Preservation Controls shown attached as AT 1 for the purposes of public exhibition;

2.   Place the Proposed Amended Tree Preservation Controls on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report;

3.   Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation; and

4.   Engage an independent arborist, to act as an arbitrator in tree matters where aggrieved residents are not satisfied with Council’s assessment. Costs would be initially shared on a 50/50 basis between the parties.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Tree Preservation Controls - draft June 2013

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Summary Comparison of Tree Preservation Controls of Other Councils

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Proposed Fee for Commercial Car Share in Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Fee for Commercial Car Share in Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU3197 - 31102/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Council meeting of 20 May 2013, Council requested a report on the background to the charge for commercial car share in Lane Cove, comparisons with other Councils and utilisation statistics for this type of scheme.

 

This report recommends that existing funding arrangements for commercial car share spaces be retained but that a one-off administration fee of $500 be charged for every new car share space, in line with neighbouring Councils.

 

Background

 

There are currently three (3) car share spaces in the Lane Cove LGA; located in Rosenthal Avenue, Little Street and Burns Bay Road. They are at present utilised by GoGet, a commercial company specialising in car share and with the majority share of the car share market in Sydney.

 

Below is a summary of the history of the Lane Cove Car Share Scheme.

 

17 December 2007 - Council considered a report to establish a Car Share scheme for the Lane Cove area and resolved to undertake consultation with the public to determine the level of support for such a scheme.

 

16 June 2008 – Council considered the results of the consultation and resolved to approve the introduction of a Car Share scheme in Lane Cove area with a provision of a two (2) parking spaces in Longueville Road (east side) south of Austin Street where there is unrestricted parking and to invite Car Share groups to participate in the scheme.

 

16 February 2009 – Council received a report advising the main Car Share Companies operating in Sydney were approached to participate in a Car Share Scheme for Lane Cove but were reluctant to expand due to the economic environment.

 

18 October 2010 - Council was advised GoGet had decided to commence operation and decided not to join to use the Car Share Scheme.

 

18 October 2010 – A Matter Arising was adopted by Council to receive a report on the market rent for a car space allocated to Go-Get. It was also resolved that should Council choose not to charge Go-Get, then this amount should be funded by the sustainability levy via a transfer from the sustainability levy reserve to the general reserve.

 

7 February 2011- Council considered a report that the market rate for a car share space was $1850.00 per annum and this would be funded by the Sustainability Levy. Council resolved “that a market rent of $900+GST be imposed and the rent be funded by the Sustainability Levy.” A Matter arising was also adopted calling for a policy to be submitted having regard to the car share experiences of surrounding councils and consider incentives for new large developments.

 

20 June 2011 - Council adopted a draft Car share Policy for exhibition.

 

4 October 2011 – Council adopted the Car Share Policy. 

 

Discussion

 

Lane Cove utilisation statistics are provided in Attachment 1. The usage of the spaces in Lane Cove is gradually increasing as membership and awareness of car share grows in the local community. As car share is further established in the area, the evidence suggests that utilisation rates will increase due to the higher profile of the service and the greater certainty that users have of a car being available when they need it.

 

In May 2013, the Little Street GoGet car was used 39 times by 10 different users. Approximately 60% of Lane Cove GoGet members do not own a car because they are members of the GoGet scheme (from survey data). This means that the Little Street space alone potentially reduces the demand for on street residential parking spaces by 6. Based on the current levels of utilisation, GoGet have indicated the imposition of an annual fee will make the location unviable.

 

Continuation of the Car Share Scheme subsidy funded by the sustainability Levy is supported. The Car Share Policy requires that “Car Share operators must bear the costs associated with the installation of a Car Share facility such as supply and installation of parking signs and linemarking on the road surface”. It is recommended going forward that this be consolidated into a $500 administration charge should also be paid directly by the car share operator to cover the cost of officer time and the installation costs of any new car share spaces. This is consistent with neighbouring councils, where the following fees apply:-

 

·    North Sydney – Administration charge of $900

·    Willoughby City Council – Marking and signposting charge of $400

 

Conclusion

 

Car Share continues to be an important component of Council’s strategy for promoting sustainable transport and reducing demand for limited on street parking space. The three car share spaces in the LGA are well used and valued by more than 100 Lane Cove residents who are car share members, as evidenced by the petition received by Council. However it is appropriate to charge a commercial enterprise an administration charge to cover costs incurred by Council. $500 is considered a reasonable fee based on current charges applied by Willoughby and North Sydney Councils.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council continue to support Car Share schemes in Lane Cove, particularly as a means to reduce the net demand for on-street residential parking.

 

2.   Council charge the operators of Car Share schemes an administration fee of $500 for every new space installed in Lane Cove.

 

3.   All other funding arrangements in relation to Car Share spaces remain the same.

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Council Report MAY 2013

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Works Schedule - Section 94 Plan

 

 

Subject:          Works Schedule - Section 94 Plan    

Record No:    SU3482 - 32765/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

It is proposed to update the Works Schedule for Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan. The update of the works schedule is required to reflect works already undertaken and changes in priorities arising from LEP 2009. It is expected that a more detailed restructuring of infrastructure contributions will be required under planning reforms by the State Government. This will provide an opportunity to review the works schedule more fully to relate it to the Local Plan once the new format is clarified. The draft Works Schedule for the Section 94 Contributions Plan is shown attached as AT 1. Council is requested to adopt the draft amendment for exhibition.

 

Background

 

A review of the Plan was undertaken by Council in 2006, but this had to be deferred pending Planning Reforms commenced by the NSW Government in 2007, the most recent component being the recent NSW White Paper exhibition. A cap of $20,000 per dwelling was imposed on most councils, including Lane Cove Council, in 2010. The contribution rates in Lane Cove have typically fitted within this cap, however the need has remained to review the works schedule itself for which contributions are used, as it has not been reviewed post adoption of the current LEP.

 

Discussion

 

The Section 94 Plan has a works schedule totaling $25,593,258 in construction value. This equates to $38,524,184 in 2013 terms (based on CPI increases, as permitted in the Plan). A number of the works in the existing schedule have been undertaken, for example the library. As a result, there is a need to revise the works schedule to take into account the works completed and it is proposed to provide for future works on a “rolling schedule” basis.

 

It is in the interests of the Lane Cove community to have a works schedule which meets contemporary needs and community expectations. In particular, the Major Projects Plan 2007 provision for works such as the Multipurpose Facility should be reflected in the updated works schedule.

 

At the same time, it is not certain what changes the NSW White Paper and future legislation may require for a long term review of the Plan. In recent forums on the planning reforms, Department staff have recommended that councils update their plans’ schedules now as a platform for subsequent revisions to the structure once this is known. This may take some time given that it involves IPART, the establishment of a Contributions Taskforce and other governance changes. It would be undesirable for Council to have to continue working with a dated works schedule during that unknown timeframe.

 

The updated works schedule is shown attached as AT 1. Changing the Works Schedule will not change the Contributions as adopted in Council’s Fees and Charges, as the value of the works is not changing only the individual projects.

 


Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the Section 94 Plan Works Schedule update. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the amendment to the Plan.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

 

Public and Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

July - August

July - August

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Lane Cove Section 94 Contributions Plan provides the basis for the collection of monies to assist in meeting the needs of a growing residential and employment workforce. The update of the works schedule is required to reflect works already undertaken and changes in priorities arising from LEP 2009.

 

Council is requested to adopt for public exhibition the draft Works Schedule for the Section 94 Contributions Plan as shown attached as AT 1. The exhibition would be held for a period of six weeks in accordance with Council’s Consultation Policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Endorse the draft Works Schedule for the Section 94 Contributions Plan attached as AT 1 for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

2.   Place the draft Works Schedule for the Section 94 Contributions Plan on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report.

 

3.   Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Section 94 Plan Work Schedule July 2013

2 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Participation and Community Engagement (PACE) Program - Partnership with Macquarie University

 

 

Subject:          Participation and Community Engagement (PACE) Program - Partnership with Macquarie University    

Record No:    SU1893 - 30864/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Tracey Collins 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Participation and Community Engagement (PACE) Program is an initiative of Macquarie University which aims to provide interesting and relevant opportunities for third year students to engage with the community, business and industry.  Suitable students are matched with organisations and complete a 32 hour work placement between August and November each year.

 

Macquarie University is seeking to enter into a five year Partnership Agreement which would see Council host students each year, for the next five years.  Lane Cove ALIVE, who initiated the discussions with Macquarie University, will also be participating in the Program.

 

Discussion

 

Council has held preliminary discussions with Macquarie University about the possibility of hosting a number of students in areas such as Community Services, Human Resources, Governance, Environmental Management, Bushland Management and Information Technology.  Projects proposed for the first round include:-

 

·    Implementing OZ Harvest food rescue program;

·    Social inclusion in Seniors Week;

·    Community engagement research;

·    Marketing of Carisbrook House;

·    Staff climate survey;  and

·    Marketing of various council events.

 

Positive feedback has been received from organisations such as Lifeline, Johnson and Johnson, Hornsby Council and Holroyd Council who have all hosted students through the PACE Program.  Host organisations reported that students were able to operate largely autonomously and were able to complete valuable and worthwhile projects during their work placements.

 

It is considered that participation in the Program will be a win-win situation for both Council and the students, as support will be made available for projects requiring additional resourcing and the students will obtain valuable work experience.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Enter into a five year Partnership Agreement with Macquarie University with work placements commencing from August 2013, and the General Manager be authorised to finalise the wording and sign the Agreement;  and

 

2.   Receive a report in November 2014 on the progress of the Program and project outcomes.

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Local Government NSW Conference 2013

 

 

Subject:          Local Government NSW Conference 2013    

Record No:    SU203 - 31566/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received correspondence from Local Government NSW concerning their Annual Conference.  In preparation for the Conference, Local Government NSW have asked all councils to consider the key issues affecting its community.  These issues will be discussed and debated during the business sessions of the Conference.  This report recommends that Council give consideration to its top 3-5 issues and endorse the delegates including the four (4) voting delegates for the Conference.

 

Discussion

 

The inaugural Annual Conference of the recently formed association, Local Government NSW will be held from 1-3 October 2013 at Sydney Town Hall. A Draft Program for the Conference is shown attached as AT 1.  As the Conference is being held in Sydney it will not be necessary for Council to arrange accommodation.

 

Voting Delegates

 

While previously allocated three (3) voting delegates, it would appear that following the amalgamation of the Local Government Association and Shires Association there is an overarching requirement that votes in regional areas must be the same as the total number of votes in metropolitan areas and accordingly, Council has been advised that it will be entitled to four (4) voting delegates.  Council in the past has also provided an opportunity for other Councillors to attend as an observer.

 

Business Sessions

 

This year Local Government NSW would like to receive input from Councils to guide the content of the business sessions. Councils are requested to identify the most important 3 – 5 issues which they believe are causing concern to the Council and/or the local community and provide these details to the Association prior to Friday, 19 July 2013.  The Association will review all responses received and then identify the top 3 - 5 issues as identified overall by member councils.  These issues will then be put to the Conference for debate and deliberation as part of the business sessions.

 

In addition to identifying an issue, councils are encouraged to suggest an appropriate solution by including either a motion which could be considered by the Conference or notes which might guide delegates to an agreed position. Issues identified by councils which fall outside of the top overall 3 - 5 will be considered by the Board prior to the Conference. Councils will be advised of the outcome of these deliberations also prior to the Conference.

 

The following issues have been identified by staff as Council’s key issues:-

 

NSW Planning Reform

 

Council and its community have reviewed the overall thrust and aspirations of the proposed legislation promoted by the White Paper and welcome the move to a greater strategic focus and streamlining of the planning system, subject to the local character and livability of our area being protected.  The key to the success of this new approach will be community consultation, an open and transparent culture that builds upon a partnership between all stakeholders (Community/ Council/State/Developers/Private Certifiers) and a willingness to promote effective processes that provide and call for flexibility and responsibility.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

Council is concerned about the proposals for changes to Section 94 contributions in the NSW White Paper. Council’s suggestions for improvements to the key proposals are:-

 

·     A minimum three-year timeframe for Section 94 to be collected and used is inadequate and should, instead, be aligned with councils’ four-year Delivery Plan framework.

·     Councils should be permitted to retain responsibility for identifying the infrastructure priorities for their locality, given that the infrastructure already existing will vary considerably between councils.

·     The provision of Car parking is a key issue for infill council and should be reinstated as local infrastructure which can be charged for.

·     Life-cycle costs should be permitted to be factored into contributions on a comparable as for utilities (e.g. sewerage systems).

·     Transitional arrangements should provide that contributions held already by councils may be retained by them.

·     In the interests of bringing all councils’ infrastructure plans online as speedily as possible, it should not be a requirement that IPART review a council’s contributions plan unless a specific trigger necessitates it.

 

Review of Rating System

 

In order to meet the State Government targets for higher density living in many areas of Sydney, including Lane Cove, there is an increasing number of properties such as apartments only being levied the minimum rate due to the structure of the ad valorem rating system.

 

Additionally, together with rate pegging, the gap between properties on the minimum residential rate and those above the minimum is steadily increasing.  In 2012/13 the gap between Lane Cove minimum ($520) and the average ad valorem rate ($1,674) was $1,154 per annum. With 46% of rateable residential properties in Lane Cove paying the minimum residential rate, it raises the question of social equity when 54% of residents are paying significantly higher rates to access the same level of Council services and facilities.  It is contended that the current system was based on low density principles and requires review to ensure a more equitable spread of the rating burden for property owners, particularly given the high demand for and value of contemporary apartment living.

 

Local Government Reform

 

The proposed reforms outlined in the Independent Local Government Review Panel consultation paper titled ‘Future Directions for NSW Local Government’ could have a dramatic impact on local government. Council’s position is that it is opposed to any forced amalgamations of councils and subsequent loss of local democracy and the potential for shared services on a regional basis be investigated.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.      Give consideration to its 3-5 top issues affecting the Lane Cove community to be submitted for discussion at the Local Government NSW Annual Conference on 1-3 October 2013.

2.      Nominate the delegates to attend the Conference including Council’s four (4) voting delegates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager – Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENT:

AT‑1 View

Local Government NSW Annual Conference - Draft Program

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

External Auditor Appointment for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019

 

 

Subject:          External Auditor Appointment for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019    

Record No:    SU739 - 30910/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

Lane Cove has been involved in a regional tender for appointment of external auditors for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019.  This report outlines the process including the specification and assessment of the tenders received and will recommend:-

 

That:-

 

1.    Pursuant to Section 422 of the Local Government Act, 1993, PriceWaterhouseCoopers be appointed as Council's external auditor for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019.

2.    The audit fee for the first twelve months of the contract be set at $35,000 exclusive of GST (noting that should at least 3 of the councils in the Group appoint PriceWaterhouseCoopers, this price will reduce to $31,500 exclusive of GST).

3.    All tenderers be advised of Council's appointment.

 

Discussion

 

Council's existing six year contract with its external auditor, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) ceases on 30 June 2013.  However, the contract includes the audit of Council's General Purpose and Special Purpose Financial Reports for the year ending 30 June 2013.

 

Sections 422-424 of the Local Government Act 1993, requires councils to tender for audit services for a period of six years.

 

In February 2013, Lane Cove together with Mosman, Manly, North Sydney, Warringah & Willoughby councils (the Group) commenced a joint tender process with a common specification with the ultimate aim of obtaining a quality service at a competitive price and achieve a cost saving by sharing the tendering costs.

 

Prior to finalisation of the tender specification and based on the fact that he is the Internal Auditor of 5 of the 6 participating councils including Lane Cove, Mr Michael Quirk was approached and accepted the role of Probity Advisor to the Panel.

 

A compulsory Pre Tender meeting was held on 7 March 2013 with the Request For Tender for Auditing Services closing on 8 April 2013.

 

5 tenders were received (4 via Tenderlink & 1 in Hardcopy).  The Tender Assessment Committee had an initial discussion on 18 April 2013 at which the Evaluation Plan was formally signed off and the Tenders were provided to all councils for assessment.

 

Services Required

 

The Group sought a tender from suitably qualified persons or firms to carry out the following services for each council:-

 

·      Audit of the General Purpose Financial Statements for each year;

·      Audit of the Special Purpose Financial Statements for each year;

·      Audit of Pensioner Rebate applications;

·      Audit of Domestic Waste Management Reasonable Cost;

·      Audit of General Income - Statement of Compliance Return required by the Division of Local Government;

·      Examination of the Financial Statements to be incorporated in the Annual Report;

·      Audit of use of RTA "Drives" System (for applicable Councils only);

·      Audit of expenditure of Government Grants requiring a separate audit report (for applicable Councils only);

·      Attendance at Audit Committee Meetings (minimum of 2 per annum);  and

·     Any additional items contained within the council "fact sheets" within the tender specification. .

 

The Group also sought details of other services offered by the tenderers and the fee structure which was to include items such as:-

 

·     Operational audits (or Value for Money audits) or any other service which falls outside the scope of this tender. However, as councils may wish such audits to be conducted, tenderers were required to include a statement of their capability and the hourly fees which could be charged for such an assignment.

 

Tenderers were requested to provide pricing by two means:-

 

·      On a per council basis;  and

·      Should at least 3 Councils accept the tender.

 

All firms offered a better price if a joint appointment was made.

 

Evaluation Criteria

 

The tender specification provided a detailed assessment criteria for the evaluation of tender bids. The Tender Evaluation Committee agreed that the evaluation would represent an overall ‘best value’ approach.

 

The assessment criteria was based on a weighted scale of 20% for Pricing & 80% for Non Price Criteria as follows:-

 

1.    20% - The fee (50% of the weighting for Summary price for the Group/50% of the weighting on Summary price for the Group should at least 3 Councils accept);

2.    50% - The Tenderer's understanding of and ability to perform the required tasks of the Audit Services and proposed method for performing the required services & their quality assurance systems and procedures;

3.    10% - The Tenderer's business Information and demonstrated past experience in providing services similar to the required services and history of disputes relating to those services;  and

4.    20% - The Tenderer's qualifications and demonstrated past experience and key personnel including that of any subcontractors.

 


Tender Responses

 

As a result of the tender process, responses were received from the following organisations:-

 

·      PriceWaterhouseCoopers;

·      Prosperity;

·      Pitcher Partners;

·      KPMG;  and

·      Hill Rogers Spencer Steer.

 

Comments from Probity Advisor

 

The tender process observed by the Probity Advisor was conducted in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and associated Regulation.  Procedures were implemented to ensure protection of confidential information, and the appropriate management of any conflicts of interest. A comprehensive evaluation plan was implemented which provided an appropriate framework for the objective evaluation of tenders.  There was no observed bias in the evaluation process. Meetings and written communications were professionally conducted, and were consistent with the Evaluation Committee requirements.

 

The tender processed provided the basis for savings both in the procurement process and in the contract for auditing services.  The tender evaluation provided a ranking of value for money on a regional basis.  The value for money achieved in each council is dependent upon price variations at each council, possible discounts across the group and justification for variance from the group rankings.

 

Tender Assessment

 

The Tender Evaluation Table which ranks each tenderer against the assessment criteria is shown below and detailed in the confidential memorandum circulated to Councillors:-

 

Company

Price (20%)

Audit Services (50%)

Experience (10%)

 

Qualifications  (20%)

 

Total

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

 

 

 

 

Preferred

Prosperity

Preferred

 

 

 

 

Pitcher Partners

 

 

 

 

 

KPMG

 

 

 

 

 

Hill Rogers Spencer Steer

 

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred

 

 

The Tender Evaluation Committee having undertaken an extensive evaluation process has ranked PriceWaterhouseCoopers as the preferred provider of external audit services to the Group of councils participating in the tender.  Whilst Hill Rogers Spencer Steer were shown above as the preferred tenderer in three (3) of the four (4) criteria, PriceWaterhouseCoopers were not far behind in the scoring in those categories and exceeded Hill Rogers Spencer Steer in the pricing category to marginally be the overall preferred respondent. PriceWaterhouseCoopers have provided comprehensive and robust audit services to Lane Cove for 12 years in an open, highly professional and transparent manner and their advices have also resulted in enhancements and improvements to practices and systems within the organisation.  Additionally, Dennis Banicevic, who oversees Lane Cove Council audits for PriceWaterhouseCoopers, is highly regarded throughout the industry and been retained by the Division of Local Government to review and develop accounting and audit codes for the local government sector.  This provides added value to council in our training and interpretation of the codes.  Further, to ensure the integrity of the external audit program, PriceWaterhouseCoopers have applied a ‘fresh eyes’ approach to Lane Cove audits by regularly rotating the audit teams who have different ranges of skills and experience.

 

Conclusion

 

A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer and the evaluation of responses by the Tender Assessment Committee.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.    Pursuant to Section 422 of the Local Government Act, 1993, PriceWaterhouseCoopers be appointed as Council's auditor for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019.

2.    The audit fee for the first twelve months of the contract be set at $35,000 exclusive of GST (noting that should at least 3 of the councils in the Group appoint PriceWaterhouseCoopers, this price will reduce to $31,500 exclusive of GST).

3.    The General Manager be authorised to enter into a contract with PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 June 2013

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 June 2013    

Record No:    SU1326 - 31885/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 18 June 2013.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 18 June 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 18 June 2013

12 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 18 June 2013

4 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 July 2013

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 32202/13

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Millie Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Attached for the information of Councillors is a review of Council’s recent activities, entitled Council Snapshot.  This report provides a summary of the operations of each Division.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

59 Pages