ATTACHMENTS (Public Documents) 25 October 2016 and Minutes... · 7 11/2015 11.6 Proposal for Agenda Items for Pilbara Regional Council Meeting in Regards to the Pilbara Flight Costs

ATTACHMENTS (Public Documents) 25 October 2016 Clem Thompson Sports Pavilion Stadium Road Tom Price 1.00pm

Go

vern

ance

& E

xecu

tive

Ser

vice

s S

tatu

s R

epo

rt

# C

ou

nci

l

Mee

tin

g

(mm/yy)

Ag

en

da

Ref

.

Rep

ort

Tit

le

Co

un

cil D

ecis

ion

C

urr

ent

Sta

tus

1 09

/201

6 11

.4

Cha

nge

of D

ate

and

Ven

ue

– O

rdin

ary

Mee

ting

of

Cou

ncil

25 O

ctob

er 2

016

&

Cha

nge

of V

enue

– O

rdin

ary

Mee

ting

of

Cou

ncil

16

Dec

embe

r 2

016.

M

INU

TE

: 29

Tha

t C

ounc

il en

dors

e th

e fo

llow

ing

mee

ting

loca

tion

chan

ge:

1.

The

loca

tion

of t

he O

rdin

ary

Mee

ting

of C

ounc

il to

be

held

on

Frid

ay 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2016

to b

e he

ld o

n th

e sa

me

date

, bu

t at t

he C

ounc

il C

ham

bers

, Ons

low

Shi

re C

om

plex

, S

econ

d A

venu

e, O

nslo

w; a

nd

2.

The

nec

essa

ry p

ublic

adv

ertis

ing

occu

r.

Co

mp

lete

d

Mee

ting

arra

ngem

ents

mad

e an

d ad

vert

isin

g bo

oked

. (S

epte

mbe

r 20

16)

2 09

/201

6 11

.5

Not

ice

of M

otio

n –

Pro

posa

l fo

r R

V F

riend

ly T

own

Sta

tus

MIN

UT

E:

28

Tha

t Cou

ncil

cont

inue

to p

ursu

e th

e ac

hiev

able

ess

entia

l crit

eria

of

bei

ng a

n R

V F

riend

ly d

istr

ict,

as

budg

et f

undi

ng p

erm

its.

Pro

gre

ssin

g

Will

be

prog

ress

ed o

ver

com

ing

year

s as

fund

s ar

e av

aila

ble

($25

,000

in 2

016/

17).

3

09/2

016

11.6

S

hire

of

A

shbu

rton

E

nter

pris

e A

gree

men

t 201

6 M

INU

TE

: 27

1.

Tha

t Cou

ncil

supp

orts

the

CE

O in

re

achi

ng a

gree

men

t with

sta

ff

base

d on

th

e pa

ckag

e ou

tline

d in

th

e at

tach

ed

repo

rt

(AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

11.

6G),

inc

ludi

ng W

age

Pric

e In

dexa

tion

for

annu

al

infla

tiona

ry

incr

ease

s,

subj

ect

to

the

follo

win

g ad

just

men

ts –

1. T

he p

ay i

ncre

me

nt f

or t

he f

irst

year

of

the

ag

reem

ent b

e 2.

5% (

in li

eu o

f 3.4

%);

and

2.

Em

ploy

ees

as

defin

ed in

Cla

use

5.4;

5.5

; an

d 5.

6 (F

IFO

/DID

O

etc)

not

be

elig

ible

for

the

Ash

burt

on A

llow

ance

or

for

incl

usio

n w

ithin

the

Stu

dy L

eave

/Hig

her

Edu

catio

n pr

ovis

ions

.

Pro

gre

ssin

g

Con

sulta

tions

with

sta

ff o

ccur

ring.

(S

epte

mbe

r 20

16)

4 09

/201

6 17

.2

Con

fiden

tial

Not

ice

of

Mot

ion

– In

dust

rial R

elat

ions

A

dvic

e re

ceiv

ed

by

Shi

re

Pre

side

nt fr

om W

ALG

A.

Tha

t Cou

ncil:

1.

Not

es th

e in

dust

rial r

elat

ions

adv

ice

rece

ived

by

the

Shi

re

Pre

side

nt fr

om W

ALG

A.

Pro

gre

ssin

g

Shi

re P

resi

dent

to r

epor

t as

requ

ired.

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Governance & Executive Services Status Report # Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda

Ref.

Report Title Council Decision Current Status

MINUTE: 2. Continues to authorise the Shire President and Deputy President to discuss the matter with WALGA and Department of Local Government.

3. Authorises WALGA to liaise with the CEO and notes that WALGA will report its findings back to Council.

(September 2016)

5 09/2016 17.3 Notice of Motion – Management of Notices of Motion at Council Meetings

That the CEO prepare a report on how best Council might practically manage future Notice of Motion at its Meeting.

Completed Report to October 2016 Council Meeting. (September 2016)

6 08/2016 19.1 Confidential Item – Industrial Relations Advice MINUTE: 23

That Council authorise the Shire President and the Deputy Shire President to seek industrial relations advice from WALGA.

Completed Superseded by September Council Meeting Item 17.2. (September 2016)

7 11/2015 11.6 Proposal for Agenda Items for Pilbara Regional Council Meeting in Regards to the Pilbara Flight Costs MINUTE: 12026

That Council request that the Pilbara Regional Council to conduct a study into the issue of prices of Pilbara air fares to/from Perth, with the view to ascertaining options as to how these prices might be lowered whilst still maintain airline and airport sustainability, and reasonable service levels to the Pilbara communities.

Ongoing PRC at its 23 November 2015 Council Meeting agreed to progress discussions with relevant parties. Is now being progressed via a dedicated lobbying program.

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda

Ref.


(September 2016)

8 09/2015 11.3 Onslow Staff Housing Options & Recommendations 2015-2016 MINUTE: 11999

That Council:

1. Completed 2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer, with the written approval

of the Shire President, to enter into a contract of sale for the acquisition of any appropriate dwellings, to a maximum combined expenditure of $2.2M;

3. Completed;

4. Completed;

Completed.

Completed Refer to September Council item 16.3 in Economic and Strategic Status Report. (October 2016)

9 05/2015 11.3 Notice of Motion - Local Indigenous Communities and State Government Consultation MINUTE: 11955

That Council:

1. Engages with the WA State Government's proposed consultation process so as to contribute to the WA State Government's planning for remote Indigenous communities in the Shire of Ashburton;

2. Monitor the State Government consultation process to ensure the views of the several local Indigenous communities are adequately invited; and

Progressing The State Government released its ‘road map’ for remote indigenous communities on 14 July 2016 ( http://regionalservicesreform.wa.gov.au/p/roadmap ). The $20 million allocation is towards the eight town-based reserves in the Pilbara, and will be

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda

Ref.


Defers any decision on the question of a Shire policy position on Ashburton's remote Indigenous communities, at least until the initial positions of the WA State Government and the several local Indigenous communities are ascertained.

a joint initiative between the Pilbara Development Commission and Regional Services Reform Unit (this is the $20m that was allocated several years ago to the Pilbara Development Commission but not yet spent and it is hoped that $5m of that will be programmed towards Bindi Bindi). Officers have studied the report and revisited the Council resolution of May 2015 (Local Indigenous Communities and State Government Consultation) to ascertain what action the Shire should now take, however none are suggested at this point in time. This situation will continue to be monitored. (October 2016).

10 07/2014 16.2 In Principle Support for a Joint Development Between the Shire and the Department of Housing for Staff Housing in Onslow MINUTE: 11831

The officer recommendation be adopted and that Council: 1. Provide in-principle support for a joint development

partnership between the Department of Housing and the Shire of Ashburton for the development of Service Worker and Staff Accommodation across Lots 396, 397 on Reserve 41970 and Lots 398, 399 and 400 Third Avenue Onslow;

On Hold Awaiting Department of Housing to provide a firm position for the Shire’s consideration. Joint Venture proposal “temporarily stalled” due to insufficient demand

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda

Ref.


2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive officer to progress the proposal and negotiate the financial terms, project management arrangements and design concepts of the proposed joint development partnership; and

3. Request a final report to be presented to Council at a later date that details the particulars of the project before commencement of the proposed partnership.

for service worker accommodation.

Next progress on this item is expected to be late in 2016. (September 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Community Development Decision Status Report # Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda

Ref. Report Title Council Decision Current Status

1 09/2016 11.3 Aboriginal Reference Committee 16 August 2016. MINUTE: 30

That Council notes the Minutes of the Aboriginal Reference Committee held on 16 August 2016 and resolves that it:

1. Review ELM19 - Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and History; and Council

Declaration Policy -

Request the CEO to progress a review to ELM19 Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and History; and Council Declaration.

2. Appointment of Vacancy -

Notes the resignation of Cr Fernandez and asks that a report be presented to the October 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council (when the two newly elected Tom Price Ward Councillors will be in attendance) to fill that vacancy.

1. Progressing – Draft revised ELM19 to be presented to November 2016 Council Meeting.

2. Completed – Report to October 2016 Council Meeting.

(September 2016)

2 09/2016 12.1 Notice of Motion – Annual Townsite Garden Competition MINUTE: 26

That Council: 1. Utilise its existing REC08 Policy (Community Donations, Grants and Funding) to

provide a maximum of one grant per town (Onslow, Tom Price, Paraburdoo, and Pannawonica) of up to $2500 per grant (in the first instance, to be used specifically for a Townsite Residential Garden Competition to be judged in September 2017).

2. The availability of this funding will be locally advertised to encourage community

group activation.

Progessing Will be included in next round of community grants in February 2017. (September 2016

3 09/2016 12.2 Notice of Motion – Shire Townsite and Communities Tree Planting Program

That Council: 1. Requests officers to develop a five year Tree Planting Plan to guide future

council budgets for the Shire, including proposed planting areas, types of suitable trees, number required and an estimate of associated costs (including

Progressing 1. Five year Tree

Planting and Development Plan

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


MINUTE: 25

for example, an avenue of honour). 2. Continues to support community programs around tree planting such as

National Tree Planting Day including providing financial support to community groups through the Community Support Grants (REC08 Community Donations, Grants and Funding).

3. Note that supplies of trees and fertiliser be in accordance with procurement

policy FIN12 and FIN04.

to be developed by infrastructure and facilities by January 2017.

2. Included in next round of Community Grants in February 2017. (September 2016)

4 09/2016 12.3 Application acceptance of Community Support Grant Allocations – Round 1, 2016/17 Annual Financial Year MINUTE: 34

That Council:

1. Provides donations for two signature events/groups as listed below:

Name of Organisation Proposed Funding $ Budget Codes Onslow Rodeo Association 10,000.00 EV75Paraburdoo Red Dirt Rocks 10,000.00 EV22

2. Provides donations for general Community Support Grant applications being

allocated from account 081877 (Sponsorships and Grants) as listed below: (*Noting that the $18,600 ESL Contribution on behalf of Bindi Bindi Community be referred to the Annual Budget Review if it cannot be funded from existing account 10818770 Sponsorship and Grants):

Name of Organisation Proposed Funding $

Onslow Tourism & Progress Association Inc. 2272.73 V Swans 2500.00 St John Ambulance Onslow Sub Centre 0.00 Onslow Sports Club 0.00

Completed

1. Onslow Rodeo Grant has been processed.

Red Dirt Rocks grant will be processed once advice has been received confirming details of the event in 2017.

2. All Community Support Grants have been processed.

3. Community Groups

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


Shire of Ashburton – ESL Bindi Bindi Community

18600.00

Empowering People in Communities (EPIC) Inc. 0.00 Onslow Volunteer Marine Rescue Service 0.00 Pannawonica Primary School P & C 2500.00 Northern Swimming Association Pilbara Region 6 WASA

2500.00

Pannawonica Playgroup 1875.00 Pannawonica Junior Sports 2500.00 Panna Golf Club 0.00 Paraburdoo Amateur Swimming Club 2500.00 The Lifestyle Centre Paraburdoo Inc. 2500.00 Tom Price Futsal and Hockey Club 1000.00 Tom Price SHS P & C 1000.00 Tom Price Tee Ball 1000.00 Nameless Playgroup 1000.00 Tom Price Bowling Club Inc. 2400.00 Tom Price Community Arts and Culture Centre 0.00 The Nintirri Centre 0.00 Mountain View Sporting Club 0.00 Tom Price BMX Club 1000.00 Tom Price Women's Softball Association 0.00 Scorchers Cricket Club Inc. 1000.00 Tom Price Youth Centre 0.00 Fortescue Cricket Club 1000.00

3. Allocates $125,000 (50%) from the Donation to Community Groups –

Compliance fund to the following: $40 000 for the demolition and removal of buildings at Crushers Sporting Club, Tom Price;

Compliance funds being processed.

(September 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


$38,000 for a lift for building compliance at the Goods Shed Museum Onslow; and $47 000 for asbestos and rubbish removal (with a priority at the Onslow Rodeo grounds).

6 12/2015 12.1 Onslow Community Garden – Management MINUTE: 12036

That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to seek formal comments from the Department of Education in regard to the potential of a Lease (including the primary conditions) of the land containing the Onslow Community Garden, for Council's further consideration.

Ongoing Ongoing negotiation with Education Department drafting terms of agreement and next steps required. (July 2016) Response received from Education still being progressed. (September 2016)

7 12/2014 12.1 Youth Engagement Strategy

MINUTE: 11889

That Council:

1. Endorse the development of a Youth Engagement Strategy to replace Policy REC11 (Youth Advisory Council) for Council’s future consideration; and

Require, the Youth Engagement Strategy to be referred back to Council for its consideration.

Progressing

1. Shire has successfully accessed a $10,000 grant (January 2016) to assist with the further development of the youth strategy. Plan for proposed

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


youth training being developed by Community Development, Community and Capacity Development team

(March 2016)

Progressing plan strategy development (August 2016)

8 01/2014 11.1 Entry Statements Onslow, Paraburdoo And Tom Price, And Anzac Park Redevelopment For Paraburdoo. MINUTE: 11730

That Council:

1. Acknowledges Smith Sculptors as providing a unique service as per Local government (functions and General) Regulations 1996 Part 4 Division 2 11 (2) (f ) and appoints them as the designers, constructor’s and installers of the Tom Price, Onslow and Paraburdoo Entry statements and the Tom Price and Paraburdoo Anzac Parks;

2. Accepts the design concepts for the Onslow Entry Statement (attachment 11.1A), the Paraburdoo Entry Statement (attachment 11.1B), the Paraburdoo Anzac Park (attachment 11.1D) and the Tom Price Anzac Park (attachment 11.1E);

3. Allocates priority to the Tom Price and Paraburdoo Anzac Parks and authorises the CEO to apply his best endeavors to identify and source external funding opportunities for these projects;

4. Considers a contribution to the costs of these projects as part of its 2014/15 budget deliberations.

Ongoing Attempts to identify external funding ongoing and Council contribution will be reconsidered as part of 2016/17 budget. (January 2016) 8.1 Capital allocation in the 2016/17 budget $10k Tom Price Entry Statement

(September 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Corporate Services Decision Status Report

Page | 1

# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


1 09/2016 13.2 Notice of Motion – Council Policy EMP24 Corporate Credit Card MINUTE: 36

That Council alter Council's Policy EMP24 Corporate Credit Card to add the requirement to include a copy of the credit card statement.

Progressing Credit Card Statements to be appended to Council Agenda from October 2016. Policy wording to be confirmed at next annual review of policies. (October 2016)

2 09/2016 13.3 Notice of Motion – Council Policy EMP02 Prohibited Areas – Wittenoom and Yampire Gorge. MINUTE: 37

That Council note that officers will undertake a review of Council Policy EMP02 Prohibited Areas – Wittenoom and Yampire Gorge, noting that the State Government has recently updated its information on this prohibited area including map and current conditions (and the new map and conditions may need to be added to the current Council policy). The review to accommodate state government policy positions and necessary insurance and legal considerations, also the potential of separate policy positions on the Wittenoom and Yampire Gorge precincts.

Progressing Policy research underway. Officer report to be presented to Council as soon as practical, but unlikely until at least early 2017. (October 2016)

3 09/2016 13.4 Councillor Resignation Cr Cecelia Fernandez, Tom Price Ward, Extraordinary Election 20 October 2016. MINUTE: 38

That Council: 1. Note Former Councillor Cecilia Fernandez resignation, effective 23

August 2016. 2. Note that an extraordinary election will now be held for two

vacancies for the Tom Price Ward on Thursday, 20 October 2016. 3. Endorse Mrs Fernandez to attend an Ordinary Meeting of Council

(at a date to be determined in the near future) as a guest of the Shire, in order that the Shire might facilitate an opportunity for the Council to acknowledge her services to Council.

1. Completed;

2. Completed;

3. Progressing – subject to Mrs Fernandez’s health – consultation ongoing.

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Page | 2

# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


(October 2016)

4 09/2016 13.5 Notice of Motion – Request a report on the formulation of a policy on Greening Ashburton. MINUTE: 39

That Council: 1. Approve the development of a whole of district integrated

Landscaping Plan; and 2. At its 2016/17 Annual Budget Review, consider the potential of

providing additional funds to progress district landscaping as outlined in the Plan.

3. Not progress a Local Law to control removal of trees on private

property.

1. Progressing

Work progressing on this plan.

2. Progressing Awaiting Budget Review to consider.

3. Completed (October 2016)

5 09/2016 13.6 Budget Amendment/Variation MINUTE: 40

That Council approved the required budget variations to the Current Budget for 2016/2017 as outlined below.

1. Paraburdoo Pool GL/Job Number

General Ledger Description

Current Budget

Variation Amount

Revised Budget

17043 Shade Structure $0 $35,200 $35,200

GI103 Shade Structure $0 $(35,200) $(35,200)

Reason: A budget variation is required to allow for the construction of a shelter at the Quentin Broad Pool. A grant was received to fund this project. 2. Sanitation General Refuse

Completed (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Page | 3

# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


GL/Job Number

General Ledger Description

Current Budget

Variation Amount

Revised Budget

W225 Works Program Liquid Waste

$270 $30,000 $30,270

W 238 Works Prog Waste Transfer Station Onslow

$ 520,000

- $ 20,000 $ 500,000

11025930

Transportation Onslow to Tom Price

$ 500,000

- $ 10,000 $ 490,000

Reason: There was insufficient funds allocated to the Works Program Liquid Waste Budget (W225). It is proposed to transfer funds within the Sanitation Operational budget from Job Number W 238 and GL Code11025930 to fund the variation.

6 09/2016 13.7 Rates Write-Off – SGMC Pty Ltd MINUTE: 41

That Council accepts the offer of $24,000 (approximately) after deduction of costs of sale and liquidator’s remuneration for Assessment A34153, A34162 and A6231 and to write off the balance of the rates arrears, and other relevant charges/expenses which have accrued on Assessment A34153, A34162 and A6231 to the value of $457,832.11 (assuming 2016/17 levied rates and ESL charges will be payable).

Progressing SBMC advised of Council decision. Awaiting payment of $24,000. Balance of rates arrears written off. (October 2016)

7

07/2016 13.5 Notice of motion – changes to FIN04 Buy Local – Regional Price Preference Policy MINUTE: 9

That Council: 1. Adopts FIN04 Buy Local – Regional Price Preference Policy as per

ATTACHMENT 13.5; 2. Approves to advertise the adopted Policy FIN04: “Buy Local

Regional Price Preference Policy” In accordance with Section 24F of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996;

Completed Policy advertised on 30/7/2016. Submissions close 27 August 2016.

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Page | 4

# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


3. Adopts FIN04 Buy Local Regional Price Preference Policy following the advertising period should no submissions be received;

4. Notes that in regard to purchases below the tender threshold, the

CEO has addressed this matter by issuing a Directive to staff with purchasing ability to use all reasonable avenues to source local pricing, prior to accessing quotes or prices from outside district sources.

5. Notes that Officers are collecting product price comparisons for

distribution to Councillors under separate cover.

No submissions were received and policy has been updated to AIMS and implemented. (September 2016)

8 07/2016 13.3 Extraordinary Election Tom Price Ward MINUTE: 7

That Council note that an extraordinary election will be held for one vacancy for the Tom Price Ward on Thursday, 20 October 2016 and - (a) declare, in accordance with section 4.20(4) of the Local Government

Act 1995, the Western Australian Electoral Commissioner to be responsible for the conduct of the extraordinary election; and

(b) decides, in accordance with section 4.61(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 that the method of conducting the extraordinary election will be as a postal election.

Completed Extraordinary election via postal ballot held on 20 October 2016. (October 2016)

9 04/2015 13.4 Award of Tender RFT 31/14 – Design and Construction Onslow Shire Complex MINUTE: 11940

That Council:

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to deal with any

variations to the Tender to a maximum of 10% of the contract value, providing an appropriate budget variation is identified for any increases to the overall budget for the project.

Completed Works complete and 0fficial opening scheduled for 28 October 2016. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Page | 5

# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


10 03/2015 13.3 Adjustment to the Onslow Townsite Boundary MINUTE: 11917

That Council requests the Minister for Lands to amend the Onslow townsite boundary in accordance with the attached plan ATTATCHMENT 13.3 Onslow townsite Proposed Town Site Boundary dated March 2015 to accurately reflect the town's urban growth.

Ongoing

Town Planning Schemes 7 Amendments 21 & 22 have now been Gazetted.

Project will now commence.

(August 2016)

11 03/2015 13.5 Shire of Ashburton Long Term Financial Plan MINUTE: 11917

That Council:

2. Sets aside time for a Councillor Workshops (in the afternoon of Tuesday 14 April 2015) to discuss the Long Term Financial Plan and how it interacts with the Corporate Business Plan Review and the 2015/16 Annual Budget.

Ongoing

Work has commenced to review the Long Term Financial Plan with workshops being planned.

(June 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Page | 6

# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


13 06/2013 11.4 Financial Management Audit MINUTE: 11545

That Council:

1. Receives the Financial Management Review as per Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996;

2. Directs the Chief Executive Officer to take action on the

recommendations contained in the report.

Ongoing Financial Management Review 2013 95% of issues now addressed. Remaining issue relates to Business Continuity. A tender has been awarded for new equipment and is currently being installed. (September 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Development and Regulatory Services Status Report # Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


1 09/2015 18.1 Control of Leucaena Trees MINUTE: 12007

That the Shire of Ashburton requests the Pilbara Regional Council:

1. To progress the formation of a Leucaena Management Group from member Councils and environmental organisations; and

2. To approach WALGA for assistance to develop a Local Law to classify Leucaena as a “declared“ weed in the Pilbara.

Ongoing PRC has written to member Council’s to gauge interest in a regional response. Will await outcome of PRC survey prior to approaching WALGA re: request to assist with drafting a Local Law. Awaiting formal advice from PRC but indications are that it will likely be low. (October 2016)

2 07/2015 4.2.1 Shane Roulstone (Tom Price)

Q1. Has Council considered implementing 5 minute parking zones between 7am and 4pm on school days for the 170m stretch of Tamarind St - outside the Tom Price Primary School? This would allow parents to safely drop off and pick their children, which is not possible when the parking area outside the school is taken up by other vehicles, which causes parents to double park or park on the other side of the street, which significantly increases the risk of a child being hurt on the road at drop off and pick up times. The

Ongoing The Senior Ranger has commenced a Shire-wide parking review and will work with Infrastructure Services to draft a strategy that will

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


“P5min - Drop off & Pick up only during school days” is widely used by many councils to help keep children safe.

There may be some merit in introducing restricted parking in front of the school on Tamarind Street however the matter needs some prior investigation. As such, it is suggested that the Shire engage in consultation with the school and any other relevant parties, to facilitate an investigation of the cause and severity of the parking problems in this location, and the best way of addressing the concerns raised regarding congestion and safety.

potentially need to be endorsed by Council later in the year. (March 2016)

3 12/2013 14.8 Onslow Rodeo Grounds (Reserve 39070) MINUTE: 11718

That Council:

1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to undertake an independent environmental ‘audit’ and detailed site investigation of Reserve 39070 to:

• determine what has been disposed of on the site; • address the classification as 'Possibly contaminated -

investigation required' • whether the site is safe for use from any contaminants on

or within the site; and; • anyother matter relevant to the Council and the

Department of Environment Regulation that would enable the withdrawal of Memorial M400302.

2. In relation to 1. above, Directs investigate if the audit is able to

conducted using current staff resources and expertise, and if not, direct funding, of up to $50,000, for the environment audit and detailed site investigation of Reserve 39070 be taken from account 140114 (consultant/project costs) of up to $50,000 and that it be recognised as over budget expenditure.

Ongoing The changes to the Title have been lodged with Landgate by SED and the matter has been referred to DER for comment. DER have requested further information which Environmental Health are investigating / responding to. (August 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


A full survey of lot 127 Onslow (that the rodeo grounds are on) was completed by MNG last month. Work was carried out on the rodeo grounds to cover all asbestos that was exposed to the environment in order to minimise the risk to public who attend events there. In August the rodeo event was held with no EH issues arising. Work still to be carried out in September; preparation of a management plan for the memorial site

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


– to be submitted to DER. DER have approved the further use of ‘clean’ soil from the works the Shire is currently undertaking at the Onslow waste transfer station intersection to be used to provide a 500mm cover to the remainder of the contaminated area. This should allow the Shire and DER to move forward with the formal imposition of a memorial on the Title. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Development and Regulatory Services Status Report – Planning Services

# Council Meeting (mm/yy)

Agenda Ref. Report Titles lee Current Status

1 08/2016 14.1 Proposed Recommendation Not to Proceed with Scheme Amendement No. 16 to the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No. 7 – Rezoning of Precinct 2 as Outlined in the Old Onslow Airport Master Plan MINUTE: 18

That Council: Resolves in pursuance with Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended), that it does not proceed with Scheme Amendment 16 to the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No. 7 by:

1. Advising the Western Australian Planning Commission and

Minister for Planning of its decision not to proceed with the Amendment; and

2. Removes Scheme Amendment No. 16 from the Shire’s list of active Scheme Amendments.

Progressing Minister advised of Council’s resolution. Waiting on formal acknowledgment from DoP. (October 2016)

2 05/2016 14.1 Proposed Scheme Amendment NO.31 to the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No.7 to rezone lot 26 on Deposited Plan 216556 (Killawarra Drive, Area W) from Local Scheme Reserve ‘Parks, Recreation and Drainage’ to ‘Residential R20’ MINUTE: 12097

That Council resolve that:

3. in pursuance of Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended), initiate Scheme Amendment 31 (Standard Amendment) to the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No. 7 by:

a. Rezoning Lot 26 on Deposited Plan 216556 from ‘Parks, Recreation and Drainage’ to ‘Residential R20’ as shown on the Amendment Map;

b. Amending the Scheme Map Accordingly; and

4. the Amendment is a “Standard Amendment” under Regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the following reasons:

a. The amendment has minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the

Progressing Report for final adoption for November Council meeting (held over as Prinicpal Planner away in October). (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1




amendment; and b. The amendment does not result in any significant

environmental, social, economic or governance impacts in the scheme area.

3 12/2015 14.1 Review of Shire of

Ashburton Planning Scheme NO.7 as required for the ‘Planning Health Check’ per Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 MINUTE: 12034

That Council:

1. Note the contents of the attached ‘health check’ report as per ATTACHMENT 14.1.

2. Pursuant to Regulation 66(3) of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that:

a. the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No. 7 be

amended to comply with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and that this amendment be undertaken within six months; and

b. that following the preparation and endorsement of a Local

Planning Strategy by the Western Australian Planning Commission the Shire commence the preparation of a new Local Planning Scheme to replace the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No. 7.

Progressing DoP has agreed to the Shire’s ‘Deemed Scheme’, that provides the basis for an omnibus scheme amendment to bring TPS7 into the new Model Scheme Text format. (August 2016)

4 08/2015 19.1 Confidential Item - Carbone Report - Final Report (Nameless Valley and Onslow Airport Camps Fees and Charges; and Onslow Camp Continuation)

4. Note that the matter of the Onslow Airport Camp accommodations/associated facilities tender is being dealt with through a Town Planning Scheme amendment proposal, which will be followed by a tender for the supply/hire of these facilities.

Ongoing Amendment 30 approved and waiting Minister’s final signoff and gazettal.

ATTACHMENT 11.1




MINUTE: 11992 (August 2016)

5 08/2015 17.2 Notice of Motion in regards to a review of the Transient Worker Accommodation Policy

CEO to initiate a review of LPP13 transient worker accommodation policies and any other related planning in light of other related Councillors opposition to double bunking. Councillors have expressed concerns as Chevron’s intentions to double bunk at their Wheatstone Project.

Ongoing Need to undertake review of LPP13 in 2016 and address Council concerns regarding double bunking. Comprehensive review of all Local Planning Policies underway with agenda item likely to go to Council in early 2017. This item has been held over due to more urgent projects including the CHRMAP & LPS which have State funding dependent on meeting specified timeframes.

ATTACHMENT 11.1




(October 2016)

6 02/2015 14.2 Proposed change of purpose for reserve 42467 from ‘Recreation – Model Aircraft” to “Cultural Purposes’ to allow for the use of the land for Aboriginal Arts and Cultural Tours

That Council:

1. Request the Minister for Lands to; a) Amend the purpose of Reserve 42467 from

‘Recreation to ‘Cultural purposes’: b) Issue a Management Order to the Shire of Ashburton

with power to lease Reserve 42467; and 2. Authorise the CEO to negotiate the terms of and execute a

lease agreement between the Shire of Ashburton and Mr. Stevens or his nominated corporate identity for use of Reserve 42467.

Progressing Ongoing liason with Minister for Lands regarding request to modify reserve. Proponent negotiating with Native Title holders. (November 2015)

7 10/2014 14.2 Proposed Scheme Amendment to Rezone Part Lot 271 and Part Lot 277 Killawarra Drive, Tom Price from ‘Parks, Recreation and Drainage’ to ‘Residential R20’

MINUTE: 11867

That Council in pursuance of Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 initiate Amendment 28 to the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No. 7 by:

1. Rezoning the following land parcels from ‘Parks, Recreation and Drainage’ reserve to ‘Residential R20’ as depicted on the amendment map: a. Portion Lot 277 Killawarra Drive and Amaroo Place, Tom Priceb. Portion Lot 271 Killawarra Drive and Jabbarup Place, Tom

Price c. Portion Lot 277 Killawarra Drive and Ceron Street, Tom Price

2. Amending the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme No. 7 Scheme Map accordingly.

Ongoing Report for final adoption for November Council meeting (held over as Principal Planner away in October). (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Active Scheme Amendments - Status Amendment

No. Site or Issue Initiation Date of

Amendment by Council

Proposal Current status

16 Rezone certain portions of Lot 16 on Deposited Plan 161140, Onslow Road, Onslow (Onslow Airport) to ‘Mixed Business’ Zone. (Stage 2)

16 March 2011 Rezone certain portions of Lot 16 on Deposited Plan 161140, Onslow Road, Onslow (Onslow Airport) from Public Purposes ‘Airport’ Reserve to ‘Mixed Business’ Zone. (Stage 2)

Minister for Planning advised that Council does not wish to proceed with the amendment.

(August 2016)

23 New Provision in the Shire of Ashburton Local Planning Scheme No. 7 – Clause Height of Buildings in the ‘Commercial and Civic’ Zone, Onslow

21 March 2012 New Provision in the Shire of Ashburton Local Planning Scheme No. 7 – Clause Height of Buildings in the ‘Commercial and Civic’ Zone, Onslow.

Report to December 2016 OMC to recommend discontinuing amendment.

(October 2016)

25 Revised in the Shire of Ashburton Local Planning Scheme No. 7 – Onslow Aerodrome Environs Area Special Control Area’

19 September 2012 Revised in the Shire of Ashburton Local Planning Scheme No. 7 – Onslow Aerodrome Environs Area Special Control Area’

Report to December 2016 OMC to recommend discontinuing amendment.

(May 2016)

27 Reclassifying the land parcels from the 'Parks Recreation and Drainage' to 'Residential R20' part Lot 277 Killawarra Dr and Amaroo Pl, part Lot 271 Killwarra Dr and Jabbarup

15 October 2014 Rezone part Lot 277 Killawarra Dr and Amaroo Pl, part Lot 271 Killwarra Dr and Jabbarup Pl, part Lot 277 Killawarra Dr and Ceron St from 'Parks Recreation and Drainage' to 'Residential R20'

Report to November OMC to consider final approval. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Development and Regulatory Services Status Report – Planning Services Amendment

No. Site or Issue Initiation Date of

Amendment by Council

Proposal Current status

Pl, part Lot 277 Killawarra Dr and Ceron St

30 Airport TWA not zoned appropriately for ongoing use

15 July 2015 Proposed Amendment to the Shire of Ashburton Town Planning Scheme no. 7 to Rezone Portion of lot 16 Onslow Road from ‘Public Purposes - Airport’ reserve to ‘Special Use 5’ Zone

Amendment approved and awaiting gazettal. (July 2016)

31 Re-zone ‘lazy lands’ lot on Killawarra Drive from 'Parks Recreation and Drainage' to 'Residential R20'

24 May 2016 Re-zone ‘lazy lands’ lot on Killawarra Drive from 'Parks Recreation and Drainage' to 'Residential R20'

Report to November OMC to consider final approval. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Infrastructure Services Decision Status Report

# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


1 09/2016 15.1 Notice of Motion – Review of Council Policy ENG02 Access to Pastoral Properties MINUTE: 42

That Council: 1. Confirms that the May 2008 resolution of policy ENG02

(Access to Pastoral Properties) should prevail for the time being; and

2. Notes the progress of development of a holistic road

management strategy, inclusive of a new Road Management Policy, Shire Road Hierarchy Map and that a further report will be presented to a Council workshop in November 2016.

Progressing. Workshop occurred at September Council Meeting. Another workshop to occur at November Council Meeting. (October 2016)

2. 09/2016 15.2 Investigation of alternate landfill cover options at Paraburdoo Landfill. MINUTE: 43

That Council: 1. Acknowledge the investigations into alternate daily cover

options at the Paraburdoo Landfill site and the progression of the Shire's Strategic Waste Management Plan;

2. Approve the purchase of a secondhand landfill compactor

utilising the 2016/17 budget allocation for "Alternate Daily Cover' and

3. Approve the Budget transfer of $150,000 from Job 17037

Alternate Daily Cover to account 124956 Asset New - Plant & Equipment Purchase.

Progressing. Purchase Order issued for compactor. Delivery date anticipated late November 2016 (October 2016)

3 09/2016 17.1 Notice of Motion – Give Way Signage Rocklea Road/Ashburton Road

Can the CEO please provide a report to Council as to the reason a Give Way Sign has been installed at the Wyloo Road / Camp Road intersection in Paraburdoo and yet we cannot get approval for a Give Way Sign at the Rocklea Road / Ashburton Road intersection as this intersection has more than twice the traffic than the Wyloo / Camp Road intersection.

Completed Report to October 2016 Council Meeting.

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


The Shire President noted that this matter would be referred to officers for a report, which will be put before Council at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

(September 2016)

4 08/2016 15.1 RFT 15/16 Onslow Waste Transfer Station Intersection Upgrade MINUTE: 19

That Council notes that these works are a requirement of Main Roads WA, and: 1. Accepts the Lump Sum Tender of $292,785.88 (GST

exclusive) from NTC Contracting for RFT1516 Construction of Sealed Intersection for Waste Transfer Station, Onslow in accordance with its Tender submission;

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the final

terms and execute the Contract documentation; and 3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to manage the

Contract, including variations to the design specifications and contract value, providing this does not exceed the project budget or reduce the overall scope.

Progressing. August Council meeting approved works. Contractor has advised start date mid September subject to approval from Shire (September 2016) Progressing. Work has commenced. (October 2016)

5 08/2016 17.3 Notice Of Motion – Review of Council Policy ENG02 – Access to Pastoral Properties

Request a report to Council on review of Council Policy ENG02 Access to Pastoral Properties as to whether the policy is still relevant (Last reviewed in 2003); whether roads named in the policy are still appropriate; whether any changes are needed to modernise this policy including reference to pastoral station airstrips, and finally whether Council wishes to continue to support this policy, or revoke it.

Completed Superseded by item 15.1 of September 2016 Council Meeting. (October 2016)

6 03/2016 15.1 Strategic Asset Management Plan

That Council:

Progressing

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


MINUTE: 12064 1. Endorses the Strategic Asset Management Plan 2016-2020 as a component of the Shire’s Integrated Strategic Planning and Reporting Framework and in particular, for consideration as part of the ongoing annual and long term financial plans;

2. Acknowledges that levels of service and whether or not

to rationalise the Shire’s asset network will need to be considered as part of the forthcoming review of the Corporate Business Plan and the Long Term Financial Plan; and

3. Notes that officers are continuing to –

a. collect and improve asset management data and

systems to increase confidence in this Plan;

b. undertake cyclic condition audits of all asset classes and review modelling to confirm required renewal expenditure;

c. collect asset data for minor assets (currently

excluded from the modelling) so it can be available for future plan updates;

d. develop asset design and construction standards

as part of ongoing budget considerations for future assets; and

Successful in securing a program to have our building assets audited with improved component data. As part of the annual Fair Value process, plant and equipment is being audited and will be integrated into the Asset Management System. (May 2016) Staff Housing audits completed. Other buildings to follow. Road AMP commencing. (September 2016) Progressing (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


e. endeavor to provide whole of life costs as part of future asset provision reports to Council.

7 12/2015 15.1 Strategic Waste

Management Plan MINUTE: 12034

That Council endorse the Strategic Waste Management Plan as a guide to ongoing waste management in the Shire of Ashburton.

Progressing Operations Manager is reviewing the Waste Strategy in conjunction with staff which has delayed the preparation of monthly updates. However, a Tender has been called for the installation of a weighbridge at Tom Price and a Request for Quote has been issued for the provision of software to complement the weighbridge. Concept development plans are being prepared for the long term use of Tom Price and Paraburdoo landfill sites and will be available in September 2016. (August 2016) Ongoing

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


(October 2016)

8 10/2015 15.2 Agreement with Main Roads WA for the Handover of a Section of Onslow Road MINUTE: 12018

That Council:

1. Agree to the Main Roads WA proposal to hand over the section of Onslow Road, north of the new Onslow Ring Road upon completion of pavement rectification works to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer; and

2. Correspond with Ashburton’s state government representatives

to seek their assistance in securing complimentary state government grant funds to improve drainage at Shanks Road (as an immediate priority) with the opportunity for road train access to Beadon Creek to be considered as part of the 2016/17 budget deliberations (on the basis it can secure joint MRWA/Shire of Ashburton funding allocations).

Progressing Handover inspection with Main Roads WA undertaken on 02/05/2016. (May 2016) Point 1 An exchange of letters between Main Roads WA and the Shire has occurred in respect of the Shire now being responsible for the road. Point 2 Funding has been received for the Shanks Road Drainage and the final design is being reviewed (September 2016) Ongoing

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


(October 2016) 9 06/2015 15.1 Karratha / Tom Price -

Lobbying Proposal for Funding MINUTE: 11972

That Council:

1. Note that there are multiple economic and social benefits to sealing the Karratha-Tom Price route, that this project sits comfortably with the original aims and objectives of RfR and that it also delivers on all six policy objectives of the RfR Program;

2. Note that any contribution from the private sector and the

Shire should be “gifted” to the State Government for the specific purpose of constructing the road and on this basis would attract a higher (dollar for dollar) matched funding from the Commonwealth;

3. Proceed to discuss with stakeholders their support for the

Shire to submit an application to the RfR Program for staged funding to complete the Karratha-Tom Price route and authorise the President and CEO to promote the grant application at both state and federal political levels as required (conditional though, that within the eventual grant approval process, the Shire’s two policies applicable to Asset Management (ENG09) and Financial Sustainability(ELM10), and its Long Term Financial Plan, must suitably accommodate the road construction schedule and its long term road maintenance program.

Progressing Application for funding for the Karratha-Tom Price Rd was submitted for Phase 2 of the Commonwealth Stronger Regions Fund, but it was unsuccessful. An application was submitted for Round 3, with announcements expected in July 2016.

The Lobbying Plan is now available. Copies of the Plan have been provided to PDC who has already indicated support for the project. PDC has allocated $50,000 to expand on the Shire’s existing study. Ongoing lobbying will be undertaken in conjunction with PRD and other stakeholders. Plan has been provided to Main Roads WA, who will liaise with PDC.

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


(June 2016) Ongoing PDC study progressing with the Shire of Ashburton and the City of Karratha also contributing ($25,000 and $10,000 respectively) to provide the necessary funds $85,000 for the study). (October 2016)

10 11/2014 15.2 Request to Excise a Portion of Reserve 19291 to Facilitate the Rehabilitation of the Existing Onslow Landfill MINUTE: 11874

That Council request the Minister for Lands excise from Reserve 19291 that portion of land depicted as ‘Area B’ and 'Area C' in ATTACHMENT 15.2 and amalgamate with Reserve 38336.

Complete Documents lodged with Landgate (October 2016)

11 11/2014 15.3 Request to Excise a Portion of Reserve 19291 to Create a New Reserve Vested in the Shire of Ashburton for the Proposed Onslow Waste Transfer Station

That Council:

1. Request the Minister for Lands excise from Reserve 19291 that portion of land depicted as ‘Waste Transfer Site’ in ATTACHMENT 15.3; and

Progressing Department of Lands have issued survey instructions to update the reserve boundaries. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


MINUTE: 11874

2. Reserve the excised portion for the purpose of 'Waste Transfer Station' with a Management Order to the Shire of Ashburton.

12 10/2014 15.1 Request for the Excise and Dedication of a Portion of Reserve 19291 Onslow for the Creation of an Access Road to the Proposed Waste Transfer Station MINUTE: 11868

That Council: 1. Request the Minister for Lands to excise from Reserve 19291

that portion of land depicted as ‘Road’ on ATTACHMENT 15.1B;

2. Request that the Minister of Lands dedicate the land depicted as ‘Road’ on ATTACHMENT 15.1B as a public road in accordance with Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997; and

3. In accordance with Section 56 (4) of the Land Administration Act indemnifies the Minister against all costs reasonably incurred in granting this request.

Progressing Department of Lands have issued survey instructions to update the reserve boundaries. (October 2016)

13 08/2014 15.1 Site Selection and Feasibility Study for the proposed Onslow Waste Management Facility Lot 150 Onslow Road - August 2014 MINUTE: 11837

That Council: 2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to proceed with the

necessary site investigation, planning, approval, consultation and design works required to develop the Waste Management Facility at the Preferred Site (‘Site10’) in Onslow to a Class IV standard; and

3. Request that the Chief Executive Officer reports back to Council the results of (2) for further Council consideration on the eventual proposed design and business delivery model of the Waste Management Facility.

Completed

Report to be presented to October Council Meeting (October 2016)

14 06/2014 15.1 Road Closure - Road No 1644 From Mount Florence Homestead To Hamersley Homestead

That Council: 1. In accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act

1997 publishes the public notice of intention to close in entirety Road Number 1644 as defined in the Government Gazette

Progressing The Shire has contacted the Department of Lands

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


MINUTE: 11817

notice of April 1904 for amalgamation into adjoining properties, in a newspaper circulating in its district, and invite representations on the proposed closure within a period of 35 days from the publication; and

2. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to resolve to make a request to the Minister to close the road, should no objections be received.

and asked for this to be closed off as soon as possible. Rio Tinto has now issued the Shire with a letter titled ‘Discontinuation of the proposed closure for ROAD 1644 from Mount Florence Homestead to Hamersley Homestead’ which now needs to be assessed.

Shire is currently reviewing all original documentation and correspondence due to staff changes in RTIO contact.

(March 2016)

No further updates.

(October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


15 10/2012 18.3 Tom Price Royal Flying Doctor Air Strip

MINUTE: 11336

That Council:

1. Rescinds previous decision from August 2012 Meeting (Minute 11272)

i. Council will support the development of a RFDS air strip for Tom Price if owned and operated by others and;

ii. Direct the CEO to lobby resource companies, state government departments etc to construct own and operate an RFDS air strip in Tom Price."

Alternate Motion:

1. Council supports, without bias, that it is the desire of the residents of Tom Price to have their own Royal Flying Doctor Air Strip, for which to service their needs.

2. Council authorises the Chief Executive Office to source the required capital funding for the Royal Flying Doctor Air Strip and investigate means to offset maintenence costs.

3. On the basis of 2. above and should capital funds be located, then Council agree in principle to accept ownership responsibility of the airstrip.

4. A Business Plan is to be brought back to Council for approval.

Progressing Business Case has been finalised.

The Shire and HQ Management are in discussions with Rio Tinto to confirm the use of the preferred site, the provision of site information and Rio Tinto’s position on forming a partnership for the project.

Department of Lands has been consulted and a land tenure proposal is with Perth RTIO management to determine their position. RTIO has requested documented evidence of all site assessments undertaken that target their site as the preferred/only option for a Tom Price RFDS strip. (June 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


# Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


No further update

(October 2016) 16 08/2012 13.4 Mine Road Tom Price –

Dedication of road.

MINUTE:11261

That Council: 1. That Council resolves to make a request to the Minister under

section 56(1)(a) of the Land Administration Act 1997 to dedicate Lot 356 of DP 216348 as a road.

2. Council resolves to advise Department of Regional Development and Lands that it would also be prepared to accept a road reserve to continue to the entry to the Tom Price LIA.

Progressing Rio Tinto are investigating concerns that it has with this amalgamation, even though it was originally its request for the amalgamation and transfer of ownership to the Shire. Emailed for follow up, awaiting response letter from Rio. (August 2015) No further update (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Strategic and Economic Development Decision Status Report # Council

Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


1 09/2016 16.1 Execution of Funding Deed – Paraburdoo Community Hub 2016-2022 MINUTE:

No Resolution made by Council due to a lack of a quorum. Note: The Shire President suggests in light of the approval from the Department of Local Government and Communities not being forthcoming that the matter be dealt with by the Chief Executive Officer under Delegation DA02-4 – Delegation of Powers and Duties of the Local Government Act to the CEO.

Ongoing Rio Tinto executing documents and forwarding to SoA (October 2016)

2. 09/2016 16.2 Onslow Community Boating Precinct

That Council endorses the proposal by Department of Transport to construct the ‘Onslow Community Boating Precinct’ and supports it’s application for $8 million from Royalties for Regions and $1.5 million from the Onslow Community Development Fund.

Complete Endorsement included in the Business Case which has been lodged with PDC by Dept of Transport. (October 2016)

3. 09/2016 16.3 Award of RFT 16/16 Design and Construction of Residential Dwellings at Barrada Estate, Onslow.

That Council: 1. Accepts Option 2 (three dwellings) Lump Sum Tender of

$1,196,972.37 (including GST) from Pindan Pty Ltd for RFT 16/16 - Design and Construction of Residential Dwellings in Barrarda Estate, Onslow; and

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to execute the

Contract and manage the Contract, including variations to the design specifications and contract value, providing this

Ongoing Contract documents forwarded to Pindan Pty Ltd for execution. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


does not exceed the project budget or reduce the overall scope.

4 07/2016 16.1 Notice of Motion – Review

of Onslow Airport Camp MINUTE: 12

That Council: 1. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to;

a. Terminate all contracts in relation to the ongoing hire and operation of the Onslow Airport Camp;

b. Procure appropriate contractors to demobilise the

camp and reinstate its grounds; c. Secure alternative accommodation for the ongoing

needs of the Shire in Onslow; and

2. Review net costs for the Camp as part of the 2016/17 mid-year budget review.

Ongoing Tender has closed and is being reviewed for award by 14th October; camp should be demobilised by end November. (October 2016)

5 06/2016 16.1 Lease Agreement between Shire of Ashburton and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd for Lot 492 Coolibah Street (SES Premises), Tom Price and Lot 2003 Boonderoo Road (BFB Premises), Tom Price MINUTE: 12107

That Council Delegate Authority to the Chief Executive Officer to arrange preparation and execution of the lease agreements between the Shire of Ashburton and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd for Lot 492 Coolibah Street and Lot 2003 Boonderoo Road, Tom Price for a term of five years commencing 10 November 2015 and expiring on 9 November 2020 for $0 rental per annum.

Ongoing SoA executed. Forwarded to Lessor for execution. (September 2016)

6 06/2016 18.1 Design and Construction of the Onslow Skate Park

That Council:

1. Accepts the Lump Sum Tender of $1,000,000 (GST

Ongoing

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


MINUTE: 12108 Exclusive) from CONVIC for RFT 16/14 Design and Construction of the Onslow Skate Park;

2. Approves the proposed increase in the project budget from

$1 million to $1.3 million, subject to approval from the Onslow Macedon Infrastructure Working Group;

3. Authorises the CEO to negotiate/execute Contract

documentation upon approval of the funding outlined in (2) above, and manage the Contract including variations to the design specifications and contract value (providing this does not exceed the project budget or reduce the overall scope).

Contract with CONVIC executed. All demolition works completed and construction of the skate park in progress. (October 2016)

7 05/2016 18.1 Proposal to vary the Onslow Shire Complex Design MINUTE: 12101

That Council delegates the CEO authority to negotiate the estimated cost and program for the Council Chambers extension for the Onslow Shire Complex with Woollam Constructions (to ensure it is of a fit for purpose size), and enter into a variation of contract for the works to be completed providing it does not exceed the project’s existing budget.

Complete Project including extension completed 4/10 with SoA taking possession and has moved into the building on 5/10/16. (October 2016)

8 05/2016 16.2 Authorisation to affix Common Seal – Transfer of Land documents for acquisition of Lot 314 Poinsettia Street, Tom Price MINUTE: 12099

That Council:

1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer and Shire President to execute the contract of sale for Lot 314 Poinsettia Street, Tom Price for $300,000 plus GST; and

Ongoing Transfer of Lands documents lodged to Landgate Friday 30

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer and Shire President to apply the Common Seal to the Transfer of Land documents.

September. Settlement to occur. (October 2016)

9 03/2016 18.1 RFT 01/16 Design and Construction of Onslow Aquatic and Recreation Centre, Onslow MINUTE: 12071

That Council:

1. Accepts the Lump Sum Tender of $5,927,334 (GST exclusive) from Pindan Contracting Pty Ltd for RFT 01/16 Design and Construction of Onslow Aquatic and Recreation Facility including provisional sums;

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the final

terms and execute the Contract documentation; 3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to manage the

Contract, including variations to the design specifications and contract value, providing this does not exceed the project budget or reduce the facility's overall scope.

Ongoing Contract has been executed with Pindan, construction underway and expected to be completed by end 2016/Jan 2017 (October 2016)

10 11/2015 16.2 Authorisation to Affix Common Seal – Application for a New/Balance Title for Lot 16 Onslow Road, Onslow MINUTE: 12024

That Council approves affixing the Common Seal in the presence of the Shire President and the Chief Executive Officer to the Application for a New/Balance Title form for lodgment to Landgate.

Ongoing Common Seal applied. Document forwarded to Settlement Agent 23 November 2015. Lodgement cannot take place until the Deed of

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


Surrender and new Deed of Easement documents are received from Water Corporation. Negotiations continue between Water Corporation and Onslow Salt. (October 2016)

11 11/2015 16.1 Relinquishment of Lot 46 South Road, Tom Price by Hamersley Iron for Acquisition by the Shire of Ashburton MINUTE: 12032

That Council: 1. Endorses the acquisition of Lot 46 South Road, Tom Price;

and 2. Approves affixing the Common Seal in the presence of the

Shire President and the Chief Executive Officer to the transfer of land documents for lodgment to Landgate.

Ongoing Organisational structure changes have resulted in delays to the internal approvals required by Rio Tinto. (October 2016)

12 10/2015 16.5 Request for Creation of Reserve with Management by Shire of Ashburton – Unallocated Crown Land being Lot 330 on Deposited Plan 66635 and Portions of unallocated Crown Land between Lots 330 and 414

That Council:

1. Request the Minister for Lands to:

a. Reserve Lot 330 and portions of Unallocated Crown Land from Lot 330 to Lot 414 as described on Plan Onslow Boardwalk - 01 and dated April 2015 for the purpose “Recreation”; and

Ongoing

Council’s decision and letter of indemnification was forwarded to Department of Lands to

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


for the Purpose of “Recreation”, Onslow MINUTE: 12022

b. Issue a Management Order to the Shire of Ashburton.

2. Advise Department of Lands in writing of the Shire’s

commitment to indemnify the Minister against any claim for compensation.

commence NOITT actions. Deposited Plan placed In Order For Dealings at Landgate. NOITT actions commenced. (October 2016)

13 10/2015 18.1 Confidential Item – Proposal from Onslow Marine Support Base for the acquisition of Lot 9500 Onslow Road, Onslow MINUTE: 12023

That Council:

3. Accept Onslow Marine Support Base Pty Ltd’s proposal for acquisition of Lot 9500 Onslow Road, Onslow; and

4. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and execute a contract of sale with Onslow Marine Support Base Pty Ltd, generally in accordance with the contents of this report.

Completed

Refer September 2016 OCM Confidential Item 19.1 Minute # 46. (October 2016)

14 07/2015 16.2 Ocean View Caravan Park - Realignment of Boundary MINUTE: 11975

That Council endorses the proposed realignment of the boundary to Lot 3001 on Plan 48469, Reserve 24405, Onslow (Ocean View Caravan Park), and authorises the necessary application to be made to Minister for Lands.

Completed Deposited Plan placed In Order For Dealings by Landgate. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1


Meeting

(mm/yy)

Agenda


15 09/2014 16.1 Proposed Memorandum of Understanding for Pilbara Regional Council to Undertake Conservation Works at Old Onslow MINUTE: 11859

That Council: 1. Endorse the proposal by the Pilbara Regional Council to

undertake conservation works at the Old Onslow Townsite in accordance with its proposal and $1 million budget provided in the Onslow Social Infrastructure Fund; and

Ongoing PRC has completed temporary stabilisation works (January). Interpretive signage design underway and quotations received for further stabilisation of buildings. (October 2016)

ATTACHMENT 11.1

Ac

tio

ns

Per

form

ed U

nd

er D

eleg

ated

Au

tho

rity

fo

r th

e M

on

th o

f S

epte

mb

er 2

016.

T

he

Use

of

the C

om

mo

n S

ea

l

Sea

l N

o.

D

ate

Sea

l A

pp

lied

Co

un

cil

Dec

isio

n

Par

ties

In

volv

ed

Do

cum

ent

Det

ails

The

Com

mon

Sea

l was

not

app

lied

for

the

mon

th o

f S

epte

mbe

r 20

16.

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

:

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

F

inan

cial

Imp

lica

tio

ns:

T

here

are

no

finan

cial

impl

icat

ions

rel

ated

to

this

mat

ter.

Ce

rta

in P

lan

nin

g F

un

cti

on

s R

ela

tin

g t

o S

hir

e o

f A

sh

bu

rto

n T

ow

n P

lan

nin

g S

ch

em

e N

o. 7

(D

A0

8-1

)

A,

B,

C

Ad

vert

isin

g a

nd

Det

erm

inin

g A

pp

lica

tio

ns

for,

Pla

nn

ing

Ap

pro

val,

Dra

ft D

evel

op

men

t P

lan

s, o

r E

xten

sio

n f

or

To

wn

Pla

nn

ing

Sch

eme

Am

end

men

ts a

nd

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pla

ns

A

dv

or

Det

. A

pp

.

Dat

e A

pp

lica

nt

Des

crip

tio

n

Dev

elo

pm

ent

loca

tio

n

16

-43

07/0

9/20

16

Ben

jam

in P

etch

ell

R C

ode

Var

iatio

n P

atio

Ext

ensi

on

Lot

468

(H1)

Cro

ton

stre

et T

om P

rice

16-3

8 08

/09/

2016

D

ebor

ah A

lice

Ave

ry

Res

iden

tial B

uild

ing

s – N

ew S

tatio

n H

omes

tead

Lo

t LA

3114

/126

7 N

o S

tree

t F

ront

age

Mt

Stu

art

Sta

tion

16

-40

09/0

9/20

16

Dam

ien

Hea

th

R C

ode

Var

iatio

n C

ar P

ort E

xten

sion

Lo

t 22

2 F

rang

ipan

i Str

eet,

Tom

Pric

e

16-4

6 19

/09/

2016

JJ

Vilj

oen

Car

port

& R

ear

Pat

io E

xten

sion

Lo

t 20

(H

12)

Alla

mbi

Way

, T

om P

rice

16

-42

20/0

9/20

16

Will

iam

Sho

ard

R C

ode

Var

iatio

n P

atio

Ext

ensi

on

Lot

658

(H9)

Kia

h S

tree

t, T

om P

rice

16

-41

20/9

/201

6 S

haun

Joh

nson

S

hed

Lot

300

(H11

) B

auhi

nia

Str

eet,

Tom

Pric

e

16-4

4 22

/9/2

016

Oliv

ia S

catt

ini

Hom

e O

ccup

atio

n – H

air

Dre

ss

Lot

604

Boo

lee

Str

eet

ATTACHMENT 11.2

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

:

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

E

xecu

tive

Man

ager

, D

evel

opm

ent

& R

egul

ator

y S

ervi

ces

Fin

anci

al Im

pli

cati

on

s:

The

re a

re n

o fin

anci

al im

plic

atio

ns r

elat

ed t

o th

is m

atte

r.

Re

po

rt o

f D

ele

ga

tio

n A

cti

vit

ies -

De

leg

ate

d A

uth

ori

ty R

eg

iste

r 2016

A

pp

rova

l D

ate

Del

egat

ion

N

o.

Fil

e R

ef

Tit

le

Dec

isio

n

D

eleg

atio

n o

f P

ow

ers

and

Du

ties

of

the

Lo

cal G

ove

rnm

ent

Act

to

th

e C

EO

(D

A02

-4)

16

/09/

2016

D

A02

-4

GV

041.

16

Del

egat

ion

of

Pow

ers

and

Dut

ies

of

the

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t A

ct

to

the

CE

O

(DA

04-2

)

Pur

chas

e of

a 2

006

Gra

der

Ser

vice

/ C

amp

Tra

iler

up t

o th

e va

lue

of

$25,

000.

E

mai

l sen

t to

Cou

ncill

or v

ia E

MA

CC

ES

S o

n 14

/09/

2016

.

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

:

Exe

cutiv

e M

anag

er, I

nfra

stru

ctur

e S

ervi

ces

Fin

anci

al Im

pli

cati

on

s:

The

re a

re n

o fin

anci

al im

plic

atio

ns r

elat

ed t

o th

is m

atte

r. /

Goo

ds p

urch

ased

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith 2

016/

17 B

udg

et.

Ten

de

rs (

Ac

ce

pte

d a

nd

Ex

ec

ute

d A

sso

cia

ted

Co

ntr

ac

t) (

De

leg

ati

on

DA

06

-6)

Ap

pro

val

Dat

e F

ile

Ref

T

itle

T

end

erer

T

ota

l S

core

(/

100)

$

19/0

9/20

16

CM

19.1

6 G

V01

.16

Aw

ard

of T

ende

r R

FT

19/

16

Asp

halt

Sur

faci

ng o

r S

pray

S

ealin

g o

f P

arab

urdo

o S

hopp

ing

Cen

tre

Car

Par

k

1. A

TM

Asp

halt

2. K

arra

tha

Asp

halt

3.

Dow

ner

ED

I Wor

ks

1. 8

5.0

2. 7

3.1

3. 7

1.3

1. $

180,

063.

50

2. $

194,

982.

50

3. $

227,

335.

00

ATTACHMENT 11.2

19/0

9/20

16

CM

06.1

4 G

V01

.16

Ext

ensi

on

for

a fu

rthe

r 12

m

onth

s of

con

trac

t RF

T 0

6/14

P

rovi

sion

of

Sur

vey

Ser

vice

s

McM

ulle

n N

olan

No

chan

ge

to

sche

dule

of f

ees

23/0

9/20

16

CM

17.1

6 G

V01

.16

Aw

ard

Ten

der

RF

T 1

7/16

S

uppl

y an

d In

stal

latio

n of

M

ulti

func

tion

Prin

ter

Dev

ices

1 P

ilbar

a C

opy

Ser

vice

2.

Fuj

i Xer

ox

3. S

cope

Bus

ines

s Im

agin

g

1. 7

7 2.

74.

1 3.

72.

4

$

272,

650.

48

$

318,

311.

90

$

333,

018.

91

C

on

sult

atio

n:

E

xecu

tive

Man

ager

, Inf

rast

ruct

ure

Ser

vice

s E

xecu

tive

Man

ager

, D

evel

opm

ent

and

Reg

ulat

ory

Ser

vice

s F

inan

cial

Imp

lica

tio

ns:

G

oods

pur

chas

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

201

6/17

Bud

get

.

ATTACHMENT 11.2

Policy No: CORP_GOV

Policy Name: ELM23 NOTICE OF MOTION PROCEDURE

File No: GV20

Policy Purpose: This policy provides guidance to Elected Members when dealing with Notice of Motions during Ordinary Meeting of Council

Principles / Framework Loving Life – 10 Year Strategic Plan Objective 3 – Council Leadership Corporate Business Plan Governance 5.1 Policies and Procedures

Application: The policy applies to all Elected Members

Statutory Environment: Shire of Ashburton Standing Orders Local Law 2012

Approval Date: OCM XXXXXXXXX

POLICY STATEMENT Councils are required to have a local law which covers meeting procedures. The Shire of Ashburton Standing Orders Local Law 2012 provides this function. This local law is generally based on well-accepted procedures that are intended to ensure meetings are run fairly and productively. While this local law provides a broad framework for running orderly and constructive meetings, good governance processes add meaning to the framework. To ensure good governance processes are upheld, the following procedure shall be followed when lodging and considering Notice of Motions: 1) Lodgement of Notice of Motion with the CEO or Council to be as per Standing Orders Local Law

2012, Clause 5.3 procedures; 2) Reference of the Notice of Motion to Council for First Stage Consideration -

a) If a Notice of Motion is received 14 days prior to a Council Meeting, first consideration would be at that Council Meeting; and

b) If a Notice of Motion is received at a Council Meeting itself, first consideration would be at the following Council Meeting.

3) First Stage Consideration would involve a Notice of Motion being presented to Council by the

nominating Elected Member. Elected Members would then vote on whether to – a) seek Officers to research and provide a comprehensive report (to the next Council Meeting if

practical), b) abandon the proposal, c) refer the matter to be dealt with administratively, or d) an alternative to the above three options.

___________________________________ Kerry White________________________________ [Signature] [Print Name] Signed Shire President Monitor and Review Chief Executive Officer Last Review Date xxxxxxxxxx Next Review Date 2020 Review Period: 4 years

This policy is to remain in force until otherwise determined by the Council or superseded.

ATTACHMENT 11.4

SHIRE OF ASHBURTONMONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY

FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2016 TO 31 AUGUST 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Statement of Financial Activity 1

Net Current Assets 2

Report on Significant Variances 3 - 4

Acquisitions of Assets: Capital Expenditure 5 - 7Progress Report (Note 3 )

Graphs 8 - 9

Reserve Movements 10

ATTACHMENT 13.1A

VariancesNOTE August August 2016/17 2016/17 Variances Actual

2016 2016 Revised Adopted Actuals to Budget toOperating Actual Y-T-D Budget Budget Budget Budget Y-T-D

$ $ $ $ $ %Revenues/SourcesGovernance 1,011,401 1,391,691 1,879,448 1,879,448 (380,290) (27.33%) ▼General Purpose Funding 1,139,004 (2,334,127) 4,930,158 5,279,299 3,473,131 (148.80%) ▼Law, Order, Public Safety 19,512 20,530 123,219 123,219 (1,018) (4.96%)Health 116,038 75,422 234,182 234,182 40,616 53.85% ▲Education and Welfare 84,061 87,716 596,050 639,050 (3,655) (4.17%)Housing 71,363 78,072 468,622 468,622 (6,709) (8.59%)Community Amenities 2,016,234 744,976 4,213,543 4,213,543 1,271,258 170.64% ▲Recreation and Culture 3,441,929 1,887,124 15,776,397 16,304,397 1,554,805 82.39% ▲Transport 1,445,629 1,840,654 11,812,909 11,813,409 (395,025) (21.46%) ▼Economic Services 428,525 502,934 3,018,787 3,018,787 (74,409) (14.79%) ▼Other Property and Services 18,181 45,748 274,587 274,587 (27,567) (60.26%) ▼

9,791,877 4,340,740 43,327,902 44,248,543 5,451,137 125.58%(Expenses)/(Applications)Governance (1,478,581) (1,062,898) (7,539,467) (7,162,044) (415,683) (39.11%) ▲General Purpose Funding (31,901) (8,718) (52,330) (52,330) (23,183) (265.92%) ▲Law, Order, Public Safety (107,979) (156,771) (1,035,639) (1,035,639) 48,792 31.12% ▼Health (78,958) (153,712) (996,168) (996,168) 74,754 48.63% ▼Education and Welfare (49,583) (103,482) (443,553) (443,553) 53,899 52.09% ▼Housing (258,637) (195,424) (1,058,117) (1,058,117) (63,213) (32.35%) ▲Community Amenities (973,147) (1,439,904) (9,067,501) (9,092,501) 466,757 32.42% ▼Recreation & Culture (1,242,947) (1,643,614) (10,508,056) (10,910,046) 400,667 24.38% ▼Transport (2,407,655) (2,564,874) (15,248,406) (15,258,406) 157,219 6.13%Economic Services (476,021) (1,338,973) (8,220,750) (5,920,750) 862,952 64.45% ▼Other Property and Services (359,051) (409,426) (3,152,961) (3,052,961) 50,375 12.30% ▼

(7,464,460) (9,077,795) (57,322,947) (54,982,514) 1,613,335 (17.77%)

Net Operating Result Excluding Rates 2,327,417 (4,737,056) (13,995,045) (10,733,971) 7,064,473 (149.13%)

Adjustments for Non-Cash(Revenue) and Expenditure(Profit)/Loss on Asset Disposals 36,420 15,909 91,066 91,066 20,511 (128.93%) ▲Movement in Leave Reserve (Added Back) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Movement in Deferred Pensioner Rates/ESL (non-current) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Movement in Employee Benefit Provisions 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Adjustment for Rounding 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Depreciation on Assets 2,184,768 2,183,880 13,108,550 13,108,550 888 (0.04%)Capital Revenue and (Expenditure)Purchase Land Held for Resale 0 (70,804) (540,000) (540,000) 70,804 100.00% ▼Purchase Land and Buildings (755,408) (1,906,498) (21,817,258) (21,817,258) 1,151,090 60.38% ▼Purchase Furniture and Equipment (260,696) (1,916) (877,500) (877,500) (258,780) (13506.26%) ▲Purchase Plant and Equipment (2,920) (6,910) (1,915,975) (1,915,975) 3,990 57.74%Purchase Leasehold Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Roads (19,342) (989,120) (5,719,745) (5,719,745) 969,778 98.04% ▼Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Footpaths (151,245) (170,660) (354,000) (354,000) 19,415 11.38%Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Drainage (188,992) (709,110) (2,170,000) (2,170,000) 520,118 73.35% ▼Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Parks & Ovals 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Aerodromes (126,182) (313,328) (730,000) (730,000) 187,146 59.73% ▼Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Coastal 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Bridges 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Parks & Recreation (1,157,224) (969,032) (10,517,400) (10,517,400) (188,192) (19.42%) ▲Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Town 0 (384,846) (2,310,000) (2,310,000) 384,846 100.00% ▼Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Waste (7,430) (485,906) (1,851,500) (1,851,500) 478,476 98.47% ▼Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Other 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Proceeds from Disposal of Assets 188,580 59,091 496,364 496,364 129,489 219.13% ▲Repayment of Debentures 0 0 (708,807) (708,807) 0 0.00%Proceeds from New Debentures 0 166,600 1,850,000 1,850,000 (166,600) (100.00%) ▼Advances to Community Groups 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Self-Supporting Loan Principal Income 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Transfers to Restricted Assets (Reserves) (38,374) (775,962) (4,657,634) (4,657,634) 737,588 95.05% ▼Transfers from Restricted Asset (Reserves) 0 1,858,729 15,172,019 15,172,019 (1,858,729) (100.00%) ▼

ADD Net Current Assets July 1 B/Fwd 8,385,182 8,385,182 8,385,182 8,784,297 0 0.00%LESS Net Current Assets Year to Date 35,922,545 30,329,959 (3,204,548) 0 5,592,586 18.44%

Amount Raised from General Rates (25,507,991) (29,181,716) (25,857,134) (25,401,494) 3,673,725 (12.59%)

SHIRE OF ASHBURTON

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY


ATTACHMENT 13.1A

2015/16 2015/16B/Fwd B/Fwd

Per Per August2016/17 Financial 2016Budget Report Actual

$ $ $NET CURRENT ASSETS

Composition of Estimated Net Current Asset Position

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash - Unrestricted 12,465,012 9,167,842 15,280,122 *Cash - Restricted Unspent Grants 30,488 1,792,754 30,488 *Cash - Restricted Unspent Loans 0 1,522,742 0Cash - Restricted Reserves 28,464,923 28,464,923 28,503,299 **Rates - Current 866,929 866,929 15,183,096Sundry Debtors 5,444,449 5,479,411 8,821,674Accrued Income 0 7,922 0Payments in Advance 93,588 94,101 0GST Receivable 1,134,506 1,145,505 302,926Provision For Doubtful Debts (727,263) (727,263) (727,263)Inventories 170,857 170,857 170,857

47,943,489 47,985,723 67,565,199

LESS: CURRENT LIABILITIES

Sundry Creditors (9,810,786) (9,692,788) (2,612,046)Accrued Expenditure (2,346) (126,392) 0PAYG Payable 0 (260,254) (230,399)Payroll Creditors 0 0 0Withholding Tax Payable 0 0 0GST Payable (875,846) (878,385) (297,241)Other Payables (5,291) (36,828) 331Restricted Funds 0 0 0Accrued Interest on Debentures 0 (32,158) 0Accrued Salaries and Wages 0 (108,813) 0Current Employee Benefits Provision (1,098,506) (1,098,506) (1,098,506)Current Loan Liability (628) (708,807) (708,807)

(11,793,403) (12,942,931) (4,946,668)

NET CURRENT ASSET POSITION 36,150,086 35,042,792 62,618,531

Less: Cash - Reserves - Restricted (28,464,923) (28,464,923) (28,503,299)Less: Cash - Unspent Grants - Restricted 0 0 0Adjustment for Trust Transactions Within Muni 0 0 0Add Back : Component of Leave Liability notAdd Back : Required to be Funded 1,098,506 1,098,506 1,098,506Add Back : Current Loan Liability 628 708,807 708,807

ESTIMATED SURPLUS/(DEFICIENCY) C/FWD 8,784,297 8,385,182 35,922,545

Investment Account Balance $Restricted Cash Reserve ** 19,870,831

Muni Business Cash Reserve * -

SHIRE OF ASHBURTON

NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY


ATTACHMENT 13.1A

SHIRE OF ASHBURTONFOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 NOVEMBER 2015

Report on Significant variances Greater than 10% and $20,000

Purpose

The Materiality variances adopted by Council are:Actual Variance to YTD Budget up to 5%: Don’t ReportActual Variance exceeding 10% of YTD Budget Use Management DiscretionActual Variance exceeding 10% of YTD Budget and a value greater than $20,000: Must Report

REPORTABLE OPERATING REVENUE VARIATIONS

Governance - Variance below budget expectationsRio Tinto Partnership Agreement funding for Tom Price Town Site Revitalisation Program expected in July 16/17 wasreceived ahead of schedule in June15/16 instead.

Health - Variance above budget expectationsMost annual food premises registration fees and trader permit fees were renewed in August ahead of the monthlybudget schedule. Aboriginal Health quarterly grant payement was higher than expected.

Community Amenities - Variance above budget expectationsAnnual domestic waste charges were levied in full in the month of August.Most commercial waste collection fees were received ahead of the monthly phased budget.RTIO partnership funding for cultural activities received ahead of budgte schedule.

Recreation and Culture - Variance above budget expectationsDSD Funding for the Onslow Pool Construction was received ahead of budget schedule.DSD milestone payment 2 for the Onslow Skate Park was received ahead of budget schedule. RTIO partnership funding for Club Development was received in a lum sum ahead of budget schedule.

Transport - Variance below budget expectations.The passenger tax and security screening revenue is received one month behind budget schedule due to VirginAirways procedure.

Economic Services - Variance below budget expectations.Chevron funding for Pilbara Underground Power Project has not been received yet as the project is only scheduled tocommence in December.Onslow Aiport Camp rental income has been lower than expected thus far in the year.

Other Property and Services - Variance below budget expectationsNo insurance claims made for plant equipment thus far. Fuel rebate processed a month behind the budget schedule.

REPORTABLE OPERATING EXPENSE VARIATIONS

Governance - Variance above budget expectationsVariance is largely due to administrative and housing cost allocation, depreciation & recoveries are deferred until 2015-16 financials are finalised.

General Purpose Funding - Variance above budget expectationsLegal expenses are higher than expected at this point in the year due to debt collection rates.

Law, Order & Public Safety - Variance below budget expectationsVariance is largely due to administrative and housing cost allocation, depreciation & recoveries are deferred until 2015-16 financials are finalised.

Health - Variance below budget expectationsConsultant expenses running behind budget schedule, but will be expended on Public Health Plan by the end ofFinancial Year.

Education and Welfare - Variance below budget expectationsMaintenance on Paraburdoo Childcare Centre lower than budgeted due to newly constructed building. Spending on youth programs and sponsorships & grants is behind budget schedule.

Housing - Variance above budget expectationsVariance ais largely due to administrative and housing cost allocation, depreciation & recoveries are deferred until2015-16 financials are finalised.

Community Amenities - Variance below budget expectationsFirst repayment for Loan 122 scheduled for October behind budget schedule.Waste transportation costs fluctuate due to the variation in the number of collections required each quarter.

Recreation & Culture - Variance below budget expectations

The purpose of the Monthly Variance Report is to highlight circumstances where there is a major variance from the YTD Monthly Budget and YTD

ATTACHMENT 13.1A

SHIRE OF ASHBURTONFOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 NOVEMBER 2015

Report on Significant variances Greater than 10% and $20,000Variance mainly attributed by delay in recruitment of new pool staff and delayed settlement of Tom Price recreationcentre utilities bill.Large variance is due to administrative cost allocation, depreciation & recoveries are deferred until 2015-16 financialsare finalised.

Economic Services - Variance below budget expectationsSpending on Tourism and Area promotion low due to unsuccessful grant applications with Tourism WA.

Other Property and Services - Variance below budget expectationsInsurance paid ahead of budget schedule. Infrastructure consultant projects yet to commence.All Administrative cost allocation & recoveries deferred till previous year financials are finalised.

REPORTABLE CAPITAL EXPENSE VARIATIONS

Purchase of Land Held for Resale - Variance below budget expectations.Onslow Mixed Business funds are being held subject to settlement of the contract of sale. RFQ documents being prepared to progress development of Boonderoo Subdivision/Survey.

Purchase of Land & Buildings - Variance below budget expectations.Onslow Shire Complex renocations behind budget schedule, to be completed in September.Paraburdoo Childcare Centre running behind budget schedule, to be completed in December.Tom Price Admin building renovations paused until further determination.

Purchase of Furniture & Equipment - Variance above budget expectations.The Server Upgrade commenced ahead of budget schedule.

Purchase of Infrastructure Assets Roads - Variance below budget expectations.Road re-sheeting works are scheduled to commence in February, behind budget schedule.

Purchases of Drainage - Variance below budget expectations.Drainage works scheduled to commence in February, behind budget schedule.

Purchase of Aerodromes - Variance below budget expectations.Works on Landside Facilities have commenced and expenditure should catch up to budget timelines.

Purchases of Parks & Recreation Assets - Variance above budget expectations.Onslow Swimming Pool design and construction commenced ahead of budget schedule.

Purchases of Town Infrastructure - Variance below budget expectations.Onslow Underground Power project scheduled to commence in December, behind budget schedule.

Purchases of Waste Infrastructure - Variance below budget expectations.The Tom Price weighbridge is scheduled to commence in November.Onslow Tip Closure works scheduled to commence in February.Onslow Transfer Station works scheduled to commence in October.

REPORTABLE CAPITAL INCOME VARIATIONS

Proceeds from Disposal of Assets - Variance above expectations.Road Plant vehicles sold ahead of budget schedule.

Proceeds from New Debentures - Variance below expectations.New loan to fund the Onslow Underground Power program delayed as works only scheduled to commence inDecember.

Transfers to Restricted Assets (Reserves) - Variance below budgeted expectations.Reserve transfers to occur in mid year budget review depending on commencement and progress of capital projects

Transfers from Restricted Assets (Reserves) - Variance below budgeted expectations.Reserve transfers to occur in mid year budget review depending on commencement and progress of capital projects

ATTACHMENT 13.1A

Acquisitions of Assets

Capital Expenditure Progress Report at 31 August 2016

GL Job DescriptionOriginalBudget

CurrentBudget

BudgetYTD

SpendingYTD

GOVERNANCE & EXECUTIVE SERVICES

Staff Housing 097803 BC099 BUDGET ONLY Staff Housing - Security Improvements - All Hous 992,153.00 992,153.00 0.00 0.00097803 BC213 CAP - 178 Cassia St Tom Price 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,068.42097800 BN144 New Staff Housing Onslow 1,346,000.00 1,346,000.00 0.00 1,053.20097800 BN145 New Staff Housing Tom Price 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00

3,338,153.00 3,338,153.00 0.00 30,446.62

Visitors Centre Tom Price134851 Asset Expansion/Upgrade Visitors Cente Tom Price Furntiure & E 3,500.00 3,500.00 584.00 0.00

3,500.00 3,500.00 584.00 0.00

Tourism & Area Promotion Eastern Sector134854 15150 Paraburdoo - Upgrade Visitor Info Bay Camp Rd 98,000.00 98,000.00 0.00 0.00134854 15151 Upgrade Tourist Info Bay Signage 250,000.00 250,000.00 41,650.00 0.00

348,000.00 348,000.00 41,650.00 0.00Tourism & Area Promotion Onslow

135010 C610 Onslow Visitors Centre & Museum Signage 28,000.00 28,000.00 0.00 147.2728,000.00 28,000.00 0.00 147.27

Museums114619 BC410 CAP - Building Prog Onslow Museum 44,105.00 44,105.00 7,348.00 0.00

44,105.00 44,105.00 7,348.00 0.00

Total 3,761,758.00 3,761,758.00 49,582.00 30,593.89

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Care of Families & Children080300 BN455 Paraburdoo Child Care 620,000.00 620,000.00 620,000.00 167,285.96

620,000.00 620,000.00 620,000.00 167,285.96Public Halls Civic Centre, Pavillion

117324 17031 Paraburdoo Ashburton Hall - Safety Rails 3,000.00 3,000.00 500.00 0.00117325 17025 Paraburdoo Ashburton Hall - Safety Rails 25,000.00 25,000.00 4,164.00 0.00

28,000.00 28,000.00 4,664.00 0.00Swimming Pool Tom Price

112734 17002 Retiling of Raised Beams Vic Hayton Swimming Pool 70,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 0.00112734 17015 Start Blocks Vic Hayton Swimming Pool 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00113308 17010 Playground Floor Covering - Vic Hayton Pool 52,000.00 52,000.00 8,664.00 0.00113309 C1607 Lightening Protection Pool area 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00

162,000.00 162,000.00 8,664.00 0.00Foreshore Areas Onslow

112861 17040 Pontoon 500,000.00 500,000.00 0.00 0.00112862 C012 Ian Blair Boardwalk Onslow - Refurbishment 730,000.00 730,000.00 0.00 300.00

1,230,000.00 1,230,000.00 0.00 300.00

Swimming Pool Paraburdoo112735 17022 Wet Deck Quentin Broad Swimming Pool 20,000.00 20,000.00 3,332.00 0.00113320 17033 Procal Dry Chlorine System 14,000.00 14,000.00 2,332.00 0.00113325 C1603 Lighting Protection works 50,000.00 50,000.00 8,330.00 0.00

84,000.00 84,000.00 13,994.00 0.00Onslow MPC

110364 17030 Upgrade MPC (Emergency Evacuation Centre) 55,000.00 55,000.00 0.00 0.0055,000.00 55,000.00 0.00 0.00

Other Recreation & Sport 112763 17014 Paraburdoo Hospital Street Verge Improvement 10,000.00 10,000.00 1,666.00 0.00112784 17035 Scrubber Dryer for MPC 7,475.00 7,475.00 1,246.00 0.00113235 17013 Water Chiller - Paraburdoo Oval 15,000.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 0.00113230 17039 Building Compliance Assistance on Leased Reserves 150,000.00 150,000.00 24,990.00 0.00113239 17012 Scoreboard - Paraburdoo Indoor Cricket Nets 5,000.00 5,000.00 832.00 0.00113239 C1650 Install water filtration systems (all facilities) 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.00

212,475.00 212,475.00 31,234.00 0.00

ATTACHMENT 13.1A




CurrentBudget

BudgetYTD

SpendingYTD

Other Community Amenities100030 C069 Puchase Portable PA System 40,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 0.00102541 17036 Town Entry Statement - Tom Price 10,000.00 10,000.00 1,666.00 0.00

50,000.00 50,000.00 1,666.00 0.00Swimming Pool Onslow

117651 15024 Onslow Swimming Pool Construction 6,577,000.00 6,577,000.00 0.00 1,119,568.076,577,000.00 6,577,000.00 0.00 1,119,568.07

Onslow Sports Club113259 Asset Renewal Buildings Onslow Sports Club 500,000.00 500,000.00 0.00 0.00

500,000.00 500,000.00 0.00 0.00Paraburdoo Chub

113236 BN376 Business Case - Paraburdoo Chubb 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00113236 BN378 Construction 13,820,000.00 13,820,000.00 0.00 0.00113236 BN379 Professional Fees 600,000.00 600,000.00 0.00 0.00

14,520,000.00 14,520,000.00 0.00 0.00Parks and Ovals

112746 17008 CCTV - Paraburdoo Skate Park 30,000.00 30,000.00 4,998.00 0.00112746 17011 Lighting - Nature Playground 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00112746 17042 Pannawonica Infrastructure Libaray Sign, Bike Rack(library) Gaze 85,000.00 85,000.00 0.00 0.00112746 C078 Skate Park Onslow (New) 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 300,000.00 36,722.00112746 C079 Basketball Courts Onslow (New) 565,000.00 565,000.00 565,000.00 634.13112748 17020 Replace fencing Paraburdoo top oval 31,000.00 31,000.00 5,164.00 0.00112748 C1613 Replace Existing Playground (Tjiluna Oval) 61,000.00 61,000.00 0.00 0.00112749 15230 Onslow Playground @ Oval 313,000.00 313,000.00 52,146.00 0.00112749 17021 Onslow Solar Lights 14,400.00 14,400.00 2,400.00 0.00112761 C1617 Playground Audit Repairs 20,000.00 20,000.00 3,332.00 0.00112745 15128 Paraburdoo Peter Sutherland Oval - Upgrade Electrical Panels 170,000.00 170,000.00 0.00 0.00

2,544,400.00 2,544,400.00 933,040.00 37,356.13Library Tom Price

114133 BC390 CAP - Library Building 15,000.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 0.0015,000.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 0.00

Library Paraburdoo113838 BC400 CAP - Library Building 15,000.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 0.00

15,000.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 0.00Library Pannawonica

114368 BC405 CAP Library Building 15,000.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 0.0015,000.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 0.00

Aged Care092268 BC299 CAP - Renovations - Senior Citizens Units 100,000.00 100,000.00 16,660.00 0.00

100,000.00 100,000.00 16,660.00 0.00

Total 26,727,875.00 26,727,875.00 1,637,422.00 1,324,510.16

CORPORATE SERVICES

Administration General Tom Price & Paraburdoo045968 Renovations - Tom Price Office 350,000.00 350,000.00 200,000.00 0.00

350,000.00 350,000.00 200,000.00 0.00Administration General Onslow

040376 BN100 Onslow Admin Complex Construction 1,855,000.00 1,320,790.00 660,396.00 418,378.03040376 BN101 Planning & Design costs 0.00 150,000.00 75,000.00 6,775.00040376 BN103 Furniture & Equipment 0.00 364,210.00 182,108.00 651.47040376 BN104 Event 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00

1,855,000.00 1,855,000.00 917,504.00 425,804.50Information Technology

040466 17028 Branch Repeaters 300,000.00 300,000.00 0.00 0.00040466 17029 AIMS (Sharepoint) Upgrade 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00042464 Computer Equipment 366,000.00 366,000.00 0.00 260,696.10

766,000.00 766,000.00 0.00 260,696.10Cemeteries

100100 Onslow Cemetery Upgrade 14,000.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 0.0014,000.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 0.00

Total 2,985,000.00 2,985,000.00 1,131,504.00 686,500.60

DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY SERVICES

Ranger Services Onslow/Pannawonica051755 Upgrade - Onslow Dog Pound 20,000.00 20,000.00 3,332.00 0.00

20,000.00 20,000.00 3,332.00 0.00

Total 20,000.00 20,000.00 3,332.00 0.00

ATTACHMENT 13.1A




CurrentBudget

BudgetYTD

SpendingYTD

STRATEGIC & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Ocean View Caravan Park134255 BE438 Ocean View Caravan Park Upgrade 105,000.00 105,000.00 105,000.00 102,389.88

105,000.00 105,000.00 105,000.00 102,389.88Tom Price Industrial Land Development

140154 W657 Boonderoo Subdivision/Survey expenses - Lot 308 115,000.00 115,000.00 0.00 0.00140154 W658 Boonderoo Subdivision/Survey expenses - Lot 350 55,000.00 55,000.00 9,164.00 0.00140154 15190 Tom Price Industrial Land - Planning 150,000.00 150,000.00 24,990.00 0.00

320,000.00 320,000.00 34,154.00 0.00Onslow Mixed Business Development

147312 Subdivision Surveying & Plans 25,000.00 25,000.00 4,164.00 0.00147315 Design & Plan Expenses 25,000.00 25,000.00 4,164.00 0.00147318 Services Installation - Onslow Mixed Business Land 170,000.00 170,000.00 28,322.00 0.00

220,000.00 220,000.00 36,650.00 0.00Major Projects

100085 Asset New Furniture & Equipment - Major Projects 5,000.01 5,000.01 832.00 0.00130001 Pilbara Undeground Power Project (PUPP) - Onslow 2,300,000.00 2,300,000.00 383,180.00 0.00

2,305,000.01 2,305,000.01 384,012.00 0.00

Total 3,326,000.01 3,326,000.01 601,466.00 102,770.08

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

Depots127381 17034 Depot Boomgates 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00

100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 29,248.38Road Plant Purchases

124954 Plant & Equipment Capital Expenditure 839,000.00 839,000.00 0.00 0.00124964 Motor Vehicle 640,500.00 640,500.00 0.00 2,920.32124956 Asset New Plant Plant & Equipment 120,000.00 270,000.00 0.00 0.00

1,599,500.00 1,749,500.00 0.00 2,920.32Parking Facilities

124785 C1610 Shire Administration Carpark Upgrade 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 19,195.2250,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 19,195.22

Onslow Airport120014 C403 Terminal Construction 10,000.00 10,000.00 1,666.00 0.00120014 C410 Landside Facilities - PIP 3B 650,000.00 650,000.00 300,000.00 126,182.38120016 15203 Onslow Ariport - General Aviation Lease Area Preparation 20,000.00 20,000.00 3,332.00 0.00120016 15206 Onslow Airport Drainage Improvement 50,000.00 50,000.00 8,330.00 0.00

730,000.00 730,000.00 313,328.00 126,182.38Urban Stormwater Drainage

124470 17027 CAPEX Drainage LTFP 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 250,000.00 0.00124470 C150 Works Prog Drainage First St Onslow (Capital) 200,000.00 200,000.00 33,320.00 1,800.00124470 C156 Works Prog Tom Price Urban Drainage 153,000.00 153,000.00 25,490.00 781.77124470 C1655 Works Prog Drainage Shanks Rd Onslow 500,000.00 500,000.00 83,300.00 0.00124470 GE090 Storm water Drainage Renewal Paraburdoo (CLGF) 317,000.00 317,000.00 317,000.00 186,410.17

2,170,000.00 2,170,000.00 709,110.00 188,991.94Construction Streets, Roads, Bridges, Depots

124441 C225 Construction of Cattle Grids 70,000.00 70,000.00 11,662.00 0.00124450 17006 Shade Structures - Parraburdoo Shopping Carpark 90,000.00 90,000.00 0.00 0.00124450 C1611 Stadium Road Upgrade - Tom Price 750,000.00 750,000.00 0.00 0.00124460 17005 Tom Price Admin Carpark & Depot Carpark - Reseal 16,654.00 16,654.00 0.00 0.00124460 17007 Kerb Replacement Program 191,661.00 191,661.00 0.00 0.00124460 C208 Reseals 400,000.00 400,000.00 66,640.00 0.00124460 C211 Roebourne - Wittenoom Rd Resheet 2,280,430.00 2,280,430.00 570,100.00 0.00124461 15204 BUDGET ONLY Road Resheeting 1,495,000.00 1,495,000.00 249,068.00 0.00

5,293,745.00 5,293,745.00 897,470.00 0.00

Sanitation General Refuse100038 C1608 Waste Management Accounting System 60,000.00 60,000.00 0.00 0.00100039 17037 Alternate Daily Cover Paraburdoo 150,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00100039 17038 Storage Shed (Onslow & Paraburdoo) 60,000.00 60,000.00 0.00 0.00100039 C004 New Waste Management Facility 47,000.00 47,000.00 7,830.00 5,153.06100041 C003 Works Prog Onslow Refuse Transfer Station 429,000.00 429,000.00 71,472.00 0.00100041 C005 Tom Price Landfill Wash Down Bay 125,500.00 125,500.00 0.00 0.00100041 C006 Tom Price Weighbridge 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00100063 C065 Onslow Tip Closure 940,000.00 940,000.00 156,604.00 2,277.00

2,061,500.00 1,911,500.00 485,906.00 7,430.06

Footpaths124530 C099 BUDGET ONLY - Asset New Footpaths 100,000.00 100,000.00 16,660.00 0.00124530 C103 Works Prog Tom Price Footpaths (Capital) 52,500.00 52,500.00 52,500.00 52,775.32124530 C107 Works Program Onslow Footpath Construction 47,500.00 47,500.00 47,500.00 45,344.00124530 C104 Works Prog Paraburdoo Footpaths (Capital) 54,000.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 53,125.20124681 Asset Renewal Footpaths INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS - FOOT 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00

354,000.00 354,000.00 170,660.00 151,244.52

Total 12,358,745.00 12,358,745.00 2,626,474.00 525,212.82

Total YTD Capital Expenditure at 31 August 2016 49,179,378.01 49,179,378.01 6,049,780.00 2,669,587.55

ATTACHMENT 13.1A

3 - 4

5 - 10

11 - 12

13

Income and Expenditure Graphs

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Operating Expenditure August 2016

YTDActual

YTDBudget

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000


Operating Income August 2016

YTDActual

YTDBudget

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000


Capital Expenditure August 2016

YTDActual

YTDBudget

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000


Capital Income August 2016

YTDActual

YTDBudget

ATTACHMENT 13.1A

3 - 4

5 - 10

11 - 12

13

Other Graphs

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Current > 30 Days > 60 Days > 90 DaysDays

Sundry Debtors Amount O/S September2016

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Land Heldfor Resale

Land andBuildings

Plant andEquipment

Furnitureand

Equipment

Infra Assets Roads

Infra Assets Footpaths

Infra Assets Drainage

Infra Assets Aerodromes

Infra Assets Parks &

Recreation

Infra Assets Town

Infra Assets Waste

Repaymentof

Debentures

Transfers toRestricted

Assets(Reserves)

Capital Class

Capital Expenditure August 2016

FullYearBudget

YTDBudget

YTDActual

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000


Current YTD Rates Income as at 30/09/16

YTDActual

YTDBudget

ATTACHMENT 13.1A

CASH BACK RESERVES YTD ACTUAL BUDGET

Opening Balance ($)

Interest Earned Amount Set Aside / Transfer To Reserve

Amount Used / Transfer from Reserve

Ending balance ($)

Opening Balance ($)

Interest Earned

Amount Set Aside / Transfer To Reserve

Amount Used / Transfer from Reserve

Ending balance ($)

Employee Entitlement Reserve 327,314 469 327,783 327,314 2,896 4,327 334,537

Plant Replacement Reserve 26,110 37 26,147 26,110 231 346 26,687

Infrastructure Reserve 5,019,130 5,797 5,024,927 5,019,130 58,956 5,078,086Senior Citizens Units 0 -100,000 -100,000Onslow Tip Closure 0 0 -940,000 -940,000Upgrade to MPC 0 0 -55,000 -55,000Replace Playground Tjiluna Oval 0 0 -61,000 -61,000Paraburdoo Community Hubb 0 0 -2,000,000 -2,000,000Retiling Vic Hayton Swimming Pool 0 0 -70,000 -70,000

5,024,927 1,852,086

Housing Reserve 903,444 2,019 905,463 903,444 18,203 921,647Onslow Staff Housing 0 0 -903,000 -903,000

905,463 18,647

Onslow Community Infrastructure Reserve 185,309 265 185,574 185,309 1,645 186,954

Property Development Reserve 2,739,447 6,903 2,746,350 2,739,447 66,175 2,805,622Onslow Caravan Park 0 0 -105,000 -105,000Tom Price Industrial Land Development 0 0 -320,000 -320,000Onslow Mixed Business Development 0 0 -220,000 -220,000

2,746,350 2,160,622

Unspent Grants & Contributions Reserve 7,678,101 4,773 7,682,874 7,678,101 29,478 7,707,579Aboriginal Health (c/f from 15/16) 0 -148,301 -148,301Youth Services Western (c/f from 15/16) 0 -36,496 -36,496Town Planning (c/f from 15/16) 0 -206,024 -206,024Community Development (c/f from 15/16) 0 -7,408 -7,408Storm Water Drainage 0 -817,000 -817,000Cultural Activities West (c/f from 15/16) 0 -126,687 -126,687Paraburdoo Community Hubb 0 -5,000,000 -5,000,000Onslow Swimming Pool 0 -1,030,020 -1,030,020Roads Maintenance 0 0 -123,800 -123,800Strategic & Economic Development 0 0 -50,000 -50,000Club Development (c/f from 15/16) 0 0 -32,283 -32,283

7,682,874 129,560

Onslow Administration Building Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 49,917 0 49,917

RIO Tinto Partnership Reserve 2,155,193 2,766 2,157,959 2,155,193 27,504 2,182,697Paraburdoo Community Hub 0 0 -120,000 -120,000Rio Partnership Management 0 0 161,989 161,989

2,157,959 2,224,686

Onslow Aerodrome Reserve 6,178,151 8,197 6,186,348 6,178,151 26,896 6,205,047Onslow Airport income 0 0 2,843,271 2,843,271

6,186,348 9,048,318

Future Projects Reserve 3,252,725 7,148 3,259,873 3,252,725 38,099 3,290,824Onslow Staff Housing 0 0 -1,000,000 -1,000,000Paraburdoo Community Hub 0 0 -1,400,000 -1,400,000Pilbara Underground Power 0 0 -300,000 -300,000Onslow Airport income 0 0 1,500,000 1,500,000

3,259,873 2,090,824TOTAL 28,464,924 33,601 0 0 28,503,298 28,464,924 320,000 4,509,933 -15,172,019 18,122,838

Reserve Movements as at: 31/08/2016

ATTACHMENT 13.1A

LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 2016

Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount EFT35763 02/09/2016 ABCO PRODUCTS Purchase of Cleaning Products - Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 1,375.45

EFT35764 02/09/2016 AERODROME MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD ASIC's for Staff member $ 210.00

EFT35765 02/09/2016 ANITTEL PTY LTD Upgrade to Computer System- Parts $ 1,899.08

EFT35766 02/09/2016 ASHBURTON CLEANING SERVICES Cleaning labour for Onslow Airport Terminal 14.08.16 - 28.08.16 $ 726.00

EFT35767 02/09/2016 ASSET AVIATION INSTITUTE Aerodrome Reporting Officer Online Refresher Course for Onslow Airport Staff $ 2,396.00

EFT35768 02/09/2016 AUSTRAL MERCANTILE COLLECTIONS PTY LTD Shire Debt collection for Rates and Debtors $ 7,054.77

EFT35769 02/09/2016 AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS & MEDIA

AUTHORITY

Licence Renewal Notice for Onslow Broadcasting/Retransmission $ 172.00

EFT35770 02/09/2016 BC PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD Rates refund for Assessment A7364 $ 35.71

EFT35771 02/09/2016 BENARA NURSERIES Replacement plants for the ones not thriving at the Onslow Airport $ 1,110.34

EFT35772 02/09/2016 BJ & A BUILDING & MAINTENANCE Repair and maintenance works - Tom Price $ 2,063.60

EFT35773 02/09/2016 BOB WADDELL CONSULTANTS Assist with Asset Processing and Balancing, Plant ledger descriptions and the 2015/16 Financial

Report

$ 1,633.50

EFT35774 02/09/2016 BRL EXPLORATION PTY LTD Rates refund for Assessment A6243 $ 108.75

EFT35775 02/09/2016 BUCHER MUNICIPAL Machinery Repairs - parts $ 297.00

EFT35776 02/09/2016 BUDGET CAR AND TRUCK RENTAL Hire Car- Tanya Jones for L&D Activity in Perth 13th - 18th August 2016 $ 248.56

EFT35777 02/09/2016 BYBLOS CONSTRUCTIONS-TOM PRICE Repair and maintenance works - Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 7,837.50

EFT35778 02/09/2016 CAINA DA FONSECA Refund 3 days of dog kennelling $ 84.00

EFT35779 02/09/2016 CARDNO (NSW/ACT) RFT 14-15 Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan for professional services for

period ending 24.06.16 and 29.07.16

$ 13,089.16

EFT35780 02/09/2016 CCR HOSE & FITTINGS (Zoskar P/L) Machinery Repairs - Parts $ 121.20

EFT35781 02/09/2016 CINDY DERSCHOW Fuel for monthly visit to Onslow and Pannawonica Library $ 40.00

EFT35782 02/09/2016 CLEVERPATCH PTY LTD Purchase of craft items for Paraburdoo Library $ 384.67

EFT35783 02/09/2016 COLIN MUNRO Shire Housing - Rent 01.07.16 - 25.08.16 $ 11,200.00

EFT35784 02/09/2016 CRAVE JUICE BAR Catering for Shire Events $ 1,270.00

EFT35785 02/09/2016 CRAWFORD REALTY Shire Housing - Rent 29.08.16 - 11.09.16 $ 1,000.00

EFT35786 02/09/2016 DAVID GRAY & COMPANY Replacement keys for bin surrounds $ 116.60

EFT35787 02/09/2016 DELL COMPUTER LTD Purchase of IT Equipment $ 308.00

EFT35788 02/09/2016 DENVER TECHNOLOGY RFT 06/16 Server Replacement and Disaster Recovery Implementation $ 594.97

EFT35789 02/09/2016 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING Shire Housing Rent - 01.08.16 - 04.09.16 $ 13,506.43

EFT35790 02/09/2016 DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING PTY LTD Urgent payment for relocation of Telstra MDF due to construction works lot 3001 Second

Avenue (Ocean View Caravan Park)

$ 12,374.54

EFT35791 02/09/2016 DRILLINE PTY LTD Opening Grade Twitchen and Old Onslow Roads $ 2,954.27

EFT35792 02/09/2016 E & MJ ROSHER PTY LTD Machinery Repairs - Purchase of parts $ 710.65

EFT35793 02/09/2016 ECG ENGINEERING Onslow Airport - Consultancy services to provide electrical design for the Power Reticulation to

the Fuel Farm Lot

$ 2,728.00

EFT35794 02/09/2016 ELEANOR LUKALE Event Photography 3rd July 2016: Naidoc Week Opening Day at the Community Arts and

Cultural Centre in Tom Price

$ 280.00

EFT35795 02/09/2016 ESPLANADE HOTEL FREMANTLE Accommodation for Shire staff to attend Pool lifeguard Re-qualification and First Aid courses $ 2,280.00

EFT35796 02/09/2016 ESS THANLANYJI P/L Mandays for August 2016 and staff meals in July - Onslow $ 57,053.96

EFT35797 02/09/2016 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Printing Costs $ 451.77

EFT35798 02/09/2016 HENDRY GROUP PTY LTD Certificate of Compliance Inspection for the Ocean View Caravan Park Onslow $ 1,045.00

EFT35799 02/09/2016 HOYLAKE NOMINEES T/AS MCMAHON BURNETT

TRANSPORT

Delivery Charges $ 52.32

EFT35800 02/09/2016 ICONIC WATER SOLUTIONS PTY LTD Pre-fabricated UPVC fittings Onslow Airport Camp $ 361.00

EFT35801 02/09/2016 IDEAL SYSTEMS Small White trays for Screening Operations at the Onslow Airport $ 771.65

EFT35802 02/09/2016 IDENTITY SECURITY Identity Security Program used to log airside visits at the Onslow Airport - Valid until 27.06.17 $ 2,066.90

EFT35803 02/09/2016 J. GUY REMOVALS Relocation of staff member from Paraburdoo to Tom Price $ 1,280.00

EFT35804 02/09/2016 JR & A HERSEY PTY LTD PPE - Staff Clothing $ 485.31

EFT35805 02/09/2016 LASERCORPS Facilitators for the Onslow School Holiday Program - Laser Tag 28 August 2016 $ 1,225.00

EFT35806 02/09/2016 LESTOK TOURS PTY LTD Shire Staff bus travel $ 604.00

EFT35807 02/09/2016 LIND CONSULTING Reimbursement for flights to attend the Ordinary Meeting of Council in November 2016 for the

Policy Review and Governance and Policy Consultation for August 2016

$ 2,949.99

EFT35808 02/09/2016 LO-GO APPOINTMENTS Consultant Community Development Manager wages for period ending 13.08.16 and 20.08.16 $ 5,852.00

EFT35809 02/09/2016 M&L AUSTRALIA Engraving of badge for Shire President Cr Kerry White $ 16.25

EFT35810 02/09/2016 MAXXIA PTY LTD Payroll deductions $ 2,928.25

EFT35811 02/09/2016 MERCURE HOTEL PERTH Accommodation at Mercure Perth for Councillors to attend the 2016 WA Local Government

Association Convention in August 2016

$ 3,904.40

EFT35812 02/09/2016 MUZZYS HARDWARE - RED DAWN ENTERPRISES Purchases of Hardware Items $ 454.80

EFT35813 02/09/2016 OFFICE CHOICE MALAGA Office furniture for the Onslow Airport $ 275.00

EFT35814 02/09/2016 OFFICEWORKS SUPERSTORES PTY LTD Office Furniture for the Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 2,145.00

EFT35815 02/09/2016 ONSLOW PRIMARY SCHOOL P&C Catering - Coastal Hazard Risk Management Workshop 15th August $ 550.00

EFT35816 02/09/2016 PANNA BE IN IT Community Garden - Hosting and running of Workshop during the July School Holiday Program

2016

$ 350.00

EFT35817 02/09/2016 PARABURDOO GOLF CLUB Venue hire for Shire Event $ 570.00

EFT35818 02/09/2016 PARABURDOO IGA Purchase of magazines for the Tom Price and Paraburdoo Library $ 75.84

EFT35819 02/09/2016 PILBARA BIN SERVICES Removal and disposal of abandoned vehicle at 651 Pilkena street Tom Price $ 1,056.00

EFT35820 02/09/2016 PILBARA FOOD SERVICES P/L Purchases of Consumables and supplies for Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 228.60

EFT35821 02/09/2016 PILBARA INDUSTRIES CONSTRUCTION &

MAINTENANCE

Repair and maintenance works in Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 3,991.86

EFT35822 02/09/2016 PILBARA META MAYA REGIONAL ABORIGINAL

CORPORATION

Catering for Shire Event $ 154.94

EFT35823 02/09/2016 PILBARA MOTOR GROUP Vehicle repairs and maintenance $ 1,131.05

EFT35824 02/09/2016 PLAYROPE PTY LTD Custom made parts for existing pressure pad Vortex pump in the water feature in Tom Price

Mall

$ 2,124.10

Municipal Payments

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount EFT35825 02/09/2016 PROGRAMMED SKILLED WORKFORCE Placement Fee Town Maintenance Officer, Paraburdoo and wages for period ending 20.08.16 $ 4,578.12

EFT35826 02/09/2016 RAY WHITE EXMOUTH Staff housing Rent for period 10.08.16 - 09.09.16 Onslow $ 9,476.55

EFT35827 02/09/2016 RECHARGE PETROLEUM Onslow airport fuel $ 30,702.52

EFT35828 02/09/2016 RED WEST PTY LTD T/A REDDOG TOOLS Replacement tools Tom Price Depot $ 684.00

EFT35829 02/09/2016 REGAL TRANSPORT Delivery Charges $ 512.72

EFT35830 02/09/2016 ROZWAY SIGNS Various signs for Shire facilities and events $ 4,769.60

EFT35831 02/09/2016 ROBER RIVER RODEO INC Community Support for the Annual Robe River Rodeo to be held 1st September 2016 $ 10,000.00

EFT35832 02/09/2016 SEEK LIMITED Shire Advertising for vacant positions $ 2,321.00

EFT35833 02/09/2016 SETON AUSTRALIA Purchase of a Step Ladder $ 260.81

EFT35834 02/09/2016 SHENTON ENTERPRISES PTY LTD Replace Motor Box in Wave 300 Pool Cleaner $ 7,085.85

EFT35835 02/09/2016 SHIRE OF CORRIGIN Long Service Leave Reimbursement $ 3,352.99

EFT35836 02/09/2016 SIGMA CHEMICALS Swimming Pool Maintenance - Purchase of Filter Bag $ 529.94

EFT35837 02/09/2016 SPIN-AFFIX TOUCH & VOLLEYBALL TEAM Small Assistance Donation $ 500.00

EFT35838 02/09/2016 SQUASH MAGIC CO Management and Consultant fees for Squash clinics in Pannawonica $ 257.50

EFT35839 02/09/2016 ST JOHN AMBULANCE WESTERN AUSTRALIA First aid restocking supplies $ 3.30

EFT35840 02/09/2016 STAPLES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Purchase of Stationery items $ 1,546.15

EFT35841 02/09/2016 STATE LIBRARY OF WA Lost and Damaged item charge from 1st July 2016 to 30th June 2017 Onslow Library $ 1,082.40

EFT35842 02/09/2016 TALIS CONSULTANTS PTY LTD RFT 24/14 Reporting and sampling of gas and water at Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Onslow

Landfill Options Assessment

$ 15,504.67

EFT35843 02/09/2016 TAYLOR BURRELL BARNETT RFT 08/16 Local Planning Strategy for the Shire of Ashburton $ 18,692.19

EFT35844 02/09/2016 TENDERLINK.COM RFQ 46/16 Proposed Karratha to Tom Price Road Project Cost Benefit and Social Impact

Assessment

$ 165.00

EFT35845 02/09/2016 THE AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT JOB

DIRECTORY

Advertising for Procurement and Senior Projects $ 935.00

EFT35846 02/09/2016 THE PILBARA CLEAN MACHINE Vehicle repairs and maintenance - Full Car detail $ 650.10

EFT35847 02/09/2016 THE WORKWEAR GROUP - NEAT AND TRIM Staff Uniform $ 662.15

EFT35848 02/09/2016 TOLL IPEC PTY LTD Delivery charges $ 1,520.82

EFT35849 02/09/2016 TOLL TRANSPORT PTY LTD / TOLL EXPRESS State Library freight $ 525.28

EFT35850 02/09/2016 TOM PRICE TYREPRO Vehicle repairs and maintenance - New Tyres $ 3,105.00

EFT35851 02/09/2016 TOM PRICE TYRES Vehicle repairs and maintenance - New Tyres $ 5,960.00

EFT35852 02/09/2016 TOXFREE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Transportation of Excess stock pile from Onslow Transfer Station For July 2016 $ 10,237.55

EFT35853 02/09/2016 WA LIBRARY SUPPLIES Stationery Items $ 180.50

EFT35854 02/09/2016 WALGA - WA LOCAL GOV. ASSOC. Staff training and Councillor Local Government Convention Registration $ 18,684.00

EFT35855 02/09/2016 WATER 2 WATER Water for Paraburdoo Office $ 69.00

EFT35856 02/09/2016 WESTRAC PTY LTD Machinery Repairs - Parts $ 333.55

EFT35857 02/09/2016 WINMAR RESOURCES LTD Rates refund for assessment A6269 $ 37.96

EFT35858 02/09/2016 WOOLLAM CONSTRUCTION RFT31/14 Onslow Shire Complex Progress Payment $ 222,594.96

EFT35859 02/09/2016 WURTH AUSTRALIA Machinery Repairs - Parts $ 836.77

EFT35860 02/09/2016 XTREME BOUNCE PARTY HIRE Meal Allowance for 3 Facilitators for the Onslow School Holiday Program - September 2016 $ 840.00

EFT35861 02/09/2016 YINHAWANGKA ABORIGINAL CORPORATION NAIDOC 2016 - Payment for Performers $ 3,990.00

EFT35862 02/09/2016 WATER CORPORATION Reimbursement as Invoice 26219 paid twice $ 314.00

EFT35863 07/09/2016 ABCO PRODUCTS Purchase of Cleaning Products for Paraburdoo and Tom Price $ 605.02

EFT35864 07/09/2016 AMBER STEVENSON Reimbursement for Inflatable Event Supplies $ 58.00

EFT35865 07/09/2016 AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY TRUST Refund as paid twice $ 800.00

EFT35866 07/09/2016 BIG SKY ENTERTAINMENT AND EVENTS Onslow - Basketball Court Opening Event entertainment 19.08.16 $ 2,750.00

EFT35867 07/09/2016 BLINGIN PTY LTD Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 321.76

EFT35868 07/09/2016 BOB WADDELL CONSULTANTS Assistance with Asset Processing and Balancing, the Plant Ledger Descriptions, Impairment of

Assets and the 2015/16 Financial Report

$ 3,861.00

EFT35869 07/09/2016 BT EQUIPMENT Machinery repairs - Service $ 974.78

EFT35870 07/09/2016 BUDGET CAR AND TRUCK RENTAL Hire Car- Tanya Jones for L&D Activity in Perth 25.07.16 - 08.08.16 $ 383.95

EFT35871 07/09/2016 CABCHARGE AUSTRALIA Shire Staff/Councillor Taxi Fares $ 1,285.28

EFT35872 07/09/2016 CALEDONIAN CARRIERS Relocation from Perth to Tom Price for Club & Capacity Development Manager $ 1,350.00

EFT35873 07/09/2016 CENTURION TRANSPORT CO PTY LTD Delivery Charges $ 58.76

EFT35874 07/09/2016 CLOWN BALLOONS 2000 Shire Printed Balloons for up coming Official Openings for the Shire $ 502.72

EFT35875 07/09/2016 CONVIC SKATE PARKS PTY LTD RFT 14/16 Design and Construction of Onslow Skate Park Progress Claim Number: 2 $ 13,400.20

EFT35876 07/09/2016 COVS PARTS PTY LTD Machinery Repairs and maintenance $ 788.77

EFT35877 07/09/2016 DAVID WHITELAW Refund for cancelled kennelling 31.08.16 - 02.09.19 for Huey Whitelaw $ 56.00

EFT35878 07/09/2016 DICE SOLUTIONS Faulty light in carport and remove where fire started to 335 First Avenue Onslow $ 407.28

EFT35879 07/09/2016 DOWSING GROUP RFT 09/16 Concrete Footpath Repairs to Paraburdoo $ 155,244.10

EFT35880 07/09/2016 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Printing Charges $ 352.00

EFT35881 07/09/2016 HARTAC SALES AND DISTRIBUTION PTY Anti slip stair nosing for Tom Price Shopping Mall $ 9,163.00

EFT35882 07/09/2016 HITACHI LTD Machinery Repairs and maintenance $ 767.61

EFT35883 07/09/2016 IBIS STYLES- PORT HEDLAND Accommodation for Shire Staff to attend the Pilbara Aboriginal Environmental Health Forum in

Port Hedland on 25 August 2016

$ 1,434.00

EFT35884 07/09/2016 IT VISION AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Renewal of Synergy Soft Annual Licence Fees 01.07.16 - 30.06.17 and Concessions for 2016/17

Billing

$ 94,597.80

EFT35885 07/09/2016 J BLACKWOOD & SON PTY LTD Purchase of Supplies $ 85.22

EFT35886 07/09/2016 JASON SIGNMAKERS Road Condition, Open/Closed and traffic signs Mt Bruce Road Karijini $ 1,674.20

EFT35887 07/09/2016 JP PROMOTIONS Onslow Basketball Carnival redrawing logos into Vector files for branding of T-Shirts $ 143.00

EFT35888 07/09/2016 KHB MOBILE MECHANICAL PTY LTD Machinery Repairs and maintenance $ 2,115.09

EFT35889 07/09/2016 KOMATSU AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Machinery repairs and maintenance - parts $ 508.32

EFT35890 07/09/2016 LANDMARK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN T/AS EXTERIA

STREET & PARK OUTFITTERS

Notice board locking pins for Tom Price Shopping Mall information Board $ 344.30

EFT35891 07/09/2016 MAGGIE DENT Purchase of books and DVD's for the Pannawonica Library $ 169.88

EFT35892 07/09/2016 MARKET CREATIONS Design Layout and printing of September 2016 Inside Ashburton $ 2,475.00

EFT35893 07/09/2016 NORWEST REFRIDGERATION SERVICES Move lounge air conditioner - outdoor unit and put on wall mount $ 596.20

EFT35894 07/09/2016 ONSLOW LAUNDRY SERVICE Laundry service for Ocean View Caravan Park, Onslow for August 2016 $ 927.19

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount EFT35895 07/09/2016 PARABURDOO IGA Magazines for the Tom Price and Paraburdoo Library $ 61.73

EFT35896 07/09/2016 PCC PRODUCTIONS Onslow - Basketball Court Opening Event - AV system $ 4,121.99

EFT35897 07/09/2016 PERTH AUDIOVISUAL - ROYAL PRIDE PTY LTD Event Openings - Plaque reveal for all towns $ 2,970.00

EFT35898 07/09/2016 PETER BRACEGIRDLE Fuel Purchase - Issues with Fuel Card and Pin Number $ 138.35

EFT35899 07/09/2016 PETER FOSTER Councillor Travel Onslow to Tom Price for August OCM $ 1,051.30

EFT35900 07/09/2016 PILBARA FOOD SERVICES P/L Catering for Depot lunchroom opening and purchases of Water $ 298.18


MAINTENANCE

Repairs and maintenance works in Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 4,325.26

EFT35902 07/09/2016 PILBARA MOTOR GROUP Vehicle repairs and maintenance $ 981.60

EFT35903 07/09/2016 PILBARA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Traffic Management for Nameless Festival 5th and 6th August 2016 $ 7,110.40

EFT35904 07/09/2016 PINDAN CONTRACTING PTY LTD RFT 01/16 Design and Construction of Onslow Aquatic and Recreation Centre Progress Claim

No:5

$ 882,042.28

EFT35905 07/09/2016 PORT PRINTING WORKS Printing of Road Sweeper Maintenance Books $ 765.60

EFT35906 07/09/2016 PROGRAMMED SKILLED WORKFORCE Consultant Town Maintenance Officer, Paraburdoo wages for period ending 27.08.16 $ 2,078.12

EFT35907 07/09/2016 RAECO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD Book covering for Paraburdoo Library $ 292.96

EFT35908 07/09/2016 ROBERT STONE Reimbursement for Key Tags $ 35.60

EFT35909 07/09/2016 SCHLAM ENGINEERING Purchase of Steel for Tom Price Depot $ 455.84

EFT35910 07/09/2016 SETON AUSTRALIA Signage for Paraburdoo $ 159.84

EFT35911 07/09/2016 SIGMA CHEMICALS Pool Cleaner repairs $ 3,165.69

EFT35912 07/09/2016 SIMS METAL LIMITED Removal of Scrap Metal from Paraburdoo Waste Site $ 87,935.10

EFT35913 07/09/2016 SOUTHERN WIRE INDUSTRIAL RFQ 29/16 Supply and install Onslow Airport Fuel Farm Fencing $ 20,659.65

EFT35914 07/09/2016 STAPLES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Tom Price Depot Lunchroom Refurbishment $ 1,276.10

EFT35915 07/09/2016 TAHI MORTON Accommodation at Windawarri Lodge Tom Price 5th -6th August 2016 $ 212.47

EFT35916 07/09/2016 THALANYJI SERVICE STATIONS Fuel from Onslow Fuel Station for August 2016 $ 1,765.35

EFT35917 07/09/2016 THE DOG LINE Outdoor Barking Houses for Tom Price Kennels $ 251.28

EFT35918 07/09/2016 TOM PRICE TYREPRO Vehicle repair and maintenance $ 1,714.15

EFT35919 07/09/2016 TOURISM COUNCIL WA ATAP Accreditation Renewal 2016/17 $ 540.00

EFT35920 07/09/2016 TOXFREE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD RFT 05/15 Haulage - Transportation of Waste from Onslow Transfer Station to Tom Price Landfill

Contract July 2016

$ 29,276.43

EFT35921 07/09/2016 VIVA ENERGY AUSTRALIA LTD Diesel purchases for August 2016 - Tom Price $ 12,937.00

EFT35922 07/09/2016 WATER CORPORATION Water usage June to August 2016 $ 37,892.82

EFT35923 07/09/2016 WEX AUSTRALIA (MOTORPASS) Fuel for Tom Price $ 589.81

EFT35924 07/09/2016 WATERCHOICE (AUST) PTY LTD Annual rental of Reverse Osmosis Hot/cold Filtration system to Pannawonica Library building $ 780.00

EFT35925 09/09/2016 HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD Rates refund for assessment A32280 $ 71.00

EFT35926 09/09/2016 RAY WHITE EXMOUTH Water usage for period June to August - Onslow $ 68.31

EFT35927 09/09/2016 REMA TIPTOP AUSTRALIA P/L Vehicle repairs and maintenance - Tyres $ 375.29

EFT35928 09/09/2016 T-QUIP Equipment Repairs - Tom Price Depot $ 1,172.30

EFT35929 09/09/2016 TOLL IPEC PTY LTD Delivery Charges $ 2,868.56

EFT35930 09/09/2016 TOM PRICE TYREPRO Vehicle Repairs - Windscreen replacement and tyre repairs $ 590.00

EFT35934 16/09/2016 ABCO PRODUCTS Purchase of cleaning products - Onslow $ 2,807.69

EFT35935 16/09/2016 ACACIA CONNECTION PTY LTD Staff support/Assistance Program for August 2016 $ 767.25

EFT35936 16/09/2016 ALLPEST Annual termite inspection for the Onslow Airport $ 1,075.00

EFT35937 16/09/2016 ALPHA CLEANING SUPPLIES PTY LTD Cleaning products for the Onslow Airport $ 1,023.53

EFT35938 16/09/2016 ANITTEL PTY LTD Purchase of IT Equipment and Computer Software $ 3,272.89

EFT35939 16/09/2016 ANL LIGHTING Machinery repairs $ 197.95

EFT35940 16/09/2016 ARA RETAIL INSTITUTE Workshops for Tom Price on 1st November 2016 and Onslow 2nd November 2016 $ 4,159.65

EFT35941 16/09/2016 ASB MARKETING WTO (Working Together for Onslow ) Branded event shirts $ 1,863.84

EFT35942 16/09/2016 AUSTRAL MERCANTILE COLLECTIONS PTY LTD Shire's Rates Debt Collection for period ending 13.09.16 $ 157.30

EFT35943 16/09/2016 AUSTRALIAN MADE ART - Emma Blyth Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 2,361.50

EFT35944 16/09/2016 AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE- PAYG Monthly (PAYG) Withholding for large withholders - August 2016 $ 230,399.00

EFT35945 16/09/2016 BARKING WOLF Additional Edits for HR videos to promote the Shire $ 412.50

EFT35946 16/09/2016 BENNCO GROUP Repair and maintenance works - Tom Price $ 9,399.67

EFT35947 16/09/2016 BENNETTS CURTAIN SHOP Supply blockout roller blind and fitting at Tom Price Depot $ 249.15

EFT35948 16/09/2016 BETHANY CAMPBELL Reimburse for the purchase of water cooler and tongs for the Candy bar at the Garden Party on

20.08.16

$ 27.00

EFT35949 16/09/2016 BLUE FORCE PTY LTD Preventative Maintenance and 24hr Monitoring of the Onslow MPC for period 01.09.16 -

30.11.16

$ 2,135.98

EFT35950 16/09/2016 BOB WADDELL CONSULTANTS Assistance with Asset Processing and balancing - September 2016 $ 1,485.00

EFT35951 16/09/2016 BOC GASES Staff Safety Equipment $ 605.91

EFT35952 16/09/2016 BUDGET CAR AND TRUCK RENTAL Onslow - Basketball Court Opening - Car Hire for facilitator Big T $ 337.96

EFT35953 16/09/2016 BYBLOS CONSTRUCTIONS-TOM PRICE Repair and maintenance works - Tom Price $ 15,733.30

EFT35954 16/09/2016 CCR HOSE & FITTINGS (Zoskar P/L) Machinery repairs $ 139.26


EFT35956 16/09/2016 CHAMPION MUSIC PTY LTD 50% deposit - Entertainer for the Onslow Living October Event $ 2,860.00

EFT35957 16/09/2016 CIVIC LEGAL Shire Legal Costs for August 2016 $ 45,709.40

EFT35958 16/09/2016 COVS PARTS PTY LTD Machinery repairs $ 362.83

EFT35959 16/09/2016 CRAVE JUICE BAR Catering for Planning meeting Community Development $ 187.00

EFT35960 16/09/2016 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES Form A declaration for ESL 16/17 (based on previous years collections) $ 442,057.08

EFT35961 16/09/2016 DICE SOLUTIONS Repair and maintenance works - Onslow $ 6,329.80

EFT35962 16/09/2016 DIRECT TRADES SUPPLY PTY LTD Purchase of Supplies - Tom Price Depot $ 634.50

EFT35963 16/09/2016 E & MJ ROSHER PTY LTD Machinery repairs $ 750.30

EFT35964 16/09/2016 EMILY NAMNIK Reimbursement for purchases for Gym balls, Balloons and Springform Tins for School Holiday

Program

$ 133.33

EFT35965 16/09/2016 ERA CONTRACTORS Electrical works at the WTP Onslow $ 660.00

EFT35966 16/09/2016 EYESTORM ENTERPRISES Videography, editing and DVD production for the Onslow Basketball Carnival $ 2,600.00

EFT35967 16/09/2016 FORTESCUE OLD BASTARDS Small Assistance Donation toward the cost of competing at the WA Country Masters in 2017 $ 500.00

EFT35968 16/09/2016 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Printing costs $ 5,354.02

EFT35969 16/09/2016 GLH CONTRACTING Dry hire of Caravan for period 01.11.14 - 30.11.14 $ 1,787.50

EFT35970 16/09/2016 HITACHI LTD Machinery repairs $ 630.17

EFT35971 16/09/2016 HQ MANAGEMENT Project Management for the Shire $ 1,033.46

EFT35972 16/09/2016 IBN CORPORATION PTY LTD Cleaning of the Tom Price/Paraburdoo Halfway Bridge toilet and building - August 2016 $ 4,528.37

EFT35973 16/09/2016 J BLACKWOOD & SON PTY LTD Purchase of supplies and consumables $ 974.87

EFT35974 16/09/2016 JANELLE FELL Fuel Reimbursement for travel between Wickham and Tom Price- Remote Employee $ 125.27

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount EFT35975 16/09/2016 JAPANESE TRUCK & BUS SPARES Machinery repairs $ 404.10

EFT35976 16/09/2016 JR & A HERSEY PTY LTD Spray nozzle for Boom Spray Unit $ 117.48

EFT35977 16/09/2016 KHB MOBILE MECHANICAL PTY LTD Machinery repairs $ 1,397.98

EFT35978 16/09/2016 KOMATSU AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Machinery repairs $ 830.16

EFT35979 16/09/2016 LANDGATE Mining Tenements Chargeable and Gross Rental Valuations $ 182.56

EFT35980 16/09/2016 LESTOK TOURS PTY LTD Staff and Councillor bus travel $ 785.00

EFT35981 16/09/2016 LIND CONSULTING Governance and Policy Consultation for September 2016 $ 650.00


EFT35983 16/09/2016 MERCURE HOTEL PERTH Staff Accommodation to attend workshop and training in Perth August 2016 $ 360.00

EFT35984 16/09/2016 MODERN TEACHING AIDS PTY LTD Satin Ribbon Bows for the Onslow Library $ 8.69

EFT35985 16/09/2016 NORTH REGIONAL TAFE Refund due to incorrect charges on Shire Invoice $ 3,200.00

EFT35986 16/09/2016 NORWEST REFRIDGERATION SERVICES Staff housing Air Conditioner repairs $ 693.61

EFT35987 16/09/2016 OFFICE CHOICE MALAGA Stationery Items for Pannawonica Library $ 285.32

EFT35988 16/09/2016 ONSLOW BEACH RESORT Onslow - Basketball Court Opening - Meal Package and Accommodation for facilitator Big T $ 350.00

EFT35989 16/09/2016 ONSLOW GENERAL STORE Purchase of Consumables/Supplies for Onslow Departments $ 2,941.89

EFT35990 16/09/2016 ONSLOW TYRE SERVICE Vehicle Puncture Repair $ 55.00

EFT35991 16/09/2016 PANNAWONICA HEIGHTS GOLF CLUB Small Assistance Donation towards the 2016 Open to be held on the 17th & 18th September

2016

$ 500.00

EFT35992 16/09/2016 PARA COLOUR FUN RUN Small Assistance Donation towards holding the event on 21st October 2016 $ 500.00

EFT35993 16/09/2016 PARABURDOO IGA Purchase of Consumables/Supplies for Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 124.85

EFT35994 16/09/2016 PERTH EXPO Custom Display Stand for Onslow MPC $ 5,394.40

EFT35995 16/09/2016 PETER BEACHAM Staff housing - Paint internal of the house, patch and repair necessary patch from old Air

Conditioner

$ 6,281.00

EFT35996 16/09/2016 PILBARA FOOD SERVICES P/L Purchase of supplies for Tom Price Depot $ 218.91


MAINTENANCE

Trenching for new retic wires and supply of wiring Tom Price Tijilina Oval $ 1,320.00

EFT35998 16/09/2016 PILBARA MOTOR GROUP Vehicle repairs $ 2,120.50

EFT35999 16/09/2016 PROGRAMMED SKILLED WORKFORCE Consultant Town Maintenance Officer, Paraburdoo wages for period ending 03.09.16 $ 2,078.12

EFT36000 16/09/2016 QUICK CORPORATE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Table for screening equipment for Onslow Airport $ 388.41

EFT36001 16/09/2016 RAMBLE & DRIFT - CREATIVE IMAGES Postcards and 2017 Calendars for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 660.00

EFT36002 16/09/2016 ROBERT STONE Reimbursement for purchase of office equipment for the Ocean View Caravan Park Onslow $ 69.15

EFT36003 16/09/2016 SAS LOCKSMITHS Key for staff to access sheds at the Tom Price Depot $ 46.63

EFT36004 16/09/2016 SCANIA Machinery repairs $ 325.00

EFT36005 16/09/2016 SETON AUSTRALIA Staff PPE - Protective Glasses and clothing, Key Tags for Library $ 407.43

EFT36006 16/09/2016 SHIRE OF UPPER GASCOYNE Maintenance Grading Ullawarra Road Tom Price $ 13,860.00

EFT36007 16/09/2016 STAPLES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Paraburdoo Childcare Centre Fit Out Requirements $ 6,472.09

EFT36008 16/09/2016 STATE LIBRARY OF WA Purchase of images for Onslow Library $ 100.00

EFT36009 16/09/2016 TALIS CONSULTANTS PTY LTD RFT 24/14 Tom Price Weighbridge Specification and Concept design $ 1,469.60


EFT36011 16/09/2016 TOM PRICE BETTA HOME LIVING Furniture for the Paraburdoo Childcare Centre $ 10,893.00

EFT36012 16/09/2016 TOM PRICE PONY & HORSE CLUB Feed for Sentinel Chicken Program $ 240.00

EFT36013 16/09/2016 TOM PRICE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Donation from Tom Price Bush Fire Brigade for End of School Year Awards 2016 $ 200.00

EFT36014 16/09/2016 TOM PRICE TYREPRO Vehicle repairs $ 1,193.20

EFT36015 16/09/2016 TOM PRICE TYRES Vehicle repairs - Tyres $ 4,870.00

EFT36016 16/09/2016 TOXFREE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD RFT 05/15 Haulage -Transportation of Waste from Onslow Transfer Station to Tom Price Landfill -

August 2016

$ 38,299.85

EFT36017 16/09/2016 TOYO TYRE & RUBBER AUSTRALIA LTD Vehicle repairs - Tyres $ 3,637.59

EFT36018 16/09/2016 VANESSA AUSTRALIA Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,896.28

EFT36019 16/09/2016 WALGA - WA LOCAL GOV. ASSOC. WALGA staff training $ 3,454.00

EFT36020 16/09/2016 WATER CORPORATION Onslow Water use account for June to August 2016 $ 4,946.19

EFT36021 16/09/2016 ZEST EVENTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD Onslow Sept and October School Holiday Program - Chalk Artist Workshops 6th October 2016 $ 4,281.00

EFT36023 22/09/2016 ABCO PRODUCTS Purchase of Stationery $ 194.86

EFT36024 22/09/2016 ACLASS ENTERTAINMENT Deposit for the 5 piece band to perform on Harmony Day 2017 $ 1,100.00

EFT36025 22/09/2016 AERODROME MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD RFT 37/14 Supply of labour for Passenger Security Screening at Onslow Airport for August 2016 $ 69,648.70

EFT36026 22/09/2016 AIT SPECIALISTS PTY LTD Monthly Fuel Rebate Calculations for August 2016 $ 1,031.25

EFT36027 22/09/2016 ALL STAR SHOWSTOPPERS Onslow Shire Complex Opening - ASSS Performance $ 1,100.00

EFT36028 22/09/2016 ANL LIGHTING Led Lights for Tom Price Depot $ 1,607.05

EFT36029 22/09/2016 ARCHIVEWISE Storage of Records at Archive Wise for August 2016 $ 262.86

EFT36030 22/09/2016 ARTIQUE DESIGNS Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 745.25

EFT36031 22/09/2016 ASHBURTON CLEANING SERVICES Cleaning of the Onslow Airport Terminal for 02.09.16 $ 302.50

EFT36032 22/09/2016 AUSTRALIAN CIVILS PTY LTD Stormwater Drainage Renewal Paraburdoo - Claim No:2 $ 169,322.86

EFT36033 22/09/2016 B-TROOP TOUCH TEAM Small Assistance Donation towards the cost of new shirts for new players and training

equipment

$ 500.00

EFT36034 22/09/2016 BENNCO GROUP Repair and maintenance works Tom Price $ 1,718.00

EFT36035 22/09/2016 BLACKWOODS PTY LTD Women's safety boots - Staff $ 168.00

EFT36036 22/09/2016 BLOCKBUSTER MORLEY -EMPIRE CITY Purchase of new library stock for the Tom Price and Pannawonica Library $ 835.00

EFT36037 22/09/2016 BOB WADDELL CONSULTANTS Assistance with Asset Processing and balancing and 2015/16 Annual Financial Report, Assist with

Trust Balancing Issue and July monthly Reports

$ 3,972.38

EFT36038 22/09/2016 BRIDGETOWN DESIGN AND PRINTING Print and air freight for the Onslow Town Guide, Design of the Onslow School Holiday Program $ 1,045.00

EFT36039 22/09/2016 BYBLOS CONSTRUCTIONS-TOM PRICE Repair and maintenance works Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 6,150.60

EFT36040 22/09/2016 CAZALY RESOURCES LIMITED Rates refund for assessment A505439 $ 294.06


EFT36042 22/09/2016 CHEF MASTER AUSTRALIA Supply of bin liners for the Onslow Litter Prevention $ 3,695.00

EFT36043 22/09/2016 CHEMSEARCH AUSTRALIA Chemicals for Onslow and Tom Price Domestic Refuse Collection $ 3,069.00

EFT36044 22/09/2016 CITY OF KARRATHA Monthly Consultation Fees for August 2016 $ 2,090.00

EFT36045 22/09/2016 CLEVERPATCH PTY LTD Purchase of craft items for programs run at the Tom Price and Pannawonica Library $ 1,678.23

EFT36046 22/09/2016 COATES HIRE - ONSLOW Hire of Equipment in Onslow for Basketball Carnival and Onslow Living Event $ 929.50

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount EFT36047 22/09/2016 COATES HIRE OPERATIONS PTY LTD (TP) Ongoing Hire of 2 Variable Message Board for Car parking directions in Tom Price for August

2016

$ 4,419.36

EFT36048 22/09/2016 COCA-COLA AMATIL (AUST) PTY LTD Drinks for the fridge at the Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 298.51

EFT36049 22/09/2016 CORIN LINCH Onslow Keepers September Morning Tea with Corin Linch $ 352.00

EFT36050 22/09/2016 COVS PARTS PTY LTD Machinery repairs $ 91.67

EFT36051 22/09/2016 CRAWFORD REALTY Staff housing rent 12.09.16 - 25.09.16 $ 1,000.00

EFT36052 22/09/2016 CUTIES BY ZOOTYS Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,399.50

EFT36053 22/09/2016 DARLIN (AUST) PTY LTD Souvenirs for the Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 2,399.22

EFT36054 22/09/2016 DAVID GRAY & COMPANY Dark green bins with shire logo $ 1,704.56

EFT36055 22/09/2016 DELL COMPUTER LTD Computer Monitor $ 1,821.60

EFT36056 22/09/2016 DENVER TECHNOLOGY Monthly IT Support Services August 2016 $ 1,177.00

EFT36057 22/09/2016 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING Staff Housing - Rent 05.09.16 - 02.10.16 $ 9,900.00

EFT36058 22/09/2016 DICE SOLUTIONS Repair and maintenance works - Onslow $ 926.71

EFT36059 22/09/2016 DIRECT TRADES SUPPLY PTY LTD Retic parts for Paraburdoo Parks, Asbestos Hazard Tape for Tom Price Depot $ 610.60

EFT36060 22/09/2016 E & MJ ROSHER PTY LTD Machinery repairs $ 337.40

EFT36061 22/09/2016 EMILY NAMNIK Reimbursement for purchase of Gift Vouchers for winners of photography competition at

Welcome to Town Event 17th September 2016

$ 280.00

EFT36062 22/09/2016 FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD - ONSLOW Foxtel for the Onslow Airport Camp - September 2016 $ 2,337.00

EFT36064 22/09/2016 GLOBE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Supply Glyphosate 450 20L for Tom Price Dry Parks $ 440.00

EFT36065 22/09/2016 GUMALA CONTRACTING RFQ 27.16 Install front Patio to 178 Cassia Street Tom Price $ 16,833.34

EFT36066 22/09/2016 HALE GROUP INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD Community Events 2016- Matt Hale Hypnotist performance 16.09.16 $ 2,179.00

EFT36067 22/09/2016 HART SPORT Resistance band roll for catapult in the Life Size Angry Birds Pannawonica School Holiday

Program 28.09.16

$ 71.90

EFT36068 22/09/2016 HEMA MAPS PTY LTD Maps for the Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,743.52

EFT36069 22/09/2016 HITACHI LTD Machinery repairs $ 131.67


TRANSPORT

Delivery Charges $ 96.40

EFT36071 22/09/2016 INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT Consultancy Fees for Strategic Planning Destiny Onslow Project $ 7,650.53

EFT36072 22/09/2016 J BLACKWOOD & SON PTY LTD Purchase of cleaning products $ 2,180.00

EFT36073 22/09/2016 JASON SIGNMAKERS Legislation compliant signage in parks and vehicles for spraying chemicals - Paraburdoo and sign

for Tom Price Shopping Mall

$ 887.70

EFT36074 22/09/2016 JON TAPPER Reimbursement for Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Course - LIWA Conference Perth

16.09.16

$ 100.00

EFT36075 22/09/2016 KARINGAL NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE Refund for Key bond and Facilities Bond for the Ashburton Hall $ 600.00

EFT36076 22/09/2016 KEY2CREATIVE Tourism Branding - Style Guide and Visitor Information Bay Measurements $ 7,370.00

EFT36077 22/09/2016 KHB MOBILE MECHANICAL PTY LTD Machinery Repairs $ 940.61

EFT36078 22/09/2016 KLEENHEAT GAS Delivery of LPG for the Ocean View Caravan Park Onslow $ 941.92

EFT36079 22/09/2016 LANDGATE Land Enquiry for August 2016 $ 149.10

EFT36080 22/09/2016 LANDMARK ENGINEERING AND DESIGN T/AS EXTERIA

STREET & PARK OUTFITTERS

Supply of 2 cigarette bins for Diamond Club $ 1,100.00

EFT36081 22/09/2016 LASERCORPS Lasercorps Laser/Hero Tag facilitator for the Pannawonica School Holiday Program $ 1,225.00

EFT36082 22/09/2016 LAURA POOLE Reimbursement for Cakes purchased for the Welcome to Town morning tea, Photo's printed for

the Welcome to Town Photography Competition at K-Mart and Harvey Norman

$ 605.24

EFT36083 22/09/2016 LO-GO APPOINTMENTS Consultant Community Development Manager wages for period ending 27.08.16 $ 1,170.40

EFT36084 22/09/2016 MARKETFORCE PRODUCTIONS Shire Advertising $ 2,127.61

EFT36085 22/09/2016 MCMULLEN NOLAN GROUP Survey at Third Avenue Onslow. Works include Field Feature Survey and Plan Production for

Feature Survey

$ 2,591.60

EFT36086 22/09/2016 METROCOUNT Centre lane flaps for Rural Roads Works Tom Price Depot $ 433.40

EFT36087 22/09/2016 MICHAEL DUNNE Monthly garden contract for August 2016 -Pannawonica Library Grounds $ 294.00

EFT36088 22/09/2016 MURRAY RIVER NORTH/TR HOMES RFT 16/15 - Supply and Installation of Modular Buildings for the Ocean View Caravan Park

Redevelopment, Onslow - Progress Certificate No:10

$ 18,586.55

EFT36089 22/09/2016 MUZZYS HARDWARE - RED DAWN ENTERPRISES PTY

LTD T/A

Purchase of Hardware Items $ 4,706.95

EFT36090 22/09/2016 NORWEST REFRIDGERATION SERVICES Clean & sanitize Ice Machine at the Paraburdoo Depot $ 253.00

EFT36091 22/09/2016 ONSITE RENTAL GROUP OPERATIONS (WA) STATEWIDE

EQUIPMENT HIRE

Hire of equipment in Onslow $ 12,392.18

EFT36092 22/09/2016 PANNAWONICA GALA ASSOCIATION INC Inside Ashburton Delivery in September 2016 $ 300.00

EFT36093 22/09/2016 PANNAWONICA PARENTS & CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Hire and use of Coffee Machine for the Welcome to Town event 17th September 2016 $ 50.00

EFT36094 22/09/2016 PARA CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE Cleaning services for the Paraburdoo Childcare Centre $ 1,015.00

EFT36095 22/09/2016 PARABURDOO PRIMARY SCHOOL Small Assistance Donation towards a prize for the Awards Night to be held on 8th December

2016

$ 150.00

EFT36096 22/09/2016 PAUL MAYNARD AND ASSOCIATES Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,791.30

EFT36097 22/09/2016 PILBARA CLEANING Shire Housing Monthly Garden maintenance $ 1,281.50

EFT36098 22/09/2016 PILBARA FOOD SERVICES P/L Purchase of Consumables and supplies $ 329.67


MAINTENANCE

Assess and repair Patio at 1104A Jabberup Place Tom Price $ 5,437.50

EFT36100 22/09/2016 PINDAN CONTRACTING PTY LTD Paraburdoo Child Care Centre Progress Claim No: 12 $ 1,528.24

EFT36101 22/09/2016 PLAYROPE PTY LTD Parts for the Water Feature in Tom Price Shopping Mall $ 3,020.69

EFT36102 22/09/2016 POOLMART KARRATHA Pool salt for pump room at MPC $ 72.00

EFT36103 22/09/2016 RAY WHITE EXMOUTH Shire Housing Rent for period 12.09.16 - 16.09.16 $ 537.20

EFT36104 22/09/2016 ROYAL LIFE SAVING SOCIETY - WA Lifesaving equipment $ 796.00

EFT36105 22/09/2016 ROYAL WOLF TRADING Transportable Accommodation Hire Onslow Airport $ 65,016.77

EFT36106 22/09/2016 SODEXO REMOTE SITES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Pannawonica Diesel $ 266.28

EFT36107 22/09/2016 ST JOHN AMBULANCE WESTERN AUSTRALIA -

BELMONT

First aid restocking supplies $ 3.89

EFT36108 22/09/2016 STATE LIBRARY OF WA Purchase of Local History Prints for Onslow Library $ 25.00

EFT36109 22/09/2016 STEMS SOLUTIONS Pty Ltd Monthly Licence Fee October 2016 $ 220.00

EFT36110 22/09/2016 STEPHEN O'NEIL Supply Shire with a Sea Container to be stored at the Tom Price Depot, to be used for Staff

Housing furniture storage

$ 3,500.00

EFT36111 22/09/2016 STIHL SHOP MORLEY Machinery Parts $ 154.65

EFT36112 22/09/2016 SUNSHINE PLAYGROUP Distribution of Inside Ashburton Publication in September 2016 $ 300.00

EFT36113 22/09/2016 TALIS CONSULTANTS PTY LTD Onslow Waste Management Facility (WMF) Contract Delivery & Market Research PIP - Variation

Order 01 - Feasibility Assessment (September 2016)

$ 25,343.18

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount EFT36114 22/09/2016 TENDERLINK.COM Tom Price Depot Security Upgrade, Tom Price Bowling Club Ground works $ 330.00

EFT36115 22/09/2016 TNT EXPRESS Delivery charges $ 18.32


EFT36117 22/09/2016 TOM PRICE FIRE & RESCUE Reimbursement of catering costs for DFES Wellness Visit $ 100.38

EFT36118 22/09/2016 TOM PRICE TEEBALL ASSOCIATION Distribution of Inside Ashburton Publication in Tom Price $ 500.00

EFT36119 22/09/2016 TOM PRICE TYRES Vehicle Repairs - Tyres $ 1,800.00

EFT36120 22/09/2016 TOM PRICE VOLUNTEER BUSH FIRE BRIGADE Reimbursements for catering BFB training $ 20.55

EFT36121 22/09/2016 TPG TOWN PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RFQ 28.16 Review of the Shire of Ashburton Municipal Inventory sort via eQuotes awarded to

TPG Town Planning and Urban Design

$ 484.00

EFT36122 22/09/2016 VENTOURAS ADVERTISING PTY LTD Heavy Duty Vinyl Banner -Onslow Basketball Carnival $ 847.00

EFT36123 22/09/2016 WA HINO SALES AND SERVICE Mechanical Repairs to Shire Truck $ 770.95

EFT36124 22/09/2016 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE SCIENCE & ENGINEERING Consultancy fee for review of the Onslow Airport Waste Treatment System $ 5,897.95

EFT36125 22/09/2016 WEST COAST SHADE PTY LTD Shade Sail Repairs Vic Hayton Memorial Swimming Pool $ 825.00

EFT36126 22/09/2016 WESTLINE CONTRACTING RFQ 36.16 Line Marking - Roads and Parking Bays for Tom Price, Paraburdoo and Onslow $ 19,558.00

EFT36127 22/09/2016 YAFFA MEDIA PTY LTD Shire Advertising $ 2,156.00

EFT36128 27/09/2016 STAFF MEMBER Net Wages for Fortnight ending 23.09.16 as incorrect Bank account given by staff member $ 2,072.46

EFT36129 29/09/2016 100% SATISFACTION Move sea container to Tom Price Depot $ 242.00

EFT36130 29/09/2016 ABCO PRODUCTS Supply Commercial Scrubber to the airport and purchase of cleaning products $ 15,798.13

EFT36131 29/09/2016 APV VALUERS & ASSET MANAGEMENT RFQ 20/16 Fair Value Plant and Equipment for Shire of Ashburton Tom Price $ 693.00

EFT36132 29/09/2016 AUSTRALIA POST Postal Charges for the month of August 2016 $ 1,759.10

EFT36133 29/09/2016 BAILEYS FERTILISERS Fertiliser for the main oval and reserves in Onslow $ 1,892.00

EFT36134 29/09/2016 BENARA NURSERIES Plants to replace the ones that are not thriving at the Onslow Airport $ 46.26

EFT36135 29/09/2016 BJK PUBLISHING & PHOTOGRAPHY Books & Postcards for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,807.50

EFT36136 29/09/2016 BLACKWOODS PTY LTD Staff Clothing $ 420.80

EFT36137 29/09/2016 BYBLOS CONSTRUCTIONS-TOM PRICE Repair and maintenance works Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 5,054.50

EFT36138 29/09/2016 CANBERRA RUBBER STAMPS Self Inking Stamp for Tom Price office $ 63.80


EFT36140 29/09/2016 CITY OF KARRATHA Building Certificate Services for July 2016 $ 1,771.00

EFT36141 29/09/2016 CIVIC LEGAL Solicitors Representation Letter for 2016 $ 350.90

EFT36142 29/09/2016 COLLINS BOOKSELLER SOUTHLANDS Book purchases for Paraburdoo Library $ 490.79

EFT36143 29/09/2016 COVS PARTS PTY LTD Hand wash for Depot Staff $ 320.93

EFT36144 29/09/2016 DIRECT TRADES SUPPLY PTY LTD Purchase of equipment for Tom Price Depot $ 627.79

EFT36145 29/09/2016 E & MJ ROSHER PTY LTD Machinery repairs - Parts $ 541.05

EFT36146 29/09/2016 EMILY NAMNIK Reimbursement for meal tickets purchased for Laser Tag (2) Facilitators for the Pannawonica

School Holiday Program while being accommodated on 26.09.16, total of 6 meal tickets

$ 90.00

EFT36147 29/09/2016 ENVIROBOOK Books for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 764.11

EFT36148 29/09/2016 ESS THANLANYJI P/L Meals for Peter Bracegirdle, Dinner - 7th Sept, Breakfast and Lunch - 8th September 2016 $ 40.26

EFT36149 29/09/2016 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Printing Charges $ 7,041.65


TRANSPORT

Delivery Charges $ 1,953.60

EFT36151 29/09/2016 INITIAL HYGIENE / PINK HYGIENE SOLUTIONS Hygiene Services 28.09.16 - 27.10.16 for Facilities $ 2,670.02

EFT36152 29/09/2016 INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING

AUSTRALIA - IPWEA

Enrolment for staff member in Professional Certificate in Asset Management Planning

Commencing 23/08/2016.

$ 2,915.00

EFT36153 29/09/2016 IP CAMERAS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Annual Maintenance for Onslow Airport CCTV including remote support $ 7,040.00

EFT36154 29/09/2016 J BLACKWOOD & SON PTY LTD Purchase of Consumables and Supplies $ 113.02

EFT36155 29/09/2016 JACKSON MCDONALD LAWYERS Audit Service Fee $ 363.00

EFT36156 29/09/2016 KEY2CREATIVE Dog and Cat Rego Signage Printing $ 572.00

EFT36157 29/09/2016 KOMATSU AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Machinery repairs - Parts $ 3,921.10

EFT36158 29/09/2016 KOTA HOLDINGS PTY LTD T/A EXCLUSIVE IRON ORE

JEWELLERY

Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,862.63

EFT36159 29/09/2016 LANDGATE Identification of land Parcels by Technical Description - all lots on DP403451 $ 40.50

EFT36160 29/09/2016 LASERCORPS Meal Allowance for 2 Facilitators for Onslow School Holiday Program $ 200.00

EFT36161 29/09/2016 LIQUID CRYSTAL AUSTRALIA Souvenirs for Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,488.30

EFT36162 29/09/2016 LO-GO APPOINTMENTS Permanent Placement fee of Community and Club Development Manager to Tom Price $ 8,253.67


EFT36164 29/09/2016 MECHANICAL PROJECT SERVICES Inspect & test oil leak spill in PAC unit at Onslow Airport Terminal $ 577.50

EFT36165 29/09/2016 MOORE STEPHENS Finance Essentials Workshop Registration for staff member $ 1,564.20

EFT36166 29/09/2016 NINTIRRI CENTRE INC Purchase of Canvas for the Sharon Jack Workshop during the Tom Price and Paraburdoo School

Holiday Program

$ 547.62

EFT36167 29/09/2016 PARABURDOO IGA Purchase of Consumables and Supplies $ 326.31

EFT36168 29/09/2016 PARABURDOO SAINTS FOOTBALL & SPORTING CLUB Bouncy Castle hire for Paraburdoo Give It A Go Day $ 290.00

EFT36169 29/09/2016 PENNANT HOUSE Purchase of 6 Flags for the Onslow Shire Complex $ 1,006.50


MAINTENANCE

Install barricading and signage to Paraburdoo Library Building and install new Pin board $ 2,092.52

EFT36171 29/09/2016 PILBARA MOTOR GROUP Vehicle Repairs and maintenance $ 641.40

EFT36172 29/09/2016 PILBARA PORTS AUTHORITY Lease of office space 16 Parliament Place Perth for period 10.09.16 - 09.10.16 $ 1,544.21

EFT36173 29/09/2016 PILBARA REGIONAL COUNCIL Training for Shire staff $ 9,276.52

EFT36174 29/09/2016 POWERVAC Parts for the Floor Scrubber, Paraburdoo Office $ 283.50

EFT36175 29/09/2016 PRIME TROPHIES Pannawonica School Holiday Program- Trophies for Urban Golf Day $ 406.00

EFT36176 29/09/2016 RAY WHITE EXMOUTH Shire housing Rent for the period September - November 2016 Onslow $ 10,383.08

EFT36177 29/09/2016 SEGALS Outdoor office furniture for the Onslow Shire Complex $ 6,202.00

EFT36178 29/09/2016 SETON AUSTRALIA First Aid Supplies for Tom Price Swimming Pool $ 873.26

EFT36179 29/09/2016 STAPLES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Various stationery items $ 17.24

EFT36180 29/09/2016 TALIS CONSULTANTS PTY LTD RFT 24/14 Tom Price Site Development Plan (SWMS) $ 553.80

EFT36181 29/09/2016 THALANYJI SERVICE STATIONS Fuel for Onslow $ 88.00

EFT36182 29/09/2016 THE JAFFA ROOM / ARTISTRALIA Copyright for screening of Cool Runnings on 04.08.16 $ 242.00

EFT36183 29/09/2016 THE LOCALS TRADING PTY LTD Insect Repellents for the Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 1,197.09

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount EFT36184 29/09/2016 TOM PRICE DRIVE IN Active Ashburton Sports Star Awards advertising at Drive In on Saturday 24 September 2016 $ 50.00

EFT36185 29/09/2016 TOURISM COUNCIL WA ATAP and VCWA Membership, VC Accreditation & Italic I Marketing Levy 2016/17 $ 1,009.00

EFT36186 29/09/2016 WAJON PUBLISHING COMPANY Books for the Tom Price Visitors Centre $ 469.50

EFT36187 29/09/2016 WATER 2 WATER Service/Sanitation of Heavy Duty Commercial Compact at the Tom Price Administration Building $ 854.70

EFT36188 29/09/2016 WESTRAC PTY LTD Machinery Repair - Parts $ 235.49

EFT36189 29/09/2016 ZEST EVENTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD 3d Chalk Artist Murals for Mental Health Month for Pannawonica, Tom Price and Paraburdoo $ 4,281.00

Total $ 3,563,991.14

DD10277.1 06/09/2016 WA LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER PLAN Payroll deductions $ 38,836.43

DD10277.2 06/09/2016 TELSTRA SUPER PTY LTD Superannuation contributions $ 264.63

DD10277.3 06/09/2016 HOSTPLUS SUPERANNUATION FUND Payroll deductions $ 1,206.04

DD10277.4 06/09/2016 COLONIAL FIRST STATE FIRSTCHOICE

SUPERANNUATION

Superannuation contributions $ 228.87

DD10277.5 06/09/2016 IOOF SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 1,903.41

DD10277.6 06/09/2016 BT BUSINESS SUPER Superannuation contributions $ 110.71

DD10277.7 06/09/2016 SUNSUPER Payroll deductions $ 2,603.34

DD10277.8 06/09/2016 UNISUPER Payroll deductions $ 946.55

DD10277.9 06/09/2016 ASGARD SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 1,623.89




DD10365.2 20/09/2016 TELSTRA SUPER PTY LTD Superannuation contributions $ 264.63

DD10365.3 20/09/2016 HOSTPLUS SUPERANNUATION FUND Payroll deductions $ 1,141.48

DD10365.4 20/09/2016 COLONIAL FIRST STATE FIRSTCHOICE

SUPERANNUATION


DD10365.5 20/09/2016 IOOF SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 1,903.41

DD10365.6 20/09/2016 BT BUSINESS SUPER Superannuation contributions $ 118.32

DD10365.7 20/09/2016 SUNSUPER Payroll deductions $ 3,196.15

DD10365.8 20/09/2016 UNISUPER Payroll deductions $ 970.70

DD10365.9 20/09/2016 ASGARD SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 1,593.79

DD10277.10 06/09/2016 BT SUPER FOR LIFE Superannuation contributions $ 228.87

DD10277.11 06/09/2016 THE SUPERANNUATION FUND Payroll deductions $ 418.48

DD10277.12 06/09/2016 BT PERSONAL SUPER PLAN Superannuation contributions $ 98.79

DD10277.13 06/09/2016 HESTA SUPER FUND Payroll deductions $ 1,366.56

DD10277.14 06/09/2016 MLC SUPER Payroll deductions $ 824.34

DD10277.15 06/09/2016 ONEPATH MASTERFUND Payroll deductions $ 1,216.64




DD10277.19 06/09/2016 KINETIC SUPERANNUATION LTD Superannuation contributions $ 192.93


DD10277.21 06/09/2016 BT SUPER FOR LIFE Payroll deductions $ 330.24

DD10277.22 06/09/2016 CBUS SUPER Payroll deductions $ 385.08

DD10277.23 06/09/2016 AMP SUPERANNUATION SAVINGS TRUST Payroll deductions $ 2,089.53

DD10277.24 06/09/2016 MACQUARIE SUPERANNUATION FUND Superannuation contributions $ 193.52

DD10277.25 06/09/2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

QLD

Payroll deductions $ 1,473.32

DD10277.26 06/09/2016 AMP SUPER DIRECTIONS FUND Payroll deductions $ 547.87

DD10277.27 06/09/2016 FIRST STATE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Payroll deductions $ 767.77

DD10277.28 06/09/2016 WEALTH PERSONAL SUPERANNUATON AND PENSION

FUND


DD10277.29 06/09/2016 STATEWIDE SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 1,035.41

DD10277.30 06/09/2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Payroll deductions $ 1,662.53

DD10277.31 06/09/2016 CARE SUPER PTY LTD Superannuation contributions $ 114.44

DD10277.32 06/09/2016 OUTPERFORM SUPERANNUATION FUND Payroll deductions $ 1,364.43

DD10277.33 06/09/2016 MTAA SUPERANNUATION FUND Superannuation contributions $ 235.31

DD10277.34 06/09/2016 AUSTRALIAN SUPER Payroll deductions $ 8,128.47

DD10277.35 06/09/2016 REST SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 3,991.00

DD10277.36 06/09/2016 Q SUPER Superannuation contributions $ 404.86

DD10277.37 06/09/2016 SUPERFUND Superannuation contributions $ 264.63

DD10277.38 06/09/2016 REI SUPER Superannuation contributions $ 584.62



DD10365.12 20/09/2016 BT PERSONAL SUPER PLAN Superannuation contributions $ 98.79

DD10365.13 20/09/2016 HESTA SUPER FUND Payroll deductions $ 1,437.22

DD10365.14 20/09/2016 MLC SUPER Payroll deductions $ 728.20

DD10365.15 20/09/2016 ONEPATH MASTERFUND Payroll deductions $ 1,315.78




DD10365.19 20/09/2016 KINETIC SUPERANNUATION LTD Superannuation contributions $ 192.93

DD10365.20 20/09/2016 THE SUPERANNUATION FUND Superannuation contributions $ 775.58

DD10365.21 20/09/2016 BT SUPER FOR LIFE Payroll deductions $ 330.24

DD10365.22 20/09/2016 CBUS SUPER Payroll deductions $ 394.49

DD10365.23 20/09/2016 AMP SUPERANNUATION SAVINGS TRUST Payroll deductions $ 2,401.45

DD10365.24 20/09/2016 MACQUARIE SUPERANNUATION FUND Superannuation contributions $ 82.74

DD10365.25 20/09/2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

QLD

Payroll deductions $ 1,473.32

DD10365.26 20/09/2016 AMP SUPER DIRECTIONS FUND Payroll deductions $ 654.92

DD10365.27 20/09/2016 FIRST STATE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Payroll deductions $ 767.77

DD10365.28 20/09/2016 WEALTH PERSONAL SUPERANNUATION AND PENSION

FUND


DD10365.29 20/09/2016 STATEWIDE SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 1,035.41

DD10365.30 20/09/2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Payroll deductions $ 1,662.53

DD10365.31 20/09/2016 CARE SUPER PTY LTD Superannuation contributions $ 114.44

DD10365.32 20/09/2016 OUTPERFORM SUPERANNUATION FUND Payroll deductions $ 1,364.43

DD10365.33 20/09/2016 MTAA SUPERANNUATION FUND Superannuation contributions $ 236.26

DD10365.34 20/09/2016 AUSTRALIAN SUPER Payroll deductions $ 7,974.73

DD10365.35 20/09/2016 REST SUPERANNUATION Payroll deductions $ 4,451.84

Superannuation Payments

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount DD10365.36 20/09/2016 Q SUPER Superannuation contributions $ 404.86

DD10365.37 20/09/2016 REI SUPER Superannuation contributions $ 822.47

DD10365.38 20/09/2016 THE SUPERFUND Superannuation contributions $ 264.63

Total $ 171,588.45

28411 02/09/2016 HORIZON POWER Electricity Usage March-July 2016 Onslow $ 1,507.60

28412 02/09/2016 SHIRE OF ASHBURTON ( PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS) Payroll deductions $ 2,900.00

28414 02/09/2016 WATER CORPORATION Trade Waste Payment Onslow August 2016 $ 330.27

28416 09/09/2016 WATER CORPORATION Upgrade service/flow rate for Onslow Airport $ 19,391.87

28417 16/09/2016 C MUNRO CONTRACTORS Repair and Maintenance works in Onslow $ 20,055.38

28418 16/09/2016 HORIZON POWER Electricity Usage July - September 2016 Onslow $ 42,165.30

28419 16/09/2016 POSTIES GENERAL STORE Newspaper account for August 2016 - Onslow $ 114.45


28421 16/09/2016 TELSTRA Monthly Telephone charges for August 16 $ 92,393.40

28422 22/09/2016 C MUNRO CONTRACTORS Repair and Maintenance works in Onslow $ 11,421.38


28424 29/09/2016 BHP BILLITON MINERALS PTY LTD Rates refund for Assessment A6438 $ 358.80



28427 29/09/2016 SHIRE OF ASHBURTON (PETTY CASH) Petty Cash for Tom Price Administration Office $ 799.95

Total $ 213,666.69

EFT35932 09/09/2016 PARABURDOO SQUASH RACQUETS CLUB Repay amounts paid into Trust to ensure work was completed to floor repairs to the Paraburdoo

Squash/Racquet Club

$ 1,925.00

EFT36022 16/09/2016 NARELLE JOHNSON Venue and Key Bond return - Narelle Johnson $ 500.00

202842 09/09/2016 SHIRE OF ASHBURTON Refund for Bond held for Tenders $ 2,000.00

202843 16/09/2016 BUILDERS REGISTRATION BOARD OF WA Levy collected for the month of August 2016 $ 1,387.20

202844 16/09/2016 CONSTRUCTION TRAINING FUND Levy collected for the month of August 2016 $ 1,089.12

202845 16/09/2016 SHIRE OF ASHBURTON Shire Commissions from BRB and CITF $ 81.50

Total $ 6,982.82

Exec Name Date Name Description Amount

TROY DAVIS

$10,00008/08/2016 NESPRESSO CLUB Nespresso - Coffee Pods for Infrastructure Office Tom Price $ 204.00

10/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Greg West - Paraburdoo 08.09.16 to Perth 26.09.16 FIFO Staff $ 677.00

11/08/2016 QANTAS Flight for Douglas Pearce - Devonport to Perth 16.08.16 FIFO Staff $ 686.92

11/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Anthony Gimondo - Paraburdoo 16.08.16 to Perth 16.08.16 for meeting with

Mark Reid to discuss possible new machinery

$ 958.98

11/08/2016 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Policy Renewals $ 80.45

23/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Nicole Mazzucchelli - Perth 19.09.16 to Paraburdoo 23.09.16 FIFO Staff $ 707.00

25/08/2016 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Licence Renewals $ 151.50

26/08/2016 OFFICEWORKS SUPERSTORES PTY LTD Office chair for Depot staff member $ 458.95

02/09/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Troy Davis to attend meeting with DSD & Talis - Paraburdoo 18.09.16 to Perth

20.09.16

$ 678.80

Total $ 4,603.60

KIM PARKS

$15,000 02/08/2016 PILLOW TALK Linen for Willow Road Transit House $ 148.95

04/08/2016 EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY Tuition Fees for staff member in Graduate Certificate in Business $ 2,950.00

06/08/2016 RYDGES HOTEL Accommodation for Tim Brokenshire attending L&D Activity - Environmental Health Australia

Conference 31.07.16 - 05.08.16

$ 876.96

06/08/2016 MERCURE HOTEL BRISBANE Accommodation for Kim Parks attending L&D Activity AHRI Conference 03.08.16 - 06.08.16 $ 860.00

08/08/2016 AGODA.COM Accommodation for Morgwn Jones to attend L&D Activity - Local Recovery Coordinator - Perth

17.08.16 - 20.08.16

$ 387.00

09/08/2016 INTERNATIONAL HOTEL Accommodation for Tim Brokenshire to attend L&D Activity - Sydney 05.08.16 - 06.08.16 $ 204.00

10/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Morgwn Jones to attend L&D Activity - WALGA Local Recovery Coordinator

Paraburdoo to Perth 17.08.16 - 22.08.16

$ 677.00

15/08/2016 MANTRA GROUP Accommodation for Ben Sharman attending L&D Activity - WALGA Better Planning Practices in

Perth 24.10.16 - 26.10.16

$ 365.16

16/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Ben Sharman to attend L&D Activity - WALGA Better Planning Decisions -

Paraburdoo to Perth 24.10.16 - 30.10.16

$ 677.00

16/08/2016 ESS EASTERN GURUMA PTY LTD - WINDAWARRI

LODGE

Accommodation for SHREP Trainer Gary and attendees (Lindsay Shaw, Kylie Conder and Raelene

Ignoti) for onsite SHREP Training 15.09.16 - 19.08.16

$ 4,674.38

16/08/2016 QANTAS Return flight for Vijay Krishnan FIFO Employee Perth to Paraburdoo 07.09.16 - 16.09.16 $ 707.00

17/08/2016 LGMA (WA) DIVISION Kim Parks Membership for 2016-2017 $ 513.00

18/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Helen Melville attending Part 2 of L&D Activity - Diploma of Professional

Coaching Paraburdoo to Perth 30.09.16 - 05.10.16

$ 707.00

Credit Card Payments

Municipal Cheques

Trust Payments

AUGUST 2016 STATEMENTS

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount 18/08/2016 PARMELIA HILTON PERTH Accommodation for Melissa Raffan to complete L&D Activity - Executive Certificate in Event

Management- Perth 14.08.16 - 17.08.16

$ 907.92

20/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Freemond Ng to attend L&D Activity - LGMA Integrated Planning Day

Paraburdoo - Perth 25.08.16 - 28.08.16

$ 677.00

22/08/2016 ROYAL LIFE SAVING SOCIETY - WA Registration for Riley Hunter to attend Pool Lifeguard Course in Perth 17.08.16 - 18.08.16 $ 260.00

23/08/2016 QANTAS Flight for Frank Ludovico to attend L&D Activity - Innovate 2016 IT Vision National Conference

Perth - Paraburdoo 04.09.16

$ 357.00

23/08/2016 MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION Registration for Tahi Morton to attend L&D Activity - Mosquito Control Conferences 04.09.16 -

09.09.16

$ 910.00

23/08/2016 SODEXO 8 nights Accommodation for Geoff Smith and Sean Fletcher at Windawarri as attended training

23.08.16

$ 1,680.00

23/08/2016 LGMA (WA) DIVISION Registration for Freemond Ng for L&D Activity - Finance Professionals & Integrated Planner Day

in Perth 25.08.16 - 27.08.16

$ 95.00

23/08/2016 COLES SUPERMARKETS - TOM PRICE Morning tea supplies for Onsite Training - WALGA Local Government Act Essentials Workshop

23.08.16

$ 22.70

27/08/2016 HYATT REGENCY Accommodation for Freemond Ng to attend L&D Activity - LGMA Finance Professionals

Integrated Planning Day in Perth 25.08.16 - 27.08.16

$ 395.85

29/08/2016 COLES SUPERMARKETS - TOM PRICE Recognition of Service Certificates - Gift Cards x 2 $ 600.00

29/08/2016 COLES SUPERMARKETS - TOM PRICE Morning/Afternoon tea supplies for Planning & Specification Development & Managing

contracts in LG Training

$ 32.02

29/08/2016 COLES SUPERMARKETS - TOM PRICE Recognition of Services Gift cards x 2 $ 600.00

30/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for training facilitator Andrew Cameron to hold Plant Operator Training Perth to

Paraburdoo 02.10.16 - 07.10.16

$ 707.00

31/08/2016 KEYNOTE CONFERENCE Registration for Brenton Hall to attend L&D Activity - Waste Recycle Conference in Perth

13.09.16 - 17.09.16

$ 1,300.00

01/09/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Brenton Hall to attend L&D Activity - Waste & Recycle Conference Paraburdoo

to Perth 13.09.16 - 17.09.16

$ 842.08

02/09/2016 MURDOCH UNIVERSITY 2nd Semester Tuition fee for staff member $ 5,580.00

Total $ 28,714.02

MAURICE FERIALDI

$5,000 05/08/2016 INTERNATIONAL HOTEL International Hotel - One nights accommodation for Tim Brokenshire's return home from L&D

Activity 06.08.16-07.08.16

$ 204.00

09/08/2016 INTERNATIONAL HOTEL International Hotel - Refund for one nights accommodation for Tim Brokenshire's return home

from L&D Activity 09.08.16

-$ 204.00

30/08/2016 ASIC Compliance officer request for Company Search for Sunsetville Pty Ltd (Pilbara Concrete

Services)

$ 9.00

Total $ 9.00

ANIKA SERER

$5,000 19/08/2016 STAPLES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Stationery for the Ocean View Caravan Park $ 36.15

26/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Maurice Ferialdi - Paraburdoo 23.09.16 to Perth 25.09.16 FIFO Staff $ 707.00

30/08/2016 EXMOUTH ESCAPE RESORT Accommodation for Morgwn Jones to attend training and meetings with DPAW Regional Staff on

the 6th - 9th September in Exmouth

$ 717.09

01/09/2016 LANDGATE Fax Requisition fee for the lodgement of a Notification under section 70A for the amalgamation

of Lots 352 & 353 Second Avenue, Onslow

$ 82.90

Total $ 1,543.14

LYNNETTE O'REILLY

$9,000

02/08/2016 LEADKINTO CATERING PTY LTD - RED BREEZE Dinner with the Community Development Team after CD Planning Meeting held in Paraburdoo

and Tom Price 02.08.16 - 03.08.16

$ 143.22

03/08/2016 SODEXO Sodexo - Catering for the Maggie Dent Presentation 05.08.16 $ 550.00

11/08/2016 VIRGIN AUSTRALIA Return flight for Corin Linch - Guest Speaker for Onslow keepers, Australian Bush Poet, Perth to

Onslow 06.09.16 - 07.09.16

$ 598.00

12/08/2016 QANTAS Flight for J Calder and N Naylor from Basketball WA for the Onslow Basketball Carnival -

Karratha to Perth 21.08.16

$ 794.02

17/08/2016 QANTAS Return flight for Tracey Read to facilitate the Tom Price and Paraburdoo School Holiday Program -

Perth to Paraburdoo 25.09.16 - 30.09.16

$ 707.00

20/08/2016 SODEXO Accommodation for Elizabeth Clements and Christopher Foster with meal tickets performers for

Pannawonica's Garden Party 20.08.16 - 21.08.16

$ 340.00

21/08/2016 EUROPCAR Vehicle hire Karratha to Onslow return for Jarah Calder for Onslow Basketball Carnival 19.08.16 -

21.08.16

$ 495.97

25/08/2016 AVIS RENT A CAR Car Hire for Darryl Fishwick - Umpire for the Onslow Basketball Carnival 19.08.16 - 21.08.16 $ 475.56

30/08/2016 QANTAS Flight for Anton Pulvirenti - facilitator of 3D Chalk Art for Mental Health Month - Sydney to

Karratha 04.10.16

$ 742.00

30/08/2016 QANTAS Flight for Anton Pulvirenti - facilitator of 3D Chalk Art for Mental Health Month - Paraburdoo to

Sydney 09.10.16

$ 486.00

Total $ 5,331.77

ATTACHMENT 13.1B


Chq/EFT Date Name Description Amount LEE REDDELL

$5,000 05/08/2016 QANTAS Return Flights for Andrew Patterson - Perth 18.09.16 to Paraburdoo 23.09.16 FIFO Staff $ 707.00

11/08/2016 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AUSTRALIA Full membership 2016/17 financial year for Tim Brokenshire $ 340.00

16/08/2016 MORSE COURT APARTMENTS Accommodation for Lee Reddell to attend Cyclone & Flood Pilbara Risk Workshop held by State

Emergency Management Committee in Karratha for 16.08.16

$ 169.00

18/08/2016 VIRGIN AUSTRALIA Return flights for Maurice Feraldi - Perth 29.08.16 to Onslow 30.09.16 FIFO Staff $ 598.00

18/08/2016 ASIC Company search lot 866 Mine Road Tom Price (Shell Service Station - VIVA Energy Australia) $ 19.00

23/08/2016 VIRGIN AUSTRALIA Flight change for Maurice Feraldi - Onslow 29.08.16 to Perth 07.10.16 FIFO Staff $ 80.00

24/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Maurice Feraldi - Paraburdoo 09.09.16 to Perth 11.09.16 FIFO staff $ 707.00

25/08/2016 ASIC Company search for Australian Indigenous Enterprises Pty Ltd for David Morley $ 9.00

Total $ 2,629.00

FRANK LUDOVICO

$5,000 04/08/2016 AVTECH Server Room Monitoring System $ 2,210.89

15/08/2016 AVTECH Server Room Monitoring System - Import Duty Fee $ 310.90

18/08/2016 PIVOTEL Monthly fee for GEN3 Spot Tracker Vehicle Emergency Beacons for Staff Travel within the Shire $ 244.19

24/08/2016 THE BLUE POD COFFEE CO Pods for the Vending Machine, Tom Price Administration office $ 509.00

Total $ 3,274.98

CEO NEIL HARTLEY

$10,000 03/08/2016 COCOA & ROSE Breakfast Meeting with CEO and PDC Perth 03.08.16 $ 35.50

03/08/2016 TRAVELODGE PERTH Meals and refreshments for CEO and Councillors during 2016 Walga week, Travelodge Perth -

Meals and refreshments for CEO during 2016 Walga week

$ 319.50

05/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for CEO Neil Hartley to PRC Workshop 12/08/16 Paraburdoo to Perth 09.08.16 -

12.08.16

$ 677.00

05/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for Cr Peter Foster to attend PRC Strategic Planning Session Paraburdoo to Perth

11.08.16 - 12.08.16

$ 647.00

09/08/2016 TRAVELODGE PERTH Meals and refreshments for Cr White during the 2016 WALGA week 03.08.16 - 09.08.16 $ 85.11

09/08/2016 TALBOT WALSH ENGRAVING & SIGNS Purchase of Laser Engraved Stainless Steel plaque for the opening of the Onslow Multipurpose

Courts

$ 654.50

13/08/2016 QANTAS Return flights for CEO Neil Hartley to attend Pilbara Plate Launch in Perth 29.08.16 - 30.08.16 -

Paraburdoo to Perth

$ 802.99

16/08/2016 ONSLOW BEACH RESORT Meals/Refreshments for Ordinary Council Meeting 16.08.16 in Onslow $ 1,318.50

20/08/2016 ONSLOW BEACH RESORT Meals and refreshments for the Onslow Basketball Courts official Opening - VIP Dinner 19.08.16 $ 1,865.00

25/08/2016 PASCAL PRESS Purchase of Citizenship Ceremony Gifts 30 x Steve Parish Australia Souvenir Picture Book $ 388.50

31/08/2016 DROPBOX Premium Dropbox Subscription for Media for the month of August 2016 $ 13.77

01/09/2016 SODEXO Purchase of meals and refreshments for lunch for the Ordinary Council Meeting in Pannawonica

27.09.16

$ 236.23

Total $ 7,043.60

CHANTELLE BRYCE

$1,00002/08/2016 ESS EASTERN GURUMA PTY LTD - WINDAWARRI

LODGE

Accommodation for Maggie Dent and Steven Mountain 01.08.16 - 03.08.16 for Parenting and

Professional Development Presentations

$ 554.45

05/08/2016 PANNAWONICA VILLAGE Accommodation for Maggie Dent 04.08.16 - 06.08.16 for Parenting and Professional

Development Presentations

$ 220.00

05/08/2016 PANNAWONICA VILLAGE Accommodation for Steven Mountain 04.08.16 - 06.08.16 for Parenting and Professional

Development Presentations

$ 220.00

05/08/2016 ESS GUMULA PTY LTD - ROCKLEA PALMS Accommodation for Maggie Dent and Steven Mountain 03.08.16 - 04.08.16 for Parenting and

Professional Development Presentation

$ 219.55

08/08/2016 WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Card fee charges from Bank $ 9.00

Total $ 1,223.00

Total Credit Cards $ 54,372.11

MUNICIPAL TOTALS

EFT TRANSACTIONS 3,563,991.14

SUPER PAYMENTS 171,588.45

CHEQUES 213,666.69

CREDIT CARDS 54,372.11

$ 4,003,618.39

TRUST TOTALS

CHEQUES AND EFT TRANSACTION 6,982.82

$ 6,982.82

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 13.1B

ATTACHMENT 14.1

TOM PRICE

VOLUNTEER BUSHFIRE BRIGADE Lot 2003 Boonderoo Rd

PO Box 567,

Tom Price, 6751

Telephone (08) 9188 5516 BRIGADE No: 6985

Mobile 0417 754 846 Email: [email protected]

AGM

MINUTES Held at BFB Shed August 27 2016 @ 0930hrs

MEETING OPENED: 0945

ATTENDANCES: Cassie Roesler, Lita Mahy, Nicki Kelly, Kirsty Coleman, Mark Strawbridge, Leon Peacock, Wayne

Hatton, Callum O’Connell, Chris O’Connell, Kyle Cameron, Robyn Street, Grant Street, Craig Mackrell, Lindsay

Goatcher, David Mutton, Morgwn Jones, Darryl Hannah

APOLOGIES: Maxine O’Connell, Randall Findlay

SPECIAL GUEST: Wayne Cooke Area Manager DFES

PREVIOUS MINUTES:

Moved as correct and accurate record Moved: Grant Street Seconded: Nicole Kelly

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

ESL FUNDING:

Tom Price VBFB has been granted an operating budget of $25,390 for the 15-16 financial year. These funds cover

operational expenses and maintenance costs associated with the brigade.

Robyn produced a financial report for the BFB Wellness Accounts

Current Balances

Community Solutions $1,010.06

Cash Reserve $10,344.47

Glynn Potter is yet to be removed from the Bank Signatories, Robyn to use these minutes to have Glynn removed

DECLARE 1 LIEUTENANT POSITIONS VACANT:

Morgwn called for nominations prior to the meeting

Any other nominations

NOMINATIONS:

IN THE EVENT THAT A VOTE NEEDS TO BE CAST FOR A POSITION, THIS WILL BE DONE BY BLIND

BALLOT

Terms of Office are 2 years

4th Lt Wayne Hatton Nominated: David Mutton Second: Darryl Hannah

Grant Street David Mutton Darryl Hannah

ATTACHMENT 14.2A

mailto:[email protected]

Wayne Hatton elected to the position of Lieutenant Votes 13/4

GENERAL BUSINESS

Social Club fees to remain at $50 per person and payable now

Junior & Leon to organise Town burns, all members urged to participate when they can and get use to the new

4.4 and our other appliances

There is some problems with the E-academy, for those that haven’t registered on the Portal please see Morgwn

Chris is busy updating the new Fire Station Software

David Mutton is on light duties for the next month or so but will be available to help with any administration

duties.

CAPTAINS REPORT

Splash thanked everyone for their feedback throughout the MOU process which the Shire has now recommended

not go ahead

Thanked all those that had been helping out around the SHED recently with setting up new store cupboards and

entering data into the new Fire Station software packages that the Brigades have bought.

The DFES Well Branch visit was a really informative night so thanks to al those that turned up

Hydrant Maintenance between the 2 Brigades is ongoing so please help out. This is a major source of fundraising

for both brigades

Leon looking at a fundraiser / membership drive at Muzzys for both Brigades

Oct 25-26 there is a major community event at Kings Lake and the BFB will be involved along with FRS so help

will be needed over the weekend.

Myself and Leon attending a Leadership course which was very good and taught us something more about

Leadership within our Brigades

I have received a quote for a 20ft Sea Container to go in the back of the block to house all of our stores giving us

more area in the Engine Bay Room

The Volunteer fuel card is still available to members to use. There is approx. $3,500 on the card and we have

until June 2017 to spend it

No other general business meeting closed at 1020

Next Brigade Meeting TBA

ATTACHMENT 14.2A

Agenda – Bushfire Advisory Committee October 14 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________

1

BUSH FIRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TOM PRICE VOLUNTEER BUSH FIRE BRIGADE Boonderoo Rd Tom Price WA

MINUTES

October 14 2016

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

2

Contents

1.0 DECLARATION OF OPENING ........................................................................................................ 3

2.0 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS .................................................................................................. 3

3.0 ATTENDANCE .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 APOLOGIES .................................................................................................................................. 3

4.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS ............................................................ 3

4.1 Previous Minutes .................................................................................................................... 3

5.0 BUSINESS ARISING ...................................................................................................................... 4

5.1 DFES – Pilbara Shires MOU ..................................................................................................... 4

5.2 Volunteer Bush Fire ................................................................................................................ 4

Lee Reddell and Anika Serer in discussion with Port Hedland Fire Brigades regarding ......................... 4

5.3 WINTER / SPRING BURNING UPDATE ......................................................................................... 5

5.4 PRE SEASON OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 5

5.5 PERMIT REVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 6

6.1/6.7 FERGUSON REPORT .................................................................................................................... 6

6.2 2016-17 FCO APPOINTMENTS .................................................................................................... 7

6.3 SCHOOL VISITS (Grandfather Tom) ............................................................................................. 7

6.4 SUMMER BURN PLANS (PASTORALIST) ...................................................................................... 7

6.5 ESL Preview 17-18 ....................................................................................................................... 8

6.6 SoA COMMUNITY EVENT (BFB) ................................................................................................... 8

6.7 COMMUNITY EMERGENCY SERVICES MANAGER ....................................................................... 8

6.8 NEXT MEETING .................................................................................................................................. 8

7.0 CLOSURE OF MEETING ................................................................................................................ 9

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

3

1.0 DECLARATION OF OPENING Shire President Cr Kerry White declared the meeting opened at 11:10am.

2.0 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

3.0 ATTENDANCE Cr Kerry White SoA Shire President Morgwn Jones CBFCO Chris O’Connell DCBFCO Tom Price PVFRS David Mutton FCO Lt. TP VBFB Simon Mitchell Pannawonica PVFRS Pedro Palheiro P&W Wayne Cooke DFES AO. Pilbara Operations Lee Reddell Executive Manager Development & Regulatory Services Jamie Richardson Mt Florence Station

Leanne Corker Red Hill Station Ken Parsons Coolawanyah Station Kyle Cameron Senior Ranger Sheree Selten Executive Assistant Development & Regulatory Services

3.1 APOLOGIES Darryl Hannah FCO Capt. TP VBFB Owen Donovan P&W Craig Mackrell FCO Lt TP VBFB Leon Peacock FCO Lt TP VBFB Trish Linde Capt. Paraburdoo PVFRS Cr Ivan Dias Council Representative Cr Glen Dellar Council Representative Neil Harley CEO Shire of Ashburton

4.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

4.1 Previous Minutes

Decision & Recommendation Moved: Lee Reddell Seconded: David Mutton Carried: 13/0 That the minutes of the Bushfire Advisory Committee Meeting held on October 14 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

4

5.0 BUSINESS ARISING

5.1 DFES – Pilbara Shires MOU Morgwn opened up discussion in regards to the proposed DFES MOU. No Committee

members are in support of the MOU. Council endorsed the rejection of the MOU at the

June Council Meeting. Morgwn informed the Committee that City of Karratha and Shire of

Exmouth were still had agreed to the MOU in principal but with Pt Hedland rescinding their

decision nothing has been progressed further.

5.2 Volunteer Bush Fire Rio Lease Morgwn informed the committee that Rio still has to formalize the release of a lot in South Street. There are vehicles and equipment valued at over $750,000 currently being parked outside in extreme weather conditions on a daily basis. Lee Reddell informs that free commercial land is very hard to source. Lee Reddell to meet with Anika Serer to discuss more viable options. Morgwn would like to see at the very least the current BFB premises handed back to the Shire. This would allow the BFB & SoA to seek funding to have the vehicles parked under cover. The issue of land availability also has an effect on the Tom Price SES who too are in a Rio Tinto owned premises Kerry White suggested applying for a community grant of $500 and possible Royalties for Region funding. Kerry requested Morgwn to do a report explain our restrictions on the Fire Brigade to take to her meeting with Rio Tinto next week.

Land Availability Lee going inform Cr Kerry White offline of the current situation in regards to land availability and restrictions on the SoA, the BFB and the SES

Training Update

Morgwn informed the committee that the E Training was proving difficult for volunteers and

unit leaders use and all were having trouble navigating the training module. There was also

a lack of access to what it actually offers.

Wayne informed the committee that this was recognised broadly across the organisation

and is being looked at by the Training Department.

It was also noted that Managers were not receiving enough training by DFES to train

volunteers internally.

Morgwn informed that there are only 6 volunteer fire fighters at the Onslow VFES at present

and that they are not qualified BA wearers

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

5

5.3 WINTER / SPRING BURNING UPDATE Pedro informed the committee that they had completed approximately 153,000 hectares of burning off in the vicinities of Millstream National Park, Karijini National Park & Cane River

Parks and Wildlife had also performed strategic burning along Karijini Drive from Mt Bruce to Rangers HQ including access roads, 4 Mile Camp Site and towards the North Boundary.

Currently all Parks and Wildlife Burn Offs have ceased until the dry season.

Tom Price BFB & FRS have completed all burn offs in Area W tying into the 2014 fire scar and have identified areas around Wakathuni Community and Nth of TP that will be included in Winter burns in 2017.

The fire Brigades have not completed any controlled burns around Onslow. The recent construction of the ring road in Onslow has cleared a lot of the area around the town site itself decreasing the risk of fire.

Paraburdoo PVFRS have Wildfire training in the coming weeks and will be burning out small areas around the Paraburdoo Townsite

Simon informed that Pannawonica PVFRS have completed some burns in and around Pannawonica and firebreaks have been reinstated.

5.4 PRE SEASON OVERVIEW Wayne informed it is an above normal fire risks this year and the preseason Synopsis from

DFES will be issued in November. It was mentioned that this report targets the south west

of the state.

Wayne also informed the committee that they were looking at concept operations of engaging more LG Employees/Volunteers to positions on IMT’s with a focus more on engaging local organisations to maintain the local knowledge. Morgwn has emailed McCarthy all volunteers’ capabilities for IMT’s. McCarthy is attending the forum in Perth next week raising the issue of LG employees to be utilized more often for their knowledge, public relations etc

Wayne gave a brief run down on the Forum held in Perth which mainly discussed agency legislation, section 13 (appointments by commissioner) and section 45 (Agreed Transfer of Control)

Morgwn inform the committee we have only had one section 13 in the Shire of Ashburton, being at the Fires on the North West Coastal Highway in 2015

Kerry raised the question of the annual financial costs for Council to consider. Kerry would also like requested confirmation on Section 13. .

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

6

Wayne explained about the IAP – Incident Action Plan which will be rolled out in a few weeks and will be used for all natural disasters. Morgwn raised the question if it will replace the AIMS toolbox. Wayne informed will not replace toolbox but will replace old forms.

5.5 PERMIT REVIEW Currently OBRM is focussing on the legislative requirements under current legislation. The

issues at present is what is deemed a complex burn. Despite the size of our burns most

burns are not of a complex nature.

Morgwn has logged a request that current legislation in regards to burning be reviewed to

allow Pastoralists to burn on days of Very High Fire Danger, this would allow Pastoralists to

burn under optimum conditions as weather systems approach

Morgwn requested Pastoralists fill out the Risk Assessment template as part of a simple

application process then a permit will be issued.

Leanne raised the issue all of the documents Morgwn had sent out to as part of the permit

review. The last lot of discussion papers was quite large and confusing.

Leanne questioned whether there is a known timeframe to change the legislation as

requested.

Morgwn will provide feedback.

6.1/6.7 FERGUSON REPORT – CESM (Community Emergency Services Manager) Morgwn raised a few concerns: will the Rural Fire Service remain independent?, and if not

will it create more of a barrier to get things actioned in the future. Also whether in fact it

will give LG more responsibilities? A lot of questions yet to be answered

Morgwn raised the possibility of the SoA maybe looking at the appointment of a CESM

(Community Emergency Services Manager) to ensure continuity of local knowledge and local

connect with all volunteers into the future. With more questions than answers at present LG

could be forced into another situation like the previously proposed MOU when positions

could be based outside of the SoA. The Shire of Exmouth have written to the Commissioner

requesting he agree to a CESM position in Exmouth and it may be pertinent that the SoA

considers the same

Leanne questioned where the proposed Rural Fire Service would be based?

Wayne informed the committee that the Commissioners recommendations is that it is not

possible this year or probably not the following year.

Leanne raised the question would there be any administrative or Legislative change?

Morgwn also mentioned not sure of the effect on Policies/Financial implication

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

7

Kerry raised the issue that whilst the regions of Exmouth, Karratha and Port Hedland are all

coastal, different environments than inland Shire of Ashburton.

Morgwn mentioned that we need to include all the emergency services in future

correspondence, Tom Price SES and Onslow VFES

6.2 2016-17 FCO APPOINTMENTS Morgwn informed the committee there were 3 resignations over the past couple of months

in other Shires where the respective CBFCO had authorisation as a FCO for the SoA, Mr

Michael Booth (CoK) and Mr David George (SoEx) and Mr Andrew Norris (SoEP) have all left

and need to have their Authorisations revoked.

New Appointments

Mr Wayne Hatton has been elected as a Lieutenant at the Tom Price VBFB a position that

also serves as an FCO.

Senior Ranger Kyle Cameron has demonstrated experience in this role and should also be

appointed as a FCO

The new CBFCO’s in the City of Karratha (Darrell Hutchins) and the Shire of East Pilbara (Clint

Swadling) also need to be appointed as FCO’s for the SoA where the LG’s share a boundary

Kerry requested submission to Council. Morgwn to include in next council meeting.

6.3 SCHOOL VISITS (Grandfather Tom) Morgwn informed that Onslow Primary School had requested the Grandfather Tom

Education program to be run in Onslow. Members of TP Fire Brigade will be giving

presentation when available in November.

Kerry raised the question to leave it till the New Year when all new families are in town.

Morgwn agreed to conduct one in the New Year but also thought it pertinent that one be

conducted prior to the end of the school year

All Local Volunteer Fire & Rescue Brigades in the Pilbara have their own Grandfather Tom

Education kits and are encourage to get into their own respective areas and promote the fire

education program.

6.4 SUMMER BURN PLANS (PASTORALIST) Jamie just waiting to see what the season brings

Leanne informed they are also subleasing Yaraloola Station as well. They have more fuel

load this year. They target to burn 1/7th of their Spinifex areas.

Kim wanting to burn after the first rains.

Morgwn and Pedro informed that spinifex should be burnt every 3 years instead of the old 7

year rule of thumb.

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

8

Leanne mentioned the change in legislation to include pastoralists being able to burn u to

very high fire danger rating as cannot physical burn anything on low fire danger

environments.

6.5 ESL Preview 17-18 Submission of Capitol Items

6.6 SoA COMMUNITY EVENT (BFB) SOA holding a Gala Event at Kings Lake Tom Price – 23rd October 2016. Volunteer services

will be promoting their services, hopefully also recruit new volunteers.

6.7 GENERAL BUSINESS Wayne informed that the Vehicle locator project is underway in the Sth West with 800

appliances installed in high risk areas.

Leanne raised the issue of road closures of major roads overnight with no communication as

to when the roads would be opened again considering freight/cattle trucks stuck on the

road and if we could implement more frequent notifications.

Morgwn informed committee that road closure can fall under State Legislation and the Shire

has no control over the road closures.

Leanne enquired as to whom to write to regard the above issue. Morgwn informed Leanne

Main Road Pilbara.

Kyle informed the committee that roads were closed closer to roadhouse rest stops as some

there are some facilities available and it is easier to monitor traffic control at such places.

Morgwn will raise the issue at the next DOAC meeting.

Pedro included that burning the sides of the roads will prevent as many road closures.

Morgwn mentioned that the DFES Regional Office in conjunction with P&W has been trying

to get funding for this to occur. Unsuccessful to date.

Wayne informed the committee that the Shire’s in the Kimberly region have an annual

budget for these associated costs.

Morgwn informed the Committee that Cookey was leaving the Pilbara region, heading to

Broome and thank him for all his help and support throughout his 10 years of service to the

not only the Pilbara region but specifically to the Fire Services within the SoA and the Shire

itself

6.8 NEXT MEETING Next meeting is to be held April – May 2017

ATTACHMENT 14.2B


_________________________________________________________________________________

9

7.0 CLOSURE OF MEETING The meeting was closed at 12:10pm

ATTACHMENT 14.2B

Revised Feasibility Study

Onslow Waste Management Facility

Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page 1

Asset Management | Civil Engineering | Environmental Services | GIS & Spatial Intelligence | Waste Management



Prepared for Shire of Ashburton

October 2016

Project Number: TW16012

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page i

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version Description Date Author Reviewer

0a Internal Review 29/09/16 TM RC

1a Draft Released to Client 30/09/16 TM/LM RC

1b Draft Released to Client 03/10/16 TM/LM RC

1c Released to Client 10/10/16 TM/LM RC

Approval for Release

Name Position File Reference

Ronan Cullen

Director and Waste Management Section

Leader

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility

Study.1c

Signature

Copyright of this document or any part of this document remains with Talis Consultants Pty Ltd and

cannot be used, transferred or reproduced in any manner or form without prior written consent from

Talis Consultants Pty Ltd.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page ii

Executive Summary

Through the State Development Agreements, provisions have been made to improve infrastructure

and critical services within Onslow to support the expanding community and also entice future

economic development. One such project is the proposed development of a modern Waste

Management Facility (WMF) in Onslow including a Class IV landfill.

In light of this, the Shire undertook a Site Selection Study in 2013 to identify a Preferred Site for the new

WMF based on best practice siting and design principles. The Preferred Site (Site 10) was identified at

a location approximately 36km south of Onslow on Onslow Road. Following this, a Feasibility Study

(Original Feasibility Study) was undertaken to determine the technical and financial viability of

developing the WMF. The Original Feasibility Study identified that the preferred option was a single

landfill developed to Class IV standard but accepting both Class III and Class IV type waste.

Site 10 is still considered the Preferred Site due to its potential ability to comply with best practice siting

and design standards, the considerable separation distances to sensitive receptors and provision of

suitable area for current and future uses at the WMF.

However, since 2013, there have been a number of significant changes including:

reduction in growth rates forecasted for the area;

reduction in the waste generation and population projections;

economic downturn in the resources sector within Western Australia; and

reduction in capital works costs.

The first stage of the Revised Feasibility Study was to gather updated waste data from waste generators.

Once received, the data was analysed as part of capacity modelling works, in conjunction with

published population projections data to predict future waste tonnages across Low and High growth

scenarios. The model had a high degree of conservatism applied relating to the volume of waste

currently generated and further population and economic growth, which will affect future waste

tonnages. A key element of this is the Pilbara Development Commission population projections utilised

in the Study, which were recently determined as inaccurate and have now been revised upwards.

These data outputs were then provided to Talis’ engineers to undertake conceptual design works. The

High growth scenario was adopted for these works. Two options were considered, namely:

Option 1: Separate Class III and Class IV landfills; and

Option 2: A single landfill developed to Class IV standard but accepting Class III and Class IV

type waste.

The assessment found that Option 2 was the most suitable option. The key reasons for this

recommendation include:

Long term regional demand for Class IV landfill; and

The capital costs of developing a Class IV landfill to accept both Class III and Class IV waste

volumes over a 21 year period is lower than the cost of developing separate landfills.

As part of the Study, Talis also assessed a number of potential funding opportunities for the project

including capital investment funding streams such as the Federal Building Better Regions fund and the

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page iii

State’s Royalties for Regions fund. Based on Talis’ experience with similar projects, there is a strong

potential for the project to obtain capital investment funding to support the delivery of the project.

The next stage of the Study was to assess the financial viability of the project based on the revised

waste volumes and design with an initial operating life of 21 years commencing in 2019/20. Unlike the

Original Feasibility Study, the key focus of the financial modelling was on the financial implications of

developing a landfill at the Preferred Site, rather than a fully integrated facility that was assessed

previously.

The total cost for all capital works during the 21 years development and operational life of the landfill

is approximately $29.41 million. The most costly component of the capital works program across the

life of the landfill is the basal lining system.

Talis has also prepared revised operational cost estimates for the proposed WMF operations and

included elements such as labour, plant and consumables. The average annual operational costs for

the landfill is $1.14 million, (including a local loading of 20%) over the 21 years, equating to a total

operational cost of $23.87 million.

Gate fee modelling was undertaken based on the financial model. The break-even cost per tonne

across the operational life of the landfill was calculated at $200.58. In comparison to the Original

Feasibility Study, this breakeven gate fee has increased from $170.54. Although the overall costs of

the project have reduced so have the forecasted tonnages, which has culminated in this increase of

~17.5% on those break-even rates.

If the rate for Class III waste was reduced to 85% of the average gate fee (equating to $170.49), the

rate for Class IV waste would need to be increased by 113% ($226.37) of the average gate fee in

order to cover the shortfall created.

Talis has modelled a number of potential scenarios in relation to the project including obtaining capital

funding of $5 million, reducing the operational hours, increasing the Class III waste volumes by 50%

and altering the lining system design. Based on the Revised Design and the various scenarios

modelled, a range of gate fees have been devised as listed within Table E-1 below.

Table E-1: Gate Fee ranges

Ranges Break-Even Gate Fee Discounted Gate Fees

Class III Class IV

High $233.15 $198.18 $284.47

Low $142.76 $121.35 $170.30

Based on our experience in landfill operations and charges, Talis is of the view that the gate fees listed

above are high, which are reflective of the low volumes of waste generated in these isolated areas.

However, Talis is of the view that these gates fees are attractive to provide the Shire, and also other

key waste generators in the area, with long term security on future waste disposal services as well as

costs. There is a number of reasons to support this conclusion including:

The costs for waste management services that the current waste generators in the region are

paying;

The currently modelled attractive gate fee for Class IV waste, which could be increased and

would, therefore, offset the Class III gate fee.

The waste volumes projected within this Study are conservative;

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page iv

The WMF will provide waste disposal services in close proximity to where the waste is generated.

Any increases in waste volumes as predicted but under estimated within this Study, will make

the facility more cost effective as opposed to haulage of waste the significant distance to

surrounding waste facilities be it Tom Price, Karratha or further afield.

The labour and plant required to operate the landfill will be utilised on other waste

management activities to be delivered at the site including the greenwaste processing, inert

recycling, liquid waste and tyre monofill. All such facilities will have their own gate fees which

will be used to offset the cost of running the facilities. Therefore, the operational costs for the

landfill will reduce from that modelled within this Study;

Talis recognises a strong possibility of the Shire and its project partners in obtaining funding for

the project.

To further reduce the gate fees for the project, the Shire should seek to accept as much waste as

possible at the facility including both Class III and IV materials as well as other recyclables and waste

materials, particularly to offset the operational costs.

To underpin the viability of the Onslow WMF, the Shire should seek to obtain commitment on waste

materials and tonnages from waste generators within the region, such as through Waste Supply

Agreements.

Recommendations

Based on the works undertaken in this Revised Feasibility Study and its associated findings, Talis puts

forward the following recommendations for the Shire:

1. Commence engagement with relevant funding authorities and relevant stakeholders in relation to

seeking funding for the project to determine the likelihood of financial support. Talis anticipates

that relevant organisations would include the Department of State Development, the State

Department of Regional Development, Pilbara Development Commission and the Federal

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

2. Seek commitment on waste materials and tonnages from the key waste generators in Onslow and

the wider Pilbara region to underpin the viability of the WMF.

3. Continue with the implementation of the recommendations within the Original Feasibility Study

(where relevant) to further progress the Onslow WMF including Market Sounding and Site

Investigations.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page v

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Objectives and Scope of the Report ...................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of the Report ................................................................................................................ 2

2 Background .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Site Selection ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Site 10 ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Current Waste Services within Onslow ..................................................................................... 4

2.4 Original Feasibility Study .......................................................................................................... 4

3 Waste Generator Engagement and Waste Data ..................................................................... 6

3.1 Waste Generator Engagement ............................................................................................... 6

3.2 Waste Data .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Class III waste .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Class IV waste .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.4.1 Chevron hazardous waste ......................................................................................... 8

3.4.2 Regional hazardous waste ........................................................................................ 8

3.5 Total waste ............................................................................................................................... 9

4 Waste Projections .................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Population projections ........................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Chevron waste projections ................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Hazardous waste ................................................................................................................... 12

4.4 Waste projections .................................................................................................................. 12

4.5 Projections – Total waste ....................................................................................................... 15

4.6 Waste data and projections assumptions ............................................................................ 16

5 Funding Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 17

5.1 Building Better Regions Fund (formerly National Stronger Regions Fund) .............................. 17

5.2 Royalties for Regions ............................................................................................................. 17

5.2.1 Regional Investment Blueprint ................................................................................. 17

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page vi

5.2.2 Regional Grants Scheme ........................................................................................ 18

5.2.3 Community Chest Fund .......................................................................................... 18

5.3 Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility ................................................................................. 19

5.4 Community and other Funding Opportunities ...................................................................... 19

5.4.1 Australian Packaging Covenant .............................................................................. 19

5.4.2 Stronger Communities Programme ........................................................................ 19

5.4.3 Community Grants Scheme ................................................................................... 20

6 Infrastructure Design ............................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Landfill Options ...................................................................................................................... 21

6.2 Preferred Option .................................................................................................................... 22

6.3 Class IV Landfill ...................................................................................................................... 22

6.4 Landfill Capping and Restoration ......................................................................................... 23

6.5 Landfill Gas ............................................................................................................................ 23

6.6 Supporting Safe Infrastructure and Equipment ..................................................................... 23

7 Financial Modelling ................................................................................................................ 25

7.1 Capital Cost .......................................................................................................................... 25

7.1.1 Class IV Landfill ........................................................................................................ 25

7.2 Operational Costs ................................................................................................................. 28

7.3 Gate Fees.............................................................................................................................. 29

7.3.1 Gate Fee Modelling ................................................................................................ 29

7.3.2 Discounted Gate Fees ............................................................................................ 30

7.3.3 Landfill Gate Fee Scenarios..................................................................................... 30

8 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 32

8.1 Site 10 .................................................................................................................................... 32

8.2 Waste Data ............................................................................................................................ 32

8.3 Funding ................................................................................................................................. 34

8.4 Financial Model ..................................................................................................................... 34

8.5 Gate Fee ............................................................................................................................... 34

8.6 Commitment of Tonnages .................................................................................................... 35

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page vii

9 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 36

Tables

Table 3-1: Summary of Class III waste reported as part of the Study

Table 3-2: Regional hazardous waste by material type

Table 3-3: Estimated Regional hazardous waste volumes using Low and High scenarios

Table 3-4: Total waste generated in 2015/16 in the Onslow area and regional Class IV waste

Table 4-1: Projected Annual Average Growth Rates for population

Table 4-2: Onslow population projections from 2016 to 2039

Table 4-3: Summary of growth rate sources by waste category

Table 4-4: Breakdown of Waste Projections – High and Low scenario

Table 4-5: Total waste over estimated lifetime of Onslow WMF

Table 7-1: Component breakdown of landfill costs

Table 7-2: Machinery and Vehicle Costs

Table 7-3: Summary of Operating Expenditure

Table 7-4: Landfill Gate Fees over 5, 10 and 21 Year Periods

Table 7-5: Adjustment of Gate Fee for Class III and IV wastes 2019/20-2038/39

Table 7-6: Landfill Gate Fee Scenarios

Table 7-7: Calculated Landfill Gate Fee Scenarios


Table 8-2: Gate Fee ranges

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton

TW16012 - Revised Feasibility Study.1c October 2016 | Page viii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronym Term

4WD Four Wheel Drive

ANSIA Ashburton North Strategic Industrial Area

APC Australian Packaging Covenant

ASS Acid Sulphate Soils

BBRF Building Better Regions Fund

BPEM Best Practice Environmental Management

C&D Construction and Demolition

C&I Commercial and Industrial

CCF Community Chest Fund

CGS Community Grants Scheme

DER Department of Environment Regulation

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

GCL Geosynthetic Clay Liner

GIS Geographical Information Systems

GST Goods and Services Tax

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

LDPE Low Density Polyethylene

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

MGB Mobile Garbage Bin

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

PDC Pilbara Development Commission

RGS Regional Grants Scheme

SCP Stronger Communities Programme

UCL Unallocated Crown Land

WCS Waste Classification System

WMF Waste Management Facility

Note to Reader

All costs shown and discussed within this Report are exclusive of Goods and Services Tax (GST) unless

stated otherwise.

All gate fees listed in this document are break-even on capital and operational expenditure and

therefore exclude any profit margins. These are based on the current data on available tonnes.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


1 Introduction

The townsite of Onslow is located in the Shire of Ashburton (the Shire) approximately 100km east of the

North West Cape peninsula on the coast of Western Australia. The Shire’s Onslow landfill was closed in

2015 and a Waste Transfer Station, which opened in 2015, is now operating to manage waste

collected from the town. The waste is consolidated prior to haulage to another Shire landfill in Tom

Price for disposal.

In recent years, the Pilbara region experienced a significant period of growth due to the rapid

expansion of the resources industry, in particular in the mining and oil and gas sectors. Although over

the past two years, this growth has slowed, in Onslow, there are still significant developments for on

and off-shore liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing infrastructure including Wheatstone (Chevron) and

Macedon (BHP Billiton) and the ongoing development of the Ashburton North Strategic Industrial Area

(ANSIA). Most recently, the construction of the Onslow Marine Support Base at Onslow’s Beadon Creek

has commenced. This infrastructure is anticipated to convert Onslow into a key support hub for the

offshore oil and gas industry in the north-west.

It was originally anticipated that these developments would result in an additional 1,500 residents in

Onslow by 2016, placing additional pressure on a future WMF through the generation of greater

volumes and more complex waste streams. This level of growth has not come into fruition due to a

number of factors, including the economic downturn in the resources sector. However, Onslow is one

of the key areas where economic and population growth is still being experienced.

Through the State Development Agreements, provisions have been made to improve infrastructure

and critical services within Onslow to support the expanding community and also entice future

industrial development. One such project is the proposed development of a modern Waste

Management Facility (WMF) in Onslow including a Class IV landfill.

In light of this, the Shire undertook a Site Selection Study in 2013 to identify a Preferred Site for the new

WMF based on best practice siting and design principles. The Preferred Site was identified at a location

approximately 36km south of Onslow on Onslow Road. Following this, a Feasibility Study (Original

Feasibility Study) was undertaken to determine the technical and financial viability of developing the

WMF.

As mentioned above, there has been a number of significant changes since the Original Feasibility

Study was completed including an economic downturn. Therefore, the resources sector and,

consequently, projected growth rates for Onslow have been revised. In addition, the capital cost of

infrastructure has subsequently been reduced. Talis Consultants (Talis) has been commissioned by the

Shire to undertake a Revised Feasibility Study to assess the financial implications of developing a

modern WMF at the Preferred Site (Site 10).

1.1 Objectives and Scope of the Report

The objective of the Revised Feasibility Study is to ascertain the financial viability of developing a Class

III/IV Waste Management Facility at Site 10.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


1.2 Scope of the Report

To satisfy the objective of the Study, this report contains the following sections:

Background;

Waste Generator Engagement and Waste Data;

Waste Projections;

Funding Opportunities;

Infrastructure Design;

Financial Modelling;

Discussion; and

Recommendations.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


2 Background

A Site Selection Study was completed by Talis in late 2013 for a new WMF to cater for the future needs

of the Onslow catchment. The Site Selection Study process was undertaken utilising best practice siting

and design principles to identify a Preferred Site for the new modern WMF. The following sections

describe the process of the Site Selection Study and provide background information regarding the

Preferred Site.

2.1 Site Selection

The initial phase of the Site Selection process involved defining Site Selection Criteria based on

environmental, social and planning factors that governed the overall siting works. These include

aspects such as distance from Onslow and separation distances from social and environmentally

sensitive areas. Constraints mapping was then carried out utilising Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) spatial modelling. A suite of GIS layers covering social, environmental and planning factors were

utilised to identify Sites of Interest that warranted further consideration by the Shire.

A total of 12 Sites of Interest were identified through the mapping analyses and Site Selection Criteria.

The 12 Sites of Interest were then assessed through a Multi Criteria Analysis on a range of aspects

including distance from Onslow, road access, separation distances to sensitive receptors and land

availability. From this analysis, the strengths, weaknesses and points of difference between the various

sites were evaluated.

Based on the analyses undertaken, Talis identified ‘Site 10’ as the Preferred Site for the development of

a modern WMF and is the subject of this Revised Feasibility Study.

2.2 Site 10

The Preferred Site is located on Lot 150 Onslow Road, Thalanyji, Western Australia, approximately 36km

south of the town of Onslow. Lot 150 is a cadastral lot that is made up of multiple land parcels covering

over 100,000 hectares (ha) and specified as Unallocated Crown Land (UCL). Of this area, Site 10

occupies approximately 150ha. The Site is currently managed by Department of Parks and Wildlife

(DPaW). Whilst initial consultation has been undertaken by the Shire with DPaW, who support the

development of the WMF in principle, tenure would need to be secured prior to development of the

Site.

There is no formed access track to the Preferred Site location, however access is obtainable by 4WD.

There is an existing track from a previous use off Onslow Road approximately 38km south of the Onslow

townsite, which penetrates 200m from Onslow Road and from which access via 4WD to the Preferred

Site is achievable.

In order to examine the suitability of the Preferred Site for landfilling activities, Talis assessed the

information obtained from the Site Selection Study against the following documents:

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria’s Best Practice Environmental Management

Guidelines for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills (2015) (BPEM

guidelines); and

Department of Environment Regulation’s (DER) Best Practice Environmental Management

Guidelines for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills (2006) (DER BPEM

guidelines).

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


This assessment identifies the environmental attributes of the Preferred Site which currently meet best

practice guidelines, as well as those requiring further investigation. Minimum residential, water body

and aerodrome servicing buffer requirements are easily met, with a ridgeline in the topography also

creating a natural barrier from any visual impact of the landfill. The Site is located approximately 30km

away from the nearest fault line, ensuring low impact in the event of an earthquake, and there is no

presence of Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) within the area.

A lack of publicly available groundwater data creates the requirement for a Hydrogeological

Investigation, as well as a Geotechnical Investigation to interrogate the underlying geology. These

investigations will help to determine the geological and groundwater priorities. A full desktop survey is

also recommended to refine the list of conservation significant flora and fauna that may occur over

the Preferred Site.

2.3 Current Waste Services within Onslow

The former Onslow Landfill was the sole piece of public waste management infrastructure in the Onslow

region. The landfill had an area of approximately 5.5 hectares and was in operation from the late

1970s. As of August 2015, the landfill had been closed having reached the end of its operational life.

A new Waste Transfer Station was developed at Lot 500 Onslow Road as a replacement service,

redirecting waste produced in Onslow to the Tom Price Waste Disposal Site.

The Shire operates a weekly kerbside refuse collection service in the Onslow townsite for residents and

some commercial premises. Waste is collected in mobile garbage bins (MGBs) and consists typically

of mixed residential waste and incidental mixed commercial waste.

Mixed Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste, which is generated from or is the direct result of

commercial and industrial activities (and which is not Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) or Construction and

Demolition (C&D) waste), is also accepted at the Onslow Waste Transfer Station. This waste is generally

self-hauled or collected by small private waste providers.

C&D waste consists of materials generated as a result of construction, refurbishment or demolition

activities. As with C&I waste, this is generally self-hauled by residents, building contractors or small

private waste service providers.

It is envisaged that the continued operation of the Waste Transfer Station will be assessed in the broader

Onslow waste management context to determine its ongoing viability as a community drop-off facility

when the new WMF is delivered at Site 10.

2.4 Original Feasibility Study

Based on the waste tonnages at the time of the Original Feasibility Study, the preferred option was

identified as a single landfill developed to Class IV standard but accepting both Class III and Class IV

type waste.

The Preferred Site for development of the WMF in the Original Feasibility Study was Site 10. As mentioned

earlier, Site 10 was identified as the Preferred Site within the Site Selection Study. Site 10 is still considered

to be suitable for the development of the WMF but would warrant further consideration. The Site was

considered suitable due to its potential ability to comply with best practice siting and design standards,

the considerable separation distances to sensitive receptors and provision for suitable area for current

and future uses at the WMF.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


The capital costs for developing the WMF under the Preferred Option for the Original Feasibility Study

was $47.43 million (excluding GST and inflation) with operational costs totalling $18.08 million. This

resulted in a break-even gate fee over the ~21 year lifetime of the landfill as $170.54/tonne. It is

common for adjusted gate fee structures to be adopted at waste facilities, with higher gate fees

imposed for more hazardous materials. This resulted in discounted gate fees of $144.96 for Class III

materials and $272.86 for Class IV material in the Original Feasibility Study.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


3 Waste Generator Engagement and Waste Data

3.1 Waste Generator Engagement

The first stage of the Revised Feasibility Study was to engage with waste generators to request updated

waste data and, where possible, estimated future waste tonnages in order to update the demand

profile of the Onslow WMF over a 21 year period. The Shire sought to engage with key waste generators

that would potentially utilise the Waste Management Facility, including waste generators operating in

the Shire as well as Class III/IV waste generators operating in the wider Pilbara and Mid-West regions.

The first step was to develop Data Collection Sheets that were designed to capture the waste data in

a consistent format. Two versions of the Data Collection Sheets were developed:

Local Survey – for waste generators located within Onslow and the immediately surrounding

area; and

Regional Survey – for waste generators located in the wider Pilbara and Mid-West regions.

The two versions of the Data Collection Sheets were slightly different based on the target recipient.

Both of the Data Collection Sheets included the following common elements:

Respondent’s Details – This tab requested basic contact information from the

stakeholder and high level detail of their site(s) activities. Data on anticipated future growth

was also requested to assist in projecting future waste streams in the Study Area.

Waste Register – The Waste Register tab requested details on the source, quantity,

treatment and/or disposal method for all waste streams generated by the stakeholder. For the

Regional Survey, the sheet asked the respondent to specifically identify Class III or IV wastes

generated. Both tabs asked recipients to indicate if they would be willing to send their waste

to Onslow WMF and, if so, what proportion of waste currently generated.

Waste Projections – This sheet aimed to capture the anticipated future waste quantities of

waste materials originating from a stakeholder’s site(s). Respondents could provide future

quantities and anticipated years of waste generation for each stream.

Waste Classification System – The Waste Classification System is a data reporting system

developed by Talis. It consists of a three-level coding system to classify waste materials in

relation to waste stream (MSW, C&I and C&D), sector of the economy and material type,

reflecting the composition of the waste. Respondents were asked to assign the appropriate

codes from the Waste Classification System for each waste material recorded in the Register

and Projections tabs.

The next stage was to identify the relevant stakeholders that were to be contacted to request waste

data including resource companies and private waste service providers. The stakeholder list was

prepared based on industry knowledge of the area, past projects, interrogation of the Department of

Mines and Petroleum’s MINEDEX database and discussions with project partners. A stakeholder tracker

of all relevant contacts was developed and maintained for the duration of the engagement exercise

to track all communications.

Talis contacted stakeholders using a variety of means including email and phone. Following initial

communication, Talis undertook follow-up emails and phone calls to stakeholders.

In total, 19 organisations were contacted to request data. A number of organisations cited interest in

the study but were not in a position to provide data at that time, such as K+S Group (whose proposed

development is in the early stages of planning). Unfortunately, all of the waste service providers

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


contacted declined the request for release of their current waste data, due to commercial sensitivity.

However, in total five responses were received from the organisations contacted. This is a low response

rate however, data was captured from the key waste generators and managers in Onslow and the

Pilbara region. Therefore, the percentage capture rate of total waste would be higher. As will be

outlined in the latter stages of the report, the low response rate needs to be considered in relation to

the waste data projections.

3.2 Waste Data

In relation to the waste data gathered as part of the consultation, Talis has grouped the waste based

the following broad categories:

Class III waste:

o Shire waste;

o Chevron Class III waste; and

o Other Class III waste.

Class IV waste:

o Chevron Class IV waste; and

o Regional hazardous waste.

3.3 Class III waste

Class III waste generally refers to waste that is required to be disposed of in a putrescible landfill facility.

This can include waste materials such as mixed refuse, food waste and building rubble. For the

purposes of the Study, Class III waste included:

Shire waste including municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial (C&I) waste

collected by the Shire within Onslow;

Chevron Class III waste generated from their operations at Gorgon on Barrow Island,

Wheatstone Offshore Platform and the Wheatstone site in Onslow; and

Class III waste that is generated in the Onslow area by private waste generators and collected

by private waste service providers, reported by the generators.

It is assumed that any Class III waste generated in the Pilbara region, outside of Onslow, would not be

transported to Onslow for disposal and instead would be disposed of at a local Class II/III landfill facility.

Therefore, Class III waste gathered in the wider Pilbara area as part of the consultation has not been

included in the analysis.

Table 3-1: Summary of Class III waste reported as part of the Study

Class III Categories Waste volumes

(tonnes)

Shire waste (MSW and C&I) 3,965

Chevron Class III 1,423

Other Class III (C&I and C&D) 40

Total Class III 5,428

As Table 3-1 above shows, the total tonnage of Class III waste materials is estimated to be 5,428

tonnes as of 2015/16. There is understood to be additional materials that are collected from the

Onslow area by private waste service providers who transport the waste to Karratha for disposal. These

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


waste tonnages have not been captured unless reported directly by the waste generator.

Unfortunately, the waste service providers declined the request for their current waste data, due to

commercial sensitivity. As such, the figures cited above should be considered to be conservative.

3.4 Class IV waste

The second main category of waste analysed for the Study was Class IV waste. This waste was further

broken down into two components:

Chevron hazardous (Class IV) waste; and

Regional (Class IV) hazardous waste.

3.4.1 Chevron hazardous waste

As part of this Study, Chevron’s hazardous waste (Class IV) volumes were reported as 1,024 tonnes per

annum, which includes waste generated across the Wheatstone and Gorgon projects. This figure is

considered to be conservative as it does not take account of triennial maintenance works and any

future expansion works, which would be anticipated to increase hazardous waste volumes from current

levels.

3.4.2 Regional hazardous waste

As mentioned earlier, if the Class IV landfill was constructed at Onslow, it would be the first in the region.

Consequently, it is considered pertinent to consider Class IV waste that is or has, historically, been

generated in the Pilbara region and may be being stockpiled at various locations. A limited amount

of up to date waste data from regional areas was gathered as part of the recent waste data exercise.

As such, previously published data from the Pilbara Waste Data Study from 2011-12 was utilised.

Analysis of this data found that there was 26,785 tonnes of hazardous materials generated across the

wider Pilbara region. Talis recognises that this volume of hazardous material will require either Class III

or Class IV waste disposal. However, the Pilbara Waste Data Study did not determine the proportion to

be designated to either disposal option. (Table 3-2). Accounting for Chevron’s data in the Pilbara

Waste Data Study (5,023 tonnes) reported in 2011-12, which was subtracted from the total to avoid

double counting, a total of 21,762 tonnes was estimated to be generated.

Table 3-2: Regional hazardous waste by material type

Waste Material and Waste Classification

System code

Pilbara region

(tonnes)

216 – Mixed Commercial Hazardous 886

217 – Hydrocarbon Contaminated Materials 3,666

299 – Other Hazardous 403

209 – Contaminated Soil- Hydrocarbon 19,121

210 – Contaminated packaging 140

405 – Timber – treated 2,536

702 – Drilling Muds 33

TOTAL 26,785

Chevron Class IV reported (2011/12) 5,023

Total Hazardous Material 21,762

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


As mentioned above, the Pilbara Waste Data Study did not determine the proportion of Class III and

Class IV hazardous waste materials. Therefore, Talis has made a judgement on the assumption that

not all of the quantities of hazardous materials identified in Table 3-2 would be classified as Class IV in

reality. Additionally, it is the be assumed that not all materials would be transported from across the

Pilbara from the source of generation to Onslow, two scenarios have been proposed to estimate

regional hazardous waste volumes that could be disposed of in Onslow, namely:

Low – assumes that 10% of the Regional Hazardous materials would be transported to Onslow;

and

High – assumes a higher rate of 20% of the Regional Hazardous materials being transported

to Onslow.

Table 3-3: Estimated Regional hazardous waste volumes using Low and High scenarios

Category Low (10%) High (20%)

Regional hazardous materials

(Class IV)

2,176 4,352

As is shown in Table 3-3, these scenarios resulted in the tonnages of hazardous Class IV waste being

estimated as 2,176 tonnes for the Low scenario and 4,352 tonnes for the High scenario. In addition, it

is understood from Talis’ knowledge of the Pilbara region that there are significant quantities of other

Class IV waste that are being stockpiled. This includes old railway sleepers (an estimated 60,000 tonnes)

and substantial quantities of railway ballast spoil, both of which are understood to be contaminated

with dieldren. The closure planning works for mine sites in the State has evolved significantly and,

therefore, there is a greater potential for these materials to require treatment arising from these works.

However, these potential volumes have not been accounted for within the calculations, illustrating the

further conservatism in the capacity modelling.

Another key factor to bear in mind is that Cleanaway were recently looking at developing a Class IV

landfill in Roebourne however this was not supported by the City of Karratha, who indicated that they

would be heavily opposed to any potential planning application. Cleanaway has subsequently put

the project on long-term hold and has not progressed any further with it since. However, it is assumed

that Cleanaway recognised the commercial viability of a Class IV facility within the Pilbara. This

commercial viability may have been further bolstered from the closure of the hazardous waste

incinerator in Port Hedland that Talis understands accepted approximately 4,000 tonnes per annum.

3.5 Total waste

The table below (Table 3-4) summarises the total waste generated in the Onslow area along with

estimated regional Class IV waste. Taking into account the two scenarios (Low and High) applied to

the Regional Class IV waste, there were two estimated waste generation totals (i.e. combined Class III

and IV waste) with 8,628 tonnes for the Low scenario and 10,804 tonnes for the High scenario.


Waste Category Tonnes


Chevron Class III waste 1,423


Total Class III waste 5,428

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Chevron Class IV waste 1,024

Waste Category LOW SCENARIO HIGH SCENARIO

Regional Class IV waste 2,176 4,352

Total Class IV waste 3,200 5,376

TOTAL WASTE 8,628 10,804

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


4 Waste Projections

Waste projections are required to ensure that the proposed WMF can cater for future demands.

Traditionally, two methods are used to estimate future waste generation quantities. Population growth

rates combined with per capita waste generation rates are utilised for MSW. Forecasting in economic

and construction activities are generally utilised to project future C&I and C&D waste quantities.

In regional and remote areas such as Onslow, use of past trends to predict future population and

economic activity can be unreliable due to the impacts of individual projects. Therefore, scenario

projections, based on a list of known and possible future initiatives and projects, are sometimes used

as an alternative to projecting based on past trends. However, identifying upcoming projects over an

extended period into the future is also very problematic.

Given its geographical isolation, relatively small population and typically large size of resource

development projects in Onslow, population is strongly influenced by growth in the resources sector.

Most of the population is involved directly or indirectly in the resources industry. Such growth also results

in increases in construction activity, generating C&D waste.

4.1 Population projections

Table 4-1 sets out the projected annual average growth rates across a low and high scenario. The

growth rate for 2015-2024 were sourced from the Pilbara Development Commission’s (PDC) report,

Assessment of Accommodation Need in Tom Price, Onslow and Paraburdoo: Final Report published

in 2015. There are no future growth rates available for the town of Onslow beyond 2024. Talis has

adopted conservative and linear growth rates of 0% for the low scenario and 1% for the high scenario

up to 2039. In September 2016, Talis was advised that PDC are further revising these projections as

they were considered to be too conservative. However, these were not available prior to completion

of this report and therefore have not been included in the projections.


Scenario

Average Annual Growth Rate

Pilbara Development

Commission (2015)

2015 – 2024

2025 – 2039

Low -3% 0%

High 0% 1%

Both scenarios indicate a reduction in the Onslow population in 2018 (believed to coincide with the

end of the current construction phase of Wheatstone in Onslow). The High scenario then assumes a

relatively low level of growth over the following 21 years to 2039 of 1% per annum. The Low scenario

assumes a levelling out of growth to 0% per annum. Table 4-2 sets out Onslow’s population projection

figures up to 2039.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Table 4-2: Onslow population projections from 2016 to 2039

Scenario Year

2016 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2039

Low 1,780 1,420 1,310 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270

High 2,050 1,930 2,068 1,959 2,059 2,164 2,252

4.2 Chevron waste projections

In relation to the projections and Chevron’s waste, two scenarios were devised in consultation with

Chevron. These consisted of:

Low scenario: assumed that Chevron’s Wheatstone and Gorgon projects are not expanded

beyond their currently planned levels of 3 trains (Gorgon) and 2 trains (Wheatstone) (i.e. uses

baseline data).

High scenario: assumed that Chevron expands Wheatstone and Gorgon with one additional

train at each project site (4 trains at Gorgon and 3 trains at Wheatstone) at year 10 (2025). The

long term expansion plans indicate that Gorgon may construct a total of 5 trains and

Wheatstone may also construct 5 trains however, these expansion plans will depend on future

market demands and the model has, therefore, applied conservatism in relation to these.

4.3 Hazardous waste

For Other Regional hazardous waste, the Low growth scenario assumes 0% growth per annum of these

waste volumes and 2% growth per annum in these waste materials each year under the High growth

scenario.

4.4 Waste projections

Each of the waste categories were allocated a projected growth rate based on the most appropriate

data available. The population projections were utilised for the Shire waste and Other Class III

categories. These population projections were derived from the latest available population data for

Onslow from the Pilbara Development Commission (PDC), published in 2015. The PDC data provides

annual projections up to 2019 and then a projection for 2024. For Talis’ analyses, a Low and a High

population growth scenario has been adopted up to 2039 (i.e. 21 years from the first year of expected

operation of the WMF – 2019). Table 4-3 sets out the growth rate sources utilised for the various waste

categories.

Table 4-3: Summary of growth rate sources by waste category

Category Source of growth rate

Shire Waste Population projections

Chevron Class III Chevron (data and discussions)

Chevron Class IV Chevron (data and discussions)

Other Class III Population projections

Other Class IV

Assume 0% growth per annum for Low scenario and 2% growth for High

scenario.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


The projections indicate that, under the High scenario, waste volumes would remain relatively stable

at around 10,800 tonnes per annum from 2016, growing to over 11,000 in 2019 (the currently

estimated first year of operation for the WMF) and increasing in 2025 with the expansion of the

Wheatstone and Gorgon projects (additional trains). In relation to the Low scenario, waste volumes are

expected to reduce following completion of the current Wheatstone construction phase. This scenario

estimates a levelling off of waste volumes with no major expansion and new construction projects up

to 2039. A breakdown of both the High and Low scenario waste projections are shown in Table 4-4.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Table 4-4: Breakdown of Waste Projections – High and Low scenario

Waste Category

Baseline

waste data

2015/16

(tonnes)

High Scenario Waste projections (tonnes)

2019 2025 2030 2035

Shire waste (MSW and C&I) 3,965 4,061 3,789 3,983 4,186

Chevron Class III 1,423 1,423 1,933 1,933 1,933

Other Class III (C&I and C&D) 40 40 38 40 42

Total Class III 5,428 5,524 5,760 5,956 6,161

Chevron – Class IV 1,024 1,024 1,201 1,201 1,201

Other Regional Class IV materials 4,352 4,618 5,201 5,742 6,340

Total Class IV 5,376 5,642 6,402 6,943 7,541

Total Waste 10,804 11,166 12,162 12,899 13,702

Waste Category

Baseline

waste data

2015/16

(tonnes)

Low Scenario Waste projections (tonnes)

2019 2025 2030 2035

Shire waste (MSW and C&I) 3,965 2,940 2,828 2,829 2,829

Chevron Class III 1,423 1,423 1,423 1,423 1,423

Other Class III (C&I and C&D) 40 29 28 28 28

Total Class III 5,428 4,392 4,279 4,280 4,280

Chevron – Class IV 1,024 1,024 1,024 1,024 1,024

Other Regional Class IV materials 2,176 2,176 2,176 2,176 2,176

Total Class IV 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200

Total Waste 8,628 7,592 7,479 7,480 7,480

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Figure 4-1 illustrates the future waste projections for Onslow from 2016 to 2039 based on the Low and

High growth scenarios.

Figure 4-1: Projected future waste generation volumes for Onslow from 2016 to 2039 under Low

and High growth scenarios

Under the High growth scenario, Onslow’s projected waste generation volumes up to 2039 shows

incremental growth around 2018-19 and 2024-25. There were no published projections data available

after 2024. Talis, therefore assumed population and associated waste generation levels off with 1%

growth from 2024 to 2039. The High growth scenario assumes that there will be expansion of Chevron’s

projects in the region, namely Wheatstone and Gorgon, which will result in increased population and

increases in waste generation. There are also a number of other development projects anticipated in

the area which have not be accounted for due to a lack of available data, such as the K+S Group

Ashburton salt project and the Onslow Marine Supply Base at Beadon Creek.

The High growth waste projections should, therefore, be considered to be conservative as they do not

take account of any major developments in the area other than Wheatstone and any associated

population increases resulting from these developments. The Onslow population would be likely to

increase as a result of new developments or expansion works, which would result in an increase in the

Shire’s waste volumes above currently projected levels.

The waste projections under the Low growth scenario shows a significant reduction in population after

2017, which is believed to coincide with the anticipated completion of the current Wheatstone project

construction phase. There were no published projections data available after 2024. Talis therefore

assumed conservative population and associated waste generation levels with 0% growth from 2024

to 2039.

4.5 Projections – Total waste

Table 4-5 sets out the tonnages for Class III and IV waste from the Original Feasibility Study against the

revised Class III and IV tonnages (Low and High scenarios) over the estimated lifetime of the landfill

(~21 years).

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

20

37

20

38

20

39

Wa

ste

To

nna

ge

s

Low

Scenario

High

Scenario

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Table 4-5: Total waste over estimated lifetime of Onslow WMF

Waste category Original Feasibility Revised Feasibility

Low growth scenario High growth scenario

Class III 271,314 105,643 138,857

Class IV 109,976 76,791 159,623

Total 381,290 182,434 298,481

The biggest drop is in Class III waste, down from 271,314 tonnes in the Original Feasibility Study to

105,643 (61% decrease) for low and 138,857 (49% decrease) for the high scenario. The Class IV waste

had a less significant drop, from 109,976 tonnes down to 76,791 (30% decrease) for the low or

increasing to 159,623 (45% increase) for the high scenario. However, as previously stated, the model

is considered to have a lot of conservatism applied including the volume of waste currently generated

and further population and economic growth, which will affect future waste tonnages.

4.6 Waste data and projections assumptions

The following assumptions have been made in relation to waste data projections:

Chevron waste data projections are comprised of all Wheatstone waste (including Wheatstone

Offshore platform) and Gorgon (Barrow Island) waste requiring Class III and IV disposal.

Other waste materials are known to be collected by private waste service providers in the

Onslow area however, these waste quantities were unavailable for inclusion in the calculations.

No construction waste has been accounted for in the waste figures associated with the future

expansion of Wheatstone or Gorgon (High scenario) – it would be anticipated that there would

be significant volumes of construction waste materials from both Wheatstone and Gorgon

should the expansion plans proceed along with construction waste materials from other

developments were they to proceed.

Population projections have not accounted for the potential increase as a result of project

expansion works in the area. Were Chevron’s expansion plans to proceed or other

developments to commence, the Onslow population would also have the potential to

increase resulting in an increase in Shire waste volumes above currently projected levels.

It is understood from discussions with Chevron that there will be peaks in some hazardous waste

materials every three years as a result of major maintenance works. However, the increase in

these waste materials have not been quantified by Chevron and are, therefore, not included

in the model.

There are believed to be additional Class IV materials that are being stockpiled in the Pilbara

region, such as contaminated railway sleepers. These material volumes have not been

included in the model due to some uncertainty of their actual volumes and a clear

understanding of the timescales for their likely disposal.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


5 Funding Opportunities

Since the Original Feasibility Study, some State and Federal funding opportunities have changed. Talis

is of the view that there are a variety of significant grant opportunities from both State and Federal

Government that could be utilised to obtain capital investment funding to help with the establishment

of the WMF. The development of the WMF is potentially attractive to funding bodies as it would bring

a number of opportunities to the area including economic development, diversification of the

economy and workforce and an increase in local employment. The following section outlines the

updated State and Federal funding opportunities available to the Shire and how they can potentially

be utilised for waste management purposes.

5.1 Building Better Regions Fund (formerly National Stronger Regions Fund)

In September 2016, the Federal Government announced that a new fund, the Building Better Regions

Fund (BBRF) will replace the National Stronger Regions Fund, which had provided funding to regional

and disadvantaged communities for priority infrastructure since 2015. The BBRF will aim to create jobs,

drive economic growth and support strong regional communities across Australia through investment

in infrastructure projects and community investments. The BBRF will assess applications across three

categories determined by the size of the project. Guidelines were being developed by the

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development at the time of writing.

5.2 Royalties for Regions

Royalties for Regions funding is provided to promote and facilitate economic, business and social

development in regional WA. The Royalties for Regions Act 2009 ensures that the State distributes 25%

of the State’s mining and onshore petroleum royalties each year to regional areas.

The Royalties for Regions funds are aim to deliver benefits to regional WA through the following

objectives:

Building capacity in regional communities;

Retaining benefits in regional communities;

Improving services to regional communities;

Attaining sustainability;

Expanding opportunity; and

Growing prosperity.

Royalties for Regions distributes benefits to regional communities through supporting funds which

include:

Regional Investment Blueprint;

Regional Grants Scheme; and

Community Chest Fund.

5.2.1 Regional Investment Blueprint

The various Regional Development Commissions across the State are required to prepare Regional

Blueprints to outline future population and economic growth in their areas. These Regional Blueprints

also outline key regional projects required to facilitate this growth. Pilbara’s Regional Investment

Blueprint provides the Region with a road map, and sets out its aspirational vision. Developed by the

Pilbara Development Commission (PDC), the Blueprint is the State Government’s definitive plan

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


identifying opportunities to facilitate continued growth in the Pilbara. The Pilbara Development

Commission will administer a share of the $330 million of total funding over five years, through the

Royalties for Regions programme, to develop major economic, social and community development

projects. Regional Investment Blueprints in other areas of the State have provided a means of

accessing capital investment funding for ‘shovel ready’ projects. There is an opportunity for the Shire

to access this funding through engagement with the PDC.

Talis has assisted a variety of local government groupings to secure funding for landfill facilities through

the Royalties for Regions funding schemes. The Bunbury Wellington Regional Group was awarded $4.2

million dollars to help secure funding for the development of a Regional Landfill to service the local

governments of the South-West. This project is still ongoing with site investigations set to commence in

the near future. In addition, the Shires of Katanning, Ravensthorpe, Jerramungup, Kent and

Gnowangerup secured $5 million in funding to help with the establishment of two landfills within the

Great Southern Region to cater for their waste requirements. In both instances, the funding was

provided to help with the establishment of the facility through capital investment. Talis recognises the

opportunity for the Shire to secure funding through the Royalties for Region scheme. Therefore, Talis

recommends that the Shire look to seek funding for the Onslow Waste Management Facility.

5.2.2 Regional Grants Scheme

The objective of the Regional Grants Scheme is to assist in the development of infrastructure, services

and community projects intended to build vibrant regions with strong economies.

The Regional Grants Scheme (RGS) is an initiative of Royalties for Regions that is administered by the

State’s nine Regional Development Commissions (in Onslow’s case, the Pilbara Development

Commission (PDC)) with support from the Department of Regional Development. Funding is available

to community, public and private organisations to assist in attracting investment, increasing jobs and

improving economic and community infrastructure and services in the Region. This includes funding

for the provision of headworks and the development and establishment of services and programs.

Grants are available between $50,001 and $300,000. Talis recognises that this funding could be

obtained by the Shire for the WMF, particularly to further progress the site investigations and design of

the Facility.

The 2017 round for Regional Grant Scheme applications with the PDC closes on 3rd October 2016.

5.2.3 Community Chest Fund

The second Royalties for Regions fund is the Community Chest Fund (CCF). This program provides

grants of up to $50,000 and is also administered by the relevant Regional Development Commission.

Local governments and not-for-profit organisations are eligible to apply. However, projects cannot

apply for both the CCF and the Regional Grants Scheme. The CCF’s broad objectives are to:

Retain and build the benefits of regional communities;

Support improved, relevant and accessible local services;

Enable communities to deliver a sustainable economic and social future;

Assist regional communities to prosper through increased employment, business and industry

development opportunities; and

Increase capacity for local strategic planning and decision-making.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Given the relatively low value of available funding for the CCF, this funding stream would be

considered applicable to assisting with supporting functions of the WMF, such as the establishment or

operation of a Reuse Shop.

5.3 Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) aims to facilitate economic development in the north

of Australia by providing concessional finance to eligible parties for economic infrastructure projects.

The NAIF is a major long-term initiative stemming from the Federal Government’s 2015 White Paper

‘Our North, Our Future’, which will see up to $5 billion invested over 5 years. It is overseen by the Minister

for Resources and Northern Australia and led by an independent board. The objectives of the NAIF are

to:

support the construction of economic infrastructure that provides a basis for the longer term

expansion of industry and population in Northern Australia;

ensure the Commonwealth is repaid in full and provides only the concessionality necessary to

allow a particular project to proceed;

operate in partnership with commercial lenders, not in competition;

support infrastructure projects that provide future economic benefits;

be credible in financial markets and meeting public sector accountability standards; and

catalyse further private sector investment in northern Australia.

In order to be eligible, projects will need to meet mandatory criteria including demonstrating public

benefit, involve construction of infrastructure and have an Indigenous engagement strategy.

5.4 Community and other Funding Opportunities

The following funding opportunities would not be directly relevant to the establishment of the Onslow

WMF but could provide funding opportunities for waste management initiatives that are related to the

functions of the WMF such as partnerships between community groups and the Shire.

5.4.1 Australian Packaging Covenant

The Australian Packaging Covenant (APC) is an initiative which aims to change the culture of

business to design more sustainable packaging, increase recycling rates and reduce packaging litter.

The covenant is an agreement between government, industry and community groups to find and to

fund solutions to address packaging sustainability issues.

The APC provides funding to projects which contribute towards the achievement of optimised

packaging design, efficient collection and recycling, and a demonstrated commitment to product

stewardship.

Funding for projects is only available to APC signatories. Projects may be instigated and managed by

industry or government, individually or jointly, and be local, regional or national in focus.

5.4.2 Stronger Communities Programme

The Stronger Communities Programme (SCP) is administered by the Federal Department of

Infrastructure and Regional Development. The programme aims to fund small capital projects in local

communities of up to $20,000 with the applicant required to match the grant in cash or in-kind on a

dollar for dollar basis.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


A key component of the Programme is input from the community. The relevant Member of Parliament

must undertake community consultation to identify priority projects with eligibility on an invite only basis.

At the time of writing, a new funding round for 2016-17 was yet to be announced.

5.4.3 Community Grants Scheme

The Western Australian Waste Authority’s Community Grants Scheme (CGS) provides funding support

for waste initiatives under Objective 5 of the State’s Waste Strategy, namely “Develop and support

programs and initiatives, including awards, that acknowledge, celebrate and reward excellence in

waste avoidance, resource recovery and reduced landfilling behaviours and outcomes and that

contribute to the implementation of this Strategy”.

The funding for the CGS is drawn from the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Account, which

receives revenue generated from the Landfill Levy, which charges a tax on waste landfilled within the

Perth Metropolitan Area. Funding of up to $20,000 per project is available with the CGS generally

funding up to 50% of the total project costs.

Eligible organisations that may apply for CGS funding include not-for-profit groups and

incorporated community based organisations in Western Australia. Partnerships between community

groups and local governments are also acceptable, but the community group must be the CGS

applicant and be responsible for managing and completing the project. The local government

authority is encouraged to provide in-kind or financial support to the group.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


6 Infrastructure Design

The conceptual design works were prepared in accordance with relevant best practice standards to

provide the Shire with sufficient information to make informed decisions regarding the development

of a modern WMF. For the purposes of the conceptual design works, the High growth scenario was

adopted.

6.1 Landfill Options

The predicted waste types to be accepted indicate that composite lined fully engineered landfills for

Class III and Class IV will be required. With regard to the spatial requirements, the landfill cells will

encompass a large proportion of the proposed WMF. In contrast to other waste infrastructure

components at the WMF, the landfill footprint would be progressively developed through the operating

life of the facility.

Based on the projected waste tonnages under the High growth scenario, it is anticipated that the total

void space requirement for the Class III landfill is 201,768m3 and the Class IV landfill is 235,313m

3 over

the first 21 years of operation (inclusive of daily cover). As the construction and operation of all of the

landfill options assessed would be relatively similar, Talis has undertaken an assessment of the most

appropriate means of developing the proposed landfill area.

Similar to the Original Feasibility Study, these options included:


Option 2: A single landfill developed to Class IV standard but accepting Class III and Class IV

type waste.

The following assumptions were factored into the assessment:

The above ground height of the landfill would be restricted to 10m so as not to create a visual

impact above the height of the natural ridgeline;

The footprint of the landfill will be excavated approximately 3m into the ground. If the geology

does not permit this, then there will have to be a bund around it to create the artificial in

ground void space;

The landfill would be developed in a number of cells to cater for an operating landfill life of

~21 years; and

Daily cover throughout landfilling operations is assumed to be 15% of the total void space.

The findings of the assessment of each option are summarised below:

Option 1: Separate Class III and Class IV landfills

For a facility with a separate Class III and Class IV landfill, the Class III landfill would require

approximately 201,768m3 of void space and occupy an area of 127m by 224m, which equates to

approximately 28,500m2.

The estimated capital cost of developing a Class III landfill to cater for Class III type waste for a period

of 21 years is approximately $10.79M (excluding inflation and loan interest).

The Class IV landfill would require approximately 235,313m3

of void space and occupy an area of

135m by 239m, which equates to approximately 32,200m2. The estimated capital cost of developing

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


a Class IV landfill for Class IV waste in the same period is approximately $14.15M (excluding inflation

and loan interest), and assumes the Class II and IV landfills share plant, equipment and a weighbridge.

Option 2: A single landfill developed to Class IV standard but accepting Class III and Class IV type

waste

A single landfill that is developed to Class IV standard and could therefore accept both Class III and

Class IV type waste would require a volume of approximately 437,080m3. This landfill would occupy

an area of 175m by 309m which equates to approximately 54,000m2. For comparative purposes, the

above ground height of the single landfill would also be restricted to 10m, and the footprint of the

landfill will be excavated approximately 3m into the ground, with daily cover assumed to be 15% of

the total void space.

The estimated capital cost of developing a Class IV landfill that accepts both Class III and Class IV

type wastes for a period of 21 years is approximately $22.03M (excluding inflation and loan interest).

6.2 Preferred Option

Based on the assessment, Option 2 was deemed the most suitable option. The key reasons for this



The capital costs of developing a Class IV landfill to accept both Class III and Class IV waste

volumes over a 21 year period is lower than the cost of developing separate landfills.

Option 1 was not considered feasible due to the increased costs that would result from operating two

separate landfills. Fuel consumption, administrative tasks and environmental monitoring are all

expected to increase with two landfills, incurring additional operational costs. The overall site layout of

the facility would also require increased internal infrastructure (separate routes between landfills etc),

which are likely to cause confusion amongst drivers.

6.3 Class IV Landfill

A Class IV (Category 65 Landfill) is defined in the Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions

(Department of Environment Regulation, 1996 as amended 2009) as ‘A double-lined landfill with

leachate collection, designed to accept contaminated soils and sludges (including encapsulated

wastes)’.

Class IV landfills are considered to be secure landfills and are designed with the inclusion of a double

composite lining system to capture any leaks within the primary leachate collection layer.

A Class IV landfill lining system is required to provide a higher level of protection to the environment

than a Class III landfill. This is achieved in a similar fashion to a Class III landfill but with additional

protection layers in the lining system.

Currently, hazardous waste produced in the Onslow area is either stockpiled on site, treated to reduce

contamination levels or transported to the Red Hill Waste Management Facility in Perth, which is

currently the only licenced Class IV landfill in Western Australia.

For a Class IV landfill cell, constructed to best practice standards, the following features would typically

be required:

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Lining System:

o Double composite lining system including double Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) and high

density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane basal layers, and a leak detection layer.

Environmental Controls:

o Leachate collection and management incorporating a leachate drainage blanket

and collection pipe network and evaporation pond;

o Gas collection system including gas wells, pipes and vents; and

o Surface water management system consisting of drains and evaporation pond.

Capping System:

o Geosynthetic liner – low density polyethylene geomembrane or GCL; and

o Protective subsoils and top soil.

6.4 Landfill Capping and Restoration

The restoration and capping layer which covers the waste materials on completion of each landfill

cell would be as follows (stratigraphically increasing):

300mm of porous material which acts as a temporary capping layer;

A GCL/low density polyethylene (LDPE) geomembrane which will provide the rainwater

exclusion layer for the landfill;

A geonet/geocomposite drainage layer to transmit any surface water that has filtered through

the restoration soils towards the edge of the landfill;

1m thick layer of sandy soils obtained from the overburden used to protect the low

permeability capping layer from damage; and

200mm topsoil/growth medium layer.

An integral part of the restoration of the WMF would be a system for surface water management.

Essentially, this would comprise of a perimeter ditch that runs around the toe of the landfill and directs

collected water to an evaporation lagoon.

6.5 Landfill Gas

As the capping layer incorporates a geosynthetic liner, this would constrain the release of landfill gases

generated from the waste mass. To mitigate against uncontrolled migration, a gas management

system would be included. At this stage, this would be comprised of a system of vertical extraction

wells connected by a collection pipe to a flare where the gas can be burnt. However, it may be shown

that the gas generated at the site may be too irregular or insufficient to feed a flare. As such an

aspirating cowl network may have to be installed in its place. A more detailed study would be required

to determine which system would be the most appropriate course of action.

6.6 Supporting Safe Infrastructure and Equipment

A number of pieces of supporting infrastructure and/or equipment will have to be constructed or

installed including:

Primary access route;

Weighbridge and gatehouse;

Office accommodation;

Wheel wash;

Environmental monitoring points;

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Perimeter access roadways;

Fencing;

Equipment shed; and

Fire tank.

In order to operate the WMF efficiently, a number of vehicles would also be required including:

Compactor;

Back-hoe Excavator;

Dump Truck; and

Utility Vehicle.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


7 Financial Modelling

A key component of the Revised Feasibility Study is to assess the financial viability of the project based

on the revised waste volumes and design. The following sections outline the capital and operational

cost for the development of the Onslow WMF. Within the Original Feasibility Study, the financial

assessment was for a fully integrated facility which included greenwaste processing, inert recycling,

tyre monofill as well as a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Excluding the MRF, all other waste facilities

were deemed feasible by diverting waste to be disposed of within the landfill cell. As part of this Revised

Feasibility Study, the key focus has been on financial implications of developing a landfill at the

Preferred Site. Therefore, Talis has not prepared financial models for the ancillary waste activities such

as greenwaste, insert waste and tyre processing. However, it should be noted that cost savings will be

obtained by the labour and plant resources for the landfill working on the ancillary waste activities of

the site which has not been accounted for in this Study.

7.1 Capital Cost

The capital costs are comprised of two elements:

All expenses associated with the establishment of site supporting infrastructure such as fences,

roads, gatehouse, earthworks and staff facilities; and

The cost of the construction of the landfill itself including the basal liner and the cost of the

capping system at the end of its useful life.

The procurement of machinery and equipment required for the WMF operations prior to operations

being initiated is also included within the capital costs. Amortisation of this plant and equipment is

considered as part of the operating costs.

7.1.1 Class IV Landfill

As discussed in Section 6.2 the preferred option to accommodate Class III and Class IV type waste

over the life of the WMF is to develop a landfill to Class IV standard. The capital costs for the Class IV

landfill facility represent all expenses associated with the establishment of physical infrastructure items

such as earthworks, road works and buildings, landfill lining, leachate collection, surface water

management, pond lining and the materials required for restoration to close the landfill. The financial

model for the landfill has been based on the volumetric material requirements over its lifespan.

In addition to the general capital cost components previously mentioned, the landfill facility has

specific items which relate to its capital costs including:

The design of the landfill lining system is comprised of a primary and secondary lining system;

Leachate collection will be undertaken utilising a network of HDPE pipes and pumps which will

feed to the leachate pond for evaporation;

A surface water management system includes the cost of a network of open gullies and

pipes/culverts to drain surface water from the landfilling activities to the surface water pond;

The pond lining materials will be similar to that used in the landfill liner system;

The restoration and rehabilitation component includes a geosynthetic cap and soil layers

combined with a geonet drainage layer. Sufficient seeding and landscaping has been

included to provide stability to the capping restoration layers; and

The landfill gas management system includes the supply and installation of a flare and

associated piping network required to extract landfill gas.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


The following plant and equipment is also included in the capital costs for the landfill:

Compactor;

Dump truck

Utility Vehicle with water cart;

Wheel wash; and

Weighbridge.

The capital costs for the establishment of site supporting infrastructure such as fences, roads,

gatehouse, earthworks and staff facilities is estimated to be $2.87M, over and above the capital cost

for developing the landfill facility only.

A key change within the cost estimates from the Original Feasibility Study is the reduction in the Local

Loading factor. Within the Original Feasibility Study, Local Loading was set at 50%. However, following

recent construction works within Onslow, Talis revised this down to 30% which is believed to still be

conservative.

Table 7-1 shows the cost breakdown of the capital components required to establish the landfill facility

at the WMF.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Table 7-1: Component breakdown of landfill costs

2019/20 – 2023/24 2024/25 – 2028/29 2029/30 – 2033/34 2034/35 – 2038/39 TOTAL (excl GST) Percentage

of TOTAL

Base Earthworks $487,426 $394,727 $219,976 $233,441 $1,335,570 7%

Basal Lining System $1,882,992 $2,142,180 $1,193,810 $1,266,881 $6,485,863 36%

Internal Bunding to Separate Cells $21,518 $24,480 $13,643 $14,478 $74,119 0%

Leachate Extraction and Evaporation

Pond

$1,193,139 $779,548 $434,433 $461,023 $2,868,143 16%

Surface Water Management $239,313 $28,732 $16,012 $16,992 $301,049 2%

Restoration and Capping Layer $471,283 $500,129 $1,105,233 $1,269,565 $3,346,210 19%

Miscellaneous $612,273 $86,990 $48,479 $51,446 $799,188 4%

Infrastructure $314,622 $135,759 $151,060 $169,126 $770,566 4%

Equipment $1,948,717 $0 $0 $0 $1,948,717 11%

Sub-Total $7,171,282 $4,092,545 $3,182,644 $3,482,951 $17,929,423 100%

Local Loading (30%) $2,151,385 $1,227,764 $954,793 $1,044,885 $5,378,827

Professional Services (8%) $573,703 $327,404 $254,612 $278,636 $1,434,354

Contingency (10%) $717,128 $409,255 $318,264 $348,295 $1,792,942

LANDFILL ENGINEERING TOTAL $10,613,497 $6,056,967 $4,710,314 $5,154,768 $26,535,546

ASSOCIATED SITE INFRASTRUCTURE $2,874,139 $ - $ - $ - $2,874,139

LANDFILL WASTE FACILITY TOTAL $13,487,636 $6,056,967 $4,710,314 $5,154,768 $29,409,685 (excl GST)

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


The capital cost estimates shown in Table 7-1 are set out in five year periods over the life of the landfill

along with the percentage of total cost represented by each component required to establish the

landfill. The total cost for all capital works during the 21 years of operational life of the landfill is

approximately $29.41 million.

The most costly component of the capital works program across the life of the landfill is the basal lining

system.

The basal lining system accounts for 36% of the capital costs for the landfill engineering and is the

direct barrier between the landfill operations and the environment surrounding the landfill. The second

most expensive aspect of the landfill is the restoration and capping layer. The restoration and capping

layer accounts for 19% of the capital cost of the landfill engineering.

7.2 Operational Costs

Talis has also prepared revised operational cost estimates for the proposed WMF operations. The

operational cost estimates were generated drawing upon a range of datasets including operational

budgets, previous similar projects undertaken by Talis and general industry knowledge and experience.

This included obtaining costs for:

Labour;

Consumables;

Machinery and Vehicle amortisation;

Utility Services; and

Additional operating expenditure.

The key plant items required have been included with the capital cost items. However, amortisation

was included within the operational costs to cover the replacement cost of the item over a designated

period of time. In this case, the amortisation has been calculated differently for each item of

machinery or vehicle depending on operational activities and expected life. Table 7-2 provides

details of Talis’ approach to calculating the amortisation for the machinery and vehicles, which are

considered to be conservative.


Amortised Item Capital Cost (excl GST)

Description of Amortisation

Landfill Compactor $800,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Dump Truck $220,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Backhoe Excavator $150,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Utility Vehicle with Water cart

$70,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Weighbridge $130,000 20 years, 240 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Table 7-2 shows that no residual machinery or vehicle value will remain once the amortisation period

ends. Table 7-3 summarises the operational costs for the landfill facility.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Table 7-3: Summary of Operating Expenditure

Item Total (excl. GST) Percent of Total

Labour $345,000.00 47%

Consumables $116,400.00 16%

Machinery & Vehicles $194,512.01 27%

Utility Services $6,000.00 1%

Additional Operating Expenditure $65,000.00 9%

Total $726,912.01 100%

Local Loading (20%) $145,382.40

Total incl. Local Loading (20%) $872,294.42

As can be seen in Table 7-3, the annual operational costs for the landfill is $872,294 including a local

loading of 20%, based on today’s current prices.

7.3 Gate Fees

7.3.1 Gate Fee Modelling

Talis has undertaken gate fee modelling for the proposed WMF. The gate fee is based on the projected

waste tonnages to be accepted at the WMF along with the capital and operational expenditure which

will be incurred. The modelling determines the break-even gate fee required for the WMF during

operation. Intervals of 5, 10 and 21 years were used to represent the modelled gate fees for the landfill

facility and its associated site infrastructure. The modelled gate fees are presented in Table 7-4.

Table 7-4: Landfill Gate Fees over 5, 10 and 21 Year Periods

~5 Year Period Tonnes Total Cost Average $/Tonne

2018/19 – 2023/24 56,153 $18,323,844 $326.32

2024/25 – 2028/29 60,848 $11,393,223 $187.24

2029/30 – 2033/34 65,283 $10,601,971 $162.40

2034/35 – 2038/39 83,765 $13,044,328 $155.73


2019/20 – 2028/29 117,001 $29,717,067 $253.99

2029/30 – 2038/39 149,048 $23,646,299 $158.65


2019/20 – 2038/39 266,049 $53,363,366 $200.58

As can be seen in Table 7-4, the average gate fee required to break-even across the operational life

of the landfill is $200.58/tonne. The gate fee for the initial 5 year period is substantially higher than that

across the operational life of the landfill at $326.32/tonne. This is due to the significant capital

expenditure that will be required to construct the associated site infrastructure and the initial landfill

cells.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


In comparison to the Original Feasibility Study, this breakeven gate fee has increased from $170.54 to

$200.58. Although the overall costs of the project has reduced, so has the forecasted tonnages which

has culminated in this increase of approximately 17.5% on those break-even rates.

7.3.2 Discounted Gate Fees

The gate fee modelling undertake in Section 7.3.1 applies a flat rate to Class III and Class IV waste. It

is common practice at waste management facilities to adjust the gate fee structure in order to impose

a higher gate fee for more hazardous material in order to offset the costs of general putrescible wastes.

In addition, putrescible commercial waste generally attracts at higher gate fee than the domestic

waste collected by the Shire. However, for the purpose of this analysis Talis has only discounted the

rates of Class III to Class IV materials.

Table 7-5 sets out the results of the sensitivity analysis undertaken on the gate fee over the 21 year

operational life of the landfill. The analyses demonstrates that if the rate for Class III waste was reduced

to 85% of the average gate fee ($170.49), the rate for Class IV waste would need to be increased by

113% ($226.37) of the average gate fee in order to cover the shortfall created.

Table 7-5: Adjustment of Gate Fee for Class III and IV wastes 2019/20-2038/39

Class III Class IV Total

Average Gate Fee

(2019/20 –

2038/39)

$200.58

Tonnes Accepted 122,815 143,234 266,049

% of Total 46% 54% 100%

Total Cost $24,633,940 $28,729,426 $53,363,366

Adjusted % of Gate

Fee

85% 113%

Adjusted Gate Fee $170.49 $226.37

7.3.3 Landfill Gate Fee Scenarios

Similar to the Original Feasibility Study, Talis has prepared a range of scenarios that have a strong

potential of eventuating and would impact the gates fees for the facility. These scenarios are listed in

greater detail below (Table 7-6).

Table 7-6: Landfill Gate Fee Scenarios

Scenarios Description

1 – Revised Design

This is the Landfill gate fee of the combined Class III and

Class IV as modelled in Section 7.3.1.

2 – Revised Design & 50% Lower

External Class IV Waste Inputs

Scenario 1 Revised Design with 50% lower Regional Class

IV waste inputs

3 – Revised Design & Capital Funding

Scenario 1 Revised Design and inclusion of $5 million

grant funding to be utilised to offset the capital costs of

the project.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


Scenarios Description

4 – Revised Design & Reduced Hours

Scenario 1 Revised Design & reduction in the hours of

operation to 3 full days a week which is sufficient for the

low waste volumes accepted.

5 – Revised Design & 50% increase in

Class III waste

Scenario 1 Revised Design with an increase of 50% to

Class III tonnages.

6 – Alternative Lining System

Reduction to the linings system of the site (however still a

double containment system).

7 – Alternative Lining System, Capital

Funding, Reduced Hours, 50%

increase in Class III

Combination of Scenarios 2, 3, 4 and 5.

For each of the various scenarios, Talis has prepared both break-even gate fee costings as well as

discounted gate fees based on the volume of Class III and Class IV waste. These calculated gate

fees as shown within Table 7-7 below.

Table 7-7: Calculated Landfill Gate Fee Scenarios

Scenario Break-Even Gate

Fee

Discounted Gate Fees

Class III Class IV

1 – Revised Design $200.58 $170.49 $226.37

2 - Revised Design & 50% Lower

Regional Class IV Waste Inputs

$233.15 $198.18 $284.47

3 – Revised Design & Capital

Funding

$181.77 $154.51 $205.15

4 – Revised Design & Reduced

Hours

$177.70 $151.05 $200.56

5 – Revised Design & 50% increase

in Class III waste

$185.43 $157.61 $221.20

6 – Alternative Lining System $181.08 $153.92 $204.37

7 – Alternative Lining System,

Capital Funding, Reduced Hours,

50% increase in Class III

$142.76 $121.35 $170.30

As can be seen above, the break-even gate fee ranges from $142.76 to $233.15. The discounted

gate fee range for Class III waste varies from $121.35 to $198.18 and from $170.30 to $284.47 for

Class IV materials. A key point to note is the attractive rate for the Class IV waste, which is heavily

dependent on the portions of Class III and Class IV waste. These gate fees are discussed in greater

detail within Section 8.5.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


8 Discussion

The purpose of the Revised Feasibility Study was to determine the financial viability of developing a

Class III/IV WMF at Site 10 following on from the Original Feasibility Study completed in 2013. The key

changes that have occurred since the Original Feasibility Study include:

reduction in growth rates forecasted for the area;

reduction in the waste generation and population projections;

economic downturn in the resources sector within Western Australia; and

reduction in capital works costs.

The following section outlines the key discussion points arising from the Revised Feasibility Study.

8.1 Site 10

Site 10 is currently still the Preferred Site for development of the Onslow Waste Management Facility,

as identified in the Site Selection Study and Original Feasibility Study. The Preferred Site is approximately

150ha in size and located on Lot 150 Onslow Road, Thalanyji, Western Australia, approximately 36km

south of the town of Onslow on Unallocated Crown Land. The Site is currently managed by Department

of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW).

In terms of environmental attributes, the Site is sufficiently located beyond residential, water body and

aerodrome servicing buffer requirements. There is a ridgeline in the topography of the Site which

creates a natural barrier from any visual impact of the landfill from Onslow Road. The Site is located

30km away from the nearest fault line, ensuring low impact in the event of an earthquake, and there

was no presence of Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) detected within the area identified.

However, further detailed site investigations will be required to determine the hydrogeological,

geotechnical and flora and fauna conditions of Site 10 in order to confirm its suitability for landfill

development. In addition, the Shire will need to further progress the tenure acquisition of Site 10.

8.2 Waste Data

The Original Feasibility Study used waste data projections developed through the Pilbara Waste Data

Study and the Pilbara Waste Projections Project. The Revised Feasibility Study undertook its own targeted

Waste Generator Engagement exercise to gather up to date waste data from Onslow and the wider

Pilbara region. As part of the engagement, Talis contacted 19 organisations to request up to date

waste data. In total, five responses were received from organisations contacted however, importantly,

the major waste generators and managers in the Onslow area participated.

The total waste generation in 2015/16 in the Onslow area and regional Class IV waste is summarised

below in Table 8-1.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton













As can be seen in the table above, the Class III waste materials was estimated to be 5,428 tonnes in

2015/16. Due to the limited amount of up to date waste data that was able to be gathered as part

of the recent waste data exercise, previously published data from the Pilbara Waste Data Study was

utilised for Class IV (hazardous) materials. However, a degree of conservatism was applied with two

scenarios – Low and High – being adopted. The Low Scenario assumed that 10% of the reported

Regional Hazardous materials would be transported to Onslow, with the High scenario assuming 20%

of the reported Regional Hazardous materials being transported to Onslow. This resulted in two

estimated figures for regional Class IV waste. In total, all Class III and Class IV waste was estimated to

be 8,628 tonnes (Low scenario) and 10,804 (High scenario).

Once waste tonnages were established, these figures were utilised to determine waste projections.

Waste projections are required to ensure that the proposed WMF can cater for future demands.

Population projections assist to determine per capita waste generation with forecasting in economic

and construction activities utilised to project future C&I and C&D waste quantities. However, there is

considerable difficulty in predicting future population and economic activity in regional areas such as

Onslow due to the considerable impact of individual projects.

Population projections data was sourced from the Pilbara Development Commission’s (PDC) report,

Assessment of Accommodation Need in Tom Price, Onslow and Paraburdoo: Final Report which was

published in 2015 and included a High growth and Low growth scenario. However, in September 2016,

Talis was advised that PDC are further revising these projections as they were considered to be too

conservative. However, these revised projections were not available prior to completion of this report.

Onslow’s projected waste generation volumes up to 2039 under the High growth scenario indicates

incremental growth around 2018-19 and 2024-25. There were no published population projections

data available after 2024. Talis, therefore assumed population and associated waste generation

levels off for the High growth scenario with 1% growth from 2024 to 2039. This scenario assumes that

expansion of Chevron’s Wheatstone and Gordon projects will go ahead, which would potentially result

in increased population and increases in overall waste generation. There are also numerous other

development projects anticipated in the area which have not be accounted for due to a lack of

available data, such as the K+S Group salt project and the Onslow Marine Supply Base at Beadon

Creek. It is pertinent that the High growth waste projections should, therefore, be considered to be

conservative as they do not take account of development projects proposed outside of Chevron’s

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


expansions. The Onslow population would also be likely to increase as a result of developments, which

would result in an increase in the Shire’s waste volumes above the currently projected levels.

The waste projections under the Low growth scenario show a significant reduction in population after

2017, which is believed to coincide with the anticipated completion of the current Wheatstone

construction phase as this scenario assumes no further expansion of Wheatstone or other Chevron

projects.

The tonnages for Class III and IV waste from the Original Feasibility Study were compared against the

Revised Feasibility Study’s Class III and IV tonnages (using the Low and High scenarios) over the

estimated lifetime of the landfill (21 years). The most significant drop was in Class III waste, down from

271,314 tonnes in the Original Feasibility Study to 105,643 (61% decrease) for low and 138,857 (49%

decrease) for the high scenario. The Class IV waste had a less significant drop, down 30% to 76,791

for the low scenario and increasing to 159,623 (45% increase) for the high scenario.

8.3 Funding

Talis assessed a number of potential funding opportunities for the project including capital investment

funding streams such as the Federal Building Better Regions fund and Northern Australia Infrastructure

Facility along with the State’s Royalties for Regions fund. Based on Talis’ experience with similar projects,

there is a strong potential for the project to obtain capital investment funding or concessional finance.

Talis recommends that the Shire commences engagement with relevant funding authorities and

relevant stakeholder in relation to seeking funding or concessional financing for the project to

determine the likelihood of financial support. Talis anticipates that relevant organisations would include

the Department of State Development, the State Department of Regional Development, Pilbara

Development Commission and the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

8.4 Financial Model

One of the key components of this Study was to assess the financial viability of the development of

the WMF based on the revised waste streams and design. This was analysed by calculating the capital

and operational costs for the development of the Onslow WMF. The Financial Model for the Revised

Feasibility Study focussed on the development of a landfill at the Preferred Site, rather than a fully

integrated facility, which was considered for the Original Feasibility Study.

The total capital cost of the landfill and supporting site infrastructure is $29.41 million spread over its 21

year life. The operational cost in Year 1 would be $925,686, equating to $23.87 million over 21 years.

8.5 Gate Fee

Gate fee modelling carried out for the Class IV landfill determined that a break-even cost per tonne

across the life of the project would be $200.58. If the rate for Class III waste was reduced to 85% of

the average gate fee ($170.49), the rate for Class IV would need to be increased to 113% ($226.37)

in order to cover this reduction.

Talis has modelled a number of scenarios in relation to the project including obtaining capital funding

of $5 million, reducing the operational hours, increasing the Class III waste volumes by 50% and

altering the lining system design. Talis is of the view that all such scenarios could eventuate and also

modelled a combined option of all the scenarios. Based on the Revised Design and the various

scenarios modelled, a range of gate fees have been devised as listed within Table 8-2 below.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton



Ranges Break-Even Gate Fee Discounted Gate Fees

Class III Class IV

High $233.15 $198.18 $284.47

Low $142.76 $121.35 $170.30

Based on our experience in landfill operations and charges, Talis is of the view that the gate fees listed

above are high, which are reflective of the low volumes of waste generated in these isolated areas.

However, Talis is of the view that these gates fees are attractive to provide the Shire, and also other

key waste generators in the area, with long term security on future waste disposal services as well as

costs. There is a number of reason to support this conclusion including:

The costs for waste management services that the current waste generators in the region are

paying;

The currently modelled attractive gate fee for Class IV waste, which could be increased and

would therefore offset the Class III gate fee.

The waste volumes projected within this study are conservative;

The WMF will provide waste disposal services in close proximity to where the waste is generated.

Any increases in waste volumes as predicted but under estimated within this study, will make

the facility more cost effective as opposed to haulage of waste the significant distance to

surrounding waste facilities be it Tom Price, Karratha or further afield;

The labour and plant required to operate the landfill will be utilised on other waste

management activities to be delivered at the site including the greenwaste processing, inert

recycling, liquid waste and tyre monofil. All such facilities will have their own gate fees which

will be used to offset the cost of running the facilities. Therefore, the operational costs for the

landfill will reduce from that modelled within this study; and

Talis recognises a strong possibility of the Shire and its project partners in obtaining funding for

the project.

To further reduce the gate fees for the project, the Shire should seek to accept as much waste as

possible at the facility including both Class III and IV materials as well as other recyclables and waste

materials. The capital costs of the landfill per tonne will not change dramatically at the site as, on

average, the landfill will obtain a compaction rate of 0.85kg/m3. However, the operational costs for

running a landfill of 10,000 tonnes per annum are very similar to those for a facility that accepts

150,000 tonnes per annum. This is because of the requirement to provide a minimal level of labour

and plant to operate the site including a compactor, dump truck, back hoe, gate house and

weighbridge as well as suitable staff. Therefore, to further reduce the gate fee the Shire should seek

to accept as much waste as possible at the facility to spread the costs across a large volume of

waste, reducing the average cost per tonne.

8.6 Commitment of Tonnages

As outlined within this Revised Feasibility Study the volumes of waste to be accepted at the site are

relatively low which is reflective of the area. In addition, Onslow is very isolated so attracting Class III

waste from other areas will be problematic. Therefore, to underpin the viability of the project, the Shire

should seek to obtain commitments on waste and tonnages from the key waste generators within the

region.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A



Shire of Ashburton


9 Recommendations

Based on the works undertaken in this Revised Feasibility Study and its associated findings, Talis puts

forward the following recommendations for the Shire:

1. Commence engagement with relevant funding authorities and relevant stakeholders in relation to

seeking funding for the project to determine the likelihood of financial support. Talis anticipates

that relevant organisations would include the Department of State Development, the State

Department of Regional Development, Pilbara Development Commission and the Federal

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

2. Seek commitment on waste materials and tonnages from the key waste generators in Onslow and

the wider Pilbara region to underpin the viability of the WMF.

3. Continue with the implementation of the recommendations within the Original Feasibility Study

(where relevant) to further progress the Onslow WMF including Market Sounding and Site

Investigations.

ATTACHMENT 15.2A

Onslow Waste Disposal Strategy

Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton

TW16041 - Onslow Landfill Options.1b October 2016 | Page 1

Asset Management | Civil Engineering | Environmental Services | GIS & Spatial Intelligence | Waste Management


Draft Report

Prepared for Shire of Ashburton

October 2016

Project Number: TW16041

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version Description Date Author Reviewer

0a Internal Review 28/09/16 TM RC

1a Released to Client for Review 18/10/16 RO RC

1b Rereleased to Client 19/10/16 RO&RC RC

Approval for Release

Name Position File Reference

Ronan Cullen Director and Waste Management

Section Leader

TW16041 - Onslow Landfill

Options.1b

Signature

Copyright of this document or any part of this document remains with Talis Consultants Pty Ltd and

cannot be used, transferred or reproduced in any manner or form without prior written consent from

Talis Consultants Pty Ltd.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Executive Summary The closure of the Onslow Landfill removed the town’s sole piece of waste management

infrastructure and a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) was constructed as a replacement service

at Lot 500 Onslow Road, redirecting waste to the Tom Price Landfill. Having to transport waste

out of town prior to disposal however, has created increased operational costs associated

with haulage and created the demand for a more cost effective and efficient waste

disposal solution.

The Shire of Ashburton (the Shire) is currently engaged in partnership with the Department of

State Development (DSD) and Chevron on a project that aims to deliver new critical

infrastructure to Onslow, including a Waste Management Facility (WMF).

In order to support future development in the region and the ongoing advancement of the

town, it is crucial that an efficient waste management system is implemented. These services

are essential in maintaining public health and ensuring appropriate protection to the

surrounding environment.

Significant growth in the region due to the rapid expansion of the resources industry has put

increased stress on waste disposal services, as well as the requirement for the facilities to be

able to handle the waste produced from the surrounding industries. In light of this, the Shire

has undertaken this Onslow Waste Disposal Strategy to determine the most efficient and cost

effective disposal option for the long term benefit of the domestic and commercial

communities of Onslow.

A Site Selection Study was conducted in 2013 to identify a Preferred Site for the new WMF

based on best practice siting and design principles. The Preferred Site (Site 10) was identified

at a location approximately 36km south of Onslow on Onslow Road. Following this, a

Feasibility Study (Original Feasibility Study) was undertaken to determine the technical and

financial viability of developing the WMF. The Original Feasibility Study identified that the

preferred option was a single landfill developed to Class IV standard but accepting both

Class III and Class IV type waste.

Since 2013, a number of significant changes have occurred including a reduction in

forecasted growth rates, waste generation and population projections, all coinciding with

the downturn in the resources sector. This lead to a Revised Feasibility Study which aimed at

reviewing how these changes will affect the viability of constructing a new landfill at Site 10.

The following Waste Disposal Strategy combines the results of these past works and makes a

comparison against current practices and other options available to the Shire in order to

make an informed decision on the best waste disposal option. As part of this study, Talis

evaluated the following options:

Option 1A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Haulage to Tom Price;

Option 1B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Use of Compactor, Haulage to Tom Price;

Option 2A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Haulage to Karratha;

Option 2B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Use of Compactor, Haulage to Karratha;

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Option 3A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Haulage to Karratha, Final treatment at

Waste to Energy Facility;

Option 3B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Use of Compactor, Haulage to Karratha,

Final treatment at Waste to Energy Facility;

Option 4: New Class II Facility at Site 10;

Option 5A: Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (High Growth Scenario);

Option 5B: Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (Low Growth Scenario);

Option 6: New Class II Facility at Alternative Site;

Option 7: New Class III Facility at Site 10; and

Option 8: New Class II Facility at Alternative Site utilising Trench Operations.

Waste projections were prepared to ensure that the proposed WMF can cater for current

and future demands. Two methods were used to estimate future waste generation

quantities. Population growth rates combined with per capita waste generation rates were

utilised for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), whereas forecasting economic growth and

construction activities was utilised to project future Commercial & Industrial (C&I) and

Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste quantities. The growth rate for 2015-2024 was

sourced from the Pilbara Development Commission’s (PDC) report, Assessment of

Accommodation Need in Tom Price, Onslow and Paraburdoo: Final Report published in 2015.

There are no future growth rates available for the town of Onslow beyond 2024. Talis has

adopted conservative and linear growth rates of 0% for the low scenario and 1% for the high

scenario up to 2039. In September 2016, Talis was advised that the Pilbara Development

Commission is further revising these projections as they were considered to be too

conservative and not accurately forecasting future growth within Onslow. However, these

revised projections were not available prior to completion of this report and therefore have

not been included in the projections. Therefore, it should be accepted that these population

projections are extremely conservative.

For the purpose of the waste generation projects, Talis also included high and low growth

rates for both Chevron and Regional Class IV materials from across the Pilbara region. From

these projections, the predicted waste quantities shown in Table E-1 were estimated:

Table E-1: Total Waste Generated per Year


Shire waste (MSW, C&I and

C&D)

4,005








Table E-2 below shows the total waste generation forecasts for the region under both high

and low scenarios. This illustrates that by 2039 total waste could increase to 14,396.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table E-2: Total Waste Generation Tonnages – High and Low Growth Scenario

Year 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039

Low Scenario (tonnes) 7,592 7,480 7,480 7,480 7,480

High Scenario (tonnes) 11,167 11,335 12,746 13,536 14,396

Arising from the questions raised by regional Local Governments as well as WALGA, the DER

has outlined that they are currently working on Rural Landfill Standard which will apply to

rural landfills that accept less than 5,000 tonnes per annum. Talis has been involved in some

preliminary consultation undertaken as part of the Drafting of these Rural Landfill Standards.

The requirements of these new Rural Landfill Standards will greatly improve the overall

environmental and social performance of such facilities. In comparison to the previous

Onslow Landfill, these standards will significantly increase the design and operation standards

for such facilities. This will substantially increase the capital and operational cost of delivering

and maintaining such facilities.

Talis recommends that the Shire closely monitors waste generation with Onslow, particularly

with the use of the new weighbridge to be installed at Tom Price. The current population

projections for Onslow are currently being revised by the Pilbara Development Commission

as they are conservatively inaccurate. Therefore, Talis anticipates that with the proposed

development within Onslow, the waste managed by the Shire will trip the 5,000 tonnes per

annum in the near future.

To understand the financial implications of the various options, Talis prepared an extensive

model for whole life costings over the 20 year period. Key inputs comprising capital and

operational costs for the establishment of a new landfill facility, implementation of a

compactor and utilisation of the current Waste Transfer Station at Onslow. The cost per

tonne and Whole of Life Costs for each of the options is shown below in Table E-3.

Table E-3: Ranking annual average Cost per Tonne

Ranking Option Cost per tonne Lifetime Cost

1 Option 5A $196.76 $16,614,116

2 Option 5B $251.93 $21,273,188

3 Option 8 $306.18 $25,853,919

4 Option 1B $332.14 $28,045,531

5 Option 2B $340.99 $28,792,964

6 Option 3B $367.29 $31,013,534

7 Option 6 $372.56 $31,459,043

8 Option 4 $387.56 $32,725,122

9 Option 7 $437.68 $36,957,814

10 Option 1A $451.59 $38,132,040

11 Option 2A $485.48 $40,993,835

12 Option 3A $511.78 $43,214,406

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


From this evaluation, it can be seen that the current available methods of operation,

haulage to Tom Price without the use of a compactor, rank among the lowest overall. The

introduction of a compactor alone makes a significant decrease in cost per tonne, however

constructing a new landfill in Onslow will still present the greatest cost saving. Option 5

presents the most economical solution to the Shire for waste disposal due to cost sharing of

operating a WMF that caters for waste materials generated by other generators including

Chevron, and the potential revenue a Class IV facility will generate.

A technical assessment of the waste disposal options was conducted on a number of

aspects, including construction, site conditions, operation, environmental, disposal service,

investment and transport. A Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) was performed where an allocation

of weightings from each of the aspects was applied, allowing variable importance to be

allocated to the adopted aspects. With each aspect, a number of evaluation criteria were

identified. These criteria were allocated a percentage weighting according to their relative

importance to that aspect.

To generate an overall score for each Option incorporating the results of both the technical

and financial assessments, normalised scores were generating following both analyses.

Normalising involves allocating the maximum score to the best performing Option and

calculating the scores for each other Option relative to this. The results of the normalised

scores are shown in Table E-4.

Table E-4: Normalised Scores of Technical and Financial Assessment

Ranking Option Score

1 Option 5A 100.00

2 Option 5B 90.43

3 Option 8 76.69

4 Option 6 76.64

5 Option 7 71.99

6 Option 4 71.49

7 Option 2B 71.16

8 Option 3B 70.19

9 Option 1B 69.64

10 Option 3A 66.41

11 Option 2A 65.45

12 Option 1A 64.67

The normalised scores also ranked Option 5 the best performing option both technically and

financially. Option 5 proved not only to be the most financially viable option, but also

presented several advantages including long term security and self-sufficiency due to the

potential revenue. Therefore, Option 5A was determined to be the preferred Disposal Option

for the Shire.

Talis also assessed a number of potential funding opportunities for the project including

capital investment funding streams such as the Federal Building Better Regions fund and the

State’s Royalties for Regions fund. Based on Talis’ experience with similar projects, there is a

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


strong potential for Option 5 to obtain capital investment funding to support the delivery of

the project. Talis assessed the potential implications of obtaining $5 Million capital

investment for Option 5 which reduced the overall Cost per Tonne as per Table E-5.

Table E-5: Cost per Tonne with Capital Funding

Ranking Option Cost per

Tonne

Cost per Tonne

including $5M

Funding

Option 5A Class III/IV Facility Site 10 (High Scenario) $196.76 $137.54

Option 5B Class III/IV Facility Site 10 (Low Scenario) $251.93 $192.72

This funding significantly reduces the average cost per tonne for Option 5 making it further

financially attractive in comparison to the next best ranked option (Option 8).

As outlined within the Waste Disposal Strategy, the volumes of waste to be accepted at the

site are relatively low which is reflective of the area. In addition, Onslow is very isolated so

attracting Class III waste from other areas will be problematic. Therefore, to underpin the

viability of the Joint Onslow Waste Management Facility, the Shire should seek to obtain

commitments on waste and tonnages from the key waste generators within the region,

including Chevron. This could be achieved through Waste Supply Agreements.

The cost of maintaining the Waste Transfer Station as operational for the community to drop

off waste within close proximity to the townsite will cost an average of $73.10 per tonne of

waste. It will take 3-4 years to develop a landfill site, including undertaking the leave in site

investigations, obtaining the required approvals and allowing a suitable timeframe for the

construction works. During this time, the Shire should access the long term viability of

maintaining the Waste Transfer Station as a community drop off facility.

Talis is of the view that having the Waste Transfer Station or the future landfill facility open 5

days a week is well in excess of what is required to service the low volumes of waste

accepted at the facilities. Therefore, Talis recommends that the Shire reduces the hours of

operation at its waste management facilities, potentially down to three or four operational

days per week.

Recommendations

Based on works undertaken as part of this Waste Disposal Strategy and the associated

findings, Talis recommends the following:

1. The Shire accepts the Onslow Waste Disposal Strategy.

2. Talis recommends that the Shire closely monitors waste generation within Onslow,

particularly with the use of the new weighbridge to be installed at Tom Price.

3. The Shire recognises Option 5 (Class IV Landfill at Site 10) as its preferred long term

waste disposal option and continues to work with the Department of State

Development and Chevron on the development of that project.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


4. Commence engagement with relevant funding authorities and relevant stakeholders

in relation to seeking funding for the project to determine the likelihood of financial

support. Talis anticipates that relevant organisations would include the Department of

State Development, the State Department of Regional Development, Pilbara

Development Commission and the Federal Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development.

5. Seek commitment on waste materials and tonnages from the key waste generators in

Onslow and the wider Pilbara region to underpin the viability of the WMF.

6. The Shire undertakes site investigations at Site 10 which is the Preferred Site for the

development of a landfill to service the Onslow area.

7. The Shire accesses the long term viability of operating the Onslow Waste Transfer

Station as a Community Drop Off Facility to service the Onslow townsite.

8. The Shire should review the operational hours for current and future waste

management infrastructure within Onslow to reduce costs where possible.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12

1.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 12

1.1.1 Scope of Report ......................................................................................................... 13

1.2 Disposal Options ....................................................................................................................... 13

2 Current Waste Management Systems ...................................................................................... 14

2.1 Former Landfill ........................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Waste Transfer Station ............................................................................................................. 14

3 Waste Data and Projections ...................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Waste Generator Engagement ............................................................................................. 15

3.2 Shire Waste ................................................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Chevron Class III & IV ............................................................................................................... 16

3.4 Regional Class IV ...................................................................................................................... 16

3.5 Summary (All Waste) ................................................................................................................ 17

3.6 Shire Waste Projections ............................................................................................................ 17

3.7 Waste Generation Projections ............................................................................................... 19

4 Onslow WMF Revised Feasibility Study ..................................................................................... 20

4.1 Revised Feasibility Study Recommendations ...................................................................... 22

5 Legislative Framework Review .................................................................................................. 23

5.1 BPEM Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Rural Landfill Environmental Standards ................................................................................ 24

6 Onslow Disposal Options Conceptualisation .......................................................................... 27

6.1 Option 1A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, haulage to Tom Price ................................. 27

6.2 Option 1B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, use of compactor and haulage to Tom

Price ............................................................................................................................................ 28

6.3 Option 2A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, haulage to Karratha landfill ...................... 28

6.4 Option 2B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, use of compactor and haulage to

Karratha landfill ......................................................................................................................... 28

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


6.5 Option 3A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, haulage to Karratha for processing, final

treatment at Waste to Energy facility .................................................................................. 29

6.6 Option 3B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, use of compactor, haulage to Karratha

for processing, final treatment at Waste to Energy facility .............................................. 29

6.7 Option 4: New Class II Facility at Site 10 ............................................................................... 29

6.8 Option 5: Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 .................................................................................. 30

6.9 Option 6: New Class II Facility at Alternative Site ............................................................... 30

6.10 Option 7: New Class III Facility at Site 10 .............................................................................. 31

6.11 Option 8: New Class II Facility at alternate site utilising Trench Operations .................. 31

6.12 Overall Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 31

6.13 Site Selection Model Review .................................................................................................. 32

7 Design and Logistics Input ......................................................................................................... 34

7.1 Haulage Logistics ...................................................................................................................... 34

7.2 Landfill Disposal Options .......................................................................................................... 34

7.3 Class II Landfill ............................................................................................................................ 35

7.4 Class III Landfill ........................................................................................................................... 35

7.5 Class IV Landfill .......................................................................................................................... 36

7.6 Landfill Gas ................................................................................................................................ 37

7.7 Landfill Supporting Safe Infrastructure and Equipment .................................................... 37

8 Financial Modelling .................................................................................................................... 39

8.1 Capital Cost............................................................................................................................... 39

8.1.1 Haulage Options without Compactor ................................................................... 39

8.1.2 Haulage Options with Compactor ......................................................................... 39

8.2 Total Cost over Lifetime ........................................................................................................... 44

8.2.1 Net Present Value ...................................................................................................... 44

8.2.2 Cost per Tonne ........................................................................................................... 45

9 Technical Assessment ................................................................................................................ 48

9.1.1 Normalised Scores ...................................................................................................... 48

9.2 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 53

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


10 Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 55

10.1 Building Better Regions Fund (formerly National Stronger Regions Fund) ..................... 55

10.2 Royalties for Regions ................................................................................................................ 55

10.2.1 Regional Investment Blueprint ................................................................................. 56

10.2.2 Regional Grants Scheme .......................................................................................... 56

10.2.3 Community Chest Fund ............................................................................................ 56

10.3 Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility .............................................................................. 57

10.4 Community and other Funding Opportunities ................................................................... 57

10.4.1 Australian Packaging Covenant ............................................................................ 57

10.4.2 Stronger Communities Programme ........................................................................ 58

10.4.3 Community Grants Scheme .................................................................................... 58

10.5 Estimated Cost Impact ............................................................................................................ 58

11 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 60

11.1 Onslow Landfill Requirement .................................................................................................. 60

11.2 Preferred Long Term Disposal Option ................................................................................... 60

11.3 Funding ....................................................................................................................................... 60

11.4 Commitment of Tonnages ...................................................................................................... 61

11.5 Waste Transfer Station Future ................................................................................................. 61

11.6 Operational Hours of Waste Facilities ................................................................................... 62

12 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 63

Tables Table 3-1: Shire Waste

Table 3-2: Chevron Waste

Table 3-3: Regional Class IV Waste

Table 3-4: Total Waste Generated per Year


ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton



Table 5-1: Prescribed Premises applicable to the Rural Landfill Environmental Standards

Table 6-1: List of Options

Table 6-2: Onslow Site Selection Criteria - Previous and Revised

Table 8-1: Compactor Capital Costs

Table 8-2: Capital Cost Breakdown for New Landfills


Table 8-4: Summary of Operational Expenditure for New Landfill Options

Table 8-5: Total cost for all options

Table 8-6: NPV total cost for all options

Table 8-7: Cost per Tonne Breakdown

Table 8-8: Ranking annual average Cost per Tonne

Table 9-1: Summary of evaluation aspects and criteria

Table 9-2: Weighted Technical Assessment Scores - Haulage Options

Table 9-3: Weighted Technical Assessment Scores - New Landfill Options

Table 9-4: Normalisation of Scores

Table 9-5: MCA Analysis Technical Assessment Ranking

Table 9-6: Combined Normalised Scores of Technical and Financial Assessment

Table 10-1: Cost per Tonne with Capital Funding

Table 11-1: Option 5A and 5B Average Cost per Tonne with our without the WTS

Table 11-2: Cost per Tonne with Reduced Hours

Diagrams Diagram 1: Projected future waste generation volumes for Onslow from 2016 to 2039

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


1 Introduction

The closure of the Onslow Landfill removed the town’s sole piece of waste management

infrastructure and a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) was constructed as a replacement service

at Lot 500 Onslow Road, redirecting waste to the Tom Price Landfill. Having to transport waste

out of town prior to disposal however, has created increased operational costs associated

with haulage and highlighted the requirement for a more cost effective and efficient waste

disposal solution.

The Shire of Ashburton (the Shire) is currently engaged in partnership with the Department of

State Development (DSD) and Chevron on a project that aims to deliver new critical

infrastructure to Onslow, including a Waste Management Facility (WMF).

In order to support the future development in the region and the ongoing advancement of

the town, it is crucial that an efficient waste management system is implemented. These

services are essential in maintaining public health and ensuring appropriate protection to the

surrounding environment.

Significant growth in the region due to the rapid expansion of the resources industry has put

further stress on these services, as well as created demand for a facility capable of handling

hazardous waste produced from the surrounding industries. In order to develop a range of

options and allow the Shire to make an informed decision based on these factors, three

different classes of landfill have to be considered, including:

Class II – Unlined putrescible landfill;

Class III – Lined putrescible landfill; and

Class IV – Double lined secure landfill with leachate collection.

A Site Selection Study undertaken by the Shire in 2013 identified a Preferred Site for the new

WMF based on best practice siting and design principles. The Preferred Site was identified at

a location approximately 36km south of Onslow on Onslow Road, known as Site 10.

Talis has previously undertaken works for the Shire as part of a Revised Feasibility Study to

provide a detailed understanding of the technical and financial implications of constructing

a new landfill based on the latest available information. As part of these works, capacity

modelling work was undertaken to determine the revised volumes of material that are likely

to be transported to the Onslow WMF for disposal along with updated population projections

based on the latest available data.

Talis has also been commissioned by the Shire to undertake a Waste Disposal Strategy to

assist the Shire in understanding their options for the future of waste management services to

service the Onslow townsite.

1.1 Objectives

The objective of this report was to provide the Shire with a range of waste disposal options to

assist in determining the preferred long term solution that is both efficient and cost effective.

This will help ensure that the Shire can make an informed decision in relation to the best

option for provision of this critical waste disposal service.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


1.1.1 Scope of Report

The Waste Disposal Strategy Draft Report comprises of the following sections:

Chapter 2: Current Waste Management Systems

Chapter 3: Waste Data and Projections

Chapter 4: Onslow WMF Revised Feasibility Study

Chapter 5: Legislative Framework Review

Chapter 6: Onslow Disposal Options Conceptualisation

Chapter 7: Design and Logistics Input

Chapter 8: Financial Modelling

Chapter 9: Technical Assessment

Chapter 10: Funding Opportunities

Chapter 11: Discussion

Chapter 12: Recommendations

1.2 Disposal Options

As part of this report, Talis evaluated a range of disposal options, consisting of the following:

Option 1A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Haulage to Tom Price;

Option 1B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Use of Compactor, Haulage to Tom Price;

Option 2A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Haulage to Karratha;

Option 2B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Use of Compactor, Haulage to Karratha;

Option 3A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Haulage to Karratha, Final treatment at

Waste to Energy Facility;

Option 3B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, Use of Compactor, Haulage to Karratha,

Final treatment at Waste to Energy Facility;

Option 4: New Class II Facility at Site 10;

Option 5A: Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (High Growth Scenario);

Option 5B: Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (Low Growth Scenario);

Option 6: New Class II Facility at Alternative Site;

Option 7: New Class III Facility at Site 10; and

Option 8: New Class II Facility at Alternative Site utilising Trench Operations.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


2 Current Waste Management Systems

To provide background, this section summarises the key waste management activities that

are being undertaken by the Shire to service the domestic and commercial communities of

the Onslow Townsite.

2.1 Former Landfill

The rapid expansion of the resources industry has placed significant development pressures

on the town of Onslow. With deep water access and proximity to off-shore oil reserves, the

town of Onslow was selected to support the construction and operation of the Ashburton

North Strategic Industrial Area (ANSIA). As part of this expansion, a new Onslow Ring Road

has been developed to provide more direct access from the existing Onslow Road to the

Onslow townsite. As this new road passed through the north eastern portion of the landfill, it

was required for the landfill to be closed and rehabilitated to best practice standards.

As of August 2015, the landfill had been closed having reached the end of its operational life

and to make way for new developments surrounding the facility. Until its closure, the former

Onslow Landfill was the sole piece of public waste management infrastructure in the Onslow

region since it commenced operations from the late 1970s.

2.2 Waste Transfer Station

A new Waste Transfer Station was developed at Lot 500 Onslow Road as a replacement

service for the acceptance of waste generated within Onslow. The waste material is

accepted at the Waste Transfer Station and consolidated prior to loading into large haulage

vehicles for transportation to the Shire’s Tom Price Landfill for disposal. Currently, two trips a

week are required to cater for the waste generated. The distance between Onslow and Tom

Price Landfill is 405km, which equates to a round trip of 810km.

Mixed Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste, which is generated from or as the direct result

of commercial and industrial activities within the Townsite (and which is not Municipal Solid

Waste (MSW) or Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste), is also accepted at the Waste

Transfer Station. This waste is generally self-hauled or collected by small private waste

providers. In addition, some resource sector companies in the region utilise the Waste Transfer

Station for disposal services.

C&D waste consists of materials generated as a result of construction, refurbishment or

demolition activities is also accepted at the Waste Transfer Station. As with the C&I waste, this

is generally self-hauled by residents, building contractors or small private waste service

providers. Therefore, as illustrated above, the Waste Transfer Station currently provides

essential waste disposal services to the domestic and commercial communities within

Onslow.

The original design of the Waste Transfer Station was to operate as a temporary Waste

Transfer Station until a new landfill was developed in Onslow. However, the Waste Transfer

Station may still operate as a community drop off facility. Therefore, it is envisaged that the

continued operation of the Waste Transfer Station will be assessed in the broader Onslow

waste management context to determine its ongoing viability when used in conjunction with

other landfill and haulage options.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


3 Waste Data and Projections

It is essential that the Waste Disposal Strategy caters for current and future waste volumes.

The following section summaries the current waste tonnages within the region, as well as

projections for future waste generation.

3.1 Waste Generator Engagement

The first stage of the Revised Feasibility Study previously prepared for the Shire, was to

engage with waste generators to request updated waste data and, where possible,

estimated future waste tonnages. These figures would allow Talis to update the demand

profile for the Joint WMF over a 21 year period. The Shire sought to engage with key waste

generators that would potentially utilise the Site, including waste generators operating in the

Shire as well as Class III/IV waste generators operating in the wider Pilbara and Mid-West

regions.

The first step was to develop Data Collection Sheets that were designed to capture the

waste data in a consistent format. Two versions of the Data Collection Sheets were

developed:

Local Survey – for waste generators located within Onslow and the immediately

surrounding area; and

Regional Survey – for waste generators located in the wider Pilbara and Mid-West

regions.

Talis contacted stakeholders using a variety of means including email and phone. Following

initial communication, Talis undertook follow-up emails and phone calls to stakeholders. In

total, 19 organisations were contacted to request data, of which 5 responses were received.

Importantly, data was collected from all the key waste generators and managers in the

region, including:

Domestic and commercial waste managed by the Shire;

Other commercial and construction waste generated within the region; and

Waste generated by Chevron.

Therefore, the data collecting exercise captured the vast majority of waste generated within

Onslow and its immediate surrounds.

3.2 Shire Waste

Table 3-1 details the volume of waste managed by the Shire based on population rates

recorded in 2011.

Table 3-1: Shire Waste



C&D)

4,005

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Currently the Shire manages just over 4,000 tonnes of waste generated from the domestic

and commercial communities of Onslow. This is not an insignificant volume of waste and

requires careful consideration and management.

The large majority of this waste is made up of Class II/III municipal solid refuse waste and non-

recyclable commercial and industrial waste.

3.3 Chevron Class III & IV

The following table outlines the waste volumes generated from Chevron’s activities at

Wheatstone and Gorgon.

Table 3-2: Chevron Waste




Chevron is a major contributor to the hazardous waste (Class IV) volumes expected to be

generated within the region, reported as 1,024 tonnes per annum, which includes waste

generated across the Wheatstone and Gorgon projects. This figure is considered to be

conservative as it does not take account of triennial maintenance works and any future

expansion works, which would be anticipated to increase hazardous waste volumes from

current levels.

3.4 Regional Class IV

A limited amount of up to date waste data from regional areas was able to be gathered as

part of the recent waste data exercise. As such, previously published data from the Pilbara

Waste Data Study from 2011-12 was utilised. Analysis of this data found that there was 26,785

tonnes of hazardous materials generated across the wider Pilbara region. Of that total, the

regional hazardous waste volumes expected to be disposed of in Onslow was separated into

two scenarios, namely:

Low – assumes that 10% of the Regional Hazardous materials would be transported to

Onslow; and

High – assumes a higher rate of 20% of the Regional Hazardous materials being

transported to Onslow.

Table 3-3: Regional Class IV Waste



As is shown in Table 3-3, these scenarios resulted in the tonnages of hazardous Class IV waste

being estimated as 2,176 tonnes for the Low scenario and 4,352 tonnes for the High scenario.

In addition, it is understood from Talis’ knowledge of the Pilbara region that there are

significant quantities of other Class IV waste that are being stockpiled. This includes old

railway sleepers (an estimated 60,000 tonnes) and substantial quantities of railway ballast

spoil, both of which are understood to be contaminated with dieldren.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


3.5 Summary (All Waste)

Table 3-4 below summarises the total waste generated in the Onslow area along with

estimated regional Class IV waste. Taking into account the two scenarios (Low and High)

applied to the Regional Class IV waste, there were two estimated waste generation totals

(i.e. combined Class III and IV waste) with 8,628 tonnes for the Low scenario and 10,804

tonnes for the High scenario.

Table 3-4: Total Waste Generated per Year



C&D)

4,005








The current waste data indicates that, under the High scenario, waste volumes would remain

relatively stable at around 10,800 tonnes per annum from 2016, growing to over 11,000 in

2019 (the currently estimated first year of operation for the WMF) and increasing in 2025 with

the expansion of the Wheatstone and Gorgon projects (additional trains). In relation to the

Low scenario, waste volumes are expected to reduce following completion of the current

Wheatstone construction phase. This scenario estimates a levelling off of waste volumes with

no major expansion and new construction projects up to 2039.

3.6 Shire Waste Projections

Waste projections are required to ensure that the proposed Disposal Options can cater for

future demands. Traditionally, two methods are used to estimate future waste generation

quantities. Population growth rates combined with per capita waste generation rates are

utilised for MSW. Forecasting in economic and construction activities are generally utilised to

project future C&I and C&D waste quantities.

Given its geographical isolation, relatively small population and typically large size of

resource development projects in Onslow, population is strongly influenced by growth in the

resources sector. Most of the population is involved directly or indirectly in the resources

industry. Such growth also results in increases in construction activity, generating C&D waste.

Table 3-5 sets out the projected annual average growth rates across a low and high

scenario. The growth rate for 2015-2024 were sourced from the Pilbara Development

Commission’s (PDC) report, Assessment of Accommodation Need in Tom Price, Onslow and

Paraburdoo: Final Report published in 2015. There are no future growth rates available for the

town of Onslow beyond 2024. Talis has adopted conservative and linear growth rates of 0%

for the low scenario and 1% for the high scenario up to 2039. In September 2016, Talis was

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


advised that the Pilbara Development Commission is further revising these projections as they

were considered to be too conservative and not accurately forecasting future growth within

Onslow. However, these revised projections were not available prior to completion of this

report and therefore have not been included in the projections. Therefore, it should be

accepted that these population projections are extremely conservative.


Scenario

Average Annual Growth Rate

Pilbara Development

Commission (2015)

2015 – 2024

2025 – 2039

Low -3% 0%

High 0% 1%

Both scenarios indicate a reduction in the Onslow population in 2018 (believed to coincide

with the end of the current construction phase of Wheatstone in Onslow). The High scenario

then assumes a relatively low level of growth over the following 21 years to 2039 of 1% per

annum. The Low scenario assumes a levelling out of growth to 0% per annum. As can be

seen above, the Shire’s waste generation rate is set to increase under the high growth

scenario to less than 4,500 tonnes per annum. However as outlined previously, the Pilbara

Development Commission has recently confirmed that they are revising the Onslow

population projections as they were deemed to be conservatively inaccurate. Therefore,

Talis is of the view that the waste generation projects above will not reflect the future waste

generation rate for the Shire’s waste as the Onslow townsite grows. Therefore, Talis

anticipates that the Shire will be generating in excess of 5,000 tonnes of waste per annum

requiring disposal. Talis recommends that the Shire closely monitors waste generation with

Onslow, particularly with the use of the new weighbridge to be installed at Tom Price.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


3.7 Waste Generation Projections

Diagram 1 illustrates the future waste projections for Onslow from 2016 to 2039 based on the

Low and High growth scenarios.

Diagram 1: Projected future waste generation volumes for Onslow from 2016 to 2039

Under the High growth scenario, Onslow’s projected waste generation volumes up to 2039

shows incremental growth around 2018-19 and 2024-25. There were no published projections

data available after 2024. Talis, therefore assumed population and associated waste

generation levels off with 1% growth from 2024 to 2039. The High growth scenario assumes

that there will be expansion of Chevron’s projects in the region, namely Wheatstone and

Gorgon, which will result in increased population and increases in waste generation. There

are also a number of other development projects anticipated in the area which has not

been accounted for due to a lack of available data, such as the K+S Group Ashburton salt

project and the Onslow Marine Supply Base at Beadon Creek.

The High growth waste projections should, therefore, be considered to be conservative as

they do not take account of any major developments in the area other than Wheatstone

and any associated population increases resulting from these developments. The Onslow

population would be likely to increase as a result of new developments or expansion works,

which would result in an increase in the Shire’s waste volumes above currently projected

levels.

The waste projections under the Low growth scenario shows a significant reduction in

population after 2017, which is believed to coincide with the anticipated completion of the

current Wheatstone project construction phase. There were no published projections data

available after 2024. Talis therefore assumed conservative population and associated waste

generation levels with 0% growth from 2024 to 2039.

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Waste

To

nn

ag

e

HighScenario

LowScenario

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


4 Onslow WMF Revised Feasibility Study

In 2013, the Shire in partnership with the Department of State Development and Chevron

undertook a feasibility study (Original Feasibility Study) for a Class III/IV landfill in Onslow. The

key objectives of the site selection and feasibility study was to:

Identify a preferred site for the development of the Class III/IV facility; and

The technical and financial viability of delivering such a facility at the preferred site.

There has been a variety of changes since the completion of the Original Feasibility Study,

including the downturn in the mining and resource sector, decline in the forecasted

population growth rates, as well as a reduction in construction costs. Therefore, Talis

completed a Revised Feasibility Study to determine the cost of delivery of the project at this

time.

The first stage of the Revised Feasibility Study was to gather updated waste data from waste

generators. Once received, the data was analysed as part of capacity modelling works, in

conjunction with published population projections data to predict future waste tonnages

across Low and High growth scenarios. The model had a high degree of conservatism

applied relating to the volume of waste currently generated and further population and

economic growth, which will affect future waste tonnages. A key element of this is the

Pilbara Development Commission population projections utilised in the Study, which were

recently determined as inaccurate and have now been revised upwards.

These data outputs were then provided to Talis’ engineers to undertake conceptual design

works for the facility. The High growth scenario was adopted for these works. Two options

were considered, namely:


Option 2: A single landfill developed to Class IV standard but accepting Class III and

Class IV type waste.

The assessment found that Option 2 was the most suitable option. The key reasons for this



The capital costs of developing a Class IV landfill to accept both Class III and Class IV

waste volumes over a 21 year period is lower than the cost of developing separate

landfills.

The next stage of the Study was to assess the financial viability of the project based on the

revised waste volumes and design with an initial operating life of 21 years commencing in

2019/20. Unlike the Original Feasibility Study, the key focus of the financial modelling was on

the financial implications of developing a landfill at the Preferred Site, rather than a fully

integrated facility that was assessed previously.

The total cost for all capital works during the 21 years development and operational life of

the Class IV landfill is approximately $29.41 million. The most costly component of the capital

works program across the life of the landfill is the basal lining system.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Talis has also prepared revised operational cost estimates for the proposed Class IV WMF

operations and included elements such as labour, plant and consumables. The average

annual operational costs for the landfill would be $1.14 million, (including a local loading of

20%) over the 21 years, equating to a total operational cost of $23.87 million.

Gate fee modelling was undertaken based on the financial model. The break-even cost per

tonne across the operational life of the landfill was calculated at $200.58. In comparison to

the Original Feasibility Study, this breakeven gate fee has increased from $170.54. Although

the overall costs of the project have reduced so have the forecasted tonnages, which has

culminated in this increase of ~17.5% on those break-even rates.

If the rate for Class III waste was reduced to 85% of the average gate fee (equating to

$170.49), the rate for Class IV waste would need to be increased by 113% ($226.37) of the

average gate fee in order to cover the shortfall created.

Talis has modelled a number of potential scenarios in relation to the project including

obtaining capital funding of $5 million, reducing the operational hours, increasing the Class III

waste volumes by 50% and altering the lining system design. Based on the Revised Design

and the various scenarios modelled, a range of gate fees have been devised as listed within

Table 4-1 below.


Ranges Break-Even Gate

Fee

Discounted Gate Fees

Class III Class IV

High $233.15 $198.18 $284.47

Low $142.76 $121.35 $170.30

Based on our experience in landfill operations and charges, Talis is of the view that the gate

fees listed above are high, which are reflective of the low volumes of waste generated in

these isolated areas. However, Talis is of the view that these gates fees are attractive to

provide the Shire, and also other key waste generators in the area, with long term security on

future waste disposal services as well as costs.

Talis assessed a range of potential funding opportunities that exist which could be utilised for

the project, including Royalties for Regions and the Building Better Regions funds. Talis

recognise a strong potential for the project to obtain funding to assist with the capital

funding.

To further reduce the gate fees for the project, the Shire should seek to accept as much

waste as possible at the facility including both Class III and IV materials as well as other

recyclables and waste materials, particularly to offset the operational costs.

To underpin the viability of the Onslow WMF, the Shire should seek to obtain commitment on

waste materials and tonnages from waste generators within the region, such as through

Waste Supply Agreements.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


4.1 Revised Feasibility Study Recommendations

Based on the works undertaken in the Revised Feasibility Study and its associated findings,

Talis put forward the following recommendations for the Shire:

1. Commence engagement with relevant funding authorities and relevant stakeholders in

relation to seeking funding for the project to determine the likelihood of financial support.

Talis anticipates that relevant organisations would include the Department of State

Development, the State Department of Regional Development, Pilbara Development

Commission and the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.



3. Continue with the implementation of the recommendations within the Original Feasibility

Study (where relevant) to further progress the Onslow WMF including Market Sounding

and Site Investigations.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


5 Legislative Framework Review

This section sets out a summary of the review of current legislation and guidance relating to

landfills and waste disposal services. In particular, the review considered the following

documentation:

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria’s Best Practice Environmental

Management Guidelines for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of

Landfills (2015) (BPEM Guidelines); and

Department of Environment Regulation's Draft Environmental Standard: Rural Landfills

(2016) (Draft Rural Landfill Standards).

This regulatory documentation is discussed below including their adoption across the State

based on Talis’ experience on landfill projects.

5.1 BPEM Guidelines

Due to the lack of similar relevant guidelines within Western Australia, the DER has historically

adopted the Victorian Environmental Protection Authority’s BPEM Guidelines across the

State. The BPEM Guidelines specify standards and requirements across the whole of life for

landfills to minimise the environmental and social impacts associated with such facilities. The

BPEM Guidelines provide clear guidance on where landfills should be sited and what type of

data in required to confirm the suitability of the sites. This includes the requirement for

collecting data on the soil types and groundwater conditions on and surrounding the site

including the potential for seasonal variations.

A key component of the BPEM Guidelines is the engineering requirements for landfills

including composite basal lining systems, leachate and gas management systems. Post

operation the landfill requires capping to encapsulate the waste mass to minimise infiltration

of surface water through the waste as well as control landfill gas emissions. The BPEM

Guidelines also specify operational requirements including monitoring and reporting

standards. These standards have significant cost implications to the establishment and

operation of landfills particularly from the capital requirements.

In recent years, the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) has taken a more holistic

approach to the adopted BPEM Guidelines across the State, particularly in major Regional

Centres. This has followed on from the implementation of these BPEM Guidelines to all

landfills excepting metropolitan landfills. This holistic approach to compliance with the BPEM

Guidelines has resulted in many of the Local Governments in rural areas commencing costly

exercises to achieve compliance to ensure that long term disposal services can be provided

to their communities. Talis is of the understanding that a number of Local Governments

including with representation through the Western Australia Local Government Association

(WALGA) have questioned the DER’s specifying the requirement to comply with the BPEM

Guidelines including the DER’s approach to adopting these standards which has mainly

been on a case by case basis when new applications or licence renewals have been

sought. Therefore, there has been little consultation or lead time in relation to the adoption

of the BPEM Guidelines in regional areas.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Over the last year or so the DER have indicated that the BPEM Guidelines should only be

considered as a guideline and not regarded as a regulatory requirement. However, based

on experience of seeking approvals on other regional landfill projects across the State, the

DER is referring back to the BPEM Guidelines when assessing applications and in certain

outcomes specifying requirements or conditioning compliance with the relevant standards

as outlined within the BPEM Guidelines.

Arising from the questions raised by regional Local Governments as well as WALGA, the DER

has outlined that they are currently working on Rural Landfill Standards which will apply to

rural landfills that accept less than 5,000 tonnes per annum. These are currently in draft

format with preliminary consultation underway with further public consultation commencing

in the near future. In addition, the DER has outlined that once the Draft Rural Landfill

Standards have been completed, attention will turn to preparing a Western Australian

equivalent of the BPEM Guidelines from Victoria. At this stage, the DER has indicated that

these standards will apply to all the landfills across the State that accept more than 5,000

tonnes per annum.

5.2 Rural Landfill Environmental Standards

The DER has recently prepared Draft Rural Landfill Standards that would apply to landfills in

regional areas that do not accept more than 5,000 tonnes of waste for disposal. Talis has

recently been involved in a variety of preliminary consultation processes to provide

guidance and input into the preparation of the Rural Landfill Environmental Standards and

therefore have a strong understanding of the current content and requirements of these

standards. Talis’ advice below is based on our involvement to date. However, it should be

noted that at this stage, Talis has only reviewed draft versions of the Rural Landfill Standards

that have been released for the purpose of Preliminary Consultation. The DER proposes to

release a draft version of the report for detailed consultation in which the public can obtain

a copy of the report and provide comments. Following this process, the DER will finalise the

documentation for adoption. Therefore, our advice below should be regarded as

preliminary only at this stage.

The objective of the Rural Landfill Standards is to set out siting, design and operational

standards for landfills in remote and rural areas accepting less than 5,000 tonnes per annum

to ensure that the risks to the environment are acceptable and without imposing undue or

unreasonable costs on local governments. Pursuant to Part V of the Environmental

Protection Act 1986, the Rural Landfill Standards will apply to the following Prescribed

Premises:

Table 5-1: Prescribed Premises applicable to the Rural Landfill Environmental Standards

Category Description Threshold

64 Class II or III putrescible landfill site 20 tonnes or more per year

89 Putrescible landfill site More than 20 but less than 5,000

tonnes per year

The Rural Landfill Standards will be used when assessing new applications for works

approvals, registrations and licenses under Division 3, Part V of the Environmental Protection

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Act 1986. In order for a new application to be considered, it is a requirement that it meets all

of the specified standards.

In accordance with these standards, site selection must demonstrate that due consideration

is given to the potential risks that landfills may have to public health and the environment. In

order to protect public health and environmental values there are a variety of standards set

in relation to suitable sites, including:

Geology (soil types);

Hydrogeology (groundwater);

Hydrology (surface water);

Topography;

Ground stability; and

Ecological values.

There is an onus on the proponent of such facilities to ensure that they demonstrate

compliance with the relevant standards. This can only be achieved by undertaking site

investigations. At a minimum, all sites will require geotechnical and hydrogeological

investigations which will require boreholes for groundwater and soil samples to undergo

laboratory analysis.

The findings of the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations will influence whether or

not there is a requirement to install a lined barrier at the rural landfill. Leachate produced at

the site must not cause an alteration to the beneficial use or environmental values of the

groundwater. Factors that will influence the risk and pathway of leachate to groundwater

include:

Soil types underlying the landfill;

Depth to groundwater;

Effectiveness of stormwater and drainage management; and

Nature of waste to be disposed.

In order to prevent surface waters and drains being contaminated by leachate or landfill

run-off, stormwater and surface water controls must also be implemented. These controls

must prevent the ingress of stormwater into the landfill footprint, whilst also preventing

discharge of run-off from the landfill footprint to watercourses and wetlands. Control

measures must include:

Works to drain stormwater away from the landfill footprint;

Diversion of stormwater flow around the perimeter of the landfill footprint;

Directing stormwater away from surface water bodies (noting that flow may be

absent in ephemeral water courses);

Side drainage channels on access roads must be intercepted short of the face and

diverted away from the waste disposal area; and

Segregation of stormwater contaminated by the active waste landfill footprint.

In addition to implementing these control measures, general maintenance in the form of

regular inspections, clearing of culverts and reinstatement of eroded areas must be

performed in order to ensure the performance standards of the preventative measures are

being met. Inspections are essential in order to monitor the effectiveness of control measures

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


across the site aimed at mitigating environmental risks. By conducting regular, scheduled

monitoring, remedial works can be performed before any significant environmental harm in

the event that a control measure is not effective.

Another operational control is to ensure that there is sufficient and suitable cover material on

the site. In order to minimise the risk of odour and windblown litter, as well as to prevent

breeding of vermin and disease vectors, the operational face of the landfill must be covered

with 150mm – 270mm of dense, inert and incombustible material. For a landfill of this size,

accepting between 2,000 and 5,000 tonnes of waste per year, this process must be

performed on a weekly basis. When the landfill reaches the end of its operational life, the

final cover applied should be between 1m (clayey soils) to 2m (sandy soils), applied within 12

months of the trench or cell being filled. This cap must then be revegetated with shallow

rooted provenance species.

To ensure the structural stability of the landfill over time and to minimise risk to public amenity

and public health, two different methods of waste disposal must be considered. The trench

method, best suited for sites receiving smaller quantities of waste on flat or gently rolling land

surfaces, involves excavating a channel, filling with waste and compacting, then using the

excavated soil as cover. This method does not include a lining system or installation of a

leachate collection system so poses a much greater risk to the environment. The area

method, more suitable for larger quantities of waste, involves spreading the waste and

compacting over the natural surface and then spreading a covering material over the

surface and re-compacting. A lining system can be installed prior to utilising this method

allowing a Class III or IV landfill to be established.

As outlined above, these new Rural Landfill Standards will greatly improve the overall

environmental and social performance of such facilities. In comparison to the previous

Onslow Landfill, these standards will significantly increase the design and operation standards

for such facilities. This will substantially increase the capital and operational cost of delivering

and maintaining such facilities.

In addition, Talis recommends that the Shire closely monitors waste generation with Onslow,

particularly with the use of the new weighbridge to be installed at Tom Price. The current

population projections for Onslow are currently being revised by the Pilbara Development

Commission as they are conservatively inaccurate. Therefore, Talis anticipates that with the

proposed development within Onslow the waste managed by the Shire will trip the 5,000

tonnes per annum in the near future.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


6 Onslow Disposal Options Conceptualisation

The following section outlines the disposal options for Onslow that have been considered as

part of this assessment, which were determined from discussions with the Shire. There were six

main Disposal Options and a number of sub-options available to the Shire. These options are

set out in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: List of Options

Option No

Retention

of Onslow

WTS?

Description

Option 1A Yes Haulage to Tom Price landfill

Option 1B Yes Use of compactor at WTS, haulage to Tom Price

Option 2A Yes Haulage to Karratha (Seven Mile) landfill

Option 2B Yes Use of compactor at WTS, haulage to Karratha (Seven Mile) landfill

Option 3A Yes Haulage to Karratha, final treatment at Waste to Energy in Port

Hedland

Option 3B Yes Use of compactor at WTS, haulage to Karratha, final treatment at

Waste to Energy in Port Hedland

Option 4 No New Class II Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10

Option 5A No New Class III/IV Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10

(High Scenario)

Option 5B No New Class III/IV Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10

(Low Scenario)

Option 6 No New Class II Onslow Waste Management Facility at alternative site

Option 7 No New Class III Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10

Option 8 No New Class II Onslow Waste Management Facility at alternate site

utilising Trench Operations

Options 1-3 would require the retention of the existing Onslow Waste Transfer Station. The

Waste Transfer Station has been operating since August 2015, following the closure of the

previous Onslow landfill. The Waste Transfer Station currently accepts waste from the

community and commercial operators. As there is no waste disposal facility available in the

local area, the waste is required to be consolidated at the Waste Transfer Station and

transported for disposal elsewhere in the region.

6.1 Option 1A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, haulage to Tom Price

The first option, 1A, would involve continuing with the current Shire waste services utilising

Onslow's Waste Transfer Station. The current disposal site for waste generated in Onslow is the

Tom Price landfill, which is located approximately 405km from Onslow. All municipal solid

refuse waste and non-recyclable commercial and industrial waste collected by the Shire,

along with waste dropped off at the Waste Transfer Station would be consolidated on-site

before being transported by bulk haulage to Tom Price for disposal.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


The following key assumptions were made when calculating Option 1A:

The two 30m3 skip bin configuration currently utilised by the Shire’s contractor is

continued to be used;

The cost per hour has been calculated based on current contractor rates per trip;

Tonnage capacity of skip bins has been calculated using total waste cubic

meterage (volume) for Shire waste haulage in 2015/2016 divided by number of trips

per year; and

The gate fee was calculated based on actual operational costs for Tom Price landfill

for 2015/2016 and estimate annual waste tonnages. The gate fee also takes into

account future closure and capping costs with a provision of $10/m3 for capping

material.

6.2 Option 1B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, use of compactor and

haulage to Tom Price

This option would be the same as Option 1A but with the addition of a waste compactor on

site at the Waste Transfer Station. This would enable refuse to be compacted to higher levels

(estimated to be 0.4-0.5 tonnes per m3) to increase the volume of waste able to be

transported with each trip and reduce the overall number of trips required per year. Waste

will still continue to be hauled from the Waste Transfer Station to Tom Price Landfill.

The following key assumptions were made when calculating Option 1B:

Wastech compaction system trailers (2 x 60m3) are utilised for haulage of waste; and

Maintenance and power costs associated with the compaction system are $80,000

per annum.

6.3 Option 2A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, haulage to Karratha landfill

This option would involve continuing to utilise the Waste Transfer Station for consolidation of

waste but transporting waste for disposal at Karratha’s Seven Mile waste facility which is

located approximately 300km from Onslow. All municipal solid waste and non-recyclable

commercial and industrial waste collected by the Shire, along with waste dropped off at the

Waste Transfer Station would be consolidated on-site before being transported by bulk

haulage to Karratha for disposal.

The following key assumptions were made when calculating Option 2A:

The cost per hour has been calculated based on current contractor rates per trip;

and

A gate fee of $105.19/tonne would be charged at Seven Mile.

6.4 Option 2B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, use of compactor and

haulage to Karratha landfill


site at the Waste Transfer Station.

The same assumptions that were made for Option 1B and 2A were used with Option 2B.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


6.5 Option 3A: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, haulage to Karratha for

processing, final treatment at Waste to Energy facility

As with Options 1 and 2, this option would also involve the retention of the Onslow Waste

Transfer Station for consolidation of waste before being transported to Karratha. The waste

would then be processed through a Materials Recovery Facility. Refuse would ultimately be

sent for treatment at the proposed Waste to Energy (gasification) facility in Port Hedland.

This option would require the Shire to commit waste tonnages to be sent to the facility for a

minimum term (e.g. 20 years). It is understood that the City of Karratha and Town of Port

Hedland have already committed their waste to New Energy through Waste Supply

Agreements. However, at this stage, it is unclear what tonnages would be required for this to

be a viable option for the Shire.

A key assumption for this option is that the Shire would be required to pay $100/tonne for

acceptance of the material at the Material Recovery Facility in Karratha.

6.6 Option 3B: Onslow Waste Transfer Station, use of compactor, haulage to

Karratha for processing, final treatment at Waste to Energy facility


site at the Waste Transfer Station.

The same assumptions made when calculating Options 1B and 2B, were used with Option 3B.

6.7 Option 4: New Class II Facility at Site 10

The fourth main option considered is for the Shire to construct an unlined landfill (Class II)

within the Onslow area at Site 10. A Site Selection study was undertaken for the Shire in 2013

to find a new site to construct a replacement landfill in near Onslow. The study used a suite of

environmental, social and planning selection criteria and constraints mapping to identify

potentially suitable sites. From this, 12 sites of interest were further analysed using multi-criteria

analysis and site visits. The multi-criteria analysis used 14 aspects with 18 criteria that were

weighted based on their importance. The Preferred Site was identified as Site 10, located

approximately 36km south of Onslow at Lot 150 Onslow Road. The Preferred Site covers an

area of approximately 150 hectares and is situated within a cadastral lot that is made up of

multiple cadastral land parcels covering over 100,000ha and specified as Unallocated

Crown Land.

This facility would be unable to accept hazardous waste materials, such as those generated

by Chevron's Wheatstone project, but would be able to accept putrescible waste and most

materials currently collected by the Shire's waste collection services. Due to the reduction in

waste materials that could be accepted, the size of the landfill could be somewhat reduced

resulting in a decrease in the size of the site required, the footprint of the landfill itself and

therefore the costs associated with its construction.

In this option, the Waste Transfer Station would be closed and waste would be hauled

directly to site (a 72km return trip).

The following assumptions were made when calculating Option 4:

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


A Refuse Collection Vehicle is used to collect waste and transport directly to the New

Facility; and

The tonnages for this option include Shire waste projections only.

6.8 Option 5: Class III/IV Facility at Site 10

Option 5 would involve proceeding with the construction of the Class III and IV landfill at Site

10 as part of the State Development Agreement partnership with the Department of State

Development and Chevron.

Waste would be collected from the Onslow townsite and surrounding areas and directly

hauled to the waste management facility for disposal. This would mean the existing Waste

Transfer Station would no longer be required.

Option 5 was separated into two scenarios, 5A and 5B. Option 5A is the High growth scenario

which assumes there will be an expansion of Chevron’s projections in the region, namely

Wheatstone and Gorgon, which will result in increased population and waste generation.

The High growth scenario should therefore, be considered to be the conservative option as it

will not need to take into account any further major developments in the future.

Option 5B was based on the Low growth scenario which predicts a significant reduction in

population after 2017, as well as a 0% population growth rate between 2024 and 2039. This is

believed to coincide with the anticipated completion of the current Wheatstone project

construction phase.

The following assumptions were made when calculating Options 5A and 5B:

Future projected waste tonnages are utilised including Class III and IV;

Waste is collected by a Refuse Collection Vehicle and transported directly to the new

facility;

The WMF is operational 5 days per week;

No capital funding opportunities have been included in the model;

Anticipated future revenue (per annum) has been incorporated from Class III and

Class IV waste received by third parties at the facility; and

Cost of commercial waste (drop off) has not been included in the haulage cost

calculations as it is assumed commercial operators will direct haul to the facility.

6.9 Option 6: New Class II Facility at Alternative Site

Option 6 would involve the construction of a new landfill at an alternative site to Site 10

within the vicinity of Onslow. The landfill would be unlined and accept Class II (non-

hazardous) waste. It would be envisaged that the site would be located as close to Onslow

townsite as is feasible.

Waste would be collected from the Onslow townsite and surrounding areas and directly

hauled to the landfill for sorting and disposal. As with other Onslow landfill options (4 and 5),

this would mean the existing Waste Transfer Station would no longer be required.


ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Waste is collected by a Refuse Collection Vehicle and transported directly to the new

facility;


The tonnages used include Shire waste projections (excluding Class III and Class IV

waste tonnages);


calculations as it is assumed commercial operators will direct haul to the facility; and

The option is modelled without the use of the currents Waste Transfer Station; and

The alternate site is assumed to be a distance of 15km (30km return) from the Onslow

town.

6.10 Option 7: New Class III Facility at Site 10

Option 7 would involve proceeding with the construction of the Class III landfill at Site 10

including fully lined landfill cells. This option will still provide the Shire with a much more

efficient waste disposal method, however without the option to dispose Class IV waste

available to surrounding industries, there will be a sufficient reduction in revenue generated.



The tonnages used include Shire waste projections (excluding Class III and Class IV

waste tonnages); and



6.11 Option 8: New Class II Facility at alternate site utilising Trench

Operations

Option 8 would involve the establishment of trenches to provide waste disposal services at

an alternative site to Site 10 within the vicinity of Onslow, as with Option 6. However, the

trench method would be utilised rather than the area method. This option provides a

cheaper alternative to Option 6 as the trenches would be constructed by operational staff.


The Shire staff would excavate the trenches at the Site;

The WMF is operational 5 days per week; and



6.12 Overall Assumptions

The following overall assumptions were made when conducting logistics modelling:

All waste that undergoes bulk haulage is assumed to be taken to the Onslow Waste

Transfer Station prior to transfer;

Loading/unloading times assume no queuing at the Waste Transfer Station or landfill;

Loading/unloading time for all options is considered to be 50 minutes (100 minutes

total per trip);

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Seasonally variable loads have not been taken into account;

All loads are assumed to be at maximum vehicle or load capacity when transferred

to landfill;

Capacity of trucks has been assumed to be up to the total allowable volume only;

Total time (travel, loading and unloading) is rounded up to the nearest quarter hour;

and

Truck types and capacities may vary depending on suppliers in the area.

6.13 Site Selection Model Review

As outlined previously, a Site Selection Study was undertaken to determine a Preferred Site for

the Class III/IV landfill as part of the Onslow Waste Management Facility Feasibility Study back

in 2013. In total, 12 Sites of Interest where determined with Site 10 being selected as the

Preferred Site based on the Site Selection Criteria and Multi Criteria Analysis utilised in the

study.

As part of this Onslow Waste Disposal Strategy, Talis has undertaken a review of the Site

Selection process including the criteria adopted for the study to determine if other potential

sites could be identified. This is particularly relevant considering that as part of this Waste

Disposal Strategy, all types of landfills are being assessed including Class II.

The first stage of the Site Selection review was to examine the Site Selection Criteria used and

consider if any of the criterion could be revised due to changes in the Shire's waste

management requirements.

The Site Selection criteria in Table 6-2 were amended. As can be seen, the size of the

footprint of the WMF is anticipated to be significantly reduced to 50 hectares, down from 100

hectares. The minimum separation distance was reduced from a conservative 9km to 3km,

which is in line with the recommended buffer distance from an aerodrome for jet aircraft in

the BPEM Guidelines.

Table 6-2: Onslow Site Selection Criteria - Previous and Revised

Aspect Previous Criteria Revised Criteria

Size Minimum of 100 hectares Minimum of 50

hectares

Land Use Separation

Distances

Minimum separation

distance of 9km to

airports or aerodromes.

Minimum separation

distance of 3km to

airports or aerodromes.

However, arising from these minor changes to the Site Selection Criteria, no new potential

Sites of Interest where identified. A key reason for this is due to the numerous constraints that

exist within Onslow which limited site selection works for landfills, including:

Limited developable land surrounding the Onslow townsite;

Limited road network surrounding Onslow to provide access to potential Site of

Interest;

Significant flood plains closer to Onslow; and

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Extensive mining tenements surrounding Onslow which have previously been deemed

not accessible for landfilling purposes.

Site 10 was selected as the Preferred Site as no such limitation existed over the site. A key

attractive characteristic of Site 10 was that the tenure of the land rested with the

Department of Parks and Wildlife, through a Crown Land vesting. However, recent

discussions with the Shire officers have raised questions around the potential to obtain access

to the mining tenement land surrounding Onslow. As part of this Waste Disposal Strategy,

Talis has included an alternative site with a hypothetical distance of 15kms from Onslow.

Options 6 and 8 provide the Shire within an understanding of the potential financial

implications to the logistical costs of the waste management services by obtaining land

closer to Onslow than Site 10. Within the original Site Selection Studies, a number of Sites of

Interest where identified within 15kms of the Onslow townsite but these sites where not

identified as Preferred Sites due to the poor scoring obtained within the Multi Criteria Analysis.

Since then, no further Site Selection works have been completed to date, such as the

identification of Sites of Interest within 15kms of Onslow.

Therefore, based on the information currently obtainable on available land surrounding

Onslow and for the purpose of this Waste Disposal Strategy, Site 10 should still be regarded as

the Preferred Site for the development of a landfill to service Onslow.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


7 Design and Logistics Input

For the purposes of the options assessment in relation to design and logistics the Disposal

Options can be split into distinct categories relating to haulage and disposal. With Options

1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B the focus is on the continuation of the waste transfer station and

haulage to a surrounding facility for ultimate disposal. While Option 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7, and 8,

provide the opportunity for the Shire to dispose of waste at a new local landfill facility.

7.1 Haulage Logistics

Options 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B, assume the waste transfer station continues operation for

bulking processes, whereas Option 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7, and 8, assumes that waste is direct hauled

to the new landfill facility.

Option 1A, 2A, and 3A, adopt the same bulk haulage of ‘loose fill’ waste materials, using a

front end loader to fill bulk haulage trucks for transportation to landfill. There is no great

compaction of the material due to the height of the haulage trucks which are therefore only

loosely filled. This results in an average compaction rate of 0.3 tonnes per m3.

Option 1B, 2B and Option 3B, have been assessed with the cost of retrospectively fitting a

waste compactor unit to the existing waste transfer station to permit the increase in volume

of waste able to be transported with each trip and reduce the overall number of trips

required per year.

The compactor at the Waste Transfer Station will use an inbuilt hydraulic compaction system.

Waste received at the Waste transfer station will be loaded into a compactor system via a

hopper utilising a front end loader. The materials will then be compressed utilising a hydraulic

ram into designated transfer trailers and would result in a compaction rate of 0.4-0.5 tonnes

per m3.

7.2 Landfill Disposal Options

In order to develop a range of options for the Shire to be able to dispose of their own waste,

and allow the Shire to make an informed decision based on all these factors, three different

classes of landfill have been considered, including:

Class II – Unlined putrescible landfill;

Class III – Lined putrescible landfill with leachate collection; and

Class IV – Double lined secure landfill with leachate collection.

The conceptual design works were prepared in accordance with relevant best practice

standards to provide the Shire with sufficient information to make informed decisions

regarding the development of a modern WMF.

In contrast to other waste infrastructure components at the WMF, the landfill footprint would

be progressively developed and waste masses capped through the operating life of the

facility. The landfill development options included:

Option 4: New Class II Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10;

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Option 5A: New Class III/IV Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10 (High

Scenario);

Option 5B: New Class III/IV Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10 (Low

Scenario);

Option 6: New Class II Onslow Waste Management Facility at alternative site;

Option 7: New Class III Onslow Waste Management Facility at Site 10; and

Option 8: New Class II Onslow Waste Management Facility at alternate site utilising

Trench Operations.

As the construction and operation of all of the landfill options assessed would be relatively

similar, Talis has undertaken an assessment of the most appropriate means of developing the

proposed landfill area.

The following assumptions were factored into the assessment:

The landfill would be developed in a number of cells to cater for an operating landfill

life of ~21 years; and

Daily cover throughout landfilling operations is assumed to be 15% of the total void

space.

7.3 Class II Landfill

A Class II (Category 64 or 89 Landfill) is defined in the Landfill Waste Classification and Waste

Definitions (Department of Environment Regulation, 1996 as amended 2009) as ‘an unlined

landfill designed to accept putrescible and inert wastes.’

The Class II (unlined) facility for Option 4 & 6 would entail a land raise landfill for the waste up

to a height of 8m above ground, while Option 8 would entail a trench operation and be

below ground.

The footprint of the landfill will be excavated approximately 3m into the ground. If the

geology does not permit this, then there will have to be a bund around it to create the

artificial in ground void space.

Although there is no lining system required, to comply with the Draft Rural Landfill Standards,

the base of excavation would be limited to ensure compliance with the minimum 3m offset

above the maximum regional high groundwater levels, as well as the other siting and

separation distances to ensure there is a low inherent risk to public health and the

environment.

A final cover/capping layer would be required to be greater than 1m for clayey soils or

greater than 2m for sandy soils, in accordance with the Draft Rural Landfill Standards, and will

be dependent on the specific site selected and site-won materials available.

7.4 Class III Landfill

A Class III (Category 64 Landfill) is defined in the Landfill Waste Classification and Waste

Definitions (Department of Environment Regulation, 1996 as amended 2009) as ‘A lined

landfill, which may include leachate collection, designed to accept putrescible and inert

wastes.’

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


The Class III (lined) facility Option 7 would entail a land raise landfill up to the height of 10m

above ground, so as not to create a visual impact above the height of the natural ridgeline.



artificial in ground void space.

For a Class III landfill cell, constructed to best practice standards, the following features

would typically be required:

Lining System:

o Single composite lining system including a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) and

high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane basal layers;


o Leachate collection and management incorporating a leachate drainage

blanket and collection pipe network and evaporation pond;



Capping System:



7.5 Class IV Landfill

A Class IV (Category 65 Landfill) is defined in the Landfill Waste Classification and Waste

Definitions (Department of Environment Regulation, 1996 as amended 2009) as ‘A double-

lined landfill with leachate collection, designed to accept contaminated soils and sludges

(including encapsulated wastes)’.

Class IV landfills are considered to be secure landfills and are designed with the inclusion of a

double composite lining system to capture any leaks within the primary leachate collection

layer.

The above ground height of the landfill would be restricted to 10m for Options 5A, and 5B, so

as not to create a visual impact above the height of the natural ridgeline.



artificial in ground void space

A Class IV landfill lining system is required to provide a higher level of protection to the

environment than a Class III landfill. This is achieved in a similar fashion to a Class III landfill but

with additional protection layers in the lining system.

Currently, hazardous waste produced in the Onslow area is stockpiled on site, treated to

reduce contamination levels or transported to the Red Hill Waste Management Facility in

Perth, which is currently the only licenced Class IV landfill in Western Australia.

For a Class IV landfill cell, constructed to best practice standards, the following features

would typically be required:

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Lining System:

o Double composite lining system including double Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)

and high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane basal layers, and a leak

detection layer.


o Leachate collection and management incorporating a leachate drainage

blanket and collection pipe network and evaporation pond;



Capping System:



7.6 Landfill Gas

As the capping layer for Class III and Class IV Options (5A, 5B, and 7) incorporates a

geosynthetic liner, this would constrain the release of landfill gases generated from the waste

mass. To mitigate uncontrolled migration, a gas management system would be included. At

this stage, this would be comprised of a system of vertical extraction wells connected by a

collection pipe to a flare where the gas can be burnt. However, it may be shown that the

gas generated at the site may be too irregular or insufficient to feed a flare. As such an

aspirating cowl network may have to be installed in its place. A more detailed study would

be required to determine which system would be the most appropriate course of action.

7.7 Landfill Supporting Safe Infrastructure and Equipment

A number of pieces of supporting infrastructure and/or equipment will have to be

constructed or installed for Landfill Options 5A, 5B, and 7 including:

Primary access route;

Weighbridge and gatehouse;

Office accommodation;

Wheel wash;

Environmental monitoring points;

Perimeter access roadways;

Fencing;

Equipment shed; and

Fire tank.

For the assessment of Landfill Options 4, 6 and 8 the level of supporting infrastructure has

been reduced to remove the requirement of the weighbridge/gatehouse and wheelwash.

In order to operate the Waste Management Facility efficiently, a number of vehicles would

also be required including:

Compactor;

Back-hoe Excavator;

Dump Truck; and

Utility Vehicle.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


It is assumed as part of the options assessment that a compactor will be required for all

landfill disposal options, with the exception of Option 8 utilising trench backfill options.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


8 Financial Modelling

To understand the financial implications of the various options, Talis prepared an extensive

model for whole of life costings over the 20 year period. Key inputs comprising capital and

operational costs for the establishment of a new landfill facility, implementation of a

compactor and utilisation of the current Waste Transfer Station at Onslow are described

below in this section.

8.1 Capital Cost

Based on the conceptual designs of the infrastructure required for all options, capital cost

estimates have been prepared for all key items of waste infrastructure. Key additional cost

items include:

Local loading of 30% for comparison to Perth prices;

Contingency figure of 10%; and

Professional services of 8%.

8.1.1 Haulage Options without Compactor

For Options 1A, 2A and 3A, there are no attributed capital costs. This particular option is

based on bulk haulage to existing waste disposal locations, utilising existing infrastructure.

8.1.2 Haulage Options with Compactor

Options 1B, 2B and 3B all include the addition of a waste compactor on site at the Waste

Transfer Station. This would increase the volume of waste able to be transported with each

trip and reduce the overall number of trips required per year, however incurs additional

capital costs to establish the compactor. The capital cost estimate for these options is shown

below in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1: Compactor Capital Costs

Aspect Cost

Infrastructure $113,750

Earthworks and Preliminaries $1,640

Miscellaneous $200,000

Machinery and Equipment $780,000

Water and Power $56,005

Sub Total $1,151,395

Local Loading (30%) $345,419

Contingency (10%) $115,140

Professional Services (8%) $92,112

Total $1,704,065

The largest source of cost in these options is the purchasing cost of the compactor, as well as

the local loading factors attributed to installing the machinery in a rural location. Although

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


these options incur this initial investment, the long term savings are much greater due to

decreased haulage due to more efficient transport of waste.

8.1.3 New Landfill Options

Capital costs for the establishment of a new landfill facility apply to Options 4 to 8. These

options involve landfills of various classes, constructed at the preferred location of Site 10

(Option 4, 5A, 5B and & 7), or an alternative site close to Onslow (Option 6 and 8).

As shown in Table 8-2, Option 5A and 5B for the Class III and Class IV waste have the highest

capital cost. This cost can be attributed to the larger facility due to the higher volume of

waste accepted at the site over the operational lifetime and the double composite lined

basal lining system required in order to be licensed to accept the Class IV waste stream.

Options 5A and 5B also have the highest the associated site infrastructure costs, due to the

additional requirements of the wheel wash for the Class IV facility.

The most costly option after Option 5 is Option 7, which also requires a lining system, but

being Class III classification, only requires a single composite basal lining system.

Option 7 and Option 4 have similar infrastructure costs, as they will require the same

access/haul roads and equipment to operate the site as Options 5A and 5B with the

exception of the wheelwash.

Options 4, 6 and 8 are all Class II classification landfills and do not require the use of a lining

system, reducing capital costs significantly. As Option 6 and 8 are at an alternative site close

to Onslow, they are assumed to be able to be constructed closer to the main road and thus

would require lower site infrastructure set-up costs (i.e. less access roads).

Option 8 has ranked the lowest in capital cost due to the utilisation of the trench method

during operation, as it is assumed to operate without a compactor, the associated site

infrastructure costs are the lowest of all options. This method however, results in the lowest

control over waste and highest risk to the environment.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 8-2: Capital Cost Breakdown for New Landfills

Aspect Option 4 Option 5A Option 5B Option 6 Option 7 Option 8

Base Earthworks $601,542 $1,335,570 $1,021,896 $601,542 $601,542 $140,459

Basal Lining System $0 $6,485,863 $4,840,084 $0 $1,234,349 $0

Internal Bunding to Separate Cells $46,536 $74,119 $63,591 $46,536 $46,536 $0

Leachate Extraction and Evaporation Pond $453,052 $2,868,143 $2,362,318 $453,052 $1,779,197 $0

Surface Water Management $274,329 $301,049 $290,942 $274,329 $274,329 $117,631

Restoration And Capping Layer $1,089,954 $3,346,210 $2,518,359 $1,089,954 $1,389,387 $729,332

Miscellaneous $713,015 $799,188 $766,550 $713,015 $713,015 $560,456

Infrastructure $487,260 $770,566 $651,096 $487,260 $487,260 $161,200

Equipment $1,814,214 $1,948,717 $1,949,466 $1,814,214 $1,814,214 $873,600

Sub Total $5,479,903 $17,929,423 $14,464,302 $5,479,903 $8,339,831 $2,582,677

Local Loading (30%) $1,643,971 $5,378,827 $4,339,291 $1,643,971 $2,501,949 $774,803

Professional Services (8%) $438,392 $1,434,354 $1,157,144 $438,392 $667,186 $206,614

Contingency (10%) $547,990 $1,792,942 $1,446,430 $547,990 $833,983 $258,268

Associated Infrastructure $2,681,739 $2,874,139 $2,874,139 $2,302,859 $2,681,739 $2,193,857

Total $10,791,996 $29,409,686 $24,281,306 $10,413,116 $15,024,689 $6,016,220

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


8.1.4 Operational Costs

Talis has also prepared revised operational cost estimates for the proposed landfill WMF

operations. The operational cost estimates were generated drawing upon a range of

datasets including operational budgets, previous similar projects undertaken by Talis and

general industry knowledge and experience. This included obtaining costs for:

Labour;

Consumables;

Machinery and Vehicle amortisation;

Utility Services; and

Additional operating expenditure.

The key plant items required have been included with the capital cost items. However,

amortisation was included within the operational costs to cover the replacement cost of the

item over a designated period of time. In this case, the amortisation has been calculated

differently for each item of machinery or vehicle depending on operational activities and

expected life. Table 8-3 provides details of Talis’ approach to calculating the amortisation for

the machinery and vehicles, which are considered to be conservative.


Amortised Item Capital Cost

(excl GST) Description of Amortisation

Landfill Compactor $800,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Dump Truck $220,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Backhoe Excavator $150,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Utility Vehicle with Water

cart $70,000 8 years, 96 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of life

Weighbridge $130,000 20 years, 240 monthly repayments, 5% interest, residual of $0 at end of

life

Table 8-3 shows that no residual machinery or vehicle value will remain once the

amortisation period ends.

Table 8-4 summarises the operational costs for the landfill facility options.

Option 5A and 5B have the highest operational expenditure due to the higher volume of

waste accepted. All options with the exception of Option 8 operate with a compactor,

therefore Option 8 has the least machinery and vehicles cost of all options.

As Option 8, will be undertaken utilising trench options, there will be a higher labour

component percentage compared to the total operational expenditure of other options.

Option 8 would require greater on site management to control the continual trenching

process, compared to other landfill options which will be delivered through the capital costs

component/expenditure.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 8-4: Summary of Operational Expenditure for New Landfill Options

Item Option 4 Option 5A Option 5B Option 6 Option 7 Option 8

Labour $7,929,352 $11,327,645 $11,327,645 $7,929,352 $7,929,352 $9,062,116

Consumables $3,805,432 $3,821,849 $3,821,849 $3,805,432 $3,805,432 $4,232,271

Machinery & Vehicles $6,386,560 $6,386,560 $6,386,560 $6,386,560 $6,386,560 $3,617,857

Utility Services $197,003 $197,003 $197,003 $197,003 $197,003 $197,003

Additional Operating

Expenditure

$1,313,350 $2,134,194 $2,134,194 $1,313,350 $1,313,350 $1,313,350

Total $19,631,697 $23,867,251 $23,867,251 $19,631,697 $19,631,697 $18,422,597

Local Loading (20%) $3,926,339 $4,773,450 $4,773,450 $3,926,339 $3,926,339 $3,684,519

Total incl. Local Loading

(20%)

$23,558,036 $28,640,701 $28,640,701 $23,558,036 $23,558,036 $22,107,117

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


8.2 Total Cost over Lifetime

Based on the financial modelling, Talis has prepared total cost over lifetime for each of the

various Options. As shown in Table 8-5, the largest lifetime costs are attributed to the haulage

options without the use of the compactor. These figures are to be expected due to the high

cost associated with long distance haulage.

Table 8-5: Total cost for all options

Option Total Cost (with WTS)

Option 1A – WTS to Tom Price $38,132,040

Option 1B – WTS + Compactor to Tom Price $28,045,531

Option 2A – WTS to Karratha $40,993,835

Option 2B – WTS + Compactor to Karratha $28,792,964

Option 3A – WTS to WtE $43,214,406

Option 3B – WTS + Compactor to WtE $31,013,534

Option 4 – Class II Landfill at Site 10 $32,725,122

Option 5A – Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (High Scenario) $16,614,116

Option 5B – Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (Low Scenario) $21,273,188

Option 6 – Class II Facility at Alternate Site $31,459,043

Option 7 – Class III Facility at Site 10 $36,957,814

Option 8 – Class II Facility at Alternate Site (Trench Ops) $25,853,919

As shown in Table 8-5, the lowest lifetime cost is related to constructing a Class III/IV landfill at

Site 10 (Option 5A and 5B). Although the initial capital cost is much higher for this option, the

reduced travel distances and potential revenue from the other waste accepted at the

facility have made it the cheapest long term option.

Option 5 has a reduced total cost over lifetime between $4.6-9.2 Million depending on the

volume of other waste that can be attracted.

8.2.1 Net Present Value

Talis has prepared Net Present Values (NPV) for each of the various Options. As part of this

process, the inflation rate, interest rates for borrowing and the depreciation rate of money

were built into the modelling. To undertake the Financial Assessment, the NPVs for all Options

were modelled. The NPVs are compared below in Table 8-6.

Table 8-6: NPV total cost for all options

Option NPV

Option 1A – WTS to Tom Price $15,391,756

Option 1B – WTS + Compactor to Tom Price $12,157,554

Option 2A – WTS to Karratha $17,778,786

Option 2B – WTS + Compactor to Karratha $13,388,130

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Option 3A – WTS to WtE $17,427,920

Option 3B – WTS + Compactor to WtE $14,344,358

Option 4 – Class II Landfill at Site 10 $17,886,555

Option 5A – Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (High Scenario) $12,594,391

Option 5B – Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (Low Scenario) $14,069,640

Option 6 – Class II Facility at Alternate Site $17,221,172

Option 7 – Class III Facility at Site 10 $20,322,570

Option 8 – Class II Facility at Alternate Site (Trench Ops) $13,690,049

As can be seen in Table 8-6, Option 1B (compaction haulage to Tom Price) is the preferred

option in relation to NPV analysis.

By evaluating the NPV of each option, the difference between the haulage options and the

new landfill options becomes much smaller. This can be attributed to the high capital costs

incurred by the new landfill options, creating a higher present value compared to the

haulage options. The haulage options cost of operation is spread much more evenly over

the lifetime of the landfill. Of the landfill options, Option 5A is the preferred disposal option

with an NPV of $12.6 Million.

8.2.2 Cost per Tonne

Talis has prepared a cost per tonne for each component of the various Waste Disposal

Options, averaged out over the 20 years of life of the model as shown in Table 8-7.

As with the results shown in Table 8-7, Option 5A and 5B have resulted in considerably lower

costs than the other options.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 8-7: Cost per Tonne Breakdown

Option WTS

Capital

WTS

Operational Haulage

Landfill

Capital

Landfill

Operational Revenue Gate Fee Total

Option 1

(WTS to Tom

Price )

1A – Bulk Haulage $ - $ 146.19 $ 231.93 $ - $ - $ 73.47 $ 451.59

1B - Compactor $ 21.00 $ 146.19 $ 91.48 $ - $ - $ 73.47 $ 332.14

Option 2

(WTS to

Karratha)

2A – Bulk Haulage $ - $ 146.19 $ 234.10 $ - $ - $ 105.19 $ 485.48

2B - Compactor $ 21.00 $ 146.19 $ 68.61 $ - $ - $ 105.19 $ 340.99

Option 3

(WTS to

WtE)

3A – Bulk Haulage $ - $ 146.19 $ 234.10 $ - $ - $ 131.49 $ 511.78

3B - Compactor $ 21.00 $ 146.19 $ 68.61 $ - $ - $ 131.49 $ 367.29

Option 4 Site 10 Class II $ - $ - $ 26.27 $ 127.81 $ 233.48 $ - $ 387.56

Option 5

5A – Site 10 Class

III/IV (High) $ - $ - $ 26.27 $ 348.29 $ 283.68 -$ 461.48 $ - $ 196.76

5B – Site 10 Class

III/IV (Low) $ - $ - $ 26.27 $ 287.56 $ 282.66 -$ 344.55 $ - $ 251.93

Option 6 Alternate Site

Class II $ - $ - $ 15.76 $ 123.32 $ 233.48 $ - $ 372.56

Option 7 Site 10 Class III

(Lined) $ - $ - $ 26.27 $ 177.93 $ 233.48 $ - $ 437.68

Option 8

Alternate Site

Class II (Trench

Operations) $ - $ - $ 15.76 $ 71.26 $ 219.16 $ - $ 306.18

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 8-8 ranks the cost per tonne for each option in order from cheapest to most expensive.

From this evaluation, it can be seen that the current available methods of operation,

haulage without the use of a compactor, rank the lowest overall in cost. The introduction of

a compactor alone makes a significant decrease in cost per tonne, however constructing a

new landfill in Onslow will still present the greatest cost saving.

Table 8-8: Ranking annual average Cost per Tonne

Ranking Option Cost per tonne Percentage

1 Option 5A $196.76 100%

2 Option 5B $251.93 128%

3 Option 8 $306.18 156%

4 Option 1B $332.14 169%

5 Option 2B $340.99 173%

6 Option 3B $367.29 187%

7 Option 6 $372.56 189%

8 Option 4 $387.56 197%

9 Option 7 $437.68 222%

10 Option 1A $451.59 230%

11 Option 2A $485.48 247%

12 Option 3A $511.78 260%

As can be seen in Table 8-8, Option 5A and 5B are the cheapest options on a cost per tonne

basis at $196.76 and 251.93 respectively. Option 8 is the third cheapest option at a cost of

156% times that of Option 5A and 28% more costly than Option 5B.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


9 Technical Assessment

The technical assessment of the waste disposal options was conducted on a number of

aspects, including:

Construction;

Site Conditions;

Operation;

Environmental;

Disposal Service;

Investment; and

Transport.

A key part of the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) is the allocation of weightings from each of the

aspects. This allows variable importance to be allocated to the adopted aspects.

With each aspect, a number of evaluation criteria were identified. These criteria were

allocated a percentage weighting according to their relative importance to that aspect.

The percentage was then multiplied by the weighting for the relevant aspect to give an

adjusted weighting for each criteria. Due to their recognised variances in characteristics, the

criteria upon which to assess them relevant to each other were different. To score the

options, Talis devised a simplistic three level scoring system which allocated higher scores for

the most preferred outcome. The options were then explored further and allocated

weighted scores from the options. A summary of the evaluation criteria, including their

weighting and a description of how they relate to the evaluation of the options, is shown in

Table 9-1. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 9-2 and Table 9-3.

9.1.1 Normalised Scores

To generate an overall score for each Option incorporating the results of both the technical

and financial assessments, normalised scores were generated following both analyses.

Normalising involves allocating the maximum score to the best performing Option and

calculating the scores for each other Option relative to this. The normalised scores were out

of a maximum of 50 from the technical assessment and 50 from the financial assessment,

generating a total maximum score of 100. The results of the normalised scores are shown in

Table 9-4.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 9-1: Summary of evaluation aspects and criteria

Aspect Weighting Criteria Description Percentage

Allocation

Adjusted

Weighting

Scoring

3 2 1

Construction 7 Construction

Requirements

How difficult are the engineering works

required? 20% 1.4 Standard Difficult Problematic

What level of construction works are required? 80% 5.6 Low Medium High

Siting 3 Land Required Is new land required? 100% 3.0 No - Yes

Operation 6

Operational

Flexibility

Does the option limit how the Shire is able to

operate the waste disposal services? 50% 3.0 Flexible Standard Limited

Operational

Liability

What is the overall level of risk for the

operation? 50% 3.0 Minimal Moderate Significant

Environment 6

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

Will the option result in additional

transportation greenhouse gas emissions

resulting from waste disposal?

40% 2.4 Minimal Moderate Significant

Best Practice

Landfill

Does this option provide access to best

practice landfill? 60% 3.6 Yes - No

Disposal Service 10

Long-Term

Security

Does the option provide secure long-term

waste disposal? 75% 7.5 Likely Possible Unlikely

Self-Sufficiency Will the Shire be self-sufficient in terms of its

waste disposal operations? 25% 2.5 Independent - Dependent

Investment 10

Capital

Investment

What level of capital investment will be

required? 25% 2.5 Minimal Moderate Significant

Revenue

Potential

How likely is the opportunity to obtain

Revenue? 25% 2.5 Likely Possible Unlikely

Funding

Potential What is the potential of obtaining funding? 25% 2.5 Likely Possible Unlikely

Long-Term

Growth Financial risk of long-term waste growth 25% 2.5 Low Medium High

Transport 8

Transport

Requirements What is the level of transportation required? 70% 5.6 Low Medium High

Transport

Haulage

What is the risk associated with long-term

haulage? 30% 2.4 Low Medium High

Total 50

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 9-2: Weighted Technical Assessment Scores - Haulage Options

Aspect Criteria Adjusted

Weighting

Option 1A Option 1B Option 2A Option 2B Option 3A Option 3B

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Construction Constructability 1.4 3 4.20 2 2.80 3 4.20 2 2.80 3 4.20 2 2.80

Level of Works 5.6 3 16.80 2 11.20 3 16.80 2 11.20 3 16.80 2 11.20

Siting Land Required 3 3 9.00 3 9.00 3 9.00 3 9.00 3 9.00 3 9.00

Operation

Operational

Flexibility 3 2

6.00 2

6.00 2

6.00 2

6.00 2

6.00 2

6.00

Operational

Liability 3 2 6.00 2 6.00 2 6.00 2 6.00 2 6.00 2 6.00

Environment

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions 2.4 1 2.40 1 2.40 2 4.80 2 4.80 2 4.80 2 4.80

Best Practice

Landfill 3.6 1 3.60 1 3.60 2 7.20 2 7.20 3 10.80 3 10.80

Disposal

Service

Long-Term

Security 7.5 2 15.00 2 15.00 2 15.00 2 15.00 2 15.00 2 15.00

Self-Sufficiency 2.5 3 7.50 3 7.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50

Investment

Capital

Investment 2.5 3 7.50 2 5.00 3 7.50 2 5.00 3 7.50 2 5.00

Revenue

Potential 2.5 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50

Funding

Potential 2.5 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50

Long-Term

Growth 2.5 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50

Transport

Transport

Requirements 5.6 1 5.60 1 5.60 2 11.20 2 11.20 2 11.20 2 11.20

Transport

Haulage 2.4 1 2.40 1 2.40 2 4.80 2 4.80 2 4.80 2 4.80

Total 93.50 84.00 102.50 93.00 106.10 96.60

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 9-3: Weighted Technical Assessment Scores - New Landfill Options

Aspect Criteria Adjusted

Weighting

Option 4 Option 5A Option 5B Option 6 Option 7 Option 8

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Construction Constructability 1.4 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 3 4.20

Level of Works 5.6 2 11.20 1 5.60 1 5.60 2 11.20 1 5.60 3 16.80

Siting Land Required 3 1 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.00

Operation

Operational

Flexibility 3 3

9.00 3

9.00 3

9.00 3

9.00 3

9.00 1

3.00

Operational

Liability 3 2

6.00 3

9.00 3

9.00 3

9.00 3

9.00 1

3.00

Environment

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions 2.4 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20

Best Practice

Landfill 3.6 1 3.60 3 10.80 3 10.80 3 10.80 3 10.80 1 3.60

Disposal

Service

Long-Term

Security 7.5 2 15.00 3 22.50 3 22.50 2 15.00 3 22.50 2 15.00

Self-Sufficiency 2.5 3 7.50 3 7.50 3 7.50 3 7.50 3 7.50 3 7.50

Investment

Capital

Investment 2.5 2 5.00 1 2.50 1 2.50 2 5.00 1 2.50 3 7.50

Revenue

Potential 2.5 2 5.00 3 7.50 3 7.50 2 5.00 2 5.00 1 2.50

Funding

Potential 2.5 1 2.50 3 7.50 3 7.50 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.50

Long-Term

Growth 2.5 3 7.50 3 7.50 3 7.50 3 7.50 3 7.50 1 2.50

Transport

Transport

Requirements 5.6 3 16.80 3 16.80 3 16.80 3 16.80 3 16.80 3 16.80

Transport

Haulage 2.4 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20 3 7.20

Total 109.30 126.40 126.40 119.50 118.90 102.30

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 9-4: Normalisation of Scores

Component Score Option 1A Option 1B Option 2A Option 2B Option 3A Option 3B Option 4 Option 5A Option 5B Option 6 Option 7 Option 8

Technical Assessment

Weighted Score 93.50 84.00 102.50 93.00 106.10 96.60 109.30 126.40 126.40 119.50 118.90 102.30

Maximum Score 50 50

Normalised Score 36.99 33.23 40.55 36.79 41.97 38.21 43.24 50.00 50.00 47.27 47.03 40.47

Financial Assessment

Total Costs $ 38,132,040.24 $ 28,045,531.22 $ 40,993,835.20 $ 28,792,963.75 $ 43,214,405.68 $ 31,013,534.24 $ 32,725,121.52 $ 16,614,116.16 $ 21,273,188.44 $ 31,459,043.39 $ 36,957,814.00 $ 25,853,918.97

Raw Score 21.78 29.62 20.26 28.85 19.22 26.79 25.38 50.00 39.05 26.41 22.48 32.13

NPV $ 15,391,756.14 $ 12,157,554.32 $ 17,778,785.72 $ 13,388,129.98 $ 17,427,919.56 $ 14,344,357.79 $ 17,886,554.82 $ 12,594,390.84 $ 14,069,639.97 $ 17,221,171.60 $ 20,322,569.79 $ 13,690,049.05

Raw Score 39.49 50.00 34.19 45.40 34.88 42.38 33.99 48.27 43.20 35.30 29.91 44.40

Cost per Tonne $ 451.59 $ 332.14 $ 485.48 $ 340.99 $ 511.78 $ 367.29 $ 387.56 $ 196.76 $ 251.93 $ 372.56 $ 437.68 $ 306.18

Raw Score 21.78 29.62 20.26 28.85 19.22 26.79 25.38 50.00 39.05 26.41 22.48 32.13

Allocated Score 83.06 109.24 74.72 103.11 73.33 95.95 84.75 148.27 121.30 88.11 74.87 108.66

Maximum Score 150.00

Normalised Score 27.69 36.41 24.91 34.37 24.44 31.98 28.25 50.00 40.43 29.37 24.96 36.22

Total Normalised Score 64.67 69.64 65.45 71.16 66.41 70.19 71.49 100.00 90.43 76.64 71.99 76.69

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


9.2 Key Findings

As shown in Table 9-5 below the MCA technical analysis has ranked Option 5 the best

performing option. Option 5 has exceeded the other options by scoring highly in:

Operational flexibility and liability;

Environmental performance;

Revenue potential; and

Reduced haulage.

The new landfill options performed the highest in this assessment, largely due to the reduced

haulage requirements. Option 8 (Trench Ops) did perform quite poorly compared to the

other new landfill options however due to the lack of operational flexibility and high risk

associated with trench operations. The haulage options implementing the use of a

compactor received lower ratings due to the level of works required to install the compactor

and increased capital investment.

Table 9-5: MCA Analysis Technical Assessment Ranking

Ranking Option Description Score

1 Option 5A &

5B Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 126.40

2 Option 6 Class II Facility at Alternative Site 119.50

3 Option 7 Class III Facility at Site 10 118.90

4 Option 4 Class II Facility at Site 10 109.30

5 Option 3A Onslow WTS + Haulage to Karratha + Treatment at

WtE 106.10

6 Option 2A Onslow WTS + Haulage to Karratha 102.50

7 Option 8 Class II Facility at Alternate Site utilising Trench

Operations 102.30

8 Option 3B Onslow WTS + Compactor + Haulage to Karratha +

Treatment at WtE 96.60

9 Option 1A Onslow WTS + Haulage to Tom Price 93.50

10 Option 2B Onslow WTS + Compactor + Haulage to Karratha 93.00

11 Option 1B Onslow WTS + Compactor + Haulage to Tom Price 84.00

When the technical results were combined with the financial performance, Normalised

Scores were developed as shown in Table 9-6. As with the previous assessments, Option 5

outperforms all other options and gained a score of 100 due to being the top performing

option in both the technical and financial assessments. The key difference between the

technical assessment and normalised scores is the increased rating of Option 8. The

reasoning is the largely reduced capital cost of establishing a Class II trench operations

facility. The combination of a more economical facility located close to town has made this

option perform quite well in comparison. However, when considering the risks associated with

constructing an unlined landfill accepting the classes of waste generated in Onslow, further

environmental and compliance issues are likely to arise in the future.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Table 9-6: Combined Normalised Scores of Technical and Financial Assessment

Ranking Option Description Score

1 Option 5A Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (High Scenario) 100.00

2 Option 5B Class III/IV Facility at Site 10 (Low Scenario) 90.95

3 Option 8 Class II Facility at Alternate Site utilising Trench

Operations 77.22

4 Option 6 Class II Facility at Alternative Site 77.06

5 Option 7 Class III Facility at Site 10 72.35

6 Option 4 Class II Facility at Site 10 71.89

7 Option 2B Onslow WTS + Compactor + Haulage to Karratha 71.70

8 Option 3B Onslow WTS + Compactor + Haulage to Karratha

+ Treatment at WtE 70.70

9 Option 1B Onslow WTS + Compactor + Haulage to Tom Price 70.24

10 Option 3A Onslow WTS + Haulage to Karratha + Treatment at

WtE 66.83

11 Option 2A Onslow WTS + Haulage to Karratha 65.86

12 Option 1A Onslow WTS + Haulage to Tom Price 65.15

Based on the above financial and technical analysis, Option 5 was determined to be the

preferred Disposal Option for the Shire.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


10 Funding Opportunities

Since the Original Feasibility Study, some State and Federal funding opportunities have

changed. Talis is of the view that there are a variety of significant grant opportunities from

both State and Federal Government that could be utilised to obtain capital investment

funding to help with the establishment of the WMF. The development of the WMF is

potentially attractive to funding bodies as it would bring a number of opportunities to the

area including economic development, diversification of the economy and workforce and

an increase in local employment. The following section outlines the updated State and

Federal funding opportunities available to the Shire and how they can potentially be utilised

for waste management purposes.

As outlined within the technical evaluation (Section 9), Talis recognises that Option 5 has the

greatest potential of gaining funding of all the options assessed as part of this Waste Disposal

Strategy. Furthermore, Talis of is the view that any Disposal Options which will result in waste

being deposited within unlined landfills or facilities not adhering to Best Practice Standards

would have minimal opportunity of obtaining funding.

10.1 Building Better Regions Fund (formerly National Stronger Regions Fund)

In September 2016, the Federal Government announced that a new fund, the Building Better

Regions Fund (BBRF) will replace the National Stronger Regions Fund, which had provided

funding to regional and disadvantaged communities for priority infrastructure since 2015. The

BBRF will aim to create jobs, drive economic growth and support strong regional communities

across Australia through investment in infrastructure projects and community investments. The

BBRF will assess applications across three categories determined by the size of the project.

Guidelines were being developed by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional

Development at the time of writing.

10.2 Royalties for Regions

Royalties for Regions funding is provided to promote and facilitate economic, business and

social development in regional WA. The Royalties for Regions Act 2009 ensures that the State

distributes 25% of the State’s mining and onshore petroleum royalties each year to regional

areas.

The Royalties for Regions funds are aimed to deliver benefits to regional WA through the

following objectives:

Building capacity in regional communities;

Retaining benefits in regional communities;

Improving services to regional communities;

Attaining sustainability;

Expanding opportunity; and

Growing prosperity.

Royalties for Regions distributes benefits to regional communities through supporting funds

which include:

Regional Investment Blueprint;

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Regional Grants Scheme; and

Community Chest Fund.

10.2.1 Regional Investment Blueprint

The various Regional Development Commissions across the State are required to prepare

Regional Blueprints to outline future population and economic growth in their areas. These

Regional Blueprints also outline key regional projects required to facilitate this growth.

Pilbara’s Regional Investment Blueprint provides the Region with a road map, and sets out its

aspirational vision. Developed by the Pilbara Development Commission (PDC), the Blueprint

is the State Government’s definitive plan identifying opportunities to facilitate continued

growth in the Pilbara. The Pilbara Development Commission will administer a share of the

$330 million of total funding over five years, through the Royalties for Regions programme, to

develop major economic, social and community development projects. Regional

Investment Blueprints in other areas of the State have provided a means of accessing capital

investment funding for ‘shovel ready’ projects. There is an opportunity for the Shire to access

this funding through engagement with the PDC.

Talis has assisted a variety of local government groupings to secure funding for landfill

facilities through the Royalties for Regions funding schemes. The Bunbury Wellington Regional

Group was awarded $4.2 million to help secure funding for the development of a Regional

Landfill to service the local governments of the South-West. This project is still ongoing with site

investigations set to commence in the near future. In addition, the Shires of Katanning,

Ravensthorpe, Jerramungup, Kent and Gnowangerup secured $5 million in funding to help

with the establishment of two landfills within the Great Southern Region to cater for their

waste requirements. In both instances, the funding was provided to help with the

establishment of the facility through capital investment. Talis recognises the opportunity for

the Shire to secure funding through the Royalties for Region scheme. Therefore, Talis

recommends that the Shire look to seek funding for the Onslow Waste Management Facility.

10.2.2 Regional Grants Scheme

The objective of the Regional Grants Scheme is to assist in the development of infrastructure,

services and community projects intended to build vibrant regions with strong economies.

The Regional Grants Scheme (RGS) is an initiative of Royalties for Regions that is administered

by the State’s nine Regional Development Commissions (in Onslow’s case, the Pilbara

Development Commission (PDC)) with support from the Department of Regional

Development. Funding is available to community, public and private organisations to assist in

attracting investment, increasing jobs and improving economic and community

infrastructure and services in the Region. This includes funding for the provision of headworks

and the development and establishment of services and programs. Grants are available

between $50,001 and $300,000. Talis recognises that this funding could be obtained by the

Shire for the WMF, particularly to further progress the site investigations and design of the

Facility.

10.2.3 Community Chest Fund

The second Royalties for Regions fund is the Community Chest Fund (CCF). This program

provides grants of up to $50,000 and is also administered by the relevant Regional

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Development Commission. Local governments and not-for-profit organisations are eligible to

apply. However, projects cannot apply for both the CCF and the Regional Grants Scheme.

The CCF’s broad objectives are to:

Retain and build the benefits of regional communities;

Support improved, relevant and accessible local services;

Enable communities to deliver a sustainable economic and social future;

Assist regional communities to prosper through increased employment, business and

industry development opportunities; and

Increase capacity for local strategic planning and decision-making.

Given the relatively low value of available funding for the CCF, this funding stream would be

considered applicable to assisting with supporting functions of the WMF, such as the

establishment or operation of a Reuse Shop.

10.3 Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) aims to facilitate economic development

in the north of Australia by providing concessional finance to eligible parties for economic

infrastructure projects. The NAIF is a major long-term initiative stemming from the Federal

Government’s 2015 White Paper ‘Our North, Our Future’, which will see up to $5 billion

invested over 5 years. It is overseen by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and

led by an independent board. The objectives of the NAIF are to:

support the construction of economic infrastructure that provides a basis for the

longer term expansion of industry and population in Northern Australia;

ensure the Commonwealth is repaid in full and provides only the concessionality

necessary to allow a particular project to proceed;

operate in partnership with commercial lenders, not in competition;

support infrastructure projects that provide future economic benefits;

be credible in financial markets and meeting public sector accountability standards;

and

catalyse further private sector investment in northern Australia.

In order to be eligible, projects will need to meet mandatory criteria including demonstrating

public benefit, involve construction of infrastructure and have an Indigenous engagement

strategy.

10.4 Community and other Funding Opportunities

The following funding opportunities would not be directly relevant to the establishment of the

Onslow WMF but could provide funding opportunities for waste management initiatives that

are related to the functions of the WMF such as partnerships between community groups

and the Shire.

10.4.1 Australian Packaging Covenant

The Australian Packaging Covenant (APC) is an initiative which aims to change the culture of

business to design more sustainable packaging, increase recycling rates and reduce

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


packaging litter. The covenant is an agreement between government, industry and

community groups to find and to fund solutions to address packaging sustainability issues.

The APC provides funding to projects which contribute towards the achievement of

optimised packaging design, efficient collection and recycling, and a demonstrated

commitment to product stewardship.

Funding for projects is only available to APC signatories. Projects may be instigated and

managed by industry or government, individually or jointly, and be local, regional or national

in focus.

10.4.2 Stronger Communities Programme

The Stronger Communities Programme (SCP) is administered by the Federal Department of

Infrastructure and Regional Development. The programme aims to fund small capital

projects in local communities of up to $20,000 with the applicant required to match the grant

in cash or in-kind on a dollar for dollar basis.

A key component of the Programme is input from the community. The relevant Member of

Parliament must undertake community consultation to identify priority projects with eligibility

on an invite only basis. At the time of writing, a new funding round for 2016-17 was yet to be

announced.

10.4.3 Community Grants Scheme

The Western Australian Waste Authority’s Community Grants Scheme (CGS) provides funding

support for waste initiatives under Objective 5 of the State’s Waste Strategy, namely

“Develop and support programs and initiatives, including awards, that acknowledge,

celebrate and reward excellence in waste avoidance, resource recovery and reduced

landfilling behaviours and outcomes and that contribute to the implementation of this

Strategy”.

The funding for the CGS is drawn from the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

Account, which receives revenue generated from the Landfill Levy, which charges a tax on

waste landfilled within the Perth Metropolitan Area. Funding of up to $20,000 per project is

available with the CGS generally funding up to 50% of the total project costs.

Eligible organisations that may apply for CGS funding include not-for-profit groups and

incorporated community based organisations in Western Australia. Partnerships between

community groups and local governments are also acceptable, but the community group

must be the CGS applicant and be responsible for managing and completing the project.

The local government authority is encouraged to provide in-kind or financial support to the

group.

10.5 Estimated Cost Impact

If the project were successful in gaining funding from one or some of these funding

opportunities, the initial capital costs would be reduced significantly, further reducing the

final cost per tonne.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


An estimated capital funding amount of $5 million was used in determining the impact the

financial assistance would have on Options 5A and 5B. The resulting costs can be seen below

in Table 10-1.

Table 10-1: Cost per Tonne with Capital Funding

Ranking Option Cost per Tonne

Cost per Tonne

including $5M Funding

Option 5A Class III/IV Facility at Site 10

(High Scenario) $196.76 $137.54

Option 5B Class III/IV Facility at Site 10

(Low Scenario) $251.93 $192.72

This funding significantly reduces the average cost per tonne for Option 5 making it further

financially attractive in comparison to the next best ranked option (Option 8).

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


11 Discussion

The following section details the key discussion points arising from the Onslow Waste Disposal

Strategy.

11.1 Onslow Landfill Requirement

As determined from the financial modelling, as well as the technical evaluation of the various

Disposal Options, there is a clear need for the Shire to deliver a landfill facility within Onslow

to cater for the domestic and commercial communities. The significant distances between

Onslow and the surrounding landfills of Tom Price and Karratha makes it unviable to continue

with the haulage of waste in the long term. Therefore, the continued use of the Waste

Transfer Station for the consolidation and haulage of waste from Onslow to Tom Price should

only be regarded as an interim arrangement.

The population projections utilised for this study are currently being revised or they have been

deemed to be conservatively inaccurate. Therefore, the growth of waste generation within

this report has been underestimated. Increases in waste generation in Onslow will further

justify the requirement for a new landfill.

Therefore, Talis recommends that the Shire progresses the development of a landfill to service

the Onslow Townsite.

11.2 Preferred Long Term Disposal Option

As outlined within the report, the Preferred Long Term Waste Disposal Option for the Shire to

cater for Onslow’s waste disposal requirements is through Option 5 being the Class IV landfill

project with the DSD and Chevron. From a financial perspective, Option 5A (High Scenario)

and Option 5B (Low Scenario) are both the most cost effective solutions for the Shire to

deliver waste disposal services to the Shire, as there are significant cost savings obtained

through the sharing of capital and operational costs. A key factor behind this is the sharing

of the operational costs of running a landfill facility. This is due to the fact that the minimum

level of plant and labour required for operation of a facility is the same for a landfill that

accepts 5,000 tonnes per annum through to a facility that accepts 50,000 per annum.

Therefore, the operational cost per tonne of waste is significantly reduced through the

acceptance of larger volumes of waste. In addition, there are cost saving for the capital

items through the shared use of the facility.

Therefore, Talis recommends that the Shire continues to work collaboratively with Chevron

and the Department of State Development on the Class IV Onslow Waste Management

Facility Project.

11.3 Funding

Talis assessed a number of potential funding opportunities for a landfill project including

capital investment funding streams such as the Federal Building Better Regions fund and

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, along with the State’s Royalties for Regions fund.

Based on Talis’ experience with similar projects, there is a strong potential for the Onslow

Waste Management Facility project (Option 5) to obtain capital investment funding or

concessional finance.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


Talis recommends that the Shire commences engagement with relevant funding authorities

and relevant stakeholder in relation to seeking funding or concessional financing for the

project to determine the likelihood of financial support. Talis anticipates that relevant

organisations would include the Department of State Development, the State Department of

Regional Development, Pilbara Development Commission and the Federal Department of

Infrastructure and Regional Development.

11.4 Commitment of Tonnages

As outlined within the Waste Disposal Strategy, the volumes of waste to be accepted at the

site are relatively low which is reflective of the area. In addition, Onslow is very isolated so

attracting Class III waste from other areas will be problematic. Therefore, to underpin the

viability of the Class IV Onslow Waste Management Facility, the Shire should seek to obtain

commitments on waste and tonnages from the key waste generators within the region,

including Chevron. This could be achieved through Waste Supply Agreements.

11.5 Waste Transfer Station Future

As evident from the financial analysis undertaken as part of this Waste Disposal Strategy, the

ongoing haulage of waste from Onslow to Tom Price or other surrounding landfills is not a

financially viable long term arrangement in comparison to developing a landfill within

Onslow. Therefore, the ongoing use of the Waste Transfer Station for the consolidation of

waste from the kerbside collection rounds and other commercial generators will not be

required long term. This aligns with the original design for the Waste Transfer Station which

was to deliver a functional but cost effective temporary Waste Transfer Station, which could

continue to be utilised into the future to offer community drop off services.

Currently the Preferred Site for a new landfill within Onslow is Site 10 which is 38km south of

Onslow. This is a relatively large distance for the community to transport waste for disposal

and could potentially encourage illegal fly tipping of materials. Table 11-1 illustrates the

average cost per tonne for the two preferred Disposal Options (Onslow Waste Management

Facility – Option 5A and 5B) with or without the continued use of the Waste Transfer Station

for community drop off.

Table 11-1: Option 5A and 5B Average Cost per Tonne with our without the WTS

Disposal Options Average Cost Per Tonne

without WTS Operating

Average Cost Per Tonne

with WTS Operating Difference

Option 5A $196.75 $269.85 $73.10

Option 5B $251.93 $325.03 $73.10

As shown above, the cost of maintaining the Waste Transfer Station operational for the

community to drop off waste within close proximity to the townsite will cost an average of

$73.10 per tonne of waste. It will take 3-4 years to develop a landfill site, including

undertaking the site investigations, obtaining the required approvals and allowing a suitable

timeframe for the construction works. Talis recommends that the Shire assesses the long term

viability of operating the Waste Transfer Station as a community drop off facility for the

Onslow Townsite. This should also include consultation with the Onslow community on service

provisions.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


11.6 Operational Hours of Waste Facilities

All modelling undertaken as part of this Waste Disposal Strategy is based on the continuation

of the current operational hours of 5 days a week. Based on our experience on the provision

of waste management services in rural areas, Talis recognises the opportunity for the Shire to

reduce the overall cost of the waste management services by reducing the number of hours

that the waste management facilities are operational for each week. Talis is of the view that

having the Waste Transfer Station or the future landfill facility open 5 days a week is well in

excess of what is required to service the low volumes of waste accepted at the facilities.

Table 11-2: Cost per Tonne with Reduced Hours

Option Description

Cost per

Tonne

(5 day

operation)

Cost per Tonne

including $5M

Funding

(5 day

operation)

Cost per

Tonne

(3 day

operation)

Cost per Tonne

including $5M

Funding

(3 day

operation)

Option

5A

Class III/IV Facility

at Site 10 (High

Scenario)

$196.76 $137.54 $125.71 $66.49

Option

5B

Class III/IV Facility

at Site 10 (Low

Scenario)

$251.93 $192.72 $180.88 $121.67

As shown in Table 11-2, should the facility be operated 3 days per week, the cost per tonne

reduces from $196.76 to $125.71 for Option 5A, and $251.93 to $180.88 for Option 5B. With

the inclusion of $5M funding and operating for 3 days per week, the cost per tonne reduces

to $66.49 and $121.67 for Options 5A and 5B respectively.

Therefore, Talis recommends that the Shire reduces the hours of operation at its waste

management facilities to three operational days per week.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B


Draft Report

Shire of Ashburton


12 Recommendations

Based on works undertaken as part of this Waste Disposal Strategy and the associated

findings, Talis recommends the following:

1. The Shire accepts the Onslow Waste Disposal Strategy.

2. Talis recommends that the Shire closely monitors waste generation within Onslow,

particularly with the use of the new weighbridge to be installed at Tom Price.

3. The Shire recognises Option 5 (Class IV Landfill at Site 10) as its preferred long term

waste disposal option and continues to work with the Department of State

Development and Chevron on the development of that project.

4. Commence engagement with relevant funding authorities and relevant stakeholders

in relation to seeking funding for the project to determine the likelihood of financial

support. Talis anticipates that relevant organisations would include the Department of

State Development, the State Department of Regional Development, Pilbara

Development Commission and the Federal Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development.



6. The Shire undertakes site investigations at Site 10 which is the Preferred Site for the

development of a landfill to service the Onslow area.

7. The Shire accesses the long term viability of operating the Onslow Waste Transfer

Station as a Community Drop Off Facility to service the Onslow townsite.

8. The Shire should review the operational hours for current and future waste

management infrastructure within Onslow to reduce costs where possible.

ATTACHMENT 15.2B