Notice of Council Meeting - City of Burnside...2016/03/08 · Mayor’s Report p7 8. Reports of Members, Delegates and Working Parties 9. Deputations Nil 3 Council Agenda 8 March

Council Agenda 8 March 2016

Notice of Council Meeting

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN in accordance with Sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 1999, that a meeting of the

COUNCIL

of the

CITY OF BURNSIDE

will be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre at 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore

on

Tuesday 8 March 2016 at 7.00 pm

Paul Deb Chief Executive Officer

1


2


Council Meeting

Agenda

8 March 2016 at 7.00 pm Council Chamber, 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore

Members: Mayor David Parkin Councillors Bagster, Bills, Cornish, Davey, Davis, Ford, Lemon, Lord, Monceaux, Osterstock, Piggott and Wilkins

1. Opening Prayer

2. Acknowledgement of Those Who Gave Their Life for this Country and Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

3. Apologies

4. Leave of Absence Councillors Ford and Lord

5. Conflict of Interest

6. Confirmation of Minutes Nil

7. Mayor’s Report p7

8. Reports of Members, Delegates and Working Parties

9. Deputations

Nil

3


10. Petitions Nil

11. Questions on Notice 11.1 Code of Conduct Matters

Councillor Bills asked the following questions on notice: 1. In the term of the current Council, how many matters of alleged

breaches of code of conduct brought against Members and by Members have there been? Four matters

2. How many are currently awaiting action either through Council resolution or awaiting legal assessment? Three matters

3. How many of these ended up with a decision relative to penalty, ie through the preliminary assessment stage to full investigation? One matter

4. What has been the cost so far for the residents of the City of Burnside and of the costs which have to be expended to resolve any current matters? Costs incurred to date are $20,261.90.

5. How many individual Elected Members have been implicated in these matters, or if duplicates, how many allegations? Five Elected Members

12. Motions on Notice 12.1 Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill

2015 p8 12.2 Dogs on Leash – Glenunga Reserve p9 12.3 Letter of Congratulations - Foodland Frewville p13

13. Questions without Notice

14. Motions without Notice

4


15. Reports of Officers Office of the CEO 15.1 Chief Executive Officer Report – February 2016 (Operational) p15 Attachment A p18 Attachment B p21

Corporate Services 15.2 Introduction of Differential Rates on Vacant Land (Operational) p27 Attachment A p33 15.3 Remake of Confidential Order – Elected Member Request for

Reimbursement of Private Legal Expenses (Operational) p47 Urban Services 15.4 Wheal Watkins Mine (Operational) p51 Attachment A – I (provided under separate cover) 15.5 Community Land Management Plans (Strategic) p63 Attachment A – O (provided under separate cover) Community and Development Services 15.6 Review of Dog Registration Fees – 2016/17 (Operational) p69 Attachment A p73 Attachment B p74

16. Subsidiaries, Regional Subsidiaries and other Organisations/Entities 16.1 Eastern Waste Management Authority

16.2 Eastern Health Authority

Minutes of Board of Management Meeting 24/2/2016 p76

16.3 Highbury Landfill Authority Nil

16.4 Eastern Region Alliance Annual Report 2015 p84

17. Council Correspondence

Nil

5


18. Other Business

19. Confidential Items 19.1 Alleged Leaking of Confidential Information – Follow-Up Report

(Operational) pC3 Attachment A pC9

Pursuant to section 90(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, the Council orders that all members of the public be excluded, with the exception of the Elected Members of the City of Burnside; the Chief Executive Officer; the General Manager, Corporate Services; the General Manager, Community and Development Services, the Acting General Manager, Urban Services, the Principal Governance Officer and the Executive Assistants on the basis that it will receive and consider Item 19.1 Alleged Leaking of Confidential Information – Follow-Up Report (Operational) and that the Council is satisfied, pursuant to section 90(3)(g) and (h) of the Act, that the principle that the meeting should be conducted in a place open to the public has been outweighed in relation to this matter because the information concerns matters that must be considered in confidence in order to ensure that the Council does not breach any duty of confidence, or breach any other legal obligation or duty in relation to a matter that the Council is required to investigate and report on, and the information concerns matters that must be considered in confidence in order to ensure that the Council maintains the privilege in and the confidentiality of the legal advice it has received and will consider in association with both the matter and the necessary investigative and reporting process.

20. Closure

6

Council Agenda Item 7 8 March 2016 Item No: 7 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Submitted by: Mayor David Parkin Subject: MAYOR’S REPORT Attachments: Nil MAYORAL ACTIVITIES 18/2/2016 to 2/3/2016 19 February • LGA Audit Committee meeting.

23 February • MLGG Executive meeting.

26 February • LGA Audit Committee meeting.

7

Council Agenda Item 12.1 8 March 2016

Item No: 12.1 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Submitted by: Councillor Cornish Subject: LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE)

AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Attachments: Nil

Motion of Which Notice has been Given

Pursuant to Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations, 2013, the following Notice of Motion has been submitted by Councillor Cornish. As a result of the recent passing of the Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill 2015, Council Administration is requested to review the "Conflict of Interest" and "Disclosure Statements" sections in the "Code of Practice - Meetings and Documents - Access and Procedures" and provide recommendations on potential amendments in a report back to Council no later than the 12 April 2016 ordinary meeting. The review and recommendations should seek and incorporated feedback from Elected Members on the preferred disclosure method during meetings.

8


Item No: 12.2 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Submitted by: Councillor Lemon Subject: DOGS ON LEASH – GLENUNGA RESERVE Attachments: A. By-Law No 5 – Dogs

B. Section 246(3)(e) LG Act


Pursuant to Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations, 2013, the following Notice of Motion has been submitted by Councillor Lemon. 1. That in accordance with Paragraph 7 of the City of Burnside’s By-Law No 5 – Dogs

(Dogs By-Law) and Section 246(3)(e) of the Local Government Act 1999, that the Glenunga Reserve be declared a Dogs on Leash Area, pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Dogs By-Law.

2. That subject to point 1, should Glenunga Reserve be declared a Dogs on Leash Area,

pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Dogs By-Law and in accordance with Section 246(4a) of the LG Act, Council will communicate this in the Eastern Courier and the Government Gazette.

9

271544\PSK01367751

CITY OF BURNSIDE

By-law made under the Dog and cat Management Act 1995 and the Local Government Act, 1999

By-Law No 5 - Dogs

To limit the number of dogs that can be kept on premises and to provide for the management and control of dogs within the Council’s area.

1. Definitions

In this by-law unless the context otherwise requires:

1.1 ‘approved kennel establishment’ means a building, structure, premises or area

approved by the relevant authority pursuant to the Development Act 1993 or otherwise lawfully established for the keeping of cats and/or dogs on a temporary or permanent basis;

1.2 ‘assistant dog’ means an accredited hearing dog, guide dog or disability dog as defined

in the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995;

1.3 ‘local government land’ has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1999;

1.4 ‘premises’ includes land and part of any premises or land whether used or occupied for

domestic or non-domestic purposes, except an approved kennel establishment;

1.5 ‘small dwelling’ means a self-contained dwelling commonly known as a flat, service flat,

home unit or the like.

2. Limit On Dog Numbers

2.1 A person must not, without the Council’s permission, keep more than the number of

dogs specified by resolution of the Council from time to time, provided that any such resolution shall allow:

2.1.1 at least one dog to be kept in a small dwelling; and

2.1.2 at least two dogs to be kept in any premises other than a small dwelling.

2.2 In the event that a resolution of the Council has the effect of reducing the number of

dogs which may be kept in any premises, that resolution will not take effect in respect of existing dogs unless and until the number of dogs is reduced by relocation or attrition.

3. Exemptions

The limits set out in paragraph 2 of this by-law do not apply:

3.1 to an approved kennel establishment operating in accordance with all required

approvals and consents; or

3.2 to any business including dogs which is registered in accordance with the Dog and Cat

Management Act 1995; or

3.3 where the Council otherwise grants permission.

10

biskup

Attachment A

271544\PSK01367751

- 2 -

4. Dog Free Areas

A person must not, on any local government land to which this paragraph applies, cause, suffer or permit any dog (except an assistant dog) under that person’s control, charge or authority to be or remain in that place.

5. Dogs On Leash Areas

A person must not, on any local government land to which this paragraph applies, cause, suffer or permit any dog under that person’s control, charge or authority to be or remain in that place unless such dog is restrained by a strong chain, cord or leash not exceeding 2 metres in length and either tethered securely to a fixed object or held by a person capable of controlling the dog and preventing it from being a nuisance or a danger to other persons.

6. Dog Exercise Areas

Subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 of this by-law,

4.1 any person may enter upon any part of local government land for the purpose of

exercising a dog under that person’s control; and

4.2 where a person enters upon such part of local government land for that purpose, he or she shall ensure that the dog or dogs remain under effective control either by means of physical restraint or by command, the dog or dogs being in close proximity to the person and the person being able to see the dog or dogs at all times.

7. Application Of Paragraphs

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this by-law shall apply only in such portion or portions of the Council’ s area as the Council may by resolution direct in accordance with Section 246(3)(e) of the Local Government Act 1999.

The foregoing by-law was duly made and passed at a meeting of the City of Burnside held on the 26

th day of July 2011by an absolute majority of the members for the time being constituting the

Council, there being at least two thirds of the members present.

Mr Paul Deb Chief Executive Officer

11

substituted—24.11.2011—Local Government Act 1999Regulatory functions—Chapter 12

By-laws—Part 1

[17.12.2015] This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 1

Chapter 12—Regulatory functions

Part 1—By-laws246—Power to make by-laws

(1) Subject to this or another Act, a council may make by-laws—

(a) that are within the contemplation of this or another Act; or

(b) that relate to a matter in relation to which the making of by-laws is authorised by the regulations under this or another Act.

(2) A council cannot make a by-law that requires that a person obtain a licence from the council to carry out an activity at a particular place unless the council has express power to do so under an Act.

(3) Subject to this or another Act, a by-law made by a council may—

(a) operate subject to specified conditions; and

(b) refer to or incorporate, wholly or partially and with or without modification, a code, standard or other document prepared or published by an authority or body, either as in force at the time the by-law is made or as in force from time to time; and

(c) be of general or limited application, and provide for exemptions; and

(d) make different provision according to the persons, things or circumstances to which it is expressed to apply; and

(e) provide that the by-law, or a provision of a by-law, applies only within a part or parts of the area as the council may determine from time to time; and

(f) provide that a matter or thing is to be determined, dispensed with, regulated or prohibited according to the discretion of the council, a specified person, authority or body, or a person holding a specified office; and

(g) fix a minimum as well as a maximum penalty for any breach of a by-law, or a maximum penalty only, or a general maximum penalty applicable to several by-laws, provided that the maximum penalty so fixed does not exceed $750, and in the case of a continuing offence fix a further penalty not exceeding $50 for every day on which the offence or breach of the by-law continues; and

(h) in a case of a by-law relating to the driving, parking or standing of vehicles—

(i) impose, modify or restrict any evidentiary burden on a party to proceedings for an offence against the by-law, or provide for other matters in respect of evidence or the proof of any matter; and

(ii) fix entrance fees or parking fees; and

(iii) provide that the owner and the driver of a vehicle driven, parked or standing in contravention of the by-law are each guilty of an offence and liable to the relevant penalty.

12

biskup

Attachment B


Item No: 12.3 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Submitted by: Councillor Osterstock Subject: LETTER OF CONGRATULATIONS - FOODLAND FREWVILLE Attachments: Nil


Pursuant to Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations, 2013, the following Notice of Motion has been submitted by Councillor Osterstock. That the CEO and the Mayor co-sign a letter of congratulations to the proprietors of the Frewville Foodland Supermarket, Mr Nick Chapley and his son, Mr Spero Chapley on winning the International Retailer of the Year excellence award at the IGA Conference in the United States.

13

14


Item No: 15.1 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Author: Paul Deb – Chief Executive Officer Contact: 8366 4205 Subject: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPORT – FEBRUARY 2016

(OPERATIONAL) Attachments: A. February 2016 Finance Report

B. Reports Outstanding List – February 2016 Prev. Resolution: C7319, 16/9/08

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Report be received.

Purpose

1. To provide Council with a monthly report of key activities and issues, aligned to Council’s Strategic Plan ‘Be the Future of Burnside 2025’, undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in February 2016.

2. To provide Council with a monthly report on the financial position of the organisation.

3. To provide Council with a list of reports which have been requested by Elected Members and the status of those reports.

Strategic Plan

4. The following Strategic Community Plan provisions are relevant:

“Delivery of good governance in Council business”

“A financially sound Council that is accountable, responsible and sustainable”

“An empowered Council and Administration that is visionary and innovative in meeting community needs”

Communications / Consultation

5. Communication has been undertaken with internal and with external organisations as described in the body of the report.

Statutory

6. The following legislation is relevant in this instance:

Local Government Act 1999

15


Policy

7. There are no policy implications with the recommendation.

Risk Assessment

8. There are no risks associated with the recommendation.

CEO Performance Indicators

9. There are no impacts on or threats to achieving the CEO’s Performance Indicators with this recommendation.

Finance

10. The February 2016 Finance Report is provided in Attachment A.

11. The Monthly Finance Report for February 2016 provides a comparison of actual year to date performance to Forecast. Council’s Net Operating Surplus is $95k higher than forecast primarily as a result of lower interest costs due to delayed capital spending ($59k) and an underspend in electricity due to lower usage ($30k).

12. Based on the Q2 forecast, the Council is forecasting a year-end Net Operating Surplus of $891k, which is $127k higher than the Adopted Budget.

13. At the 27 January 2016 Council meeting, it was requested that the Administration consider amending the Capital and Operating Project Report such that individual project budgets (in $) are not reported. The Administration has taken this request on board and amended the reports to compare (actual v Q2 forecast) year to date project completion performance (%).

Discussion

Monthly Activity

14. The CEO attended the following meetings in February 2016:

14.1. The CEO attended the ERA Water Board meeting.

14.2. The CEO and Mayor hosted the opening of the redeveloped Glenunga Hub.

14.3. The CEO attended an ERA CEO meeting to meet the Local Government Association’s (LGA) new Chief Executive Officer and to discuss the LGA’s position on shared services and the sharing of services between Councils.

14.4. The CEO and General Managers hosted the first of the quarterly All Staff Briefings.

14.5. The CEO attended an ERA CEO meeting.

Reports Outstanding List

15. The Reports Outstanding List is contained in Attachment B.

16


16. As at the conclusion of the Council / Committee meeting held on 23 February 2016, there are 23 reports outstanding. Of the 23 reports, five will be presented in March 2016. The balance will be presented as soon as information becomes available.

Human Resources

17. As at 1 March 2016, the current Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff count is 163.9 FTE. 7.8 of these positions were vacant.

18. The positions vacant and their current statuses are as following:

Position Status

Team Leader Ranger Services Position currently being recruited

People and Culture Business Partner Position currently being recruited

Technical Officer Arboriculture Position to be recruited

Customer Service Officer Position currently under review

General Manager, Urban Services Currently being filled by secondment

Manager, Procurement and Contract Role on hold pending formal approval by Executive of the Procurement Department review

Senior Procurement Officer Role on hold pending formal approval by Executive of the Procurement Department review

Executive Officer to the CEO (FTE 0.8)

FTE available

Work Health and Safety (WHS)

19. Work continues on finalising items contained within the annual WHS System Management Audit Action Plan.

Notifiable or Dangerous Incidents (as defined by WHS Act)

20. Nil to report.

Insurance Issues

21. The Administration continues to work with the Local Government Association Mutual Liability Scheme to manage a number of claims which have been received as a result of the weather event on the afternoon of 22 January 2016.

Risk Management Issues

22. Nil to report.

17

CITY OF BURNSIDE

MONTHLY FINANCE REPORTAS AT 24 FEBRUARY 2016FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2016

Q1 & Q2

Q2 Actual Adopted Approved Q2

Forecast Result Variance Budget Variations Forecast

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Note

Operating Income

Rates Income 35,951 35,982 32 35,910 71 35,981

Grants Incomes 2,057 2,086 29 3,637 (363) 3,274

Other Operating Income 2,745 2,716 (29) 3,325 353 3,678

40,753 40,785 31 42,873 60 42,932

Less:Operating Expenses

Employee Costs 9,767 9,832 66 15,363 42 15,405 Contractual Services 6,752 6,761 9 10,538 (378) 10,160

Other Expenses 10,873 10,739 (134) (1) 16,399 526 16,925

27,392 27,332 (59) 42,300 190 42,490

Operating Surplus / (Deficit) (a) A 13,362 13,452 90 573 (130) 442

CAPITAL ACTIVITIES:

Net Outlays on Existing Assets

Capital Expenditure on Renewal

and Replacement of Existing Assets 5,298 4,643 (655) (2) 10,304 217 10,521

Less: Depreciation, Amortisation & Impairment 5,800 5,800 1 8,122 626 8,748

Less: Proceeds from Sale of Replaced Assets B 69 69 (0) - 123 123

Net Outlays on Existing Assets (b) (571) (1,226) (655) 2,182 (532) 1,650

Net Outlays on New and Upgraded Assets

Capital Expenditure on New and Upgraded Assets 2,961 2,361 (601) (2) 4,521 8 4,530

Less: Amounts Received Specifically for 0

New and Upgraded Assets C 293 313 20 191 103 294

Less: Physical resources received free of charge D 31 16 (15) - 31 31

Less: Proceeds from Sale of Surplus Assets - - - - - -

Net Outlays on New and Upgraded Assets (c) 2,637 2,032 (606) 4,330 (126) 4,205

11,296 12,647 1,351 (5,940) 527 (5,718)

Statement of Comprehensive Income

- Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) (A)+(B)+(C)+(D) 13,755 13,851 95 764 127 891

Notes

Year to Date Actual vs Budget - (Analytical reviews performed for variances over $100k)

Full Year Budget vs Forecast

Net Lending / (Borrowing) for the Financial Year

(a)-(b)-(c)

(1) Actual YTD Other Expenses are lower than Budget by $134k mainly due to the following:

- potential savings in street light electricity $30k (to be confirmed in Q3).

- timing delays in material costs of $45k relating to tree management due to unfavourable weather conditions .

- timing delays in finance costs of $59k, due to the delays in capital spending which has resulted in lower finance costs.

2015/16 2015/16

Year to Date Full Year

(2) Actual YTD Capital Expenditure lower than Budget by $1.25m mainly due to the following:

- Bell Yett playground delayed due to additional community consultation. Work scheduled to commence in April 2016.

- kerb renewal program has been delayed due to contractor availability. This is expected to be recovered in April / May 2016.

- delays in the strategic asset management integration project due to a new staged implementation process.

- delays in the Brock reserve playground project due to consultation on the position of the playground to increase accessability.

- other delays in some projects include the Traffic Calming project and DDA for community facilities.

Year to date variances have been investigated and Council remains on target to achieve the Q2 full year forecast.

18

biskup

Attachment A

Project Code Activity Description

Forecast

YTD

Percentage

Complete*

Actual YTD

Percentage

Complete*

Variance %

PR/901 - Pathways In Tusmore Park - Stage 2 New/Upgrade 100% 0% -100%

PR/998 - Hay Road Emu School Crossing New/Upgrade 100% 0% -100%

PR/980 - Strategic Asset Management Integration New/Upgrade 100% 5% -95%

PR/1076 - Fibre Optic Network Expansion New/Upgrade 100% 28% -72%

PR/986 - Magill Cemetery Capital Improvements New/Upgrade 63% 0% -62%

PR/110 - Public Lighting Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 66% 10% -56%

PR/904 - Bell Yett - Playground and Landscape New/Upgrade 58% 3% -55%

PR/1185 - Asset and Infrastructure Emergency Progm Replacement/Renewal 65% 10% -55%

PR/413 - Brock Reserve Playground Replacement/Renewal 50% 0% -50%

PR/858 - Traffic Calming Program New/Upgrade 80% 30% -50%

PR/909 - Civic Centre Strategy Replacement/Renewal 58% 12% -47%

PR/926 - Drinking Fountain Replacement Replacement/Renewal 46% 0% -46%

PR/979 - Public Lighting - New Program New/Upgrade 66% 20% -46%

PR/880 - Glenunga Reserve Additional Drainage New/Upgrade 100% 57% -43%

PR/898 - Council Depot Buildings Refurbishments Replacement/Renewal 100% 67% -33%

PR/896 - Reserve Furniture Replacement Replacement/Renewal 44% 12% -33%

PR/1182 - Tusmore Wading Pool Fencing Replacement/Renewal 67% 36% -31%

PR/855 - Minor Infrastructure Program Renewal Replacement/Renewal 54% 24% -30%

PR/916 - Reserve Fencing Replacement (Fencing Act Replacement/Renewal 42% 12% -29%

PR/877 - DDA for Community Facilities New/Upgrade 34% 5% -29%PR/1068 - Glenunga Hub - Furn & Fitt New/Upgrade 100% 73% -27%

PR/991 - Drainage Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 54% 29% -25%

PR/892 - Hazelwood Pk Amenity Screening (artwork) New/Upgrade 100% 78% -22%

PR/1084 - Roundabout Landscape Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 100% 81% -19%

PR/1073 - Records Management System Upgrade Replacement/Renewal 78% 61% -17%

PR/972 - Footpath - New Program New/Upgrade 30% 45% 15%

PR/908 - Hazelwood Park Traffic and Pedestrian Ma New/Upgrade 50% 76% 26%

PR/856 - Kerb Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 53% 43% -10%

PR/849 - Waterfall Gully Road Pedestrian Enhance New/Upgrade 10% 0% -10%

PR/425 - Kensington Gardens Reserve Masterplan Replacement/Renewal 26% 17% -9%

PR/1036 - Irrigation - Reduced Pressure Zone Insta New/Upgrade 100% 94% -6%

PR/883 - Plant Replacement - Minor Plant Replacement/Renewal 22% 16% -6%

PR/848 - DDA Compliance Project New/Upgrade 100% 95% -5%

PR/857 - Footpath Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 74% 72% -3%

PR/984 - Civic Centre Annual Capital Program Replacement/Renewal 66% 63% -2%

PR/845 - TechOne Assistance with CRM New/Upgrade 100% 98% -2%

PR/852 - Road Resurfacing Program Replacement/Renewal 49% 47% -1%

PR/1039 - Plant Replacement - Major Plant Replacement/Renewal 1% 0% -1%

PR/1068 - Glenunga Hub - Plant & Equip New/Upgrade 100% 99% -1%

PR/1033 - Civic Centre Light Fleet Replacement Replacement/Renewal 59% 58% -1%

PR/1100 - Sports Field Lighting Replacement Replacement/Renewal 100% 99% -1%

PR/974 - Bus Shelter Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 46% 45% -1%

PR/854 - Pavement Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 85% 85% -1%

PR/1054 - Library Capital Budget Replacement/Renewal 91% 91% 0%

PR/990 - Drainage - New Program New/Upgrade 8% 8% 0%

PR/925 - Hazelwood Park Sewer Line Replacement Replacement/Renewal 0% 0% 0%

PR/902 - Recreation Trails Plan Replacement/Renewal 0% 0% 0%

PR/912 - Tennis Court Upgrade Program Replacement/Renewal 0% 0% 0%

PR/905 - Warland Reserve Playground Replacement/Renewal 0% 0% 0%

PR/875 - Drainage - Grove Kindergarten New/Upgrade 0% 0% 0%

PR/403 - Burnside Adventure Playground Timber Equ Replacement/Renewal 0% 0% 0%

PR/985 - Conyngham St Public Space Improvement Replacement/Renewal 0% 0% 0%

PR/1143 - Reserves for Irrigation Reinstatement St Replacement/Renewal 11% 11% 0%

PR/1048 - Kensington Gardens Reserve - Pond Sluice New/Upgrade 0% 0% 0%

PR/881 - Plant Replacement - Light Fleet Replacement/Renewal 100% 100% 0%

PR/1056 - Accounts Payable TechnologyOne Workflow New/Upgrade 0% 0% 0%

PR/850 - Dulwich Avenue Pedestrian Facility New/Upgrade 0% 0% 0%

PR/999 - Waterfall Gully Road Land Acquisition New/Upgrade 0% 0% 0%

PR/1074 - Mobile Customer Request Management Softw New/Upgrade 0% 0% 0%

PR/1068 - Glenunga Hub - Building New/Upgrade 100% 100% 0%

PR/1068 - Glenunga Hub - Infrastructure New/Upgrade 100% 100% 0%

PR/1108 - Processing Costs - Constable Hyde New/Upgrade 0% 0% 0%

PR/1099 - Irrigation System Replacement Replacement/Renewal 38% 38% 0%

PR/981 - Swimming Centre - Building Replacement/Renewal 17% 17% 0%

- Beulah Road Bikeway New/Upgrade 100% 100% 0%

PR/853 - Road Cracksealing Program Replacement/Renewal 100% 100% 0%

PR/903 - Tusmore Park - Amenities Upgrade New/Upgrade 0% 2% 2%

PR/1055 - Library Radio-Frequency Identification New/Upgrade 0% 2% 2%

PR/915 - Community Buildings - Renewal Program Replacement/Renewal 26% 31% 5%

PR/1059 - Tablets for Development Assessment Panel New/Upgrade 100% 105% 5%

Kensington Gardens Res War Memorial Replacement/Renewal 100% 108% 8%

PR/983 - Regal Theatre Amenities Upgrade Replacement/Renewal 1% 10% 9%

PR/847 - Public Seating Program for the Aged New/Upgrade 66% 75% 10%

February YTD Forecast 8,259,503

February YTD Actual 7,004,013

February YTD Variance (1,255,490)

LEGEND:Variance between Forecast YTD % complete and Actual YTD % complete:

+/- 10% variance

10% - 50% variance

more than 50% variance

* Forecast YTD Percentage complete = YTD Forecast / Q2 Full year Forecast

Actual YTD Percentage complete = Actual YTD spend / Q2 Full year Forecast

The 2015/2016 Capital report compares the Q2 Forecast YTD to the Actual YTD and highlights projects which are on track and those which have not

progressed in line with the budgeted timings.

15/16 Capital Project Report

19

Project Name

Forecast YTD

Percentage

Complete*

Actual YTD

Percentage

Complete*

Variance %

Community Development Strategy 100% 0% -100%

Sign Data Collection Project 100% 0% -100%

Transport Asset Condition Data Collection 100% 0% -100%

Woody Weed Tree Removal Program 67% 0% -67%

Hills Face Reserves Woody Weed Removal 51% 10% -41%

Annual Community Survey 100% 76% -24%

Corporate Services Admin Support 67% 50% -17%

Arboriculture - Truck Mounted EWP Hire 62% 46% -16%

Land Conservation Volunteer Support 60% 49% -11%

Roundabout Landscape Renewal Program 100% 112% 12%

War Memorial Tree Replacement Program 10% 30% 20%

New Residents Kit 0% 21% 21%

Glenunga Community Hub - Maintenance 0% 30% 30%

Roundabouts Upgrade Landscape 0% 33% 33%

Community Youth Event - Open Air Cinema 0% 38% 38%

People & Culture Officer - 12mth 21% 62% 41%

Chambers Gully Woody Weed Removal 50% 41% -9%

Community PlayTime 55% 51% -4%

Arboriculture - Support Officers 65% 62% -3%

Youth Advisory Committee 15% 15% 0%

Development Plan Amendment Consultation 0% 0% 0%

Garage Sale Trail 100% 100% 0%

Garden Award 0% 0% 0%

Local Artist Support & Promotion Project 0% 0% 0%

Public Art Enrichment Program (Pilot) Project 0% 0% 0%

Magill Village Precinct Preliminary Scoping 0% 0% 0%

Water Sensitive Urban Design Capacity Building Contribution 100% 100% 0%

Brownhill Keswick Creek Project 0% 0% 0%

Efficiency and Effectiveness Program 60% 60% 0%

Digital by Default - Stage 1 0% 0% 0%

Hills Face Verges Woody Weed Removal 0% 0% 0%

Property Strategy 0% 0% 0%

Master Plan - Hazelwood Park 0% 0% 0%

Eastwood Community Centre 100% 100% 0%

Magill Cemetery Records Management 0% 0% 0%

Sport & Recreation Strategy Recreation Trails 0% 0% 0%

Water Affecting Activities Best Practise Operating 0% 0% 0%

Glenunga Community Hub - Oval Maintenance 0% 0% 0%

Education Campaign for responsible Cat Ownership 17% 17% 0%

Significant Regulated Tree Assistance 50% 51% 1%

Strategic Customer Service Officer 82% 85% 3%

External Customer Service Survey 75% 80% 5%

February YTD Forecast 286,745

February YTD Actual 229,497

February YTD Variance 57,248

Comments on Projects with Variances over 50%

Woody Weed Tree Removal Program - Project 23% complete with invoicing to be processed in March. Remainder to be spent by June.

Sign Data Collection Project - Project 20% complete. To be completed in March/April.

Transport Asset Condition Data Collection - Project 20% complete. To be completed in March/April.

LEGEND:Variance between Forecast YTD % complete and Actual YTD % complete:

+/- 10% variance

10% - 50% variance

more than 50% variance

* Forecast YTD Percentage complete = YTD Forecast / Q2 Full year Forecast

Actual YTD Percentage complete = Actual YTD spend / Q2 Full year Forecast

The 2015/2016 Operating Project report compares the Q2 Forecast YTD % to the Actual YTD % and provides commentary on Projects with more

than a 50% variance.

15/16 Operating Project Report

Community Development Strategy - Project has commenced and is 20% complete

20

Reports – Outstanding List (February 2015)

NO MTG

DATE SUBJECT OFFICER DUE DATE

TARGET DATE STATUS

1. 19/05/09 Highbury Residential and Open Space Development Plan Amendment by the Minister (S7272)

CEO TBA DPA on hold pending independent monitoring by EPA. The HLA has requested additional funding to deal with the now likely commencement of the DPA process.

2. 21/09/10 Naming of Community Garden, Linden Park (C8004) GMUS Jun 2016 Property Value Assessment Framework endorsed by Council in August 2015. Administration now developing Asset Management Plans and Property Strategy to be presented in 2016.

3. 10/04/12 Dulwich Community Centre – That a report be provided to Council in relation to the Dulwich Community Centre site, addressing the following: • The history of the acquisition of the site. • Whether Council is bound by any obligations arising out of

the circumstances in which it became the registered proprietor of the land.

• The use presently being made of the site. • The state of the buildings on the land. • The views of the present tenants/licencees and users as to

the retention or otherwise of the site.

CEO Apr 2015 Jun 2016 Property Value Assessment Framework endorsed by Council in August 2015. Administration now developing Asset Management Plans and Property Strategy to be presented in 2016.

4. 25/6/13 Burnside Swimming Centre Upgrade Project Plan (C9258) – That a thorough Business Review of the Swimming Centre services and operations be undertaken and presented to Council during the 2013/14 financial year.

GMCDS Apr 2016 On track. 21

biskup

Attachment B

NO MTG DATE SUBJECT OFFICER DUE

DATE TARGET

DATE STATUS

5. 10/6/14 Eastern Health Authority Annual Business Plan and Budget for 2014/15 (Operational) (14.11) (C9749) – That Council requests the Chief Executive Officer of the EHA and the Board of EHA to undertake the benchmarking of the EHA’s services against other environmental health providers, including in-house provision by the constituent Councils, and work with the Constituent Councils as required in order to report back to the Constituent Councils on their findings.

GMCDS TBA Awaiting confirmation from EHA on the timelines to complete the benchmarking exercise.

6. 14/10/14 Kensington Community Park Incorporated (Strategic) (C9932) – That the CEO report to Council periodically (at a minimum, annually) on the performance of the lessee/s and/or licencee/s with respect to leases and/or licences granted by Council with respect to Kensington Oval and its associated areas (eg car parks), including an assessment of the extent to which community use has been fostered and realised.

GMUS Nov 2016 Report to be presented to Council in November 2016.

7. 28/10/14 Newland Park Baseball (C9941) – That the CEO provide a full and frank report to Council in relation to the invalid extension of the permit and the non-provision of the approved nets in time for the current season, including the following: • Identifying the exact system failures that led to the invalid

extension of the permit. • Setting out what steps have been taken to ensure that a

similar situation does not occur again, including the mechanisms in place for decisions to extend permits, licences and the like (whether formal or informal extension).

• Setting the process undertaken for the acquisition of the new nets, including both the intended timeline and the actual timeline.

• Identifying and (and what) weaknesses and/or system failures in relation to the acquisition of the new nets and setting out what steps have been taken to ensure they are not repeated.

CEO Jan 2015 Mar 2016 Report to Council in March 2016.

8. 24/2/15 Report on By-Law Management and Enforcement (Operational) (C10065) – That the By-Law Management and Enforcement Report be provided to Council on a six monthly basis.

GMCDS Jul 2016 On track.

22


DATE TARGET

DATE STATUS

9. 10/3/15 Proposed Hard Waste Collection Service Trial 2015/16 (Operational) (C10085) – That Administration reports to Council no later than June 2016 the results of the Trial that will include a recommendation on the ongoing model for hard waste collection within the City of Burnside.

GMUS Apr 2016 Report to Council in April 2016.

10. 26/5/15 Philip Avenue, Leabrook – River Red Gum (C10184) – That a Report be provided to Council on options available to create a Century of Service ANZAC themed wood carving with the stored wood following the removal of the significant River Red Gum that was located adjacent to the property at 3 Philip Avenue, Leabrook.

GMUS Mar 2016 In progress. Awaiting Grant Funding opportunity. Next round of Grant Funding available in early 2016. Report to Council in March 2016.

11. 23/6/15 Inner and Middle Metropolitan Corridor Infill – Status Update (Strategic) (C10233) – That a further report addressing the requirements of clause 3 of Resolution C10197 be presented to Council following confirmation of the details of the Inner and Middle Metropolitan Corridor Infill Development Plan Amendment by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

GMCDS TBA Awaiting information from DPTI.

12. 14/7/15 Orienteering in Hazelwood Park (C10249) – That the Administration review the operation of the Course after twelve months of its installation and, if it is considered that the Course is inappropriate to the Park, request the nominated Club remove the Markers and signage at its cost.

GMUS Jul 2016 On track.

13. 14/7/15 Burnside War Memorial Hospital – Lease (Operational) (C10265) – Report to Council with the results of the Community Engagement with a recommendation for proceeding.

GMUS Apr 2016 Awaiting response from the Burnside War Memorial Hospital regarding proposed changes to lease.

14. 28/7/15 Civic Centre Master Plan – Stage 2 (Strategic) (C10289) – That, when available, the draft Master Plan be presented to Council for consideration, prior to a period of community consultation.

GMUS Apr 2016 Consultants have been engaged and research is being undertaken. EM workshop on 17 March 2016.

23


DATE TARGET

DATE STATUS

15. 28/7/15 Kensington Road Lookout – Remediation and Future Options (C10290) – That a Report be brought to Council following the resolution of at least two of the following items - Naming of the site; Proposed memorial; or Boral property application.

GMUS Mar 2016 In consultation with Ward Councillors and Executive report scheduled for March 2016.

16. 28/7/15 Eastern Region Alliance – Resilient Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Report (Strategic) (C10294) – That a report be presented to Council (when appropriate) on the outcomes associated with the development of the Resilient East Climate Change Adaptation Plan.

GMUS TBA

17. 25/8/15 Sponsorship and Community Grants Policies (C10322) –Given the current development of the Community Development Strategy, and in light of recent changes to fee subsidy policy and the importance of Sponsorships and Community Grants to community development, community groups and economic development: • That the Administration brings a report to Council reviewing

both Sponsorship and Community Grants Policies with a view to better alignment with community development outcomes.

• That this report makes recommendations as to funding levels and criteria for funding, based on current / expected demand.

GMCDS May 2016 Report to Council in May 2016 which will incorporate Community Development Strategy.

18. 25/8/15 6 Conygham Street, Glenside (Council Depot) – Options Report (Operational) (C10336) – That, prior to resubmitting the proposal for community consultation to Council, Administration: • provide an estimate of the current financial valuation of the

land; • seek an opinion from our own staff responsible for the Men's

Shed and our local Government partners as to the suitability of the proposed new arrangements;

• establish a potential champion from the local community to drive a successful Community Garden;

• provide a report on the potential of introducing a Salvage and Save at the site; and

• report on any other viable inclusions to the site.

GMUS Jun 2016 Discussion currently being held with relevant parties but to be presented in June 2016 after the completion of the Property Strategy.

19. 13/10/15 Legal Matters (C10395) – Council requests the CEO provide a report on the effect of a policy which, if implemented, requires it to be informed of any proposed or pending prosecution or litigation anticipated to cost in excess of $5000.

CEO Mar 2016 On track. 24


DATE TARGET

DATE STATUS

20. 10/11/15 Kensington Gardens Reserve Draft Master Plan (Strategic) (C10442) – That the results of the Community Consultation process (Stage 2) and a revised draft Master Plan design be presented to Council in early 2016 for further consideration.

GMUS TBA Consultation closed end of January. Feedback currently being reviewed and program being revised.

21. 27/1/16 Differential Rates for Vacant Land (C10497) – That Administration prepare a Report detailing all issues which Council should consider in respect to the potential introduction of differential rates for vacant land.

GMCS Mar 2016 Report to Council in March 2016.

22. 27/1/16 Tour Down Under 2017 – Expressions of Interest (Operational) (C10513) – Following the results of the 2016 Annual Community Survey a further report be presented to Council for consideration.

GMCDS Feb 2017 Further report to Council once 2016 community survey complete

23. 9/2/16 Beulah Park and Kensington Park (Part Of) – 40 Km/H Speed Limit Trial (Operational) (C10520) – That the parking and traffic situation be kept under review and a status Report be provided to Council in 12 months.

GMUS Feb 2017 On track.

25

26


Item No: 15.2 To: Council Date: 8 March 21016 Author: Karishma Dutta – Manager, Finance and Procurement General Manager and Division

Martin Cooper – General Manager, Corporate Services

Contact: 8366 4202 Subject: INTRODUCTION OF DIFFERENTIAL RATES ON VACANT LAND

(OPERATIONAL) Attachments: A. Differential Rating – Vacant Land Prev. Resolution: C10497, 27/1/16


1. That the Report be received.

2. That Council continues to raise general rate revenue by reference to section 156(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999 and utilising the land use categories discussed at Regulation 14 of the Local Government (General) Regulations.

3. That Council continues to raise a minimum general rate as part of the general rate revenue raising model in accordance with section 158 of the Local Government Act 1999.

4. That Council applies a Vacant Land rate in the dollar at XX per cent (TBC) above the Residential Rate for the draft Budget for the 2016/2017 Financial Year.

5. The Council extends rate capping of XX per cent (TBC) for XX year/s (TBC) to eligible Vacant Land ratepayers that are affected by the introduction of the differential rates.

6. That consultation be undertaken to gain feedback on the potential introduction of differential rates on Vacant Land for the 2016/2017 Financial Year.

7. That the Administration provides Council with a further report on any public submissions as a result of the community consultation process.

Purpose

1. To provide Elected Members with a report that discusses matters to be considered with respect to the potential introduction of differential rates for Vacant Land.

Strategic Plan

2. The following Strategic Plan provision is relevant:

“A financially sound Council that is accountable, responsible and sustainable”

Communications/Consultation

3. The following communication / consultation has been undertaken:

3.1. Discussions with General Manager, Corporate Services.

3.2. Gathering of benchmarking information from other Councils within the State.

27


3.3. Discussions with the Finance Team.

Statutory


Local Government Act 1999 Section 150 and 156 (predominant legislation).

Policy

5. The following Council Policies are relevant in this instance:

Rating

Community Engagement (Public Consultation)

Risk Assessment

6. The following risks have been identified:

6.1 Council not being financially sustainable to meet operational and capital replacement costs leading to asset, financial, safety and customer relations impacts.

6.2 Unequitable rates burden on the community.


7. There are no impacts on or threats to achieving the CEO’s Performance Indicators for 2015/2016 with this recommendation.

Finance

8. Should Council proceed to introduce differential rates for Vacant Land in the 2016/2017 financial year, there will be no change in Council’s overall rate revenue but instead a re-distribution of the rates burden across the various land use categories. This is discussed in greater detail in the ‘Discussion’ section.

Discussion

Background

9. At the 27 January 2016 Council meeting, Council resolved (C10497):

‘That Administration prepare a Report detailing all issues which Council should consider in respect to the potential introduction of differential rates for vacant land.’

10. The primary rationale for undertaking this review of Council’s rating strategy is to ensure Council’s rating system satisfies the principles of taxation, equity, benefit, ability to pay, efficiency and simplicity.

11. By introducing a differential rate on vacant land, Council will provide an incentive to encourage development in the Council area. The Administration believes a more equitable environment will be possible where vacant land owners are discouraged from long-term speculating (seeking future commercial gains) rather than developing the land for the benefit of the whole community.

28


12. Introducing a differential rate for Vacant Land will not increase Council’s total rate revenue but will, instead, re-distribute the existing rates burden.

13. If Council wishes to amend the total rates revenue, this would have to be undertaken during the time of deliberation of the 2016/2017 Annual Business Plan and Long Term Financial Plan.

14. The Administration has prepared a comprehensive report (Attachment A) on the considerations which will need to be made with respect to the potential introduction of differential rates on Vacant Land.

15. At the 27 January 2016 Council meeting, a number of other matters were also raised which included:

15.1. The impact of differential rates on land used to retain livestock; and

15.2. The possibility of being able to differentially rate derelict/unoccupied properties.

16. These have been discussed in further detail in the sections below.

Legislative Framework

17. In accordance with Section 156 of the Local Government Act 1999 (the Act), provisions have been made for Councils to use differential rates to assist in achieving the desired equity outcome. This can be based on the use of the land, the locality of the land, both of these criteria or on some other basis as determined by Council.

18. The Act also stipulates that before a Council embarks on declaring differential rates in relation to any land, it must prepare a report on the proposed changes and follow relevant steps set out in its Public Consultation Policy.

19. In particular, the report must address the reasons for the proposed change in rating methodology, the relationship of the proposed changes to Council’s overall rates structure and policies and the impact on ratepayers.

Current Rating Methodology

20. In accordance with Section 153 of the Act, the City of Burnside applies a single general rate (with a minimum rate) to capital valuations on all rateable properties within the council area.

21. Whilst the Act allows Councils the option to choose different ‘rates in dollar’ based on use of land, the City of Burnside applies the same ‘rate in the dollar’ to all properties, regardless of land use.

22. The City of Burnside is currently only one of three Metropolitan Councils which does not have differential rating on Vacant Land properties.

23. For the 2015/2016 financial year, Council rated a total of 322 blocks of vacant / unimproved land with a total valuation of $150,417,200. Total rates generated for this category equated to $363,419.

24. The minimum rate imposed by the City of Burnside for the 2015/16 financial year was $803 with 60 Vacant Land properties being charged a minimum rate.

25. Council’s current Rating Policy allows for rate capping to be applied to residential properties only which are affected by a substantial change in rates payable due to rapid changes or anomalies in valuation. Council makes a determination on an annual basis

29


on whether it will provide a rate cap and for the 2015/2016 year, this was set at 12.5 per cent.

Introduction of Differential Rating

26. A comprehensive report has been prepared in relation to the introduction of differential rating and has been included as Attachment A to this report.

27. As mentioned in the Attachment, the introduction of a differential rate on Vacant Land will provide an incentive to encourage development in the Council area and achieve a more equitable distribution of the Rates burden.

28. Introducing a differential rate does not infer that there is an increase in rate revenue for Council. Instead, it implies that the total rate revenue will be re-distributed with a higher ‘rate in the dollar’ being charged to Vacant Land properties and a relatively lower ‘rate in dollar’ being applied to properties in all other categories.

29. As part of implementing a differential rate to Vacant Land, two key decisions will need to be made by Council:

29.1. the level of differential rate to be introduced ; and

29.2. whether Council will extend its rate capping to eligible ratepayers who own vacant land

30. As seen in the table below, a 150% differential will increase the rate revenue from Vacant Land by $165k, before rate capping, whilst a 300% differential will increase the rate revenue from Vacant Land by $672k. In terms of the average increase per property, a 150% differential results in additional rates of $513 per annum whilst a 300% differential results in $2,087 per annum.

31. If Council were to extend its current rate cap of 12.5% to eligible Vacant Land ratepayers, the increase in rates above would be impacted in the following manner:

32. On the other hand, if Council was to apply a 25% cap, the resultant impact would be as follows:

33. As an example, a 150% differential with 25% capping, will result in an average increase of $267 to Vacant Land ratepayers and provide an incentive to develop their property.

Vacant Land Proposed RatesChange in

average rates Increase in

rates 150% differential, no capping 528,738$ 513$ 165,319$

200% differential - No Capping 698,820$ 1,042$ 335,401$ 300% differential - No Capping 1,035,339$ 2,087$ 671,920$

Vacant Land2015/2016

RatesProposed

Rates Capping

Net Proposed

Rates

Change in average

rates Increase in rates

150% differential - 12.5% Capping 363,419$ 530,711$ 123,867$ 406,844$ 135$ 43,425$ 200% differential - 12.5% Capping 363,419$ 705,152$ 297,009$ 408,143$ 139$ 44,724$ 300% differential - 12.5% Capping 363,419$ 1,055,949$ 647,236$ 408,713$ 141$ 45,294$


RatesProposed

Rates Capping

Net Proposed

Rates

Change in average


150% differential - 25% capping 363,419$ 530,020$ 80,480$ 449,540$ 267$ 86,121$ 200% differential - 25% Capping 363,419$ 704,184$ 251,555$ 452,629$ 277$ 89,210$ 300% differential - 25% Capping 363,419$ 1,054,469$ 600,683$ 453,787$ 281$ 90,368$

30


In addition the rates burden distribution for Vacant Land owners will equate to 1.29% (refer Attachment A) of the total rates revenue compared to the valuation distribution of 1.03%. This will achieve the equity in rating whilst also ensuring that the burden on ratepayers is viable.

34. Attachment A contains additional scenarios of differential rating and rate capping and its resultant impact on Council’s rates revenue distribution.

Impact of differential rates on land used to retain livestock

35. During the 27 January 2016 meeting, there were discussions around ensuring equity for ratepayers who may own land used for livestock.

36. Council recognises that these ratepayers may be impacted significantly through the introduction of a differential rate on Vacant Land.

37. However, if Council were to extend the rate cap to eligible Vacant Land ratepayers, the burden of this increase would be lessened.

38. In addition, the ratepayer also has the option to apply to the Valuer General for a change in their Land use code.

39. Per the State Valuation Office’s ‘Land Use Code’ document published on 1 July 2015, Vacant Land is classified as the ‘non-use of vacant land’

40. Residents who use their vacant land for livestock or agriculture can apply to change their Land Use code to ‘Primary Production’, which would be rated on the same basis as a Residential property.

Differentially rating derelict/unoccupied properties

41. During the 27 January 2016 meeting, there were also some discussions around the possibility of being able to differentially rate properties which are derelict or unkempt.

42. Differentially rating these properties would provide an incentive to the owners to maintain or alternatively sell these properties instead of holding onto unkempt properties in an attempt to seek a commercial gain.

43. Whilst it would be ideal to introduce a higher rate for these properties, Administration does not have any capability at present to be able to identify which properties fall into this category.

44. Council rates are based on land use codes provided by the Valuer General and these properties are not specifically identified within the Valuer General reports.

45. The only way to identify these properties would be to do a physical inspection following a complaint or notification from a member of the Public. However the cost of this exercise would probably outweigh the benefit.

46. In addition, whilst some interstate Council’s may have a category for ‘unoccupied’ properties, the current Local Government Act does not specifically have any provision for the same.

31


Community Consultation

47. Should Council wish to implement any changes to the current rating strategy, Council is required under the Act to consult with the community.

48. Section 156(14a) of the Act, stipulates that before a Council embarks on declaring differential rates in relation to any land it must prepare a report on the proposed changes and follow relevant steps set out in its Public Consultation Policy.

49. Administration recommends that should Council proceed with the consultation process, that it be incorporated into the draft 2016/2017 Budget and be consulted on at the same time as the draft Annual Business Plan and Long Term Financial Plan.

Conclusion

50. Council currently applies a general rating methodology to all properties which is a broad-based approach that applies a rate to all property strata based upon the capital value of the property at a point in time. This methodology does not consider the use of the land and is not considered to be the most equitable way to distribute the rates burden across all factions of the Community.

51. The City of Burnside is currently one of only three Metropolitan Councils which does not have a differential rating system applied to its Vacant Land properties and while there have been significant changes within the Local Government landscape, there have not been any substantial changes in the Council’s rating system. As such a review of the current rating system is essential.

52. Based on the analysis contained within the report, it is important that Council achieves equity in rating whilst also ensuring that the burden on ratepayers is viable. If Council proceed with the introduction of a differential rating system, it would be based on the following parameters:

52.1. continued use of the present option of using capital value to value a property for rating purposes;

52.2. retention of the application of the minimum rate;

52.3. introduction of a new differential rating system for Vacant Land properties (differential % to be determined); and

52.4. introduction of a capping system (to be determined) for eligible Vacant Land ratepayers, which is directly attributable to the change in the rating structure.

32

CONSIDERATIONS TO BE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE POTENTIAL INTRODUCTION OF DIFFERENTIAL RATES FOR VACANT LAND

March 2016

Differential Rating – Vacant Land

33

biskup

Attachment A

1 | P a g e

Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Current Rating Strategy ....................................................................................... 3

2.1 Rates................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Minimum Rates................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Capping............................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Introduction of differential rating .............................................................................. 5

3.1 Rationale for the review ...................................................................................... 5

3.2 Level of differential rates to be introduced ......................................................... 5

3.2 Rate Capping on Vacant Land .............................................................................. 6

4.0 Community Consultation ........................................................................................... 7

5.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 8

Appendix A – Rates Modelling Scenarios for Vacant Land

34

2 | P a g e

1.0 Executive Summary Council Rates account for approximately 84% of the City of Burnside’s total revenue. This enables Council to deliver on its Strategic Plan, progressively renew and replace its assets, maintain the required level of service as well as new service demands from the community. Council aims to ensure that rates are kept to a reasonable level, consistent with meeting local community requirements. Council also seeks to ensure that the current distribution of the Councils rates burden is fair and equitable.

Currently, the City of Burnside applies a single general rate (with a minimum rate) to capital valuations on all rateable properties within the council area. It should be recognised that valuations alone do not always produce equitable results in all communities. The Local Government Act 1999 (the Act) includes provisions for Councils to use differential rates to assist in achieving the desired equity outcome. This can be based on the use of the land, the locality of the land or both of these criteria. Differential rating allows Council flexibility in the level of rates being raised from specifically identified properties or groups of properties within the community.

The City of Burnside is one of only three Metropolitan Councils which does not have a differential rating strategy in place. The option of introducing differential rating was raised at previous Council meetings and also mentioned in the recent independent ‘Effectiveness and Efficiency’ report prepared by BRM Holdich.

As such, this report has been prepared to discuss the option of introducing a differential rate for Vacant Land properties. The aim of this change in the Rating Strategy is to provide an incentive to encourage development in the Council area and to recognise the cost of the surrounding infrastructure. Administration believes a more equitable environment will be possible where vacant land owners are discouraged from long-term speculating (seeking future commercial gains) rather than developing the land for the benefit of the whole community. Introducing a differential rate will not increase Council’s total rate revenue but will instead re-distribute the existing rates burden to ensure that Council’s rating system satisfies the principles of taxation, equity, benefit, ability to pay, efficiency and simplicity.

This report details the results of the internal review undertaken and the resultant redistribution of the rates burden as a result of introducing a differential rate on Vacant Land. The report also includes information on the legislative requirements around engaging with the community that will be need to be adhered to should Council resolve to introduce differential rates.

As mentioned above, the purpose of the review of Council’s rating strategy is not to address an increase (or decrease) in the total level of rates raised. If Council wish to amend the total rates revenue, that would have to be a decision made during the time of deliberation of the 2016/2017 Annual Business Plan and Long Term Financial Plan.

35

3 | P a g e

2.0 Current Rating Strategy 2.1 Rates In accordance with Section 153 of the Act, the City of Burnside applies a single general rate (with a minimum rate) to capital valuations on all rateable properties within the council area. Typically, a ‘rate in the dollar’ (RID) is set each financial year which is applied to the property valuation to calculate the amount of general rates for the year. Whilst the Act allows Councils the option to choose different ‘rates in dollar’ based on use of land; the City of Burnside applies the same ‘rate in the dollar’ to all properties regardless of land use.

In line with the Act, the land uses that Council is permitted to differentiate between are:

• Residential

• Commercial – Shops, Commercial – Office, Commercial – Other

• Industrial – Light, Industrial – Other,

• Primary Production

• Vacant Land; and

• Other

This report deals with the potential introduction of differential rates with respect to Vacant Land only.

The City of Burnside’s sound financial management enabled Council to adopt a 2.9 per cent average rate increase in 2015/16, 1 per cent lower than the previous two budgets and the lowest increase since 2009/10.

To determine the amount of rates paid each year, Council first determines the revenue that is required to be raised to fund Council services. The revenue required is divided by the total capital values of all properties, to give the rate in the dollar. Total rate revenue required = rate in the dollar Total value of rateable properties

36

4 | P a g e

Introducing a differential rate does not infer that there is an increase in rate revenue for Council. Instead, it implies that the total rate revenue will be re-distributed with a higher ‘rate in the dollar’ being charged to Vacant Land properties and a lower ‘rate in dollar’ being applied to properties in all other categories. Council expects that applying a higher ‘rate in the dollar’ to Vacant Land will provide an incentive for the owners to develop these properties.

For the 2015/2016 financial year Council rated a total of 322 blocks of vacant/ unimproved land with a total valuation of $150,417,200. Total rates generated for this category equated to $363,419 which equals 1.1% of the total rate revenue. A number of rates modelling scenarios on these properties are detailed in Section 3.0 of this report.

2.2 Minimum Rates Per the Act, Councils may impose a minimum amount payable by way of rates over all or part of its area, provided that it has not imposed a fixed charge. In accordance with Section 158 of the Act, the City of Burnside imposes a minimum rate, as it considers it appropriate that all rateable properties make a base level contribution to the cost of:

• Administering the Council’s activities; and • Creating and maintaining the physical infrastructure that supports each property.

The minimum rate imposed by the City of Burnside for the 2015/16 financial year was $803 with 60 Vacant Land properties being charged a minimum rate.

Council reviews the minimum rate annually and at the same level as the percentage increase in general rates, excluding growth. Therefore, as the cost of services changes, the ‘contribution’ paid by ratepayers on the minimum rate will also change. Adjusting the minimum rate helps ensure equity is maintained by avoiding a shift in the rate burden to other ratepayers.

For the purposes of the rates modelling included in this report, it has been assumed that the minimum rate remains at $803.

2.3 Capping Council has the ability to grant a rebate of rates to provide relief against large percentage increases in rates due to the valuation change used for rating purposes. Per Section 166(l) of the Act, Council may grant a rebate of rates where there is a substantial change in rates payable by a ratepayer due to ‘a redistribution of the rates burden within the community arising from a change to the basis or structure of the Council’s rates.’

Council’s current Rating Policy allows for rate capping to be applied to residential properties affected by a substantial change in rates payable due to rapid changes or anomalies in

37

5 | P a g e

valuation. Council makes a determination on an annual basis on whether it will provide a rate cap and for the 2015/2016 year, this was set at 12.5%.

Whilst Council currently only uses capping as a mechanism to address uneven valuation movements within the residential property category, consideration would also need to be given to whether a cap is applied to Vacant Land properties due to the introduction of a differential rate.

3.0 Introduction of differential rating 3.1 Rationale for the review Whilst, there have been considerable changes within the Local Government landscape, there has been no concurrent change in the City of Burnside’s rating strategy. There is also recognition that capital valuations alone do not always produce equitable results in all communities and can be considered unfair by some. By introducing differential rates on Vacant Land, Council will provide an incentive to encourage development in the Council area and achieve a more equitable distribution of the Rates burden. Administration also believe that this may be an opportune time to undertake a review on the current Rating Strategy since any proposed changes can be incorporated into the 2016/2017 Budget setting process.

As part of this review, some key decisions are required to be made around:

• the level of differential rate to be introduced • whether Council will extend its rate capping to eligible ratepayers who own vacant

land

3.2 Level of differential rates to be introduced For the 2015/2016 year, the City of Burnside rated 322 Vacant Land properties with a total valuation of $150,417,200. The Rate in the dollar used (same as the Residential rate in the dollar) was $0.002343 which resulted in a total rate revenue of $363,419.

Introduction of differential rates does not lead to a windfall gain for Council. As mentioned in section 2 above, Council first determines the revenue that is required to be raised to fund Council services. The revenue required is divided by the total capital values of all properties, to give the rate in the dollar.

Increasing the differential rate to be applied to Vacant Land properties would only mean that the proportion of rates burden increases for the Vacant Land category and reduces across the other categories, with the total rates revenue remaining the same.

As part of this internal review, Administration has performed some rates modelling around the different levels of differential rates to be introduced on Vacant Land and the resulting redistribution of the rates burden.

38

6 | P a g e

The comparative data for other councils has been provided below and the City of Burnside is currently only one out of three Metropolitan councils which does not have differential rating on Vacant Land properties. Whilst the differential rates range from 120% to 302%, the average differential rate across the 17 Councils listed below is 167%. As a result, Administration has included 150%, 200% and 300% scenarios in the rates model below (and attached in Appendix A).

3.2 Rate Capping on Vacant Land

If Council were to proceed with the introduction of a differential rate on vacant land, consideration would have to be given to whether the rate capping would extend beyond the Residential land use category.

Based on a comparative analysis of other Councils, it was noted that 10 out of the 17 Councils provide a cap on rates (in at least one category) ranging from 5% to 20%.

Appendix A contains detailed analysis on the various capping scenarios and the resultant impact on Council rates revenue.

39

7 | P a g e

Council’s current rating policy allows for a 12.5% cap on residential properties. If this was to be extended to eligible Vacant Land properties, the impact on revenue would be as follows:

On the other hand, if Council was to apply a 25% cap, the resultant impact would be as follows:

Additional modelling has also been included in Appendix A to this report. Taking the scenario of a 150% differential rate on Vacant Land with 25% rate capping would result in an average of a $267 increase in rates to the Vacant Land ratepayer and provide an incentive to them to develop their property. In addition the rates burden distribution for Vacant Land owners would equate to 1.29% of the total rates revenue which is comparable to the valuation distribution of 1.03%. This will achieve the equity in rating whilst also ensuring that the burden on ratepayers is viable.

4.0 Community Consultation Should Council wish to implement any changes to the current rating strategy, Council is required under the Act to consult with the community. Section 156(14a) of the Act, stipulates that before a Council embarks on declaring differential rates in relation to any land it must prepare a report on the proposed changes and follow relevant steps set out in its Public Consultation Policy. In particular the report must address the following in line with Section 156 (14b):

(a) the reasons for the proposed change;

(b) the relationship of the proposed change to the council's overall rates structure and policies;

(c) in so far as may be reasonably practicable, the likely impact of the proposed change on ratepayers (using such assumptions, rate modelling and levels of detail as the council thinks fit);

(d) issues concerning equity within the community;

and may address other issues considered relevant by the council.


RatesProposed

Rates Capping

Net Proposed

Rates

Change in average


150% differential - 12.5% Capping 363,419$ 530,711$ 123,867$ 406,844$ 135$ 43,425$ 200% differential - 12.5% Capping 363,419$ 705,152$ 297,009$ 408,143$ 139$ 44,724$ 300% differential - 12.5% Capping 363,419$ 1,055,949$ 647,236$ 408,713$ 141$ 45,294$


RatesProposed

Rates Capping

Net Proposed

Rates

Change in average


150% differential - 25% capping 363,419$ 530,020$ 80,480$ 449,540$ 267$ 86,121$ 200% differential - 25% Capping 363,419$ 704,184$ 251,555$ 452,629$ 277$ 89,210$ 300% differential - 25% Capping 363,419$ 1,054,469$ 600,683$ 453,787$ 281$ 90,368$

40

8 | P a g e

Should Council seek to proceed with the introduction of differential rating on Vacant Land, the community consultation can be built into the Annual Business Plan 2016/2017 consultation. This community consultation process will be developed to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act and Council’s Community Engagement (Public Consultation) Policy.

Per the current Budget timetable for 2016/2017, the draft Annual Business Plan and Long Term Financial Plan will be adopted by Council for community consultation on 26 April 2016. This consultation would also include a separate consultation on the potential introduction of differential rating, the results of which will be brought back to Council for further consideration.

5.0 Conclusion Council currently applies a General Rating methodology to all properties which is a broad-based approach that applies a rate to all property strata based upon the capital value of the property at a point in time. This methodology does not consider the use of the land and is not considered to be the most equitable way to distribute the Rates burden across all factions of the Community.

As discussed above, the City of Burnside is currently one of only three Metropolitan Councils which does not have a differential rating system applied to its Vacant Land properties and while there have been significant changes within the Local Government landscape, there have not been any substantial changes in the Council’s rating system. As such a review of the current Rating system is essential.

Based on the analysis contained within the report, it is important that Council achieves equity in rating whilst also ensuring that the burden on ratepayers is viable. If Council proceed with the introduction of a differential rating system, it would be based on the following parameters:

• continued use of the present option of using capital value to value a property for rating purposes;

• retention of the application of the minimum rate; • introduction of a new differential rating system for Vacant Land properties

(differential % to be determined); • introduction of a capping system (to be determined) for eligible Vacant Land

ratepayers, which is directly attributable to the change in the rating structure.

41

Appendix A – Rates Modelling Scenarios for Vacant Land

Total number of Vacant Land properties 322Total Valuation of Vacant Land properties 150,417,200$

SUMMARY OF ALL SCENARIOS

Vacant LandRate in Dollar

2015/2016 Rates

Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation

DistributionProposed

Rates Capping

Net Proposed

Rates

Average Rate per Property

Rates Distribution

Change in average


150% differential, no capping 0.003496 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 528,738$ -$ 528,738$ 1,642$ 1.51% 513$ 165,319$ 150% differential - 12.5% Capping 0.003510 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 530,711$ 123,867$ 406,844$ 1,263$ 1.17% 135$ 43,425$ 150% differential - 25% capping 0.003505 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 530,020$ 80,480$ 449,540$ 1,396$ 1.29% 267$ 86,121$ 150% differential - 50% Capping 0.003496 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 528,738$ -$ 528,738$ 1,642$ 1.51% 513$ 165,319$ 200% differential - No Capping 0.004637 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 698,820$ -$ 698,820$ 2,170$ 2.00% 1,042$ 335,401$

200% differential - 12.5% Capping 0.004679 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 705,152$ 297,009$ 408,143$ 1,268$ 1.17% 139$ 44,724$ 200% differential - 25% Capping 0.004673 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 704,184$ 251,555$ 452,629$ 1,406$ 1.30% 277$ 89,210$ 200% differential - 50% Capping 0.004660 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 702,284$ 162,340$ 539,944$ 1,677$ 1.55% 548$ 176,525$ 300% differential - No Capping 0.006882 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 1,035,339$ -$ 1,035,339$ 3,215$ 2.97% 2,087$ 671,920$

300% differential - 12.5% Capping 0.007019 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 1,055,949$ 647,236$ 408,713$ 1,269$ 1.17% 141$ 45,294$ 300% differential - 25% Capping 0.007009 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 1,054,469$ 600,683$ 453,787$ 1,409$ 1.30% 281$ 90,368$ 300% differential - 50% Capping 0.006990 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 1,051,530$ 508,187$ 543,343$ 1,687$ 1.56% 559$ 179,924$

Category Rate in Dollar 2015/2016 Rates

Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation

Distribution Proposed Rates CappingNet Proposed

RatesAverage Rate per Property

Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in

rates Residential 0.002331 31,225,859$ 1,678$ 89.64% 31,076,040$ -$ 31,076,040$ 1,670$ 89.02% -$8 -$149,819

Independent Living 0.002331 467,426$ 787$ 1.36% 465,033$ -$ 465,033$ 783$ 1.33% -$4 -$2,393Commercial - Shop 0.002331 966,640$ 1,953$ 2.62% 962,551$ -$ 962,551$ 1,945$ 2.76% -$8 -$4,089Commercial - Office 0.002331 813,067$ 2,853$ 2.30% 809,179$ -$ 809,179$ 2,839$ 2.32% -$14 -$3,888Commercial - Other 0.002331 634,118$ 2,281$ 1.77% 631,206$ -$ 631,206$ 2,271$ 1.81% -$10 -$2,912

Industrial - Light 0.002331 9,936$ 1,242$ 0.03% 9,902$ -$ 9,902$ 1,238$ 0.03% -$4 -$34Industrial - Other 0.002331 16,636$ 2,377$ 0.05% 16,554$ -$ 16,554$ 2,365$ 0.05% -$12 -$82

Primary Production 0.002331 18,951$ 2,369$ 0.06% 18,858$ -$ 18,858$ 2,357$ 0.05% -$12 -$93Vacant Land 0.003496 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 528,738$ -$ 528,738$ 1,642$ 1.51% $513 $165,319

Other - General 0.002331 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 391,867$ -$ 391,867$ 5,024$ 1.12% -$26 -$2,00934,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 34,909,928$ -$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0.00-$ 0

150% differential - capping at 0%

42

10 | P a g e


Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in


Independent Living 0.002340 467,426$ 787$ 1.36% 466,803$ -$ 466,803$ 786$ 1.34% -$1 -$623Commercial - Shop 0.002340 966,640$ 1,953$ 2.62% 965,564$ -$ 965,564$ 1,951$ 2.77% -$2 -$1,076Commercial - Office 0.002340 813,067$ 2,853$ 2.30% 812,043$ -$ 812,043$ 2,849$ 2.33% -$4 -$1,024Commercial - Other 0.002340 634,118$ 2,281$ 1.77% 633,351$ -$ 633,351$ 2,278$ 1.81% -$3 -$767


Primary Production 0.002340 18,951$ 2,369$ 0.06% 18,926$ -$ 18,926$ 2,366$ 0.05% -$3 -$25Vacant Land 0.003510 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 530,711$ 123,867$ 406,844$ 1,263$ 1.17% $135 $43,425

Other - General 0.002340 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 393,346$ -$ 393,346$ 5,043$ 1.13% -$7 -$53034,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 35,033,795$ 123,867$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0

150% differential - capping at 12.5%


Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in





Other - General 0.002337 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 392,828$ -$ 392,828$ 5,036$ 1.13% -$13 -$1,04834,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 34,990,408$ 80,480$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0



Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average rates

Increase in rates

Residential 0.002331 31,225,859$ 1,678$ 89.64% 31,076,040$ -$ 31,076,040$ 1,670$ 89.02% -$8 -$149,819Independent Living 0.002331 467,426$ 787$ 1.36% 465,033$ -$ 465,033$ 783$ 1.33% -$4 -$2,393Commercial - Shop 0.002331 966,640$ 1,953$ 2.62% 962,551$ -$ 962,551$ 1,945$ 2.76% -$8 -$4,089Commercial - Office 0.002331 813,067$ 2,853$ 2.30% 809,179$ -$ 809,179$ 2,839$ 2.32% -$14 -$3,888Commercial - Other 0.002331 634,118$ 2,281$ 1.77% 631,206$ -$ 631,206$ 2,271$ 1.81% -$10 -$2,912


Primary Production 0.002331 18,951$ 2,369$ 0.06% 18,858$ -$ 18,858$ 2,357$ 0.05% -$12 -$93Vacant Land 0.003496 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 528,738$ -$ 528,738$ 1,642$ 1.51% $513 $165,319

Other - General 0.002331 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 391,867$ -$ 391,867$ 5,024$ 1.12% -$26 -$2,00934,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 34,909,928$ -$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0


43

11 | P a g e


Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in

rates Residential 0.002319 31,225,859$ 1,678.36$ 89.64% 30,921,918$ -$ 30,921,918$ 1,662.02$ 88.58% -$16 -$303,941

Independent Living 0.002319 467,426$ 786.91$ 1.36% 462,558$ -$ 462,558$ 778.72$ 1.33% -$8 -$4,868Commercial - Shop 0.002319 966,640$ 1,952.81$ 2.62% 958,349$ -$ 958,349$ 1,936.06$ 2.75% -$17 -$8,291Commercial - Office 0.002319 813,067$ 2,852.87$ 2.30% 805,180$ -$ 805,180$ 2,825.19$ 2.31% -$28 -$7,887Commercial - Other 0.002319 634,118$ 2,281.00$ 1.77% 628,206$ -$ 628,206$ 2,259.73$ 1.80% -$21 -$5,912

Industrial - Light 0.002319 9,936$ 1,242.00$ 0.03% 9,866$ -$ 9,866$ 1,233.28$ 0.03% -$9 -$70Industrial - Other 0.002319 16,636$ 2,376.57$ 0.05% 16,471$ -$ 16,471$ 2,352.94$ 0.05% -$24 -$165

Primary Production 0.002319 18,951$ 2,368.88$ 0.06% 18,762$ -$ 18,762$ 2,345.19$ 0.05% -$24 -$189Vacant Land 0.004637 363,419$ 1,128.63$ 1.03% 698,820$ -$ 698,820$ 2,170.25$ 2.00% $1,042 $335,401

Other - General 0.002319 393,876$ 5,049.69$ 1.14% 389,799$ -$ 389,799$ 4,997.42$ 1.12% -$52 -$4,07734,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 34,909,928$ -$ 34,909,928$ 1,688.10$ 100.00% 0 0



Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in





Other - General 0.002340 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 393,330$ -$ 393,330$ 5,043$ 1.13% -$7 -$54634,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 35,206,937$ 297,009$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0



Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in





Other - General 0.002336 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 392,791$ -$ 392,791$ 5,036$ 1.13% -$14 -$1,08534,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 35,161,483$ 251,555$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0


44

12 | P a g e


Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in





Other - General 0.002330 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 391,731$ -$ 391,731$ 5,022$ 1.12% -$27 -$2,14534,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 35,072,268$ 162,340$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0



Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in




Primary Production 0.002294 18,951$ 2,369$ 0.06% 18,571$ -$ 18,571$ 2,321$ 0.05% -$47 -$380Vacant Land 0.006882 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 1,035,339$ -$ 1,035,339$ 3,215$ 2.97% $2,087 $671,920

Other - General 0.002294 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 385,704$ -$ 385,704$ 4,945$ 1.10% -$105 -$8,17234,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 34,909,928$ -$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0



Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in




Primary Production 0.002340 18,951$ 2,369$ 0.06% 18,925$ -$ 18,925$ 2,366$ 0.05% -$3 -$26Vacant Land 0.007019 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 1,055,949$ 647,236$ 408,713$ 1,269$ 1.17% $141 $45,294

Other - General 0.002340 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 393,323$ -$ 393,323$ 5,043$ 1.13% -$7 -$55334,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 35,557,164$ 647,236$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0


45

13 | P a g e


Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average

rates Increase in




Primary Production 0.002336 18,951$ 2,369$ 0.06% 18,900$ -$ 18,900$ 2,362$ 0.05% -$6 -$51Vacant Land 0.007009 363,419$ 1,129$ 1.03% 1,054,469$ 600,683$ 453,787$ 1,409$ 1.30% $281 $90,368

Other - General 0.002336 393,876$ 5,050$ 1.14% 392,777$ -$ 392,777$ 5,036$ 1.13% -$14 -$1,09934,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 35,510,611$ 600,683$ 34,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 0 0



Average Rates

2015/2016Valuation



Rates Distribution

Change in average rates

Increase in rates

Residential 0.002330 31,225,859$ 1,678.36$ 89.64% 31,062,804$ -$ 31,062,804$ 1,669.59$ 88.98% -$9 -$163,055Independent Living 0.002330 467,426$ 786.91$ 1.36% 464,821$ -$ 464,821$ 782.53$ 1.33% -$4 -$2,605Commercial - Shop 0.002330 966,640$ 1,952.81$ 2.62% 962,190$ -$ 962,190$ 1,943.82$ 2.76% -$9 -$4,450Commercial - Office 0.002330 813,067$ 2,852.87$ 2.30% 808,836$ -$ 808,836$ 2,838.02$ 2.32% -$15 -$4,231Commercial - Other 0.002330 634,118$ 2,281.00$ 1.77% 630,949$ -$ 630,949$ 2,269.60$ 1.81% -$11 -$3,169

Industrial - Light 0.002330 9,936$ 1,242.00$ 0.03% 9,899$ -$ 9,899$ 1,237.35$ 0.03% -$5 -$37Industrial - Other 0.002330 16,636$ 2,376.57$ 0.05% 16,547$ -$ 16,547$ 2,363.88$ 0.05% -$13 -$89

Primary Production 0.002330 18,951$ 2,368.88$ 0.06% 18,849$ -$ 18,849$ 2,356.17$ 0.05% -$13 -$102Vacant Land 0.006990 363,419$ 1,128.63$ 1.03% 1,051,530$ 508,187$ 543,343$ 1,687.40$ 1.56% $559 $179,924

Other - General 0.002330 393,876$ 5,049.69$ 1.14% 391,690$ -$ 391,690$ 5,021.66$ 1.12% -$28 -$2,18634,909,928$ 1,688$ 100.00% 35,418,115$ 508,187$ 34,909,928$ 1,688.10$ 100.00% 0 0


Notes: Model has been based on 2015/2016 Capital Valuations Model has been based on a Minimum rate of $803

46

Council Agenda Item 15.3 8 March 2016 Item No: 15.3 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Author: Mark Asclipenos – Principal Governance Officer General Manager and Division

Martin Cooper – General Manager, Corporate Services

Contact: 8366 4275 Subject: REMAKE OF CONFIDENTIAL ORDER – ELECTED MEMBER

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PRIVATE LEGAL EXPENSES (OPERATIONAL)

Attachments: Nil Prev. Resolution: C10026, 27/1/15

C10091, 10/3/15 C10125, 14/4/15 C10202, 26/5/15 C10500, 27/1/16



2. That pursuant to section 91(7) and (9) of the Local Government Act 1999, the Council orders that:

2.1 the confidentiality order the subject of Resolution C10091 of 10 March 2015 concerning the Item “Elected Member Request for Reimbursement of Private Legal Expenses” (Item 18.1 of the Agenda and Minutes – of the Council meeting of 10 March 2015), concerning the Report, Attachment and Minutes to Item 18.1 Elected Member Request for Reimbursement of Private Legal Expenses of 10 March 2015, remain confidential on the basis that:

2.1.1 it contains information, the disclosure of which would involve the disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of any person (living or dead) pursuant to Section 90(3)(a) of the Act; and

2.2 that the Report, Attachments and Minutes will not be available for public inspection for the period of 2 years at which time this order will be revoked / reviewed by the Council.

3. That for the items named in paragraph 2 and associated sub-paragraphs, unless:

8.1 the period in respect of any order made under Section 91(7) of the Local Government Act 1999 lapses; or

8.2 Council resolves to revoke an order made under Section 91(7) of the Local Government Act 1999; or

8.3 the CEO determines pursuant to delegated authority that the order be revoked;

any discussions of Council on the matter and any recording of those discussions are to be treated as confidential.

47

Council Agenda Item 15.3 8 March 2016 Purpose

1. To provide Elected Members with information about the Confidential Item for which the confidential order is due to expire and a recommendation that the order be remade.

2. The report is not to discuss the topics. If any discussions on the topic need to occur then Council will need to move into confidence.

Strategic Plan





4.1 The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), together with the Administration, has reviewed these documents.

4.2 An Information Document was distributed to Elected Members on 3 March 2016 providing the confidential documents for review.

Statutory


Local Government Act, 1999

Policy

6. There are no policy implications or requirements associated with this recommendation.

Risk Assessment


7.1 Regular reviews of reports or documents that are the subject of a confidentiality order ensure that items are released to the public, in accordance with Council resolution in a timely manner.

7.2 There also is a risk that if the recommendation is not adopted at this time that personal affairs of persons connected with the Council (past or present) could be unreasonably disclosed.



Finance

9. There are no financial implications for the City of Burnside in respect of the recommendation.

48

Council Agenda Item 15.3 8 March 2016 Discussion

Background

10. The Item, Elected Member Request for Reimbursement of Private Legal Expenses, was listed for discussion as Item 18.1 in the Agenda of the Council meeting of 10 March 2015.

11. Council, at its meeting of 10 March 2015, resolved (C10089) to receive Item 18.1 Elected Member Request for Reimbursement of Private Legal Expenses (listed as Item 18.1 in the Agenda and Minutes) in confidence and resolved (C10091) that the Report, Attachments, and Minutes remain confidential for 12 months, expiring on 10 March 2016.

12. Council, as part of its annual review of existing confidentiality orders, at the meeting of Council on 24 November 2015, resolved (C10471) that the confidential order referred to in paragraph 11 above remain as per the existing order at that time.

13. The confidential order is now due to expire and requires review.

Analysis

14. The above item relate to Topic 47.2 on the Confidentiality Items Status Table. The Administration has prepared this Report to remake the confidential order to the above Item.

15. As the confidential order for this item is due to expire on 10 March 2016, there is a risk that should the recommendation to remake this order not be adopted at this time that the personal affairs of a person or persons, past or present, connected with the Council could be unreasonably disclosed.

16. The Administration therefore recommends that the Report, Attachments, and Minutes to Item 18.1 Elected Member Request for Reimbursement of Private Legal Expenses of 10 March 2015 (as referred to in paragraph 11 above) will not be available for public inspection for the period of 2 years at which time this order will be revoked / reviewed by the Council.

Conclusion

17. The confidentiality order in respect of the Report, Attachments, and Minutes to Item 18.1 Elected Member Request for Reimbursement of Private Legal Expenses of 10 March 2015, referred to in this Report, needs to be remade.

49

50


Item No: 15.4 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Author: Michelle Kennedy – Manager Engineering, Strategy and Assets General Manager and Division

Barry Cant – Acting General Manager, Urban Services

Contact: 8366 4257 Subject: WHEAL WATKINS MINE (OPERATIONAL) Attachments: A. Wheal Watkins Mine Brochure

B. Location Map C. Coffey / Ag Sciences Report (2006) D. Golder Report (2010) E. AMC Report (2013) F. SMEC White Ant Report G. Potential Improvements H. Mancala Estimate I. Burnside Historical Society Estimate

(attachments provided under separate cover)

Prev. Resolution: C7110, 11/12/07 CS1621, 17/6/08 CS1649, 27/1/09 C7902, 15/6/10 PHI0048, 22/6/11 C9832, 12/8/14



2. That the City of Burnside acknowledges that the Wheal Watkins site is of historic significance and will work with the Burnside Historical Society to promote the site and recognise the importance that it has played in the history of Burnside.

3. That an amount of $30,000 be considered as part of the 2016/17 Annual Business Plan and budget process to contribute to the upgrading of the area adjacent the lower adit, including the path, steps, and handrail leading to the lower adit.

4. That annual inspections are undertaken to ensure the stability of the Wheal Watkins Mine and address any major risks in a timely manner as part of a regular asset maintenance program.

5. That the City of Burnside work with, and support the Burnside Historical Society, to be able to coordinate and facilitate external tours of the Mine site area.

Purpose

1. This report provides a review of options for the Wheal Watkins Mine area and makes recommendations on how to proceed and work with the Burnside Historical Society (BHS) with regards to the options of undertaking tours of the Mine site.

51


Strategic Plan

2. The following Strategic Plan provisions are relevant:

“Conservation and enhancement of the historic character of the City”

“Fit for purpose and cost effective infrastructure that meets community needs”


3. The following communication / consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report:

3.1. Discussions with BHS;

3.2. Discussions with Ward Councillors; and

3.3. Site visit with Elected Members Cornish, Monceaux, Bills, Bagster, Piggott and Davis.

4. Previous consultation in relation to potential rehabilitation of the Wheal Watkins Mine has also occurred with:

4.1. Local Government Association Mutual Liability Scheme;

4.2. Boral ACM (SA);

4.3. BHP Billiton;

4.4. South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy;

4.5. Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH);

4.6. Safework SA;

4.7. State Emergency Services (SES);

4.8. Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA);

4.9. Heritage Advisors; and

4.10. Specialist consulting engineers.

Statutory

5. The following areas of legislation are relevant in this instance

Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920

Civil Liability Act 1936


Work Health and Safety Act 2012

Access to both Adits is currently limited to able bodied visitors only, therefore it is appropriate to also refer to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

52


Policy


Risk Assessment

7. It is essential to ensure that the Mine is safe to access before offering tours to the public. There is some public liability risk due to the nature of the site and appropriate risk mitigation strategies would need to be developed and implemented in order to manage this risk.



Finance

9. The initial recommended options will cost Council an estimated $30,000. This needs to be approved through the annual business plan and budget process.

Discussion

Background

10. The Wheal Watkins Mine, which commenced operation in 1843, is one of several Mines that operated in the hills face area in the mid-1800s. The adjacent Wheal Gawler Mine (now on private property) was one of the first metalliferous Mines in Australia. The entrance to the Wheal Watkins Mine is located in a Council Reserve. A brochure outlining the history of the Mine is provided as Attachment A.

11. Tours previously operated in the area and included entering the Wheal Watkins Mine adits (horizontal shafts) at the 6 fathom and 20 fathom levels. The term ‘6 fathom’ refers to the depth below the top of the main shaft, which is located within the turning circle of Wheal Gawler Road.

12. There are two entrances (6 fathoms and 20 fathoms) to the Wheal Watkins Mine which are accessed from Wheal Watkins Street. The entrance locations are shown on Attachment B.

13. Council has developed walking paths between the two Mine entrances with interpretive signage. These paths connect to further walking trails throughout the area. The signage and trails are now dated and weathered.

14. The original tour started in 1986 (operated by the BHS with volunteers). The tours were supported by Council at a cost. The tour was initially reduced in length due to the danger of rocks falling from a vertical shaft (winze) and then ceased in 2005 due to concerns over a crack appearing in the wall. A subsequent engineering report (Attachment C) indicated that ‘periodic maintenance’ was required to recommence tours. The engineering report indicated that further blocking of the walls and ceiling of the shaft was required, and to pass the winze (vertical shaft) where the rocks intermittently fell, a small timber structure could provide protection.

53


15. Further engineering reports (Attachment D and E) suggested that the condition of the Mine had ‘significantly deteriorated’ since the provision of the first report and that much more significant works would be required to be undertaken in order to rehabilitate the Mine to a level suitable for public access.

16. The Wheal Watkins Mine adits were originally refurbished in 1986 by the (then) Department of Mines and Council as part of the SA state 150 celebrations. The BHS began tours at that time. Further remediation in the form of timber sets and interpretive signage was undertaken in 1996.

17. Up to 2008, Council had spent approximately $150,000 (in addition to the original refurbishment in 1986 to open the Mine for tours) to upgrade / maintain the Mine retaining structures and gates, to undertake various engineering reports, and to create a pathway from the parking area to the Mine entrances.

Report History

18. Between 2007 and 2014, six reports have been submitted to Council regarding the future of the Wheal Watkins Mine (full copies of previous reports can be made available to Elected Members on request):

18.1. The investigation into this matter commenced when a Motion on Notice was raised on 11 December 2007 (C7110):

“That given the public underground tours of the Glen Osmond Mines have ceased this year due to safety concerns, the Chief Executive Officer be asked to prepare a report on the feasibility of recommencing underground tours of the Glen Osmond Mines, for the consideration of Council as part of the 2008/09 budget process. It is requested that the report cover safety, costs, potential Government grants and potential private sponsorship”.

18.2. On 17 June 2008, a report was provided to the Community and Information Services Committee Meeting regarding the feasibility of recommencing tours. The report included an inspection report and budget cost estimate from Coffey Geosciences / Ag-Mine Services. This report recommended works to the value of approximately $65k to address the issues identified in order to be able to reopen the Mine. A copy of this report is provided as Attachment B. Following this report, Council resolved (CS1621):

18.2.1. That the Chief Executive Officer writes to the Burnside Historical Society to thank them for their service over the last 21 years and advise them that Council will not undertake tours at this site for at least the next 12 months.

18.2.2. That Council Administration upgrade the necessary external infrastructure related to pedestrian access to the Mine entrances and develop additional static displays at the site commemorating the mining history of the area.

18.2.3. That Council continues to use all endeavors to obtain grant funding for the reopening of the Wheal Watkins Mine.

18.3. On 27 January 2009, another report was provided to the Community and Information Services Committee meeting regarding a donation of $30k from the BHS and a potential grant funding opportunity to match this.

54


18.4. On 15 June 2010, a further report was provided to Council outlining the costs and risks associated with reopening the Mine. The report recommended that if the decision to reopen the Mine for public tours was made, that they be run only during History Week. The resolution (C7902) effectively left the decision about what (if any) works would be undertaken to be made through the 2010/11 business plan and budget process. Funds were allocated in the 2010/11 budget which were used to engage Golder Associates to provide an up to date assessment and report on the condition of the Mine and an estimate of cost to rehabilitate.

18.5. On 28 June 2011, a report was provided to the Planning, Heritage and Infrastructure committee recommending that the Mine remain closed to the public and that Council looked at undertaking other works to honour the historic significance of the site. This report included another independent assessment by Golder Associates (Attachment D) that stated it felt the condition of the Mine had deteriorated significantly since the investigation undertaken by Coffey Geosciences / Ag-Mine Services and that the cost to bring the Mine to a usable state would be in the order of $150k-$200k. The Golder report stated that it may not be possible to maintain the heritage character of the Mine while addressing the identified safety risks. Based on their perception of the severity of the risks, Golder stated that the traditional method of rehabilitation may not adequately address the safety issues and suggested a potential alternative of using shotcrete. After discussion with Heritage SA, it was determined this was not possible due to the heritage listing of the Mine. The resolution (PHI0048) deferred a decision until consultation with the BHS could occur.

18.6. On 23 February 2013, a report was provided recommending that the Administration engage a consultancy specialising in Mine conservation to provide a further report on structural issues, options and costs for the conservation of the Mine in the 13/14 financial year. There was no resolution as a result of this report, as both the original motion and a subsequent amendment were both lost.

18.7. In September 2013, an additional consultant, AMC, was engaged to conduct a desktop review of the previous technical reports provided in relation to the Wheal Watkins Mine and undertake a site visit of the Mine to provide an independent third party perspective (Attachment E). AMC generally concurred with the Golder assessment of the issues, but proposed a rock bolting technique to address in lieu of shotcrete. Their estimate of cost for rehabilitation was in the order of $150k-$300k.

18.8. On 12 August 2014, a final report was presented to Council recommending that the donation of $30k received from the Burnside Historical Society to use towards rehabilitation of the Mine be returned and that the Administration work to more accurately determine the costs associated with implementing the recommendations from the AMC report. The resultant resolution was (C9832):

18.8.1. That the Report be received.

18.8.2. That the Chief Executive Officer writes to the Burnside Historical Society and congratulates them on behalf of the City of Burnside for their dedication and effort in endeavoring to open the Wheal Watkins Mine adits for public tours, reaffirming that City of Burnside supports their efforts to secure external funding for the safe rehabilitation of the Mine to undertake the tours.

55


18.8.3. That City of Burnside returns the anonymous $30,000 donation provided by way of the Burnside Historical Society, to the Burnside Historical Society, for their use as they see fit noting that it was originally provided for the capital costs of remediating the Mine for tours.

18.8.4. That the Administration works with the Burnside Historical Society to more accurately determine the estimated cost to implement the recommendations of the AMC Consultant report of September 2013 using the accumulated interest from the anonymous donation to defray any associated costs.

18.8.5. That Council endorses the Administration working with the Burnside Historical Society in efforts to secure funding to reopen Wheal Watkins Mine adits for tours.

18.8.6. That the Chief Executive Officer writes to the Burnside Historical Society advising them of the recommendations in this Report.

18.9. In late 2015, white ants were identified at the upper adit entrance to the Mine. A subsequent investigation found damage to the upper adit entrance area (Attachment F). No white ants were found at the lower adit. The white ants have since been fumigated, however, the timber structure outside the upper adit still requires replacing. This is on hold pending a site visit from a heritage advisor, but will be undertaken as soon as confirmation on an agreed approach is received.

Discussion

19. Council Administration requested the Burnside Historical Society to confirm, in their own words, what they would ultimately like to achieve at the Wheal Watkins Mine. Their response is provided in paragraphs 20 and 21.

20. “The Burnside Historical Society (BHS) has had a strong interest in the nationally significant Wheal Watkins since the Society was formed in 1980. The mine is one of a group of silver lead mines, the first metalliferous mines in Australia, and has State Heritage listing (1984). BHS would like the following to be achieved:

20.1. Recognition of Wheal Watkins for its historic and heritage significance.

20.2. Prevention of further deterioration of the mine site, both on the surface and within the mine.

20.3. Public tours to be recommenced , initially restricted to surface tours and, following rehabilitation, underground tours of the lower adit.

21. Burnside Historical Society’s Vision for Wheal Watkins

21.1. Between 1986 and 2005 Burnside Historical Society (BHS) conducted tours monthly and additional tours for special interest groups. In spite of minimal promotion, some 4,500 people participated.

21.2. Burnside has a unique asset in Wheal Watkins which through creative thinking and judicious marketing could be turned into a valuable educational experience for all age groups.

21.3. The State Government currently has prioritised Tourism across a range of experiences. The potential of Wheal Watkins for Tourism involving small

56


groups, such as schoolchildren, geology groups and conference delegates should be investigated.

21.4. Burnside Historical Society appreciates its long-standing partnership with Burnside Council. This is an opportunity for Council to take advantage of the potential offered by the heritage significance of Wheal Watkins and to work with the Society to achieve the Vision outlined above.”

22. The Administration have considered the three points raised by the BHS (20.1 – 20.3), and each are discussed in detail below.

Recognition of Wheal Watkins for its historic and heritage significance

20.1. There are several ways in which the historic significance of the Wheal Watkins Mine site area could be better appreciated and recognised. These may include:

22.1.1. Development of improved historical signage, maps, brochures and other paraphernalia;

22.1.2. Upgrading of the paths leading to the two adits;

22.1.3. Upgrading of the areas adjacent the two adits, and adjacent the old bus turnaround area (where there currently exists some outdated and weathered signage) (refer Attachment G for an impression of what this might look like);

22.1.4. Production of a remembrance video to ensure that the ‘tour experience’ is not lost (there is the potential to undertake 360 degree filming and provide a ‘virtual reality’ experience, which may be popular with school groups); and

22.1.5. Investigating the opportunity for an official remembrance function to be held on site during SA History Week.

22.2. Several of these options are relatively low cost, and some cater to a broader audience than just tour groups (i.e. upgrading paths or signage will cater to those using the adjacent walking trails as well).

22.3. Any signs, maps or brochures could be developed in conjunction with the BHS to ensure accuracy of information.

22.4. Estimated costs for these items are as follows;

Item Description Estimated Cost

1 Improve historical signage at the site

Note – the Administration has committed to the Burnside Historical Site that the existing signage will be updated during the current financial year

~$4,000 per sign (single main display panel)

2 Development, design and printing of maps and brochures

~$5,000 (dependent on number printed)

3 Upgrade of two paths leading to adits inc. handrail and steps

~$9,000 per handrail

57


~$3,500 per path

4 Upgrading of the areas adjacent the two adits, and adjacent the old bus turnaround area (where there currently exists some outdated and weathered signage)

Signage: per item 1

Pathway and handrail renovations: per item 3

Retaining wall made from local stone: ~$7,000 each

Vegetation / landscaping: ~$4,000 each

Total: approx. $30.000 per area

5 Production of a remembrance video to ensure that the ‘tour experience’ is not lost

~$10k-$15k

6 Official closing/remembrance function to be held on site during SA History Week

~$2,000

22.5. It is recommended that funding be considered to cover upgrading the three signs in the area and redeveloping a single area (recommended adjacent lower adit – similar to that seen in Attachment G) in the first instance.

22.6. The signs will be replaced under the guidance of the BHS during the current financial year and the remainder of the work is to be considered and allocated through the 16/17 business plan and budget process. Further actions could then be undertaken later if desired.

Prevention of further deterioration of the mine site, both on the surface and within the mine

22.7. As the Mine remains under the care and control of the City of Burnside, it is recommended that annual inspections are undertaken to ensure the stability of the Mine, and address any risks in a timely manner as part of a regular asset maintenance program.

Public tours to be recommenced , initially restricted to surface tours and, following rehabilitation, underground tours of the lower adit

22.8. The BHS is free to provide tours to interested parties of the area surrounding the Wheal Watkins Mine adits. This can be undertaken immediately at no charge to Council.

22.9. Council could assist in promoting or advertising these tours. This could be through online media (website, facebook, twitter) or through hard copy.

58


22.10. In regards to reopening the lower adit of the Wheal Watkins Mine for public tours, subsequent to the last resolution of Council (C983), the BHS engaged Mancala (a mining contractor) in 2015 in an attempt to clarify rehabilitation costs. Mancala provided an estimate of costs to restore only the 20 fathom level of the Mine to reduce the capital cost required for rehabilitation. The quote provided by Mancala excluded a number items, including (but not limited to) the cost of some materials, plant hire, disposal of waste, heritage assessment, installation of a new water meter, construction of an access track, safety fencing, development of a disaster recovery plan, general site maintenance and project management. A copy of the quote provided by Mancala is included as Attachment H.

22.11. The BHS has estimated some of these additional costs and believe the estimate to be around $60,000 to complete the works (refer Attachment I). This cost could be higher based on the exclusions listed above, the rates provided for some of the items additional to Mancala’s estimate, and the extent of work required to be done to bring the surrounding area to a condition suitable for public use. The Local Government Mutual Liability Scheme has stated that “Council must take a holistic approach to the matter so that all aspects of public access are considered (attention to roads & tracks, geotechnical assessments of Mine and points of entry, operations within confined space, emergency disaster plans and human resource requirements – particular the engagement of volunteers within this operation)”

22.12. The quote provided also assumes that Council will develop management plans for the area, project manage and superintend the rehabilitation. Council does not currently have staff qualified or experienced in Mine rehabilitation work. It would need to be considered as to whether it is reasonable to have staff with no experience in this area undertake this work, or whether a specialist should be employed to do so. If the latter, there would be an additional cost associated with this, also to be considered.

22.13. The operational cost for the Council to support running tours in the Mine varies, depending on whether tours are run monthly (as previously done), or just during history week (as previously recommended). The cost was estimated to be around $12,000 per year to run tours previously. If tours were run only in history week this cost may decrease. Note that this does not include things like provision of PPE, annual confined space training, disaster recovery or first aid training which would also need to be budgeted for.

22.14. The Local Government Mutual Liability Scheme has previously reviewed key documentation in relation to the Mine (Risk management review, disaster plan, procedures for tour guides, operational risk assessment, and the Ag-Mine Services Reports) as part of its pre-audit process and has made the following comments:

22.14.1. Council clearly has an obligation to practice prudent risk management to minimise identified exposures;

22.14.2. Council must take a holistic approach to the matter so that all aspects of public access are considered (attention to roads & tracks, geotechnical assessments of Mine and points of entry, operations within confined space, emergency disaster plans and human resource requirements – particular the engagement of volunteers within this operation); and

22.14.3. Council, as a public authority, has a positive duty to comply with relevant legislation and standards insofar as is possible. The MLS

59


notes that a court will review the following factors in assessing what is ‘reasonable’ action:

22.14.3.1. The probability that the harm would occur if precautions were not taken;

22.14.3.2. The likely seriousness of the harm;

22.14.3.3. The burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of hard; and

22.14.3.4. The social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.

22.15. The issue that has continually been facing Council in regards to deciding whether or not to reopen the Mine for public tours is whether the overall community benefit in doing so, outweighs the associated cost and risk mitigation requirements.

22.16. The exact cost to rehabilitate the Mine in a manner appropriate to allow it to be reopened for public tours remains unknown at this stage. Estimates of cost range from $60k-$300k (per previous reports). If the decision is made to further investigate rehabilitating the lower adit of the Mine, it is recommended that a consultant be engaged to undertake a detailed design of what this would include, together with an accurate cost estimate.

22.17. There are potential significant risks to the Council in reopening the Mine from a safety perspective, according to the previous engineering reports provided by Golder and AMC. It is unknown whether these safety risks can be adequately addressed using heritage approaches suitable for the heritage listing of the site (Golder report).

22.18. When tours were previously conducted the annual income generated from tours was around $600 per year, which was split 50/50 with the BHS. Tours were previously run once per month.

22.19. The Administration acknowledges the historic significance of the Mine area and believes that this significance can be celebrated, honoured and promoted appropriately, without exposing the Council and general public to uncertain risk and cost by reopening the Mine.

22.20. It is the opinion of the Administration, that this option, while not entirely addressing the wishes of the BHS, is a sensible compromise position that goes a significant way to maintaining the significance of the Mine as an important and historical site in the City of Burnside.

Recommendations

23. Taking into account the costs, risks and benefits of the options outlined above, the Administration recommends the following in the first instance:

23.1. That improved historical signage be developed and installed in the area;

23.2. That the area adjacent the lower adit be upgraded with improved landscaping, signage, pathway and handrail;

60


23.3. That annual inspections are undertaken to ensure the stability of the Wheal Watkins Mine and address any major risks in a timely manner as part of a regular asset maintenance program;

23.4. That the BHS be supported to run external tours of the Mine site area (not within the Mine) and that the Administration support this with promotion of tours through online media; and

23.5. That the Mine remains closed to the public.

Conclusion

24. The Wheal Watkins Mine is a historic asset under the care and control of the City of Burnside

25. The Burnside Historical Society wishes to acknowledge and recognise the historic significance of the Mine.

26. The historic significance can be acknowledged in a number of ways, including (but not limited to) upgrading the areas around the Mine entrances, developing marketing and promotional materials, offering public tours outside or inside the Mine, and holding a celebratory event to commemorate the Mine.

27. Most of these options (excluding reopening the Mine for public tours) are low risk and can be easily undertaken if Council wish to allocate funding to do so.

28. In the first instance, it may be prudent to undertake a small amount of work with a view to build on this in the future if desired.

29. The potential historic and educational benefits of rehabilitating a portion of the Mine fit for public tours needs to be considered against the cost to do so, and the risks incurred by doing so.

30. The cost to rehabilitate the Mine is uncertain, with previous reports suggesting anywhere from $60k-$300k. Ongoing costs could be in the order of $12,000 per year.

31. The risks to public safety are potentially high based on previous advice received.

32. It is the belief of the Administration that the significance of the Mine area can be appropriately recognised without the need to reopen the Mine for public tours.

61

62


Item No: 15.5 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Author: John Draper – Acting Manager, Open Space Recreation and

Property General Manager and Division

Barry Cant – Acting General Manager, Urban Services.

Contact: 8366 4254 Subject: COMMUNITY LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS (STRATEGIC) Attachments: A. Neighbourhood Parks Community Land Management Plan

B. Pocket Parks Community Land Management Plan C. Local Sports and Recreation Areas Community Land

Management Plan D. Tusmore Park Community Land Management Plan E. Hazelwood Park Community Land Management Plan F. Kensington Gardens Reserve Community Land Management

Plan G. Kensington Park Reserve Community Land Management Plan H. Special Feature Reserves Community Land Management Plan I. Hills Face Reserves J. Walkways and Screening Reserves Community Land

Management Plan K. Community Centres Community Land Management Plan L. Magill Cemetery Community Land Management Plan M. Kindergartens Community Land Management Plan N. Car Parks Community Land Management Plan O. Drainage Reserves Community Land Management Plan

Prev. Resolution: S1598, 7/12/04



2. That Council authorise the publication of the revised Community Land Management Plans (dated January 2016) as attached to this report and undertake appropriate community consultation in accordance with the City of Burnside’s Community Engagement (Public Consultation Policy, and as set out in section 197 of the Local Government Act 1999).

3. That a report be presented to Council on the results of the consultation and, if applicable, to endorse the revised Community Land Management Plans.

Purpose

1. To provide Elected Members with a copy of the revised Community Land Management Plans (CLMPs) and to seek endorsement to proceed to community consultation in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999 (LG Act).

63


Strategic Plan

2. The following Strategic Plan provisions are relevant:


“Enhance the character, amenity, safety, and accessibility of the City through promoting sympathetic and sustainable development”

“A range of high quality sport and recreational opportunities and facilities that foster healthy lifestyle pursuits”

“Ensure public spaces meet the future needs of our community and provide for a variety of vibrant and inspirational opportunities, encouraging participation by the community”

“Plan, maintain and deliver Council infrastructure and assets to the required level of service and condition that meets the needs of the community now and into the future”

“Design and plan for safe streets and public places which create a sense of pride and community”



3.1. The Administration has sought legal opinion on reviewing each of the existing CLMPs to determine whether each document is legislatively correct and meets current Council requirements.

3.2. Elected Members were invited to provide feedback on the reviewed CLMPs through an Information Document dated 18 February 2016. No changes have been made to the draft Plans following this consultation.

3.3. This report seeks to have the reviewed CLMPs available for community consultation as required by section 197 of the LG Act.

Section 197—Public consultation on proposed management plan (1) Before a council adopts a management plan for community land it must—

(a) make copies of the proposed plan available for inspection or purchase at the council's principal office; and

(b) follow the relevant steps set out in its public consultation policy.

(2) A council may adopt a management plan without complying with the requirements of subsection (1) if the council adopted the plan after a process of public notification and consultation before the commencement of this Act.

(3) A council must give public notice of its adoption of a management plan.

3.3 Community consultation plays an important role in the production of any CLMP as it provides Council with a sound understanding of relevant local issues from people who are familiar with and use the land. To a large degree, the direction for future development of land (in particular open space) is based on the views expressed by the general public.

64


4. The revised CLMPs (dated January 2016) will be exhibited for a 21 day period, which will enable interested parties to comment on and have input into the management of the land (i.e. make a submission). In order to generate widespread community awareness of the revised CLMP, the following steps are to be undertaken to ensure compliance with the LG Act and Councils own internal consultation policy:

4.1 Public Notices in the Eastern Messenger Courier and the Advertiser (in two consecutive weeks);

4.2 Copy of revised documents posted on Council's website;

4.3 Copy of revised documents available at Council's Customer Service Desk; and

4.4 Copy of revised documents to be circulated through Councils external web based contacts list (Engage.Burnside).

5. Following the public consultation process, it is envisaged that the CLMPs will be presented to Council for formal adoption in April/May 2016. Once a CLMP has been adopted by the Council, the Council must give public notice of its adoption, i.e. publish a notice in the Gazette and the newspaper circulating throughout the State.

Statutory

6. Pursuant to section 196 of the LG Act, the Council must prepare and adopt a management plan for its Community Land if:

6.1 the land is, or is to be, occupied under a lease or license: or

6.2 the land has been, or is to be specifically modified or adapted for the benefit or enjoyment of the community.

Policy

7. The following Council Policies are relevant in this instance:

Community Engagement (Public Consultation) Policy 2015

Community Land Management Plans 2004

Open Space Policy/Strategy 2014

Risk Assessment


8.1 Section 207 of the LG Act requires Council to prepare and adopt a Community Land Register. The Community Land Register now includes all of the Council’s Community Land as required by the Act. In 2004, Council endorsed a set of CLMPs.

8.2 There are no obvious risks associated with this recommendation given Council already has a set of CLMPs however in undertaking the review process a number of small anomalies have been identified that require remediation and correction.

8.3 Failure to adopt the revised CLMPs may expose Council to a range of ongoing operational governance issues that affect Councils ability to appropriately govern

65


activity on specific high use parcels of land that are commonly the subject of community use and discussion.



Finance

10. There are no financial costs associated with the report however a projected cost of approximately $2,500 is required to undertake the appropriate level of community consultation as required under the LG Act.

11. The Administration has already committed approximately $7,500 to secure legal assistance in the revision of the CLMPs to identify and correct the legislative anomalies identified since the first CLMPs were created.

Discussion

Background

12. All land owned by (i.e. vested in the Council in fee simple), or under the care control and management of the council is defined to mean ‘local government land’ under the LG Act.

13. All local government land is therefore defined as being Community Land subject, however, to whether the Council excluded the land from classification in accordance with Section 193(1) i.e. the land forms part of a road reserve or is utilised for operational purposes (e.g. Glynburn Road Depot).

14. Pursuant to section 196 of the LG Act, the Council must prepare and adopt a management plan for its Community Land if:

The land is, or is to be, occupied under a lease or license: or

The land has been, or is to be specifically modified or adapted for the benefit or enjoyment of the community.

15. The Local Government Association has produced comprehensive guidelines to assist councils in the preparation of CLMP’s.

"A management plan does not need to be a long or complex document. For example, a management plan for a group of playgrounds could be one or two pages with an attached schedule listing the playgrounds to which it applies. By comparison, a major regional facility might be the subject of an individual management plan running to several pages in length”.

16. Council should take care to ensure that objectives, polices and proposals are expressed in broad and general terms; they should not be too rigid, inflexible or prescriptive.

17. Care should also be taken to ensure that any performance targets and measures listed in the management plan are realistic and readily achievable. If performance targets are set, but not achieved, liability implications may follow.

66


18. A CLMP is required for all parcels of land identified within this plan as it has been identified as having been specifically modified for the benefit or enjoyment of the public. A CLMP must also state the purpose for why the land is held.

19. Council cannot dispose of Community Land unless its classification as Community Land is revoked. For the purposes of revoking the Community Land, section 194 of the LG Act requires the Council to prepare a report on its proposed dealings with the land and to publicly consult.

20. On 17 April 2001, Council resolved that a hierarchy of reserves exists in Burnside for which CLMPs will be prepared. Community Land has been grouped into categories or similar functions and generic CLMP’s have been prepared for them. These are:

Neighbourhood Parks Hills Face Reserves Pocket Parks Pocket Parks Local Sports & Recreation Areas Walkways & Screening Reserves Tusmore Park Community Centres Hazelwood Park Magill Cemetery Kensington Gardens Reserve Kindergartens Kensington Park Reserve Car Parks Special Feature Reserves Drainage Reserves

21. Community Land is recognised as an important component of the urban environment, providing opportunities for recreation and leisure and a CLMP provides a framework within which Council can develop a balanced response to current opportunities and address future pressures in respect thereof.

22. CLMPs identify clear objectives and establish directions for planning, resource management and maintenance of Community Land. It clarifies direction, both to Council staff and the general public. The CLMP assists assigning priorities in works programming and budgeting. Often identical objectives and performance measures will apply to the majority of land within each category enabling a generic approach to the preparation of the CLMP.

23. The CLMPs are reviewed regularly. An annual review assesses the implementation and performance, and a full review after five years will allow policy and planning issues to be updated.

24. A legal review of the existing CLMPs identified, where appropriate, sections that needed to be modified to bring the documents in line with current legislative changes and operational impacts that have arisen with the previous documents since they were first developed 12 years ago. These key changes include:

24.1 Each CLMP has been restructured to better reflect the requirements of the LG Act;

24.2 Part 2 of each CLMP now identifies the relevant land with reference to the Schedule of Land;

24.3 Part 3 of each CLMP sets out the Council’s objectives, policies and proposals relating to the land (with reference to the Management Table); and

24.4 Part 4 of each CLMP set out the Council’s performance targets and measures (again with reference to the Management Table).

25. This legal review also identified that a number of land parcels contained incomplete details, or were incorrectly included/omitted. These anomalies have been addressed as part of this review.

67


26. Subsequent to the this legal review and copies of the CLMPs being distributed to the Elected Members for their review, the Administration has made minor changes to the CLMPs which include:

26.1. inserting the Watercourse Management Policy in various CLMPs where it had been ommitted;

26.2. clarifying actions and performance indicators in the Drainage Reserves CLMP and Hills Face Reserves CLMP; and

26.3. correcting land parcel details on three reserves.

Conclusion 27. A CLMP is a document that identifies Community Land, the purpose for which it is held

and dictates how the Council manages the land to which it relates. CLMPs provide a means to control future use, development and maintenance of that land. The CLMP aims to balance the unique site conditions with community requirements for open space recreation opportunities and facilities.

28. In the production of any CLMP, community consultation plays an important role as it provides Council with a sound understanding of relevant local issues from people who are familiar with and use the land. The revised CLMPs are now presented to the Council for consideration and approval to undertake the public consultation process.

29. The revised CLMPs (dated January 2016) are legislatively compliant and reflect Council’s current Policies, management practices and intentions as to the Community Land which they relate.

68


Item No: 15.6 To: Council Date: 8 March 2016 Author: Magnus Heinrich – Manager, City Development and Safety General Manager and Division

Louise Miller-Frost – General Manager, Community and Development Services

Contact: 8366 4136 Subject: REVIEW OF DOG REGISTRATION FEES – 2016/17

(OPERATIONAL) Attachments: A. Correspondence from the Dog and Cat Management Board

B. Dog Registration Fee Schedule Proforma Prev. Resolution: Nil



2. That Council requests the Dog and Cat Management Board to set the City of Burnside’s maximum dog registration fee at $75 for the 2016/17 financial year with the current concession ratios to continue unchanged.

3. That the proposed fees in the attached Dog Registration Fee Schedule Proforma 2016/17 be endorsed.

Purpose

1. This Report is to provide Elected Members with information regarding dog registration fees with the view to increasing the maximum dog registration fee to $75 in the 2016/17 financial year.

2. To complete an application form to increase fees for submission to the Dog and Cat Management Board prior to the due date of 16 March 2016.

Strategic Plan


“Financially sound Council that is accountable, responsible and sustainable”


4. Proposed fees and charges are included as part of the Annual Business Plan consultation process as required under section 123(3) of the Local Government Act 1999, before Council adopts its budget. This provides the opportunity for the community to respond to a range of budgetary proposals.

69


Statutory


Dog and Cat Management Act 1995


6. Section 26 of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 allows Council to recover costs for administering dog control within its area, up to a maximum amount agreed by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation (the Minister). Councils are also required to provide a draft budget demonstrating how dog registration funds will be used. Funds received through registrations are to be used for the purpose of dog management in the Council area.

Policy


Risk Assessment

8. If Council does not increase the dog registration fee for 2016/17 to $75, there would be an approximate additional shortfall of $22,000 which would need to be included in the 2016/17 Annual Business Plan to cover the operating costs for dog management across the City of Burnside. This assumption is based on the projected end of year position from February 2016.



Finance

10. The Report has implications for the 2016/17 budget, however must be addressed now as intended fees must be submitted to the Dog and Cat Management Board by 16 March 2016.

Discussion

Background

11. When the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 was introduced, most metropolitan Councils nominated a registration fee at the upper range of the prescribed limit, with many opting for the then maximum limit of $45. The City of Burnside nominated its fee at $25 at that time and remained the cheapest in Metropolitan Adelaide for many years. This meant that all ratepayers, including those without dogs, were subsidising the short-fall in funding allocated to dog management in City of Burnside.

12. Between 1995 and 2009, there were modest increases to the dog registration fees.

13. In 2009/10, Council began a stepped process to establish parity in dog registration fees with its neighbouring Councils. The Council increased registration fees by $5 each year until 2012/13 when the maximum limit set by the Minister of $60 was reached. The registration remained at $60 for the 2013/14 financial year.

70


14. In January 2014, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation approved the maximum dog registration fee to increase from $60 to $85.

15. Registration was increased to $65 for the 2014/15 financial year; $20 below the maximum set by the Minister, and to $70 for the 2015/16 year.

Analysis 16. Whilst $70 is currently the maximum amount payable for dog registration in the City of

Burnside, there are a number of concession and rebates available. The City of Burnside’s concessions are consistent with all metropolitan Councils as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: City of Burnside Concession and Rebates

Class Concession/Rebate

Pensioner/State Card Holder 50 per cent

Microchipped 10 per cent

Desexed 40 per cent

Trained 10 per cent

17. When applying the concessions to the proposed increase from $70 to $75, the

following fees will be applicable:

Registration Fee Current Minister Approved Fees

Council Proposed Fees 2016/17

Annual Registration Fee $70 $75

Rebate/Fee for desexed dog $42 $45

Rebate/Fee for microchipped dog $63.00 $67.50

Rebate/Fee for trained dog $63.00 $67.50

Fee for desexed and microchipped dog $35.00 $37.50

Fee for desexed and trained dog $35.00 $37.50

Fee for desexed, microchipped + trained dog $28.00 $30

Fee for microchipped and trained dog $56.00 $60

Fee for guide, hearing and disability dogs No Fee No Fee

18. The City of Burnside has approximately 5,000 dogs registered each year.

19. Approximately 94 per cent of all dogs registered within City of Burnside have some form of rebate or concession applied.

71


20. Revenue raised by dog registrations is less than the cost of managing the dog control function in the City of Burnside.

21. The estimated operational cost for the City of Burnside in 2015/16 is $241,489 which included one full time Ranger, vehicle costs, levy to the Dog and Cat Management Board (based on 20 per cent on the previous year’s registration fee income), impounding and destruction charges, the cost of administering the mail out of notices, receipt of payment, return of registration discs and records management, and legal/enforcement costs associated with Court actions.

22. Taking into account the expected income for the year, the net operating cost of dog control line is expected to be $22,846. The cost may be higher than this as there is some doubt about whether the expected income for the year will be achieved.

23. At the time of writing the report, income for the year is $193,705. In terms of estimating the income at end of year, it is not appropriate to extrapolate on a straight line pro rata basis as the timing of income is that most of it would have been received in the August to November 2015 period.

24. While it is not a precise figure, it is estimated that by Council increasing the maximum dog registration fee by $5 to $75 based on 5,000 dogs, Council can expect an income of approximately $210,000 to $215,000 for dog registration for the financial year 2016/17.

25. Although there is still likely to be a net cost to the Council of running the dog control function, the proposed increase in registrations will bring the budget closer to a cost neutral position.

26. As a comparison, other local Councils were contacted about their current and proposed dog registration fees and the responses received are as below:

14/15 15/16 16/17 Campbelltown $60 $65 No change Unley $60 $70 $75 Norwood, Payneham & St Peters

$70 $70 No change

Mitcham $70 $70 $85 Prospect $65 $70 No change Tea Tree Gully $63 $66 $68

Conclusion

27. It is recommended that Council support increasing the maximum dog registration fee to $75 for the 2016/17 financial year, with its current concession ratios to continue unchanged.

28. It is also recommended that Council advise the Dog and Cat Management Board to set the maximum dog registration fee for the City of Burnside at $75 and further provide the Board with a draft budget outlining predicted expenditure for year 2015/16.

72

-i’~~J~,,~" )’&a~,:__:~,":il:il;tM~W_TT--Jflrl’

"lill’fJJ’) 1 HitI’. C-- kfillUfliUU f ’1M q-]-

g,"j t,,’:J I {t’)-rMfA.] "db i-’Ff J -

._:._’’’;te:1J::;,q’R,T ’,,~vC’

~

lfLM~’ ...1 , .

6 ....

~

Government of South Australia

Dog and Cat Management Board

Mr Paul Deb

Chief Executive Officer

City of Burnside

PO Box 9

GLENS IDE SA

Level 1

1 Richmond Road

Keswick SA 5035

GPO Box 1047

Adelaide SA 5001

Ph: 0881244962

Fax: 0881244648

2 February 2016

-j

~.::(t...~ i\ r,,’ ~\L r= ~"’t I

c.:;) "~.n’~u ,.1 ’1 t. U i

I I !

~i!l~~!~ ~l!r!13i~: -J RE: DOG REGISTRATION FEE SCHEDULES 2016/2017

ABN 36 702 093234

www.dogandcatboard.com.au

~ 4 FEB 2016

Dear Mr Deb

The Dog and Cat Management Board are preparing for the 2016/17 registration fee approval

process to begin March 2016.

The Dog and Cat Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015 has been introduced

to Parliament. However, even if the Parliament passes the Bill before July 2016, the new

provisions of the Act are not expected to commence until a date in the 2016/17 financial year. As a result, the current dog registration fee approval process will remain in place for the

2016/17 registration cycle.

Amendments to dog registration fees must still be approved by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation7. The current dog registration fee ’cap’ at $85.00 per annum, has not been increased.

If City of Burnside is considering amending dog registration fees for the 2016/17 registration

cycle, the following needs to be prepared: . Complete the dog registration fee proforma (see attached) and date approved by

council

. A draft budget

The proforma and draft budget needs to be signed by the registrar of dogs and provided to

the Board by Wednesday 16th March. Please do not send documentation directly to the

Minister’s office.

If City of Burnside is not intending to change their dog registration fee schedule for the

2016/17 registration cycle, please notify the Board that no fee change is requested.

For further information please contact the Project Officer - Compliance, Ann Gee, on (08) 81244747 or [email protected].

Yours sinG~rely I ’I

,

I

r

Andrew Lamb

Board Secretary

Dog and Cat Management Board

7 Section 26 (6) (b), Dog and Cat Management Act 1995

73

biskup

Attachment A

’-"’;:"11., -~ $,.’_ :’l,:lf04’,i!ihK"".,HiL _

-: -_;0 ~srj:::it:’. _

-

j L..fi _

1.

’tUii -’:c .~., ~$. -

t j; -

HURl j ’1-, life. Ift’-- t’ _

tiiJltlir 2$1’’t[L~"GM rIiWl.~!.

DOG REGISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE PROFORMA 2016/17

To be completed by councils and submitted to the Dog and Cat Management Board

Council Name: CITY OF BURNSIDE

Registration fees Minister approved Council requested fees

14/05/2015 2016/17

Annual registration fee (R) $70.00 $

RebatelFee for desexed dog (D) $42.00 % $

Rebate/Fee for microchipped dog (M) $63.00 % $

Rebate/Fee for trained dog (T) $63.00 % $

Fee for desexed and microchipped dog $35.00 ~ -(i M%.)

Fee for de sexed and trained dog $35.00 Hi )

Fee for desexed, trained and microchipped dog $28.00 R..!.D+rv1~’J+ T%)

Fee for microchipped and trained dog $56.00 R-(M+ PI;,)

Rebates must be aggregated when more than one rebate applies and applied in full (fee rounded down)

In addition, Council may apply for

Fee for working dog $16.00 $

Fee for racing greyhound $16.00 $

Fee for transfer of registration $5.50 $

Fee for replacement disc $5.50 $

Fee for late registrations $10.00 $

Fee for impound $85.00 $

Fee for daily holding at pound $25.00 $

Discount for partial year registration 50% %

Fee for business registration (refer to section 35) $

Other applicable fees (eg. Individual business dog)

The above fee schedule was approved by the elected members on:

Name of Registrar of Dogs

Position Registrar of Dogs

Signature Date

Council’s draft Dog Management Budget is attached

As required by the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 Section 26 (6) (b)

APPROVED/NOT APPROVED

HON IAN HUNTER MLC

Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation Date:

74

biskup

Attachment B

,.. F

Draft Budget Report required by the Minster for justification to increase fees associated with the Act

Council Name: CITY OF BURNSIDE

Description Budget for 2015/16 Proposed budget for 2016/17

Income

Registration Fees

Impounding Fees

Expiation Fees

Inspection Fees

Other Income

Total Income

Expenditure

Wages I Salaries

Insurance

Operating Expenses

Mobile Phones

Computer

Administration I Office

expenses

Legal Fees

Uniforms

Vehicles

Other Expenses

Total Expenditure

Balance ( - or + )

Comments :

75

Eastern Health Authority Board of Management Minutes 24 February 2016

EASTERN HEALTH AUTHORITY

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Management of Eastern Health Authority (EHA)

held at the offices of the Eastern Health Authority, 101 Payneham Road, St Peters, on

Wednesday 24 February 2016 commencing at 6.30pm.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Cr P Cornish, Cr A Monceaux Burnside

Cr J Kennedy, Cr M Ryan Campbelltown

Cr G Knoblauch, Cr S Whitington Norwood Payneham & St Peters

Cr K Barnett, Cr T Evans Prospect

Cr D Shetliffe Walkerville

In attendance: M Livori Chief Executive Officer

N Conci Team Leader Environmental Health

N Bevitt Team Leader Administration and Immunisation

1 OPENING:

The meeting was declared open by the Chief Executive Officer Michael Livori,

at 6:35pm.

2 APOLOGIES:

Cr M Bishop

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: Cr J Kennedy moved: The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management held on 28 October

2015 be taken as read and confirmed.

Seconded by Cr G Knoblauch

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 1: 022016

4 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES:

nil.

76


5 ELECTION OF THE EASTERN HEALTH AUTHORITY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT CHAIR AND DEPUTY CHAIR

Cr D Shetliffe moved:

That:

1 The Election of the EHA Board of Management Chair and Deputy Chair report is received.

2 The term of Office for the position of Chairperson and Deputy

Chairperson of EHA is 1 year in accordance with clause 2.5.2 of the EHA Charter.

3 EHA determines that the method of choosing a Chairperson and Deputy

Chairperson be by an election process. 4 The method of election is by secret ballot.

5 EHA adopt a first past the post method of voting.

Seconded by Cr J Kennedy


The CEO called for nominations for the position of Chairperson. Cr G Knoblauch nominated Cr S Whitington, who accepted the nomination. As no further nominations were received, the CEO announced that Cr S Whittington had been elected to the position of Chairperson

The CEO called for nominations for the position of Deputy Chairperson. C r P Cornish nominated Cr A Monceaux, who accepted the nomination. Cr J Kennedy nominated Cr M Ryan, who accepted the nomination.

There being two candidates for the position of the Deputy Chairperson, the CEO conducted an election by secret ballot. The CEO subsequently announced that Cr A Monceaux had been elected to the position of Deputy Chairperson.

77


6 ADMINISTRATION REPORT: 6.1 FIRST (SEPTEMBER 2015) BUDGET REVIEW FOR 2015/2016


That:

1. The First (September 2015) Budget Review for 2015/2016 Report is received.

2. The amended budget for 2015/2016 as detailed in attachment 2 of the First (September 2015) Budget Review for 2015/2016 Report is adopted.

Seconded by Cr M Ryan


6.2 FINANCE REPORT AND SECOND (DECEMBER 2015) BUDGET

REVIEW FOR 2015/2016

Cr J Kennedy moved:

That:

1. The Finance Report and S econd (December 2015) Budget Review Report for 2015/2016 be received.

2. Correspondence is forwarded to EHA’s Constituent Councils requesting that the amendments to the Budgeted Financial Statements as detailed in attachment 2 are approved.

Seconded by Cr D Shetliffe


78


6.3 DEVELOPMENT OF ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN FOR 2016/2017

Cr T Evans moved:

That:

1. The Development of the Annual Business Plan for 2016/2017

report is received.

2. The process for the Development of the Annual Business Plan for 2016/2017 is endorsed.

Seconded by Cr M Ryan


6.4 REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EASTERN HEALTH AUTHORITY (EHA) AUDIT COMMITTEE


That:

1. The report regarding reappointment of members of the Eastern Health Authority Audit Committee is received.

2. Lisa Scinto is appointed as Presiding Member of the Eastern Health Authority Audit Committee for a t erm concluding on 1 7 February 2018.

3. Claudia Goldsmith is appointed as an Independent Member of the Eastern Health Authority Audit Committee for a term concluding on 17 February 2018.

4. Talis Evans term as the Board representative on the EHA Audit Committee is extended to 17 February 2018.

5. Sitting fees for an Independent Member are set at $350 and

Presiding Member at $450 per meeting.

Seconded by Cr P Cornish


79


6.5 PROCUREMENT POLICY

Cr M Ryan moved:

That:

1. The report regarding the Procurement Policy is received.

2. The Procurement Policy marked attachment 2 t o the Procurement Policy report dated 24 February 2016 is adopted.



6.6 DEBT COLLECTION POLICY


That:

1. The report regarding the Debt Collection Policy is received.

2. The Debt Collection Policy marked attachment 2 to the Debt Collection Policy Report dated 24 February 2016 is adopted.

Seconded by Cr A Monceaux


6.7 FRAUD AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION POLICY

Cr J Kennedy moved:

That:

1. The report regarding the Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy is received.

2. The Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy marked attachment 1 to

the Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy report dated 24 February 2016 is adopted.

Seconded by Cr K Barnett


80


6.8 WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION POLICY


That:

1. The report regarding the Whistleblowers Protection Policy is received.

2. The Whistleblowers Protection Policy marked as attachment 1 to the Whistleblowers Protection Policy Report dated 24 February 2016 is adopted.

Seconded by Cr G Knoblauch


6.9 RISK AND OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT POLICY & FRAMEWORK POLICY

Cr P Cornish moved:

That:

1. The Risk and Opportunity Management Policy and Fr amework Report is received.

2. The Risk and Opportunity Management Policy marked as attachment 1 to the Risk and Opportunity Management Policy Report dated 24 February 2016 is adopted.



7 INFORMATION REPORTS:

7.1 Public and Environmental Health

Cr G Knoblauch moved:

That:

The Public and Environmental Health Report is received.



81


7.2 Immunisation

Cr G Knoblauch moved:

That:

The Immunisation Services Report is received.



7.3 Food Safety Report

Cr K Barnett moved:

That:

The Food Safety Report is received.

Seconded by Cr P Cornish


7.4 Health Care and Community Services

Cr K Barnett moved:

That:

The Supported Residential Facility Report is received. Seconded by Cr T Evans


82


8 CORRESPONDENCE:

Nil

9 CLOSURE OF MEETING:

The Chairperson, Cr S Whitington, declared the meeting closed at 8:58pm.

The foregoing minutes were printed and circulated to EHA Members and member Councils on 1 March 2016.

-----------------------------------------

CR S Whitington

CHAIRPERSON

83

Eastern Region Alliance Annual Report 2015

Adelaide’s Eastern Metropolitan Councils working together to better serve their communities

bettertogether

84

ERA’S VISION: Adelaide’s Eastern Metropolitan Councils working together to better serve their communities.

E a s t e r n R e g i o n A l l i a n c e A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 1 5 85

Chairperson’s Report

What is ERA?

The ERA Strategic Plan

2015 ERA Meeting attendances

Highlights of ERA Major Projects

Environment Portfolio Group: The Resilient East Project

ERA Street Lighting Project

Water Proofing the East

Business and Economic Development Portfolio Group

Eastern Region Alliance Financial Statement

1

2

3

4

5

5

6

8

10

12

Contents

E a s t e r n R e g i o n A l l i a n c e A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 1 5

Better together 2015

86

During 2015 the ERA Mayors and CEOs Group built on their work of 2014, drafting

and refining an ERA Strategic Plan. This document, which is based on the outcomes

of several workshops facilitated by Dr Kristine Peters in 2014 and early 2015, provides

a vehicle to take ERA to the next level of its operations.

One of the plan’s Goals was to ‘review its membership with a view to reflecting the Eastern Adelaide South Australian Government region.’ Accordingly, at the end of 2015,

the City of Tea Tree Gully elected to ‘leave ERA but to explore inter council collaborative projects as the needs arise’.

I would like to thank the City of Tea Tree Gully for their significant contribution to ERA

over the past eight years, including their management of ERA’s website and finances.

We look forward to their continued participation in some ERA projects, including the

street lighting initiative (further details of this are to be found later in the Annual

Report) and wish them well in their increased participation in joint projects with their

northern neighbouring councils.

Elected Members from the remaining six ERA councils have been briefed on the

strategic plan, and will be asked to endorse it early in the coming year. I look forward

to working with the other ERA Mayors and CEOs to progress the plan, with the

support of our Elected Members, and am confident it will lead to even better outcomes

from the longstanding alliance of the eastern councils. An integral part of this process

will be regular communication between the ERA Mayors and CEOs Group and the

Elected Members of ERA councils to ensure their support as the ERA strategic plan is

implemented.

ERA will continue to build on its past successes in relation to a number of collaborative

arrangements in place, including regional resource sharing opportunities.

Mayor Ray Grigg Chair, ERA Mayors and CEOs Group

Chairperson’s Report



87

In late 2008 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Cities of Burnside,

Campbelltown, Norwood, Payneham & St Peters, Prospect, Tea Tree Gully, Unley and

the Town of Walkerville, to form the Eastern Region Alliance (ERA).

Since signing that MOU, the seven ERA councils have worked towards improved

co-operation, resource sharing, more effective working relationships and joint actions

to agree and address strategic priorities between any two or more of the seven

councils.

ERA has aimed to:

• Improve cooperation, collaboration, and coordination across the member councils.

• Establish a robust operational framework to deliver effective and efficient services.

• Be successful in attracting state and federal government funding for regional

initiatives.

• Increase awareness, and the influence, of ERA within the three spheres of

government.

In so doing, ERA councils believe they will help ensure a sustainable lifestyle, excellent

services and facilities for its constituent communities.

The CEOs of the seven councils have met monthly to discuss issues of mutual interest,

while the Mayors and CEOs have met quarterly. Chairing of these meetings is rotated

annually, alphabetically by council name, with the host council for 2015 having been

the Town of Walkerville.

For the ERA Mayors and CEOs, the focus for 2015 has been on the drafting and

refining of an ERA strategic plan, in the belief that this will guide the way for the

Eastern Region Alliance to move to the next level of cooperation. One of the plan’s

aims is to ensure that ERA’s membership reflects the Eastern Adelaide South Australian

Government region. Because the City of Tea Tree Gully sits within the Northern

Adelaide region, as of December 2015 it has ceased to be a member of the Eastern

Region Alliance. Nevertheless, Tea Tree Gully will continue to participate in some ERA

projects where appropriate.

Since 2008 a variety of joint projects have been carried out by working parties or

Portfolio Groups made up of staff from the ERA councils, engaging consulting expertise

where appropriate. In 2015 several projects of significance were commenced or

progressed, with further details provided in the following pages.

What is ERA?

ERA councils always work towards improved co-operation, resource sharing and more effective working relationships to address strategic priorities between member councils.



88

In late 2014 Dr Kristine Peters facilitated the first two of a series of workshops for the ERA

Mayors and CEOs Group; these workshops, which were held within the framework of the

Council of the Future report, will continue into 2015 as the group develops a strategy to

drive ERA’s future undertakings.

Two key recommendations came out of the August workshop, and were endorsed at the

October workshop:

1. That a better reporting system to Council staff and Elected Members be developed and;

2. That ERA develop a Strategic Plan for the next decade, which describes the assessment

and implementation of priority directions and projects, as well as allowing for flexibility

as new opportunities arise.

Accordingly, in 2015 a further workshop was held with Dr Peters as the facilitator,

establishing the foundations for an ERA strategic plan. This was fleshed out into a draft

strategic plan which was refined by the CEOs and Mayors in further meetings throughout

the year.

Late in 2015, briefings on the draft ERA strategic plan were held for each council (other

than the City of Tea Tree Gully which was leaving the alliance as of December 30, 2015) as

per the schedule below:

The goals of the ERA Strategic PlanBy 2025 ERA aims to become a strong, purposeful, high achieving entity that enjoys

active participation and support from member councils, and provides an excellent ROI to

ratepayers via enhanced:

1. Influence – ERA will have a ‘place at the table’ with LGA, State and Commonwealth

Government in policy formulation that affects eastern Adelaide Councils.

2. Regional services and programs - regional service delivery will be managed by the

Entity, delivering cost-effective services within an accountable governance

framework.

3. Engagement - Elected Members, Council Staff and our communities will recognise

ERA for the quality and cost-effectiveness of shared services for local government

in this region.

The draft strategic plan will be presented to the six ERA councils for adoption in early 2016.

The ERA Strategic Plan

City of Burnside Tuesday November 24 Presenter: Mayor Ray Grigg

Campbelltown City Council Monday December 7 Presenter: Mayor David Parkin

City of Prospect Tuesday December 8 Presenter: Mayor Ray Grigg

City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Monday November 23 Presenter: Mayor David Parkin

City of Unley Monday November 30 Presenter: Mayor Robert Bria

Town of Walkerville Monday December 14 Presenter: Mayor David O’Loughlin



89

2015 Meeting Attendances



Mario Barone

Paul Deb

Paul Di Iulio

Mark Goldstone (January – August, then A/CEOs)

Kiki Magro

John Moyle

Peter Tsokas

Mayor Simon Brewer

Mayor Robert Bria

Mayor Lachlan Clyne

Mayor Ray Grigg

Mayor Kevin Knight

Mayor David O’Loughlin

Mayor David Parkin

Mario Barone

Paul Deb

Paul Di Iulio

Mark Goldstone (January – September, then A/CEOs)

Kiki Magro

John Moyle

Peter Tsokas

Feb

ruar

yA

pri

l

June

July

Sep

tem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Tota

l att

end

ed

Mar

ch

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ob

er

Nove

mb

er

Dec

emb

er

Tota

l att

end

ed

3

a

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

a

a

3

3

a

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

a

a

a

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

a

3

3

3

a

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

a

3

3

3

3

a

a

3

3

a

3

a

a

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

4

4

5

5

5

1

2

4

5

3

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

a

a

3

3

3

3

3

3

a

3

3

3

3

3

a

3

3

3

3

a

3

3

3

3

a

3

a

3

a

a

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

a

3

3

3

3

a

3

a

3

3

3

3

3

7

4

10

9

10

8

9

ERA CEOs

ERA Mayors & CEOs

90




The Resilient East Project is a partnership with the Eastern Region Alliance (ERA) Councils

and Adelaide City Council to develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan for the eastern

region. This deliverable is a requirement of the State Government’s Climate Change

Adaptation Framework and is being funded by state and federal governments and

participating councils.

Resilient East will determine the current adaptive capacity of economies, communities and

natural environments to climate change impacts. The project will then identify how to

efficiently and effectively increase the resilience of the eastern region’s natural and built

environment and strengthen the networks, resources and skills in our local businesses and

communities so they can positively respond to the impacts of climate change. By having

active participation by key stakeholders throughout the project life, Resilient East aims to:

• Build the adaptive capacity of those who must adapt

• Create conditions for meaningful action

• Overcome barriers to adaptation

• Support practical and relevant adaptation measures

Key activities for the project in 2015 include stakeholder workshops attended by Council

staff from member Councils, business, community groups, and State Government:

• Environment, water and the public realm workshop – 28 April

• Planning, assets and infrastructure workshop – 8 May

• Elected Members Workshop – 1 July

• Community and Key Stakeholder Adaptation Pathways workshops - 9 September and

21 October

These workshops were developed to inform a series of reports and documents, all of which

are available from the Resilient East website:

• Integrated Vulnerability Assessment (IVA) Report - This report summarises the IVA

undertaken for Resilient East.

• Vision, Values and Key Decisions Report - This report contains the values and regional

profile for the eastern region and identifies those aspects of importance to the eastern

region that need to be assessed in terms of their vulnerability to a changing climate.

• Climate Projections Report - This report assists in the Integrated Vulnerability

Assessment process and describes the drivers of climate change, sources of variation

in climate projections and what climate the region may experience in the future.

• Draft Adaptation Plan Report completed - and is currently being reviewed by project

councils. (as this is in draft, it is not yet available on the website).


91




A regional workshop will be held in February 2106 for attendance by Elected Members and

senior staff of the project councils and partner organisations. Councils will formally consider

the Adaptation Plan for endorsement after this workshop, anticipated to occur in March.

The resulting Adaptation Plan will outline tangible and prioritised strategic actions for the

eastern region that can be programmed into future investment strategies.

For further information visit: www.resilienteast.org.au

In early 2014 Unley City Council publicly tendered for the services related to the review of

public lighting. In July 2014, Campbelltown City Council joined the project. This review was to:

• audit existing assets,

• review the associated costs, and;

• provide industry guidance on potential improvements.

The review highlighted that there had been several significant changes in the public lighting

industry that were either currently available or emerging. These opportunities, which included

LED Luminaire technology, and digital technologies and services, would enable a reduction in

energy consumption, carbon emissions and public light related operating expenditure by

between 50-75%.

It was determined as an outcome of the review that a further body of work be undertaken to

determine methods to capture these savings / benefits for Local Government. This work was

agreed to focus on two concurrent paths: (A) negotiation with the current provider (SAPN),

and (B) Council to progress with alternative procurement methods.

(A) Negotiation with the provider, SA Power Networks (SAPN) Public lighting is predominantly (78%) provided by SA Power Networks (SAPN), a foreign

owned private company that purchased the assets during the privatization process in the

1990’s. Council (8%) and DPTI (14%) are the other major owners and operators of Public

Lighting in South Australia.


ERA Street Lighting Project

92


Better together 2015ERA Councils have approximately 37,000 Public Lighting Assets with total annual costs of

approximately $5M.

The LGA SA has been in dispute with SAPN for approximately 10 years with limited success,

due in most part to the National Electricity Rules and Regulations (NER) being relatively

flexible when applied to charges for public lighting.

Under current legislation, public lighting is a Negotiated Service in South Australia. Any

person or organisation (including Council) can provide this service. However, due to the entry

barriers related to the capital cost of infrastructure, SAPN enjoys a relative monopoly in public

lighting in an environment where there is minimal regulation.

Councils have an obligation under the Act to provide this service to the community, pay for

this service, yet currently have minimal capability of either determining how this service is

provided or controlling the associated costs.

SAPN has, at Councils’ request, provided a proposal for an asset upgrade to LED technology.

This proposal was not deemed appropriate due to the expectation that Councils would bear

the capital cost of the supply and installation of the new assets, and because of the proposed

ongoing annual operational cost. Accordingly, path (B) is now being pursued concurrently

with ERA’s participation in the LGA SA’s ongoing negotiations with SAPN.

(B) Request for Tender

In May 2015, the ERA CEOs were updated on the progress of the project and invited to

participate in a procurement process to obtain submissions from the market. All Councils

confirmed their participation in the process on the basis that they were not committed to

enter a contract until further review and consultation was undertaken.

A Request for Tender (RFT) for the provision of LED technology was developed in late 2015,

closing in January 2016, and an ERA Project Steering Committee / Evaluation Committee has

been established. To inform the RFT and its evaluation, financial modelling was undertaken to

investigate and ascertain optimal ownership, maintenance and asset management scenarios

integrated with the effects of the variables on member Councils’ future financial stability.

This project will be progressed during 2016, and offers significant potential to improve the

financial, environmental and social outcomes related to public lighting across ERA.

93



Water Proofing the East (now ERA Water) is a project designed to recycle urban

stormwater captured in part from the catchments and drainage systems within the

Councils of Tea Tree Gully, Campbelltown, Norwood Payneham and St Peters, Burnside and

Walkervillle, and includes the storage of water in the fractured rock underground aquifers.

The key objectives of this project include:

• The primary goal of supplying water to ensure sustainable supplies of water to the

parks, gardens, reserves and playing fields of the member councils;

• Ensuring that the water is cleaned and stored in the underground aquifers;

• Minimising consumption of water from the River Murray by Councils;

• Cleaning the water discharged to the River Torrens to ensure it is of a higher quality than

that currently entering the river.

The project, initiated in 2009 and finally designed in 2014, includes a significant business

analysis. During 2015, the Cities of Tea Tree Gully and Campbelltown chose not to proceed

as part of the consortium of Councils. However, the Town of Walkerville and Cities of

Norwood Payneham and St Peters and Burnside, after expanding ERA Water’s customer

base, agreed to proceed. They formed a subsidiary to supply water to schools and private

customers, thus exceeding the demand for water beyond that originally planned by the five

Council consortium.

The formation of the legal entity (the subsidiary) and the redesign in part delayed the

project in 2015. The Commonwealth Government agency and local MPs went to

considerable lengths to extend the target completion date so that the project would

receive its previously approved Federal funding. The final contribution by the

Commonwealth (stage 2) is anticipated to be $7.6 million. The State Government, through

the Natural Resources Management Board, has contributed $2 million to the project and

the subsidiary has committed $12.5 million.

In addition to achieving its objectives the project, as a minimum, will deliver water at a

much lower price than drinking water purchased from SA Water and deliver a minimum

of 545 megalitres, with a capacity to deliver 900 megalitres.

The project will involve constructing 48 km of pipe using directional boring techniques,

the construction of a wetland and biofilters at Felixtow Reserve and Marden Reserve, and

recharge bores at Marden, Felixtow and Drage Reserves.

Whilst South Australia is a world leader in capture and storage of stormwater in aquifers,

including reuse of stormwater, the technical difficulties in this project have been

challenging and complex due to fractured rock aquifers. This has meant that the designs

provided by this project are unique. This project also completes the objective of

Waterproofing the West, North and now East of Adelaide.

Water Proofing the East

One of the primary aims of Water Proofing the East is minimising consumption of water from the River Murray.

94


Better together 2015Water Proofing the East Scheme Layout

Another of the project’s key objectives is to ensure sustainable supplies of water to the parks, gardens, reserves and playing fields of ERA member councils.

95

E a s t e r n R e g i o n A l l i a n c e A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 1 5 1 0


Based on the ERA region’s economic characteristics, focusing on the Creative Industry

sector, establishing a smart region strategy and capitalising on the emerging digital

economy opportunities became priorities adopted by ERA in its Economic Development

Action Plan 2014-17. Throughout 2015 year the Business & Economic Development Group

has remained focused on developing a Creative Industry & Smart Region Framework as

a primary Action Plan objective. This will identify a range of tangible projects for ERA

Councils to consider to pursue.

The Smart region focus was principally due to ERA member Councils’ limited revenue

growth, growing international competition for local businesses, residents’ increasing

expectations, and the sector’s potential for growth and job creation dividends.

In early 2015, a Creative Industry Association Reference Group was established to inform

the Strategy and identify suitable projects to pursue. The Group met four times and

identified projects that form part of the Framework including:

• Collaborating with State Government (DataSA) to participate in and support the

‘Unleashed’, open source data hackathon program in 2016.

• Informing key stakeholders of the potential of the Glenside development to be a model

smart region at an early stage.

• Facilitating the establishment of co-working spaces at suitable locations for home-based

businesses to collaborate, innovate and prosper. This has already occurred with

Brick + Mortar creative space opening on George St under the Norwood Town Hall

and Little City Studio on Prospect Rd, Prospect. Pictured below: Members of the Flinders

University Women’s International Entrepreneurship Fellowship program touring Little

City Studio in August 2015, hosted by founder, Dave Menner (left) and learning about

Government’s potential role in facilitating economic development for entrepreneurs.

Business and Economic Development Portfolio Group

96


Better together 2015• Working with Adelaide City Council and the Department of State Development to

expand the CISCO Lighthouse Project and Innovation Hub into a metropolitan

environment and making the associated Innovation Hub accessible to businesses located

in the ERA region. This includes investigating the provision of free public Wi-Fi on inner

metropolitan main street precincts.

On 19th August, the Australian Smart Communities Association National Seminar was

held (streamed online) at the Prospect Digital Hub, hosted by the ERA B&ED Group.

The seminar showcased current related activities underway and future paths ERA is

investigating. Attendees (and online viewers) included a number of State and Local

Government senior officers and the ICT and Creative industry sector.

The Framework remains a work in progress and will seek ERA Council member

endorsement and implementation in 2015-16.

ERA’s ongoing mission is for Adelaide’s Eastern Metropolitan Councils to contintue to work together to better serve all members of their communities.

97



Eastern Region Alliance Financial Statement 2014 - 2015

Opening BalanceOpening Balance from Financial Year 2013/14

Operating IncomeCouncil Contributions

Operating ExpenditureERA Secretariat

Ageing Portfolio

B & ED Portfolio

Other Portfolios & Projects

Project Expenditure

Other Expenditure

ERA Financial Result for 2014/15

37,223

37,223

140,000

140,000

35,340

14,560

33,195

1,450

84,545

-

-

92,678

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

98

99