SSROC Program Delivery Committee Meeting Thursday, 17 May 2012 6:00 pm for 6:30 pm Council Eton Street, SUTHERLAND PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE AGENDA 4AGENDA 1. Presentations 1.1 No Presentations. 2. Apologies 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting 1 The Minutes were adopted by SSROC at the Ordinary meeting held 16 February 2012. They are submitted for the information of Committee members. 4. For Information 4.1 Recent Submissions 5 4.2 Bike Plan Update 35 4.3 Transport Infrastructure 37 4.4 Street Lighting Improvement Program Update 45 4.5 Council Participation in Contracts 52 4.6 Contract Management System 56 5. Current Activities 5.1 Procurement Activity 57 5.2 Shared Services Opportunities 58 5.3 Current Submissions 59 6. General Business 7. Next Meeting Next meeting to be confirmed at the next SSROC Ordinary meeting in June 2012

Minutes of the Program Delivery Committee meeting of the Southern Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) held at Hurstville City Council on Thursday 16 February 2012

IN ATTENDANCE

Cr Patrick Kelso Ashfield Municipal Council Cr George Glinatsis (Deputy Mayor) City of Cr Tony Fasanella City of Canada Bay Cr Mark Adler City of Canterbury Cr Con Hindi (Deputy Mayor) Cr Rochelle Porteous (Mayor) Leichhardt Municipal Council Cr Phil Blight Sutherland Shire Cr Mora Main Waverley Council Cr Sean Carmichael Woollahra Municipal Council

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Alan Northey (General Manager) SSROC Mr David Howes (Contracts and Procurement Manager) SSROC

1. PRESENTATIONS

There were no presentations.

2. APOLOGIES AND WELCOME

Cr Tania Mihailuk Bankstown City Council Cr Sally Deans Burwood Council Cr Ernest Wong (Deputy Mayor) Burwood Council Cr Henson Liang Burwood Council Cr Pauline Tyrrell City of Canada Bay Cr Sam Elmir Kogarah Council Cr Michele McKenzie (Deputy Mayor) Leichhardt Council Cr Morris Hanna (Mayor) Cr Emanuel Tsardoulias Marrickville Council Cr Anthony Andrews Randwick City Council Cr Liz Barlow Rockdale City Council Cr Jan Brennan Rockdale City Council

OTHER APOLOGIES

Ms Vanessa Chan (General Manager) Ashfield Council Mr Matthew Stewart (General Manager) Bankstown City Council Ms Lara Kirchner (General Manager) Mr Michael McMahon (General Manager) Burwood Council Mr Gary Sawyer (General Manager) City of Canada Bay Mr Jim Montague (General Manager) City of Canterbury Ms Monica Barone (General Manager) Mr Paul Woods (General Manager) Kogarah City Council Mr Victor Lampe (General Manager) Hurstville City Council Mr Peter Head (General Manager) Leichhardt Council PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

1

Minutes of the Program Delivery Committee meeting of the Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) held at Hurstville City Council on Thursday 16 February 2012

Mr Ken Gainger (General Manager) Marrickville Council Mr Ray Brownlee (General Manager Randwick City Council Ms Meredith Wallace (General Manager) Rockdale City Council Mr John Rayner (General Manager) Sutherland Shire Council Mr Gary James (General Manager) Woollahra Municipal Council

WELCOME

The Committee Chair, Councillor Con Hindi, Deputy Mayor, Hurstville City Council, welcomed the Committee members to the meeting.

3. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

It was noted that the Minutes were adopted by SSROC at the Ordinary meeting held 16 June 2011 and were submitted for the information of Committee members.

4. FOR INFORMATION

4.1 Annual Work Plan

The General Manager of SSROC provided a brief overview of the Plan.

The Mayor of Leichhardt highlighted part of the Environment, Waste, Planning and Transport plan which indicated participation in NSW Long Term Transport Plan advisory group, and expressed concern that SSROC, and possibly other ROCs, were being used as the conduit for consultation in relation to the Plan, when SSROC may not be in the position to best communicate varying Council views. Procurement and associated activities should be the key focus of SSROC, and that advocacy was not necessarily SSROC’s role.

A view was also expressed, by several committee members, that this is now the manner in which both the State and Federal governments wish to consult with Local Government. It was also indicated that SSROC has always had some form of advocacy role. The SSROC General Manager confirmed that consultation in relation to the 2012 State Plan was being done on a similar basis.

The Committee resolved to:

1. Receive and note the report. 2. Endorse the 2012 SSROC Work Plan with the issues raised by the Mayor of Leichhardt be referred to the next Delegates’ meeting.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

2

Minutes of the Program Delivery Committee meeting of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) held at Hurstville City Council on Thursday 16 February 2012

4.2 Recent Submissions

The Committee resolved to:

1. Receive and note the report.

a. Destination 2036

The Committee complimented the Secretariat on the report and resolved to:

1. Receive and note the report and support the submission.

b. Transport Infrastructure Update

The Committee commended the submission for its thorough, accurate and well-written approach.

Committee members raised several transport related issues that should be considered:

• Active Transport should be a priority and it was suggested that the past “Bike Plan” be reviewed and circulated to members. • Proposed changes to Sydney Airport.

The Committee resolved that:

1. The report be received and noted. 2. In future transport infrastructure deliberations Active transport options and the proposed changes to Sydney Airport be considered.

c. Council Participation in Contracts

The Committee resolved to:

1. Receive and note the report. 2. Acknowledge the importance of all Councils’ involvement in all procurement projects and actively encourage involvement in existing and new contracts within their Council

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

3

Minutes of the Program Delivery Committee meeting of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) held at Hurstville City Council on Thursday 16 February 2012

5. CURRENT ACTIVITIES

5.1 Procurement Activities

The Committee resolved to:

1. Receive and note the report.

5.2 Shared Services Opportunities

The SSROC General Manager noted that whilst achievements and successes have been strong within the region, the ongoing difficulty associated with change and drive for shared services activities still exists.

The Committee resolved that:

1. The report be received and noted. 2. Consideration be given by Councils as to how they could utilise existing shared services activities provided by SSROC; and other potential areas where SSROC may be able to assist

5.3 2012 Street Lighting Program

The Committee resolved to:

1. Receive and note the report. 2. Endorse the 2012 Street Lighting Improvement program.

6. GENERAL BUSINESS

There was no general business.

7. NEXT MEETING

Members noted the date of the next meeting:

17 May 2012, Sutherland Shire Council, 6.00 pm for 6.30 pm.

The meeting closed at 8.07 pm.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

4

SECTION 4. FOR INFORMATION

ITEM 4.1 Recent Submissions

Purpose of the To inform the Committee of recent submissions by SSROC. report: Background: Since the last meeting the following submissions have been made:

• 15 February 2012 - comments on reform of the Traffic Route Lighting Subsidy Scheme (TRLSS) by Roads and Maritime Services; • 15 March 2012 – overview of SSROC and comments on the role of Regional Organisations of Councils to the Minister for Local Government at the SSROC Ordinary Meeting; • 27 April 2012 – comments on the Long Transport Master Plan discussion paper, to Transport NSW

Copies of these submissions are attached. Current Status: These submissions have already been made.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

5

15 February 2012

Sent via [email protected]

Mr Craig Moran General Manager, Traffic Management Roads & Maritime Services Level 16, 101 Miller Street NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060

Dear Mr Moran

Re: Submission on reform of the Traffic Route Lighting Subsidy Scheme (TRLSS)

The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) is making this submission to Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) on behalf of 34 Councils participating in the SSROC Street Lighting Improvement (SLI) Program including 16 of its own members and 18 other NSW Councils who have joined its SLI Program. Councils in the SSROC SLI Program have been working together for some years to seek better lighting, energy efficiency and pricing outcomes.

The Councils in the SSROC SLI Program encompass more than 226,000 street lights constituting approximately 94% of the streetlights in Ausgrid’s distribution area. In the context of this submission, the participating Councils receive approximately 50% of TRLSS payments made across NSW.

SSROC would firstly like to thank the RMS for making additional data available to enable further analysis of the likely impacts of RMS’ proposal and help provide a more complete response to RMS. SSROC also welcomes RMS candour in acknowledging the significant current information gaps and challenges in continuing to administer the TRLSS under the current approach.

SSROC is making this submission because a large number of Councils in the SLI Program have sought advice about the December 2011 RMS letter sent to General Managers about potential reform of the TRLSS. SSROC notes that many Councils have expressed concerns that the implications of the proposed RMS TRLSS reform is particularly hard to predict for individual Councils Lvl 2, Suite 2E, Hurstville House at this stage. 34 MacMahon Street Hurstville

PO Box 536 Hurstville NSW 1481

Ph: 9330 6455 Fx: 9330 6456 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ssroc.nsw.gov.au

6 Prior to responding to the specific questions posed by the RMS, SSROC wishes to make the following points for context:

1. Cost Shifting Concerns Historically, the TRLSS appears to have broadly covered at least 50% of traffic route lighting costs. However, the TRLSS has only kept pace with CPI for at least a decade while street lighting prices have risen at three-four times CPI in recent years. SSROC’s analysis suggests that this has resulted in TRLSS payments falling to an average of 37% of eligible lighting costs in Ausgrid’s region (eg TRLSS funding levels are lower in Ausgrid’s region than the 43% found overall across NSW in the RMS study). The relative decline in the TRLSS is a de facto shifting of costs to local government estimated by SSROC to be costing the 34 Councils in the SSROC SLI Program about $3m per annum and Councils across NSW about $6m per annum. This situation has been compounded by TRLSS records generally not having been updated since the 1990’s. The study for RMS identified that the actual number of TRLSS-eligible lights in Council inventories appears to be on average 25% higher than the figures recorded in the RMS database and used for calculation of the TRLSS payments. This suggests that cost shifting in recent years may actually be some 25% higher than suggested above.

2. Many Key Traffic Routes Are Local Roads While the RMS study focused on State and Regional road lighting, a key issue for Councils in Sydney is that a large number of the lighting upgrades on busy local roads were also approved for inclusion in the TRLSS. While State and Regional Road lighting can be readily identified, the only comprehensive record1 so far identified of local road lighting that was approved for inclusion in the TRLSS are legacy flags in Ausgrid inventories in the region that was formerly the . These flags are found in Ausgrid inventories as a “T” designation in front of ‘Old SL Id’ numbers and/or a “TRL” designation in front of ‘Support’ descriptions.

For some heavily urbanised Councils, local road lighting forms a significant fraction of TRLSS-eligible lighting and should not be excluded from consideration of future funding arrangements simply because it is not as easily identified. Upgrades to local road lighting were historically approved on the same terms as lighting upgrades on State and Regional Roads. Further, there appears to be adequate evidence in the Ausgrid inventories to ascertain which roads were approved for inclusion (eg records for at least some of the lights on eligible roads contain a residual flag in the inventory indicating TRLSS- eligibility).

3. 25% of Councils In Ausgrid’s Region Potentially Disadvantaged By RMS Proposal The RMS study looked at TRLSS payments in detail for five Councils in the Ausgrid region (Canterbury, Lane Cove, Gosford, Newcastle and Willoughby). More recently, the SSROC SLI Program has examined three additional Councils in the Ausgrid region (Bankstown, Randwick and the City of Sydney).

1 Sample records of original TRLSS project approvals under the tenure of the Electricity Authority have been preserved by State Records (http://api.records.nsw.gov.au/series/4190 ) but these are not thought to be comprehensive.

7 The results are summarised as follows:

SCENARIO A: 2010/11 TRLSS Estimated net Council benefit if RMS takes COUNCIL PAYMENT over full responsibility for State Roads and discontinues TRLSS for other roads (eg proposal in RMS letter to GMs) A $372,000 -$126,000 B $125,000 $47,000 C $310,000 $290,000 D $417,000 $200,000 E $181,000 $98,000 F $891,000 -$85,000 G $509,000 $188,000 H $356,000 $85,000 Sub-total for eight $3.2m $697,000 Councils studied Estimated impact across all 34 SSROC $8.0m $3.1m SLI Program Councils

Importantly, in Scenario A, 25% of Councils studied in the Ausgrid region face large potential annual losses of around $100,000 per year (or a net present value loss exceeding $1m per Council when lighting cost increases are considered) should RMS take over State Road lighting and discontinue the TRLSS for other road classifications as proposed. Predicting which other Councils may be winners or losers from the RMS proposal is particularly challenging and would require detailed Council-specific analysis of the mix of State vs Regional/local road lighting and cost modelling.

Overall, Councils support RMS taking over full financial responsibility for lighting on State Roads and believe this would be consistent with the RMS role as curb-to-curb road authority. However, on consideration of the points noted above, Councils believe that a subsidy scheme should remain in place for Regional Road and local road traffic route lighting costs.

As outlined in the attached response to RMS survey question #1, keeping the TRLSS in place for other traffic routes would: • be consistent with 103 years of TRLSS precedent and agreements in NSW; • be consistent with the cost sharing approach to Regional Roads more generally in NSW; • be consistent with comparable precedent in Victoria; • avoid significant negative impacts for some Councils; and • enable correction of progressive shifting of traffic route lighting costs to Councils.

8 I would be pleased to discuss this submission further with RMS at any point.

Yours sincerely

Alan Northey General Manager Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

9

TRAFFIC ROUTE LIGHTING SUBSIDY SCHEME – FEEDBACK FORM

1. In principle, would your Council support RMS taking over full financial responsibility for street lighting on State Roads while discontinuing the TRLSS payments for other classes of roads and offering transitional compensation to any Councils adversely effected?

YES / NO

Councils support RMS taking over full financial responsibility for lighting on State Roads and believe this would be consistent with the RMS role as curb-to-curb road authority.

However, Councils believe that a subsidy scheme should remain in place for Regional Road & Local Road traffic route lighting costs for the following reasons:

• 103 years of TRLSS precedent and agreements must be respected in any reform proposal Continued funding support for Regional Road & Local Road lighting would be consistent with more than a century of precedent under which Councils agreed to upgrade lighting to higher levels on the basis that the TRLSS would remain in place to cover the higher on-going costs of lighting on main traffic routes.

The on-going costs of lighting a main road is broadly six to eight times as much per kilometre as residential road lighting and hence, presents a significant additional cost burden for local Councils. And, in many cases, traffic routes are used primarily by people other than local residents and ratepayers (eg many are through-roads without necessarily carrying much local traffic).

The need to address the additional cost burden has been recognised in NSW legislation since the 1909 Traffic Act, which first made provision for subsidy payments to support a higher standard of lighting on important traffic routes.

As a consequence of the 1909 Traffic Act and its successors (including the current Transport Administration Act 1988 - Sect 80A), almost all major traffic route lighting in NSW has been installed on the basis of written agreements between the relevant local Council and the RMS or its predecessors (including the RTA, DMR and the NSW Electricity Authority). In short, Councils agreed to upgrade lighting that met strict design criteria set by RMS and its predecessors in return for on-going funding support to cover the much higher costs of this lighting.

After 103 years of TRLSS agreements and legislative precedent, Councils have a reasonable expectation that funding support for the considerably higher costs of main road lighting, will continue.

10

• Consistent with the cost sharing approach to Regional Roads Continued funding support for Regional Road lighting costs would be consistent with the on- going NSW cost sharing approach for Regional Road maintenance costs in general (eg under the Regional Roads Block Grants program).

• Consistent with comparable precedent in Victoria Continued funding support for Regional Road lighting would be consistent with comparable practice in Victoria where State funding support for lighting on traffic routes is codified in legislation. In Victoria, traffic route lighting subsidy payments to local government are made under the Victorian Road Management Act 2004. Schedule 7A of the Act. This Act establishes the proportion of street lighting costs to be paid by Councils and VicRoads for various road classifications (either 40% or 60% of both initial and on-going costs depending on the road classification). This approach provides certainty for all parties and is, on average, broadly consistent with the historical practice in NSW of setting the TRLSS at 50% of traffic route lighting costs.

• Avoid significant negative impacts for some Councils On-going funding support for Regional Road & Local Road lighting would avoid really significant negative outcomes for those Councils that do have more TRLSS-eligible lighting on Regional and Local Roads than State Roads. SSROC estimates that if RMS took over State Road lighting and the TRLSS was discontinued for other roads, 25% of Councils in Ausgrid’s region would face costs potentially exceeding $1m in net present value terms for each Council (eg perhaps $8m in NPV terms across Ausgrid’s region). If the current proposal did proceed, affected Councils should be compensated for the net present value of the expected impact.

• Better suited to dealing with Council-owned lighting Continuation of the TRLSS would also help RMS and Councils better deal with cases where Council owns the lighting on any of the classes of roads under consideration, particularly on State Roads. It is unlikely that RMS would wish to take over full responsibility for such installations and a subsidy payment may be a more appropriate mechanism to handle lighting costs of Council owned lighting.

The on-going funding level for Regional and Local Roads might reasonably be set at 50% (eg consistent with cost sharing under the REPAIR program). This would also be consistent with Councils’ understanding of the historic situation in NSW under the TRLSS and broadly consistent with the current Victorian funding level.

As per the table below, SSROC analysis suggests that such a proposal would potentially cost RMS an additional $14m per year across NSW. While more costly for RMS, this approach would be consistent with precedent, enable correction of recent years of cost shifting to Councils and avoid the need for a compensation package for adversely effected Councils.

11

SCENARIO B: Estimated net Council benefit if RMS takes 2010/11 TRLSS over full responsibility for State Roads and COUNCIL PAYMENT reforms current TRLSS to recognise current inventories of eligible lighting on Regional & Local Roads (SSROC proposal) A $372,000 $62,000 B $125,000 $118,000 C $310,000 $519,000 D $417,000 $438,000 E $181,000 $197,000 F $891,000 $630,000 G $509,000 $503,000 H $356,000 $291,000 Sub-total for eight $3.2m $2,758,000 Councils Studied Estimated impact across all 34 SSROC $7.0m SLI Program Councils Estimated impact $14m across NSW

2. Alternatively, would your Council support RMS reforming the current TRLSS scheme based on updated costing information and improved inventories, recognising that this will place an on-going administrative responsibility on Council to develop and maintain robust TRLSS inventory information.

YES / NO Councils support retention and reform of the TRLSS for Regional & local roads as outlined above.

3. Recognising that Council, utility and RMS records on lighting eligible for the TRLSS are no longer current or sufficient to administer the scheme, would your Council be willing to devote GIS and other Council resources to helping correctly identify eligible lights in your LGA under a systematic methodology provided by RMS?

YES / NO Councils would be willing to work with the RMS to identify eligible lights under an agreed methodology. Councils believe that this work will be needed to assist RMS and utilities to manage a successful transition of State Road lighting and for reform of the current TRLSS as it applies to Regional & local roads.

12 Do you have any other comments on the TRLSS, the study or proposed reform of the scheme?

Council welcomes RMS review of the TRLSS. The TRLSS has not kept pace with steep increases in street lighting costs over recent years and as such, has resulted in a progressive shifting of costs from State to Local Government which SSROC has estimated to now have reached $6m+ per annum across NSW. TRLSS reform is therefore essential.

13 Southern Sydney Regional organisation of Councils

ASHfIELD BAnkSTOWn BOTAnY BAY BuRWOOD cAnADA BAY cAnTERBuRY cITY Of SYDnEY HuRSTvILLE kOGARAH LEIcHHARDT MARRIckvILLE RAnDWIck ROckDALE SuTHERLAnD SHIRE WAvERLEY WOOLLAHRA

15 MARCH 2012

14 Southern Sydney Regional Submission Qrganisation of Councils (ssroc) to the Minister HISTORY Structure

On 27 August 1986, Sutherland Council called a SSROC is an Incorporated Association. meeting to express its concern with regional planning for Local mechanisms being imposed on local government without consultation. Elected representatives from Rockdale, Hurstville, Kogarah, Marrickville, Canterbury SSROC DELEGATES and Sutherland Councils attended the meeting. The Board of SSROC is made up of two councillors, The six Councils in attendance resolved to form the or Delegates, from each member Council, usually the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils to Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Each year, the Board elects Government represent those at the meeting, as well as Bankstown, the SSROC Executive, which comprises a President Botany and Randwick Councils. and two Vice Presidents, and the chairs of the two SSROC Committees. The Board meets quarterly and sets and monitors the annual workplan for the organisation. MEMBERSHIP The current President of SSROC is the Mayor of Botany The Hon. Don For over 25 years since 1986, SSROC has continued Bay, Councillor Ron Hoenig. He has filled the position to respond to the priorities of its members. Its value for nineteen (19) years. to them is highlighted by the way its membership has steadily increased, to the current 16 Councils. The region now covers an area with some 1.4 million residents from Bankstown to Randwick and from the Page MP City to Sutherland. Waverley Council joined the organisation in 1987, South Sydney in 1989, and Woollahra in 1992. Bankstown left Includes: SSROC in 2002 to join Western Sydney ROC. ✔  In February 2008, four more Councils joined the An Overview of Southern Sydney Regional organisation. These Councils, Ashfield, Canada Bay, Organisation of Councils (SSROC) Burwood and Leichhardt, were formally endorsed as members. ✔ SSROC Achievements In November 2008, Bankstown City Council was formally endorsed as a member, bringing the number of ✔ Responses to Questions Raised by Minister member Councils to sixteen. Page at Combined ROCs Meeting March 5 2012

2 Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils 3 15 SSROC has two Committees to oversee its work in key areas. The Committees meet quarterly and are chaired by the Senior and Junior Vice Presidents. The areas of responsibility are: Ssroc Program Delivery Committee Current Budget

Asset Management; Public Works; Procurement; The Revenue and Expenditure for 2011/12 of SSROC Committees Waste Management; Infrastructure is approximately $2.5 million. Sustainability Program SSROC Achievements

Regional Planning; Environmental Management; The information in this document highlights some of Transport Planning and Management; Community the more significant activities undertaken by SSROC in Development recent years.

The Secretariat

Under the leadership of the General Manager, a small team of staff undertakes the work of SSROC. The Secretariat initiates and chairs Working Groups of council staff based on the needs identified in the SSROC workplan, and also makes use of consultants for specialised work that is outside the expertise of the permanent staff.

Working Groups

Each year SSROC develops a workplan, which identifies the focus for the coming year. Workgroups of staff from member councils are formed to undertake projects of common concern. Members of workgroups often share professional disciplines, but cross-functional groups are also sometimes important to specific initiatives. By working together, council staff share knowledge, expertise and the workload.

4 Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils 5 16 1. Procurement and shared 2. En vironment transport services programs planning and waste program

✔ Workshop – Integrating natural resource management 1.1 procurement 1.2 Shared Services 2.1 Submissions into Local Government planning SSROC currently has 22 regional contracts and it is Shared services provides substantial opportunities to SSROC addresses emerging issues through the ✔ Energy Efficiency Training – funding from the envisaged that this will increase to around 30 over offset the growing financial pressures facing Councils. development of discussion papers, consultation with Department of Education and Training for the the next 12 months. Current contract savings are Extending beyond procurement, its focus is on a appropriate officers and where deadlines permit, with development of this training targeted at staff with no $20.7 million pa. Examples of past and current major range of functions with the objective of delivering Councillors. Over the years many detailed submissions previous experience in energy efficiency. contracts include: benefits through consolidation and standardisation of have been made. Recent examples include: ✔ Energy Cost Control – this project comprised a ✔ Waste Management ( landfill disposal and recycling) processes. To oversight this range of activity a Shared ✔ Planning System – the NSW Planning Review, NSW Services Senior Managers Group was established in survey of all member Councils to identify particularly contracts Housing Code, Residential Flat Design Code and successful projects to reduce energy consumption, ✔  2009. Projects commenced include: Road making the Standard Instrument LEP which could then be shared between the Councils. ✔ Mobile and fixed line telephony to Councils. ✔ SSROC employs Senior Internal Audit staff for six ✔ Strategic Planning – National Urban Policy, ✔  (6) member Councils. ✔ Standard Instrument LEP and NSW Housing Code – Electricity for Large Sites. Metropolitan Plan ✔ Temporary staff. ✔ SSROC employs strategic procurement coordinators advocacy on behalf of member Councils for a review ✔ Library RFID systems. for four (4) Councils. ✔ Transport Planning – NSW Transport Corporate of the SI LEP and the House Codes SEPP. ✔  ✔ Regional Waste Audits A major review of a co-ordinated IT and T strategy. Plan, Airport/Port Access Plan, Metropolitan ✔ Regional Waste Audits – commissioning five regional ✔ Currently developing regional procurement of Transport Plan, M5 West Widening, and SSROC employs a Contracts and Procurement waste audits, including the delivery of individual Business Continuity infrastructure. participation in the Local Government Advisory Council audits (a prerequisite to qualification for Manager to coordinate the procurement function ✔ Block newspaper advertising. Group for the NSW Long Term Transport Plan within SSROC and assist Councils and suppliers with WaSIP payments). Five audits, beginning in 1999, ✔ Benchmarking of Corporate Services activities on contractual issues and working towards developing new ✔ Resource Stewardship – Waste Avoidance and have provided valuable data on the changing profile of an ongoing basis. contracts, and also provides procurement consultancy Resource Recovery Strategy and Implementation southern Sydney’s waste, to inform the development ✔ Promoting best practice across Councils. services to member Councils. Plan, Sydney’s Waste Transfer Stations, Product of waste education programs and plans for future The approach taken by SSROC was awarded a Stewardship Schemes waste services. Management Excellence Award for Management ✔ Environmental Issues – Sydney Airport Enviromental ✔ Landfill Tender / Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) Innovation from the LGMA. Strategy, NSW Sea Level Rise Policy, NSW Services – currently seeking the procurement of AWT One key factor in the success of SSROC is the Biodiversity Strategy and the Threatened Species Act Services, and the addition of an interim landfill service contribution made by 14 working groups. In 2011 a for the period before the AWT service could begin to ✔ Carbon Emissions Reduction – the National Energy review of the operation and structure of all working operate. Is expected to transform the waste treatment Savings Initiative, Carbon Pollution Reduction groups was carried out. Each group has its own terms processes of participating Councils. Scheme, Prime Minister’s Taskforce on Energy of reference and works towards improving service Efficiency, National Energy Market reform. ✔ Regional Bike Plan – originally developed in 2008, delivery within their particular area of specialisation. SSROC is working with Councils towards delivery of the network of trails. A Botany Bay Trail Master The key focus 2.2 Projects Plan has since been completed and much of it now 1.3 Street Lighting in place, and the connecting Oatley to Bay Bike Trail of SSROC, and Again over the years a huge number of regional projects Master Plan was finalised in 2011. have been undertaken. Recent examples include: Improvement Program ✔ Toolkits to assist Councils in environmental activity ✔ Renewable Energy – a scoping study researched the and assessments including: a model for roles of councils in and internationally in SSROC member Council have benefitted significantly - The SSROC Vehicle Evaluation Toolkit, which renewable energy, and identified a very wide range of as a result of their involvement in the Street Lighting includes social and environmental criteria as well possible interventions. Member Councils then agreed other ROCs, Improvement Program (SLIP) which has played a as fitness for purpose and financial criteria . the scale of the intervention by identifying targets for the leading role in the adoption of more energy efficient - “Get it Green” Procurement Policy is the ongoing lighting, greatly reducing repair times, the adoption of region and for internal operations. This project continues. a NSW Public Lighting Code (and related regulatory ✔ Carbon Management Systems – through a tender reviews) and in advocating for Councils’ position in process a preferred supplier was identified for 2.3 Infrastructure Prioritisation success of pricing decisions. The program includes 18 Councils the provision of on-line carbon accounting and outside SSROC who are Ausgrid customers. While A key area identified in the SSROC Strategic Plan is the management services, to enable Councils to improve Councils have faced large street lighting price increases advocacy role SSROC should play in the development procurement their measurement and management of carbon in recent years, strong representations to regulators of regional infrastructure. Improving the ageing and emissions, and to model the potential impact of inadequate infrastructure within the region is an area have resulted in pricing decisions that have been more proposed projects on emissions and costs. in which SSROC’s input is vital. A detailed analysis of projects. than $20 million lower than sought by the utility in each of the 2003/04 and 2008/10 reviews. As a result of the ✔ Carbon Management Training – negotiation of a subsidy major potential projects is attached. program’s activities this year, the reinstatement of the through the [then] State Training Authority, whereby For more detailed information visit www.ssroc.nsw.gov.au Energy Savings Fund occurred which will result in $4.2m member Council staff could complete Certificate III or IV of funding to SLIP members for the removal of some of in carbon management at a 90% discount. the most poorly performing lights on main roads 6 Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils 7 17 Questions raised by Minister Page at combined rocs meeting March 5 2012

Q1. What should be the role Q3. What are appropriate Q5. What should be ROC Q7. In intergovernmental of ROCs? AND Q2. What should Structure and Governance employment arrangements? agreements, where do ROCs be in legislation including models for ROCs? As an incorporated body ROCs can employ staff. The sit? member Councils should determine the basis on which levels of flexibility? The success of ROC to date is in a significant way a they choose to do that. They should not be a party to As a non-governmental organisation ROCs should not direct result of their capabilities to provide innovative the Local Government Award, but can use that as guide be a party to intergovernmental agreements directly. These two questions are addressed together as they are opportunities and solutions without operating under the to conditions of employment. inextricably linked. “constraints” of governmental regulation. However, it is acknowledged that unincorporated bodies and section The role of ROCs should not be prescribed in detail, 355 committees should not be seen as a way forward. Q8. What are appropriate but rather any legislative changes should be enabling in nature and allow for flexibility to meet differing Clearly the Incorporated Association model also has Q6. Should membership funding arrangements? requirements of member Councils. The member significant issues as ROC s expand the scope of their Councils should determine what the precise role of their activities and it is not a solution under the existing Existing arrangements are satisfactory. Councils will ROC should be. Activities, programs and possibly even Associations Act. of Councils in ROCs be fund ROCs if they achieve “value for money”. The more structure should be determined by member Councils successful ROCs generate their own income and some The existing governance structure of SSROC works and not prescribed by the State Government. compulsory? are moving closer to self-funding. The issues associated well and should be used as a model with the following with Incorporated Associations and the limits to As the Minister has commented ROCs can highlight legislative changes: No. The success of ROCs to date is in part due to the incorporation need to be overcome. many successes in regional collaboration. Often the £ Inclusion of “gateway” provision in the Associations voluntary nature of participation. Councils join, and approach taken to achieve these results has varied Act which allows the scope for the “carve out” of continue to be a part of ROCs due to the benefits they There is also a need to put in place education programs from ROC to ROC. This is often a reflection of the role ROCs to remove restrictions against trading or receive. for ROCS and member Councils to ensure the full range defined by their member Councils and the result of securing pecuinary gain for its members; of potential regional collaborative efforts are put in place. cooperation and common purpose. £ LGA amendments to allow ROCs to call and award Perhaps incentives to Council/ ROCs to conduct, for But there is a need for ROCs to be clearly identified in tenders and to apply and receive grants; and example, a full business case for the implementation of the LGA to allow member Councils to formally resolve £ Removal of limitations to incorporate. back office shared service activities, could be considered. to be a part of a ROC to pursue activities that members Councils require; and it include the specific authority for Councils to delegate activities to ROCs. Q4. Should limits to incorporate be removed? Yes, to facilitate ROC member Councils determining what type of activity they wish to be become involved in. Other comments

It is important to note that whatever change occurs in relation to ROCs, their success is reliant on two main factors: commitment of their members to regional collaboration and a clear understanding of what that involves; and the ROC needs to be appropriately resourced to meet their members requirements. The question to address is how are the above two requirements achieved? Despite SSROC’s successes in assisting Councils in service delivery gains, experience suggests that there are inherent difficulties within local government in implementing significant regional collaborative efforts. Flexibility and innovation in approach are required and any initiatives associated with ROCs needs to promote those two important factors. To that end the current structure and governance models utilised by SSROC, subject to the legislative changes suggested above, is a model that can be applied to all ROCs

8 Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils 9 18 Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

ASHFIELD BANKSTOWN BOTANY BAY BURWOOD CANADA BAY CANTERBURY CITY OF SYDNEY HURSTVILLE KOGARAH LEICHHARDT MARRICKVILLE RANDWICK ROCKDALE SUTHERLAND SHIRE WAVERLEY WOOLLAHRA

FACT SHEET

19 Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) is an association of 16 Councils formed for mutual benefit through collaboration and cooperation. Collectively, the group extends across an area covering more than 600 square kilometres, with a population of 1.4 million people. Key state and national infrastructure is located within our geographical area, including the City of Sydney, Sydney Airport, Port Botany, the M4 and M5 as well as major health (Prince of Wales hospital) and education centres (University of NSW and UTS). The SSROC region forms a critical part of the economy of the state and the nation.

The strength of SSROC refl ects the enthusiasm of its member Councils for working together to achieve common objectives, whilst maintaining Financial Savings the independence of each to address its own local Our targeted programs for the issues. SSROC’s successes in delivering real procurement of a range of goods benefi ts to Councils over more than 25 years. The major benefi ts that Councils are able to achieve and services enable our member through this collaborative venture include: Councils to make substantial savings: approximately $20.7 million last year in fi nancial savings with estimated SUSTAINABLE PROCUREMENT savings in excess of $105 million over the past 10 years. And the combined purchasing power of the sixteen Councils enables them to bring real weight to the requirements of state government for sustainable procurement, with assessment criteria that include social, ethical and environmental considerations as well.

PROJECTS SUBMISSIONS

Joint eff orts to achieve a particular objective are SSROC provides member Councils with a system of facilitated by SSROC, and include our major Street- very active working groups, focused on functional Lighting Improvement Project, which has been areas for established for a defi ned period to address extremely infl uential in improving street lighting a particular issue. The Groups enable us to formulate throughout Sydney and other parts of NSW, not just regional policy positions on issues as diverse as within our region. Our representations to regulators planning, environment, fi nancial sustainability and have resulted in pricing more than $20m lower than community services, in response to state government sought by the utility on two occasions, plus receipt consultation, under the direction of our Councillors. of grant funding to replace underperforming lights on main roads. Total benefi ts $45mill. MOVING FORWARD

The successes, and structure, of SSROC can be used as model for moving forward with regional collaboration across NSW, and SSROC would welcome the opportunity to assist in this process.

Councillor Ron Hoenig - President Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC)

20

27 April 2012

By Email: [email protected]

To whom it may concern

Re: NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan Discussion Paper

The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) thanks Transport for NSW for the opportunity to comment on the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (NSW LTTMP) Discussion Paper.

SSROC is an association of sixteen local government councils, covering nearly a third of metropolitan Sydney's residential population and a high concentration of employment across a wide range of business and industry.

In late 2011, SSROCs Ordinary Committee commissioned the SSROC Secretariat to research and report on regional transport matters and within this context, prioritise new infrastructure developments that would provide the best value and most effective outcomes for those who live, work and travel throughout the southern Sydney region each day.

While this is a diverse region in terms of individual Council preferences for modes of transport and specific infrastructure requirements, it is generally agreed within SSROC that our priorities for infrastructure development are:  The development of key track and intermodal infrastructure to support the growth of rail freight in and out of Port Botany;  Development of the Eastern Suburbs light rail, fully integrated into the existing transport network;  Investment in innovative infrastructure and technologies that will manage and minimise traffic congestion impacts on major corridors, particularly the M4 and M5 East;  Development of active transport pathways, including the completion of the Sydney Regional Bike Plan and GreenWay;  The development of supporting infrastructure for all modes of public and active transport, including bus and rail interchanges, commuter car parking, secure bike storage and wayfinding/signage;  Investment in new technologies to mitigate traffic congestion impacts across the road network.

21 1

SSROC would further state that our overarching principles for Sydney's transport network should include:  Sustainable, strategic and integrated land use and transport planning across all modes, especially in new greenfield developments and in brownfield sites subject to urban renewal and redevelopment;  Transport planning that takes into account the strengths of each mode (capacity, speed, accessibility etc) and its place in the transport hierarchy;  Connectivity, accessibility and safety for all modes of private, public and commercial transport - including freight, road traffic, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians;  Safe thoroughfare for heavy vehicles across the region without additional impacts on residential access and amenity;  Flexible, integrated ticketing and equitable pricing across all modes;  Innovative practices and a commitment to continuous improvement across all modes of transport.

The following pages list SSROCs response to focus questions in the Discussion Paper and provide more detail in relation to the priority statements listed above. We hope you find these comments useful and look forward to the next phase in the development of the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss these comments in more detail, please contact Helen Sloan, Program Manager (Waste and Environment) on 02) 9330 6455 or at [email protected]

Yours sincerely,

Alan Northey General Manager Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

22

NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan - SSROC Responses to Strategic Questions

Strategic Question SSROC Response Recommendation

1. Are these objectives SSROC agrees in principle with most of the stated objectives but considers that, as this is a long-term plan, sustainability should be an Include sustainability as appropriate and objective in its own right rather than just an environmental consideration. In this context, sustainability means supporting and an objective in its own comprehensive? maintaining positive outcomes and building the capacity of the network to adapt to changing circumstances now and into the future. right.

Sustainability applies across all the objectives, including customer satisfaction, economic development, planning and investment, Include communication 2. Do you have any performance and delivery, environmental management, social benefits and safety. and consultation as an other objectives to objective in its own right. suggest for both Another issue that applies across all the objectives is the requirement for communication and extensive, genuine consultation. This will be public transport and critical to the achievement of the objectives and in order to determine how to achieve positive and sustainable outcomes. Reconsider the objective roads? to design the transport The objective of putting the customer first - that is, designing the transport system around the expectations of the customer is pleasing system around the yet somewhat hyperbolic. Rather than shape the network to suit customer expectations (which are not homogenous), there is in fact a expectations of the 3. Should additional or different objectives need to manage - or shape - these expectations. customer. be considered for the NSW Long Term Ultimately, decisions will need to be made that prioritise project development and this will undoubtedly challenge the expectations of Transport Master some customers. The wider public understands that there is no quick-fix solution, and a role for Transport for NSW is to consult widely Plan? and honestly, and in so doing seek to manage customer expectations, communicate the reality of technical and economic limitations, and seek public support for prioritising actions.

23 3

4. In solving the SSROC contends that it is time for the NSW Government to move away from ‘wishlisting' and seriously consider the options at hand. Develop action plans for transport problems critical infrastructure in Sydney, what Feasibility studies, while expensive at the outset, are the most reliable and transparent means by which priorities can be developed. development. transport mode should be the first Realistic action plans should be developed for heavy and light rail, buses, road, ferries, active transport (bicycles and pedestrians) and the Develop service priority for new integration of freight management planning within the wider transport network. improvement standards investment, bearing in mind the need for to make the existing a socially equitable The purpose of the action plans would be to present the options within various transport modes and consider: network more efficient. and environmentally  present and forecast demand scenarios, /sustainable  initial cost of infrastructure and ongoing maintenance costs; Develop opportunities for transport sector?  funding sources and availability; immediate service  overall sustainability (ie capacity for service/network expansion in line with forecast demand); delivery enhancements.  social, economic and environmental costs and benefits;  service delivery options;  network integration impacts; and  capacity to meet the objectives of the LTTMP.

The outcome would be a cost-benefit analysis and qualitative summary that would identify priority actions both within and between modes.

Priorities should be reviewed intermittently and Action Plans updated over time so that, should funding become available, priority developments can commence immediately.

The focus on long term planning should not be at the expense of more immediate service delivery enhancements that maximise the efficiency of the existing network and continue to build the customer base. SSROC expects the review of Railcorp will identify opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of the passenger rail sector.

24

5. What do you In terms of SSROCs infrastructure development priorities, the Port Botany expansion is arguably the driving force for transport planning in consider to be the our region. SSROC priorities therefore include the development of: main priorities for  Key track and intermodal infrastructure to support the growth of rail freight in and out of Port Botany; investment in  Eastern Suburbs light rail, fully integrated into the existing transport network; Sydney's transport infrastructure?  Investment in innovative infrastructure and technologies that will manage and minimise traffic congestion impacts on major corridors, particularly the M4 and M5 East;  Active transport pathways, including the completion of the Sydney Regional Bike Plan and GreenWay;  Supporting infrastructure for all modes of public and active transport, including bus and rail interchanges, commuter car parking, secure bike storage and wayfinding/signage.

Although not all SSROC member Councils are supportive of new road infrastructure development, should funding become available specifically for road network expansion, some would support development of the F6 as a dedicated freight road and to a lesser extent, the M5 East expansion.

Additionally, SSROC considers additional investment is required in:  New technologies to mitigate traffic congestion impacts across the road network;  The revitalisation of the ferry network with more local services within the region; and  Integrated pricing and ticketing, including the removal of the station access fee at Sydney Airport's International and Domestic Terminal Stations.

25 5

6. How can the road The reality is that private vehicles will increasingly have to share road space with other transport modes and freight. The maxim "the road Public education network be better is there to share" should be the NSW Government's primary philosophy concerning traffic management. Existing road space can be better reinforcing shared road utilised and managed with the use of technology to advise road users of congestion, and enhanced intersection management that can provide for the use. enhanced? safe thoroughfare of freight vehicles, buses, cyclists and pedestrians. Role of technology in the Research indicates that the capacity to expand the existing road network in metropolitan Sydney is limited and will have poor cost-benefit equitable and safe use of outcomes compared to similar levels of investment in public and active transport. With increasing trade demand and population growth, road space. the creation of extra capacity on the road network is not likely to be sustainable. It may attract more private vehicles and create a domino effect that results in congestion impacts at points along the entire network, including surrounding arterial and local roads. Corridors and centres focus in land use and SSROC recommends that the existing road network can be better utilised by integrating transport and land use planning, particularly transport planning. along existing road corridors to align jobs and homes and shorten distances travelled and reduce transport costs for the commuter, government and the economy as a whole. Improved freight and commuter distribution Active transport is growing in popularity and the development and integration of pathways for pedestrians and cyclists is relatively low- through regional hubs. cost but delivers good social and public health outcomes. SSROC recommends the utilisation of existing road shoulder and lanes so that Increased priority access active transport features more prominently and public transport and freight have priority access at certain times of the day. for buses at peak hours.

This aims to increase the appeal of bus travel, make freight transport more efficient and reduce private vehicle demand. Encouraging the Development of more freight industry to move to 24/7 operating hours and utilise freight rail would aim to reduce the impact that forecast trade growth will active transport pathways have on already congested roads at peak hours. (eg GreenWay, Sydney Regional Bike Plan). SSROC is generally not supportive of new road user charges until the public transport system provides viable and reliable options for commuters.

26

7. What are your Frequency: SSROC believes that it is worth trialling high frequency "turn-up-and-go" services. Increasing traffic congestion across Remove timetabling and priorities for public metropolitan Sydney will render timetables irrelevant and the pressure on drivers to keep to schedules increasingly untenable. Timetables replace with real-time transport services in are also difficult to cross-reference across multiple services and modes of transport. The removal of timetabling would assist in managing GPS tracking. terms of frequency, customers expectations given the reality of increased congestion. Service standards could be developed that allow for a minimum number reliability, cleanliness of services per hour on any given route. The use of real-time GPS tracking on services will provide customers with information as to Fit-for-purpose, and safety? expected arrival times and estimated travel times. customisable transport services. Reliability: Reliability is an essential element in building a customer base and fostering habitual public transport use. Revised service standards need to focus on the holistic customer experience of infrastructure/facilities and service delivery; including timeliness and Clean, comfortable and frequency of services, comfort and amenity, network navigation and accessibility, ticketing prices and route flexibility. an enjoyable alternative private vehicle use. Cleanliness: The cleanliness of single train or bus is a reliable metaphor for public perception of the efficiency and reliability of the entire network, and cannot be underestimated. Moreso than just cleanliness, however, the overall comfort and amenity of the system is highly Integrated ticketing and important. People will not give up the comfort of their own cars (even in congested traffic) unless there is a more appealing alternative. uniform pricing across Identifying what the customer wants to do with their time while on public transport (that they clearly can't do or shouldn't do in their modes and zones. own car) is a good start - for example, there is enormous scope for trains to be adapted to suit the specific needs of travellers (such as quiet carriages, business carriages with wi-fi and desk seating etc, student-designated carriages, accessible/parenting carriages, commuter breakfast carriages etc). Bus and rail interchanges should provide opportunities for customers to wait for services in a clean and comfortable environment.

Safety: Personal safety and security of possessions is a critical issue at interchanges and on transport services. There is the perception that more security personnel could be present and that CCTV cameras are insufficient - if they are operating at all, they can only record events as they happen, and do nothing to prevent criminal activity or report it. A priority action would be to review interchanges and ensure security is adequate - including the provision of secure parking, secure storage (eg for bicycles), contracting security personnel and harnessing local police to do regular patrols of the areas within and around the interchanges and on services. Public relations campaigns should stress the activities taking place to promote safety and security and assure customers that safety and security are key priorities.

27 7

8. What criteria should SSROC contends that public transport suits different needs and this should be encapsulated in the Master Plan. A fit-for-purpose and Fit-for-purpose transport determine whether hierarchical approach to transport planning allows for commuters to use multiple modes on a daily basis. This requires integrated planning that ascribes light rail or bus ticketing and a fair and flexible zoning classification system. each transport mode with transport should be a ‘profile' that gives it preferred? Buses have higher penetration into suburbs than other public transport options and suit lower capacity, short distance travel. Given rising both a place and purpose

traffic congestion they are becoming increasingly less reliable for commuter transport. Instead, they should focus on servicing in the transport system. neighbourhoods and regional facilities such as shopping centres, employment hubs, train/light rail interchanges, entertainment venues and recreational grounds. Integration of interchanges with Metro bus services should utilise existing bus corridors and provide express transport services between town centres, using preferential facilities for cars and traffic signalling and transit lanes where possible. bikes to be stationed.

Like buses, light rail can provide enhanced regional connectivity and essentially serves the same purpose as metro bus services. However, More flexible zoning so as it has greater capacity and is more efficient than buses, it would provide added value to commuters travelling for work and study that commuters have purposes. greater control over the routes they take between SSROC contends that the development of light rail is critical along corridors that service dense employment and tertiary institution hubs, various destinations. such as Randwick, Kingsford, Broadway and . Integrated multi-modal People are likely to access light rail interchanges by bike, car or bus. Certain light rail interchanges will need to large enough to ticketing. accommodate buses moving in and out as well to provide for adequate and secure car parking and bike storage facilities.

Heavy rail expansion is limited due to the costs of construction. The existing network, with the inclusion of the south-west and north-west rail links and service delivery improvements, will result in a fairly comprehensive heavy rail network across Greater Sydney, with the possible exception of a second Harbour Bridge crossing.

Another key advantage of light rail development is that it will reduce congestion on existing inner-city heavy rail lines and potentially free up capacity for more express services that could improve long-distance travel efficiency across Sydney and interstate.

28

There are numerous means by which active transport can be encouraged, but key requirements are integrated infrastructure, safety and 9. How can walking and Refer to PCAL security, signage and amenity. SSROC considers that the Premiers Council on Active Living (PCAL) has developed fairly detailed resources cycling best be recommendations encouraged? on this issue which should be integrated into the Master Plan (see Designing Places for Active Living and the Draft NSW Walking Strategy).

The NSW Government needs to extend itself beyond in-principle support of active living to investment in infrastructure. This includes providing funding for the development and maintenance of footpaths and cycleways as well as the development and funding of integrated networks across regional boundaries, such as the completion of the GreenWay corridor.

SSROC is highly supportive of the Greenway corridor as it provides opportunities for active living, community development and environmental education.

SSROC is also highly supportive of the completion of the Inner Sydney Regional Bike Plan and supports the City of Sydney in its application to the Australian Government for financial support in completing the network.

10. What are the A critical issue is integrated ticketing across all transport modes, with flexibility for customers to choose to break their travel between the Remove timetables and current barriers to ticketed origin and final destination. It is poor business to penalise customers because the system is too inflexible to manage multiple origin/destination based using multiple destinations on a single ticket. ticketing. transport modes to complete a SSROC contends that it would be better to remove origin/destination based ticketing and instead provide time and zone-based ticketing, Provide zone and time journey? How can the barriers be where a customer can travel anywhere within or between zones within a specified time period. Pricing should be uniform and equitable based ticketing that is addressed? across the entire network. uniform and equitable.

Timetables are difficult to cross-reference across multiple services and modes of transport. The removal of timetabling would assist in Provide integrated managing customers expectations given the reality of increased congestion. Service standards could be developed that allow for a ticketing across all minimum number of services per hour on any given route. The use of real-time GPS tracking on services will provide customers with transport modes. information as to expected arrival times and estimated travel times.

29 9

11. How can the It has been estimated that 85% of all freight is distributed within 45kms of Port Botany. As 80% of freight is transported by road, it follows Extend the proposed transport that the roads around the Port, particularly those connecting the Port to the ‘global economic corridor' will become increasingly eastern suburbs light requirements of congested. rail line from the CBD Sydney Airport and directly to Sydney Port Botany be best The heavily congested Airport Tunnel access onto the M5 East Freeway is a case in point. SSROC is concerned that some parts of the road Airport. addressed? network are already operating beyond capacity, even outside of peak hours, and the impact of increasing pressure from escalating

population and trade growth will result in negative economic and social outcomes. Expanding the road network may not be cost effective Provide an accessible or deliver sustainable capacity gains or economic benefits. bus service from the Maroubra light rail SSROC considers that any expansion of road infrastructure in this area specifically must take into account the likely impacts on other parts terminus to the Airport. of the network. SSROC contends that any expansion of the road network should focus on improved accessibility for public and active transport and freight. Provide car parking facilities around In relation to Sydney Airport, SSROC believes that the Airport is significantly lacking in public transport options. Bus services are extremely congested points in the limited, and although the price structure of the Westpac-owned AirportLink rail line was amended to remove the station access fee from network and direct the non-Airport stations on the line (Green Square and Mascot), a surcharge remains for travel to and from Airport terminal stations. access to car share While commuter patronage has been growing, there is still no real incentive to use the AirportLink for its intended purpose - to provide pods, active and public public transport access to and from Sydney Airport. transport into high density centres. The proposed light rail infrastructure development from the CBD along Anzac Parade to nearby Maroubra could be supplemented with accessible buses to Sydney Airport. It would be desirable to directly link the Airport to the light rail network. Improve public transport accessibility Given its proximity to Sydney Airport and Port Botany, the City of Botany Bay Council has been seeking to identify how and to what extent to Sydney Airport by the Council can shape land use planning to support the growth and expansion of these commercial entities and meet population and providing more bus employment growth targets set by the NSW Government. A main focus has been on the likely impacts on transport and road systems and services and removing the identification of opportunities and threats that might influence land use planning across various precincts. the surcharge on the AirportLink.

30

SSROC contends that the significance of Sydney Airport and Port Botany to the NSW and Australian economies warrants both state and RMS to work with national investment in local land use and transport planning, in full collaboration with local government. The growth and expansion of Councils in and around these entities does not occur in a vacuum in which the only impacts are on the entities themselves. the Port/Airport precincts and existing Effective localised transport and land use planning that services the people employed at these sites and living or working around them is /proposed intermodal critical to sustainable growth. terminals network to develop Traffic SSROC believes that the state government should support local land use and transport planning by providing funding for Councils to Management Plans undertake Traffic Management Accessibility Plans (TMAPs) across Greater Sydney, including Port Botany, Sydney and Bankstown Airport (TMAPs) that will precincts and existing and proposed intermodal interchanges. enhance integrated land use and transport Traffic Management Plans enhance integrated land use and transport planning across the region by assessing the likely traffic congestion planning across the impacts of the potential statutory planning controls (which include zoning, density and height controls) and potential transport capacity region. available in terms of planned investment in transport and localised road network improvements, to match those controls.

SSROC is aware that the State government has instructed Infrastructure NSW to develop a high level plan that will consider the relationships between the Port and Airport gateways, the freight task, the passenger task, rail, road and intermodal planning, as well as examine reliance on road transport and capacity to manage expected future growth and congestion.

SSROC recommends that such a Plan should consider overall ground transport demand in the context of subregional population and employment targets and the impacts of additional development in close proximity to the Port/Airport as well as existing and proposed intermodal terminal infrastructure.

TMAPs can provide specific, localised information during considerations leading to the formation of the broader transport strategy for the Airport and Port and also provide input into feasibility assessments for the development of new or upgraded road infrastructure.

31 11

12. If there are to be Integrated transport and land use planning is absolutely critical to new land release sites which are often targeted at the affordable New projects on both more greenfield housing market, young families and ‘downsizers'. It is inconceivable that greenfield land release areas would continue to be developed greenfield and land release areas without adequate access to public transport and with the continuing presumption that private vehicle dependence is both desirable and brownfield sites should in Sydney, should sustainable. be required to prioritise there be a focus on sustainable living developing public transport options SSROC considers that all greenfield land release projects should prioritise accessibility to critical infrastructure and facilities (schools, principles and as part of strategic shops, medical and leisure centres etc) and be required to address sustainable development criteria such as long-term waste accessibility to critical land use planning management, local area accessibility (walkable neighbourhoods), amenity and integration with the existing built and non-built infrastructure and for Metropolitan environment. facilities. Sydney? How should this policy The NSW Government should ensure that investment in public transport infrastructure and services is adequate, accessible and will be Investment in public be given effect? delivered within the timeframe of the proposed development. transport must be adequate, accessible Transport integration should also be a key considered in ‘brownfield' sites that are targeted for urban renewal or redevelopment - and delivered in time particularly those that have significant residential and employment growth targets. with the proposed development.

13. What are the key Key objectives include: transport  Sustainable, strategic and integrated land use and transport planning across all modes, especially in new greenfield developments objectives for your and in brownfield sites subject to urban renewal and redevelopment; region?  Transport planning that takes into account the strengths of each mode (capacity, speed, accessibility etc) and its place in the transport hierarchy;  Connectivity, accessibility and safety for all modes of private, public and commercial transport - including freight, road traffic, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians;  Safe thoroughfare for heavy vehicles across the region without additional impacts on residential access and amenity;  Flexible, integrated ticketing and equitable pricing across all modes;  Innovative practices and a commitment to continuous improvement across all modes of transport.

32

14. How can different Councils and State Government can together identify opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The principles of TOD Collaboration to levels of encourage the intensification of residential and employment uses around public transport interchanges in order to increase public develop buffer zones government and transport use. To encourage a modal shift onto public transport, car parking rates within an 800m radius of the station should be between land uses to the non- decreased. preserve residential government sector amenity work more effectively together Councils are also supportive of more flexible zoning under planning legislation that would enable the creation of buffer zones between to improve the residential and intensive industrial and commercial land uses to preserve the amenity of residents. Identify under-utilised transport sites for possible outcomes for the Councils may be able to enter into agreements with neighbouring councils and the NSW Government to source and develop under- intermodal and regions? utilised sites within these zones as freight distribution hubs, transport interchanges and commuter carparks. interchange sites;

These facilities would aim to improve the efficient distribution of freight and commuters within LGAs and across the region without Ensure the safe impacting on local residential amenity. thoroughfare of freight through densely built areas;

Enhance intersection planning for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

15. In what form can As part of our response to focus question 8, SSROC stated that investment in light rail in inner-metropolitan Sydney would potentially free Invest in metropolitan CountryLink best up heavy rail capacity by reducing demand for inner city services. The extra capacity in the network could then be redirected to funding light rail to free up service the needs more express services for commuters that travel long distances on City Rail and CountryLink. capacity in the City Rail of regions over the network for more long term? New express services could support the development of greenfield land release areas as well as provide more efficient connectivity for express services across

fringe cities (Sutherland, Gosford) and other commuters who travel substantial distances across Greater Sydney each day. Greater Sydney. 16. How should

regional connections be Investment in high-speed CountryLink services between Sydney and Canberra, Wollongong and Newcastle could lessen the demand for a Invest in CountryLink improved to meet second international airport in Sydney and provide a real alternative to short-haul domestic air travel. infrastructure to future freight and improve service passenger This requires substantial investment in current rail infrastructure to improve the capacity of existing services to travel at maximum speeds efficiency and travel demand? and thus move large numbers of commuters in shorter timeframes. It speaks volumes that the time taken to travel between Melbourne times for commuters. and Sydney has not improved in over fifty years because of poor network maintenance. At some points in the line, it has been reported that trains have to slow to 20km/hr for safety reasons. Offset demand for a second international The requirement for freight lines to share space with passenger lines (such as on the Sydney-Melbourne line) is also problematic. SSROC airport in Sydney by maintains that the development of dedicated freight rail infrastructure and intermodal terminals is essential. providing improved rail connectivity to neighbouring regions. 33 13

Trade demand forecasting indicates that Sydney's road network will not (arguably already cannot) accommodate growing numbers and volumes of freight. Road mapping studies can determine capacity for the expansion of local and classified road networks, however there is unlikely to be much available capacity in the region.

Increasing traffic congestion is economically, environmentally and socially unsustainable and there is subsequently a critical need to invest in freight rail infrastructure and address the underlying inefficiencies of freight rail in order to achieve modal transfer quotas and offset increasing pressure on the road network.

17. What investments SSROC considers that the greater use of high productivity (heavy) vehicles on roads is untenable and the problems cannot easily be Address the inherent are needed across overcome, particularly in the southern Sydney region. B-doubles are highly unsafe in areas of high traffic and population density and there inefficiencies in rail NSW to improve is very low margin for driver error. freight. the efficiency of freight movement? Laneways are simply not designed to provide B-doubles with safe thoroughfare on busy roads and there is very little capacity for Investment in freight

modification in most areas. rail infrastructure and 18. How can the NSW enforcement of freight Government best support an efficient SSROC considers that the only long-term, sustainable solution is to move a large proportion of freight onto rail and to ensure the rail quotas. freight system as appropriate placement of intermodal infrastructure and freight distribution hubs to enable smaller commercial vehicles to short-haul well as meeting goods to their final destinations. Develop regional community intermodal terminals expectations for As stated in our response to question 14, councils may be able to enter into agreements with neighbouring councils and the NSW and distribution hubs to safety and amenity Government to source and develop under-utilised sites within these zones as freight distribution hubs, transport interchanges and minimise the extent and in residential commuter carparks. impact of heavy areas? vehicles on roads.

While there are inherent time and cost inefficiencies that make freight rail undesirable for operators, the alternative - 80% of Port What are the 19. Botany’s freight task on roads - is undesirable for everybody, and will ultimately impact on the economy. The NSW Government needs to RMS to audit freight impediments to enforce rail freight quotas using and by providing incentives to operators. paths and assess the greater use of high productivity capacity of local and vehicles and how There may need to be acceptance of incremental gains over time - the original 40% quota has thus far been unachievable but the ‘carrot classified roads, can these be and stick' approach may enable a more modest target to be achieved in the short term, with more substantial gains over time as rail restricting heavy overcome? freight inefficiencies are properly addressed and mitigated. vehicles from unsafe routes. In relation to residential amenity, the City of Botany Bay Council's TMAP has determined that the existing local and classified road network around the Port/Airport precinct has limited road reservation for cost effective road widening scheme. Hurstville City Council has recently Increased investment in closed a heavy vehicle route within its LGA following an assessment by RMS. Undoubtedly, there is cause for the RMS to regularly assess road maintenance to all heavy vehicle routes for safety of access. ensure the safe thoroughfare of heavy vehicles on allowable routes.

34

SECTION 4. FOR INFORMATION

ITEM 4.2 Bike Plan Update

Purpose of the To provide the Committee with an update on the SSROC Bike Plan. report: Background: The SSROC Regional Bicycle Network Plan (generally known as the SSROC Bike Plan) was developed for seven member Councils in 2007/08. The participating Councils at that time were Sydney, Botany Bay, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Randwick City, Waverley and Woollahra. The plan analysed existing Council plans to identify a regional network consistent with the NSW Bicycle Guidelines and identified gaps, deficiencies, mismatches and opportunities in the existing/planned network.

The Bike Plan report and overview maps can be downloaded from the SSROC website www.ssroc.nsw.gov.au/publications.aspx and the detailed maps are available from the secretariat on request.

Phase 2 of the Bike Plan was to deliver an Inner Sydney cycling network and associated plans for enhanced funding submissions to the NSW Government. The scope of the plan was extended to North Sydney, Canada Bay, Ashfield, Canterbury and Rockdale.

At around the same time the City of Sydney (CoS) commenced development of its own Inner Sydney Regional Bike Network (ISRBN), commencing with a $76 million, 200 kilometre cycleway network across CoS. The ISRBN ultimately aims to provide access for 1.2 million people across 164 suburbs, including the LGAs of Sydney, Leichhardt, Ashfield, Marrickville, Rockdale, Canterbury, Canada Bay, Lane Cove, Willoughby, North Sydney, Mosman, Woollahra, Waverley, Randwick and Botany Bay. Current Status: In 2010, the City of Sydney commissioned independent research to quantify the economic benefits of the ISRBN for future funding applications. The report has since been completed and will be submitted to the Australian Government as part of a funding request. CoS intends to seek support from member Councils for the ISRBN and Federal funding.

The report can be accesed on the CoS website: www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/aboutsydney/parkingandtransport/cycling/EcononmicResearchCycling.asp

Marrickville Council has been in progressively implementing its bicycle strategy since its endorsement by Council in 2007. Its capital strategy for 2011/12 includes: • Alexandra Canal - Stage 1: development of access agreement with Sydney Airport; • Marrickville Metro to - Stage 2: $300,000 for on-road signs, markings and intersection treatments; proposed works include the completion of the upgrade to the rail underpass section of Liberty Street (Trade Street to Trafalgar Street); and • Cooks River to Iron Cove Greenway: working with Transport NSW to plan and implement the GreenWay route (ongoing since 2010).

• Marrickville Council’s Bike Strategy can be found at: www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/council/plans/bicycle_strategy.html?s=1412443759

In January 2009, SSROC completed the Botany Bay Trail Master Plan in January 2009, providing connectivity to Sutherland Shire, City of Botany Bay, Rockdale and Randwick and integration with the SSROC Bike Plan. The participating Councils matched funding from the Metropolitan Greenspace Program. SSROC supported Kogarah and Rockdale

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

35

Councils in obtaining further grant funding, matched by the Councils, for the development of the Oatley to Botany Bay Bike Trail Master Plan in June 2011. The Botany Bay Trail and Oatley to Bay Trail Master Plans are available on the SSROC website in the publications section at ssroc.nsw.gov.au/publications.aspx.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

36

SECTION 4. FOR INFORMATION

ITEM 4.3 Transport Infrastructure Update

Purpose of the To update the Committee on progress with transport infrastructure priorities. report: Background: Since the first report at the June 2011 Ordinary Meeting, the SSROC secretariat has continued to monitor the status of priority transport infrastructure projects and to update the report, Regional Infrastructure Projects – Summary of Current Status. The report provides background, current status and regional context to the ROC’s broad infrastructure development priorities: the Eastern Suburbs Light Rail, the M4 and M5 East and Port Botany freight management.

At the 17 November 2011 Ordinary Meeting of SSROC it was resolved “That the Sustainability Program Committee consider: project priorities; working group structure; and the advocacy process to be undertaken as a result”. The SSROC Program Delivery Committee has also provided input into these issues and together the ROC has shaped succinct project priorities for transport infrastructure planning in our region. Current Status: Individual Council preferences for modes of transport and specific infrastructure requirements are varied, and taking this into account the key project priorities have been refined as: • The development of key track and intermodal infrastructure to support the growth of rail freight in and out of Port Botany; • Development of the Eastern Suburbs light rail, fully integrated into the existing transport network; • Investment in innovative infrastructure and technologies that will address traffic congestion impacts the major corridors of the M4 and M5 East; And these priorities supported by: • Development of active transport infrastructure, including the expansion of the Sydney Regional Bike Plan and GreenWay; • Development of infrastructure for all modes of public and active transport, including bus and rail interchanges, commuter car parking, secure bike storage and wayfinding/signage; • Investment in new technologies to mitigate traffic congestion impacts across the entire road network.

A summary of recent developments in relation to these priorities is attached.

In February 2012 Transport for NSW released the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan discussion paper. The regional submission (see item 4.1) was based on extensive consultation with member Councils’ officers, and listed these project priorities as well as a consolidated response to a range of focus questions. The secretariat is represented at the NSW Long Term Master Plan Local Government Advisory Group and continues to monitor and be engaged in wider discussions relating to transport projects. The final Master Plan is due for release at the end of 2012.

In April 2012 SSROC was approached by the Picton Thirlmere Tahmoor Action Group in relation to the development of the Maldon-Dombarton freight rail line from Port Kembla to Port Botany. SSROC is asked to support the development, and member Councils Canterbury, Marrickville and Sutherland have already indicated their support for the completion of the rail link. A paper outlining the project is attached.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

37

SSROC also expects to comment on a discussion paper about the future of Railcorp, following a State Government review process that ended in March 2012.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report. 2. Consider recommending that SSROC support the completion of Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

38 Attachment to Transport Infrastructure Update

Transport Infrastructure Priorities Summary of Recent Developments 7 May 2012

Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

1) Track and intermodal infrastructure to support the growth of rail freight in and out of Port Botany.

In April 2012 the Australian Government announced its commitment to the development of key intermodal infrastructure at Moorebank, comprising freight terminal facilities linked to Port Botany by rail, with first services expected by 2017. The Government plans to announce funding for the next year of preparatory work in the Federal Budget on 8 May. It is expected the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Project will cost $1 billion in public and private sector investment but result in $10 billion in benefits to the NSW and national economies, through reduced freight costs, reduced traffic congestion and improved productivity.

Southern Sydney Freight Line is behind schedule but expected to be completed by the end of 2012.

2) Eastern Suburbs light rail, fully integrated into the existing transport network.

Ongoing feasibility studies by Randwick City Council and the NSW Government

3) Investment in innovative infrastructure and technologies that will address traffic congestion impacts the major corridors of the M4 and M5 East.

Ongoing Smart Technology trials on the M4, part of a $61 million funding allocation by the Australian Government in 2011/12

4) Development of active transport infrastructure, including the expansion of the Sydney Regional Bike Plan and GreenWay.

City of Sydney Council has produced a business case study on the Inner Sydney Regional Bike Plan which it plans to submit to the Australian Government in a funding request. SSROC councils will soon be asked to support the CoS in this initiative.

Marrickville Council has funded a range of cycleway infrastructure works that will integrate with the SSROC Sydney Regional Bike Plan and the CoS Inner Sydney Regional Bike Plan.

The NSW Government did not provide funding in the 2011/12 State Budget to complete the GreenWay corridor. SSROC member Councils continue to be actively involved in its promotion.

5) The development of infrastructure for all modes of public and active transport, including bus and rail interchanges, commuter car parking, secure bike storage and wayfinding/signage.

No known change.

6) Investment in new technologies to mitigate traffic congestion impacts across the entire road network.

No known change.

In addition, SSROC has been asked to support the Maldon-Dombarton rail link.

Work Folder:Secretariat:Meetings & Committees:Committee Meetings:2012:20120517:Sustainability Program Committee:Attachments:4.4 INTERNAL ONLY 1 of 5 Transport Report Update.doc 18/01/12 3:34 PM

39 Infrastructure Project Summaries

APPENDIX B: MALDON-DOMBARTON RAIL LINK

1. Background

The Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link is a partially completed 35 kilometre freight rail line between Maldon on the ARTC‟s Main South line (near Picton in south-west Sydney) and Dombarton at the foothills of the Illawarra plateau, which is 15 kilometres from Port Kembla along existing double track.

Construction on the line commenced in 1983 with the intention of transporting coal freight from Port Kembla. However by 1988 most of the coal mines in the area had closed, and construction was halted. Subsequently, both state and federal governments have commissioned task forces, inquiries and proposals to complete the line.

The Australian Government released a Pre-Feasibility Study in July 2009 and a funding commitment of $3m towards a Feasibility Study of the rail line.

Figure 12: Proposed Route for The Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link

120507 Inf Project Summaries v05.docx DRAFT Page 51

40 Infrastructure Project Summaries

In November 2010 the Department of Transport and Infrastructure released a Feasibility Study Issues Paper and commissioned economic consultants ACIL Tasman in conjunction with engineering consultants Hyder Consulting and rail operations modellers Plateway to undertake the investigation. The feasibility study has recently been completed and is with the Minister, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, for consideration.

In response to the November 2010 Issues Paper, SSROC member Councils Marrickville, Canterbury and Sutherland provided comments in support of the completion of the line.

In September 2011 SSROC was approached by Mr Arthur Rorris, Secretary of the South Coast Labour Council, seeking to more actively engage SSROC member Councils in lobbying for the completion of the line.

2. Issues Paper Summary

The November 2010 issues paper highlighted the expansion of trade at Port Kembla, future NSW coalfields development and landside capacity constraints at Port Botany as reasons why the Maldon-Dombarton line should be completed.

2.1 Potential Benefits

Essentially, the potential benefits were identified as:

• an additional freight option to existing rail lines and roads; • a desirable alternative route for exports from existing coal mines; • connect Port Kembla with intermodal terminals in south-west Sydney; • provide additional export options for freight forwarders and support growth in freight logistics and related industries; • reduce freight-related congestion on the Illawarra passenger rail line; • provide Port Botany with container overflow services at Port Kembla in busy periods; • defer or mitigate the need to invest in capacity improvement projects for existing transport infrastructure; • improve road safety by reducing road freight; and • provide environmental benefits such as carbon reduction and local air quality improvements.

SSROC considers that additional benefits of the line could be:

• the improvement of overall economic performance by reducing the time and cost impacts of traffic congestion, especially on the Hume Highway and F6; • offset the amenity impacts of increasing road and rail freight through the densely-populated SSROC region; and • supports the NSW Government’s freight rail modal share targets of 40% (Port Botany) and 20% (Port Kembla).

Both Port Botany and Port Kembla have struggled to get anywhere near the freight rail modal share quotas set by the NSW Government, albeit for different reasons. At Port Botany, road freight has been more efficient for operators as it has higher penetrability and goods tend to only travel within 45 kilometres of the Port.

120507 Inf Project Summaries v05.docx DRAFT Page 52

41 Infrastructure Project Summaries

At Port Kembla, insufficient trade volumes has historically undermined the viability of rail freight and meant a regular train service could not be justified. Reports suggest that not a tonne has been transported by rail since the Port Kembla cargo handling facility opened in 2007. However, with Port Kembla’s pending expansion and the inability of local and regional roads to manage heavier and more frequent freight vehicles, there is now greater focus on the need to mobilise freight by rail.

2.2 Potential Impacts

The proposed Maldon-Dombarton line passes through two conservation areas, namely the Upper Nepean Conservation Area and the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area.

Although the land on which the line would be built has been reserved for a railway corridor, the report notes several specific environmental and heritage issues in relation to potential impacts on water quality, flora, fauna and Indigenous sites.

At the time of publication, the report noted that a Flora and Fauna Assessment and Aboriginal and European Heritage Assessment were underway in order to identify areas of high ecological value and verify the location of any items of archaeological value.

The most recent feasibility study, when exhibited, will provide more detailed advice on any likely impacts.

2.3 Feasibility Studies

In 2009 the Australian Government undertook a pre-feasibility study into the rail line which identified that completing the rail line between Maldon and Port Kembla via Dombarton has long term economic merit and could:

• Provide a strategic alternative to the current Moss Vale-Unandarra and Illawarra line for freight trains; • Support the Port's rapidly expanding commercial activities; and • Generate considerable employment within the local construction industry.

The pre-feasibility study also noted the project should be developed within the context of a comprehensive national port and freight strategy, which was subsequently drafted by Infrastructure Australia and the National Transport Commission, and is presently under consideration by COAG.

In 2010, the Australian Government commissioned the $3 million Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link Feasibility Study under the Nation Building Program 2008-2014. The scope of works included: a) carrying out a detailed investigation of the layout, design and cost of remaining works; b) assessing the project’s viability on environmental, social and economic criteria, including an economic cost benefit evaluation; c) identifying any preconstruction requirements (such as the environmental impact assessment) to guide the construction of the project, should it proceed; and d) examining and costing the implications of not pursuing the project.

120507 Inf Project Summaries v05.docx DRAFT Page 53

42 Infrastructure Project Summaries

Specific project outcomes include a demand analysis, engineering assessment, land use and environmental assessments, economic and financial analysis, benefit and cost estimation.

The Feasibility Report was completed in mid-2011 and is currently with the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for consideration.

3. Regional Impacts

As observed by SSROC member Councils in submissions on the Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link Feasibility Study Issues Paper, the rail link would provide an alternative route for coal, grain and other bulk exports (potentially cars) travelling from Port Kembla to south-western Sydney.

The provision of a dedicated rail freight line will reduce congestion on the passenger rail line that is used by Illawarra-based commuters working across the SSROC region. Separation of rail freight from passenger lines will also result in the reduction of coal transport on passenger lines through SSROC LGAs, reducing noise and vibration impacts.

Additional freight rail options support the NSW Government’s modal share target and within the right regulatory environment will dampen the environmental and social impacts of increasing road freight throughout the region.

While based outside the SSROC region, it is predicted that the Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link could have significant benefits for Port Botany and the region. Given that the Port has a seaside capacity of 6-8 million TEU but is expected to be operating at its landside capacity of 3.2 million TEU within the next ten to fifteen years, the Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link could become a vital piece of rail infrastructure for the national economy.

Connecting Port Kembla to Port Botany via the Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link and Southern Sydney Freight Line will allow intermodal terminals to be developed outside the congested Sydney areas and provide the emphasis for increased regional development. Adequate intermodal terminal infrastructure and the expansion of the Southern Highlands Intermodal Terminal would be required to support this linkage.

4. Role for SSROC

SSROC has been consistently advocating for integrated land use and transport planning across the region, and has expressed concern at the capacity of the region’s road and rail infrastructure to manage increasing population and trade demand.

The lack of reliable and efficient freight rail infrastructure and regulatory framework has undermined the NSW Government’s 40% rail modal share target and will result in untenable congestion on the region’s roads. Traffic congestion has the potential to undermine both the economic performance and reputation of the region, state and nation.

In their submissions to the Australian Government on the Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link Feasibility Study Issues Paper, SSROC member Councils Canterbury, Marrickville and Sutherland indicated their support for the completion of the rail link and requested that they be informed of the outcomes of the study.

120507 Inf Project Summaries v05.docx DRAFT Page 54

43 Infrastructure Project Summaries

SSROC has now been approached by project reference group members for the Maldon- Dombarton Rail Link Feasibility Study Issues Paper, Mr Arthur Rorris and Mr John MacRae, to engage the ROCs support of the Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link. In addition to pressing the Australian Government for financial support, it is timely to put the project on the agenda for the NSW Government that is currently prioritising its infrastructure priorities.

Mr Rorris has invited SSROC delegates to meet with the Maldon-Dombarton Project Group to observe a presentation and discuss how the ROC could provide ongoing support for the project.

SSROC forwarded this briefing paper to the G5 Steering Committee on 29 September 2011. Delegates at the Sustainability Program and Program Delivery Committee meetings were forwarded the Regional Infrastructure Projects – Summary of Current Status report at the previous Committee meetings in February 2012 with the Maldon-Dombarton Rail link summary at Appendix B.

120507 Inf Project Summaries v05.docx DRAFT Page 55

44

SECTION 4 FOR INFORMATION

ITEM 4.4 Street Lighting Improvement Program Update

Purpose of the To inform the Committee of progress with the Street Lighting Improvement Program. report: Background: 34 Councils participate in the Street Lighting Improvement Program (SLIP), representing 94% of public lighting in Ausgrid’s distribution territory, over 40% of public lighting in NSW and $52 million in 2010/11. The program continues into 2012, with analysis of Ausgrid lighting information, independent lighting surveys, performance monitoring and reporting, pricing oversight and seeking to improve technology and governance. Current Status: SSROC has written to Standards Australia in support of Ausgrid’s proposal that the Australian Standard AS1158 Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces should be reviewed (attached). The review would aim to address key barriers to the uptake of energy- efficient lighting.

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) is currently undertaking early consultation on the regulation of NSW public lighting services prior to the NSW electricity distribution regulatory review for 2014-19. A discussion paper on public lighting services in NSW has been released for comment. SSROC is currently working on a response to the discussion paper, which is due for submission on Friday 11 May 2012. A rough outline of the points that will be put forward is attached. These points have been circulated to all participating Councils for feedback, and will form the basis of the submission.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

45

1 March 2012

Ms Rikki Pearce National Sector Manager – Electrotechnology & Energy Standards Australia GPO Box 476 SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Ms Pearce

Re: Support for proposed changes to AS / NZS 1158

The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) is writing to support Ausgrid’s proposal (dated 1 March 2012) to urgently address some of the key barriers to the uptake of energy efficient lighting in AS / NZS 1158.

SSROC is writing this letter on behalf of 34 councils participating in the SSROC Street Lighting Improvement (SLI) Program including 16 of its own members and 18 other NSW councils who have joined its SLI Program. The councils in the SSROC SLI Program encompass more than 226,000 street lights constituting approximately 94% of the street lights in Ausgrid’s distribution area and more than 10% of all street lighting in Australia.

Over recent months, the SSROC SLI Program has held informal discussions with five of the leading LED roadway lighting suppliers about the current barriers in AS / NZS 1158 to the adoption of energy efficient lighting. Based on these discussions, SSROC agrees with Ausgrid that there is broad consensus on the four key items nominated by Ausgrid for revision (photocell requirements, ballast requirements, appropriate recognition of international testing standards and software requirements). Addressing these clear barriers in the Standard as a matter of urgency would be welcomed by local government and the suppliers of energy efficient lighting.

I would be pleased to discuss this letter further at any point.

Yours sincerely

Lvl 2, Suite 2E, Hurstville House 34 MacMahon Street Hurstville

Alan Northey PO Box 536 Hurstville NSW 1481 General Manager Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ph: 9330 6455 Fx: 9330 6456 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ssroc.nsw.gov.au

46

Australian Energy Regulator’s Public Lighting Discussion Paper Draft Points of SSROC SLI Program Submission for Council Comment

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has begun its consideration of electricity network distribution for the 2014-2019 regulatory period. As part of this, it released a Discussion Paper on 11 April 2012 about options for dealing with public lighting pricing in NSW. The AER’s discussion paper is available at: http://www.aer.gov.au/content/index.phtml?itemId=753307. Submissions are due by Friday 11 May 2012 and can be sent to [email protected].

The SSROC SLI Program has been actively engaged in public lighting pricing matters on behalf of councils for some time and is intending to make a submission to the AER on behalf of the 34 councils participating in the program. The key points SSROC is intending to make are as follows:

GENERAL COMMENTS 1. HIGH RESIDUAL ASSET VALUATION REMAINS KEY ISSUE While the AER Discussion Paper focuses on possible approaches to cost allocation, councils note that there is a more fundamental issue in pricing: the overall cost of public lighting itself and how the underlying capital base has been determined. The revaluation of the existing Ausgrid street lighting assets was the key driver of the 49% average increase in capital and maintenance charges from 1 July 2010. The Ausgrid asset valuation is viewed by councils as grossly excessive and having little relationship to historic real-world costs or the history of the assets themselves. That neither IPART (under its ‘light-handed’ approach in previous decisions) nor the AER (following the Australian Competition Tribunal decision) was free to properly consider the fair value of historic Ausgrid street lighting assets has fundamentally undermined the confidence of councils in the pricing review process.

2. GREATER TRANSPARENCY ESSENTIAL FROM OUTSET OF PRICING PROCESS A major concern of councils in the 2009-2014 pricing determination was Ausgrid’s withholding of key street lighting pricing assumptions and the overall pricing model throughout the pricing review, appeal and redetermination. This was documented in almost every SSROC submission to the AER in the last pricing reset. For example, the only partial model provided by Ausgrid for Councils was issued on 4 March 2010, some 596 days after first being formally requested by SSROC on 16 July 2008. This partial model was a spreadsheet covering OPEX costs only and had been stripped of assumptions, asset quantities and key cost details leaving it of little value to councils in understanding and questioning Ausgrid’s pricing proposal. Councils are seeking a release of the full street lighting pricing model and underlying assumptions from the outset of the forthcoming pricing review.

AER Question 1 A. What has been the experience for customers under the current regulatory approach to public lighting? For example, do the current arrangements result in pricing that is too complex or lacking in transparency?

Aside from the large price shock resulting from a substantial asset revaluation (noted above), the most significant impact of the 2010 AER pricing redetermination has been with respect to pricing complexity and a lack of transparency for councils. Since the AER redetermination, Councils have received three monthly street lighting bills with network charges spread across all three of

47 them. The feedback the SSROC SLI Program has received is that councils find both the current bills and forecasting increases complex and opaque. Specific council feedback about items creating confusion included: • Unclear why three bills are needed for one service and the difference between them • Unclear terminology and labelling on bills • Mixing of capital and maintenance charges together without clear distinction is confusing • Splitting of capital charges across two bills is confusing • Lack of clear relationship between bills and particular assets (in particular, the bundling of pre—2009 asset charges) • Councils cannot readily answer questions such as: How much does this light cost per year? How much does it cost to light this road per year? How much would council save by moving to this new type of lighting? • Bills do not meet reasonableness test of NSW Public Lighting Code “13.1 Bills provided by a Service Provider must identify separately in summary form the charge for each type of Public Lighting Service provided and must contain at least the following information: a) details of the number and type of lights; and b) any other information reasonably necessary for the Customer to verify the accuracy of an amount charged on the bill.” • Guidance on price increases in Ausgrid public tariffs does not appear to be consistent with AER advice at redetermination or experience of councils • Apparently arbitrary Ausgrid asset age assumptions have led to nonsensical outcomes in practice when councils seek to negotiate exit charges from existing assets. Ausgrid’s assumption about the average age of each asset class in each LGA does not appear to have any relationship to real asset age. In the extreme, similarly aged adjacent assets on either side of council boundary can have capex charges differing by seven fold. The lack of a relationship to the real assets has been highlighted to councils when they have wanted to replace park lighting and in negotiations on replacement of particular asset classes.

B. Should public lighting in NSW continue to be regulated by the AER as an alternative control service or is there merit in classifying the service as a negotiated service or an unclassified (unregulated) service?

It is essential that public lighting in NSW continues to be regulated as an alternative control service. The vast majority of public lighting assets are owned by the NSW DNSPs and there is no contestability framework for street lighting in NSW at the moment: no right for councils to choose suppliers or authorise anyone else to climb DNSP poles and remove/modify/add lights. As such, the DNSPS have an almost total monopoly supply position and hence require vigilant regulatory oversight. And, it would be inappropriate to rely on any potential for competition to emerge without significant changes to the current framework.

The contestability provisions of the Electricity Supply Act 1995, the Electricity Supply (General) Amendment (Customer Contracts) Regulation 1996, and the NSW Code of Practice Contestable Works apply to installation of new lighting assets (about 0.5%/annum in Ausgrid’s case), but not to the maintenance or replacement of the vast majority of existing ones.

This assessment of street lighting contestability in NSW was confirmed by the AER in the lead up to the previous NSW pricing review (Control Mechanism for Alternative Control Services for the ACT and NSW 2009 Distribution Determinations – Final Decision, AER, February 2008). There have been no subsequent changes to NSW legislation, regulation or codes that alter this

48 situation.

To achieve meaningful contestability, extensive development of a NSW Lighting Contestability Framework would be required. Given that Ausgrid is deemed to have funded and owns almost all street lighting assets (the vast majority of which sit on their wooden distribution poles), there is little comparable precedent to draw on, as current NSW contestability relates to assets owned by the customer.

Even setting aside full contestability and assuming that Ausgrid was prepared to simply transfer responsibility to councils or other parties for existing assets would present some significant barriers including: o High valuation of residual assets set in AER pricing determination of April 2010 valuing total street lighting assets at $140.9m o Establishing clear and comprehensive rules by which 3rd parties could repair, modify, replace or add lighting assets to Ausgrid's existing wooden distribution poles (e.g. access to DNSP poles & wires, notice, approvals procedures, OH&S issues, information provision, damage clauses, union issues etc). There is clearly no provision for this under the NSW Electricity Act, associated Regulations or Code of Contestable Works at present; o Establishing pricing certainty for residual monopoly services (e.g. connection charges, connection approvals, metering/billing, inventory management); o Resolution of potential wiring issues with non-DNSPs (eg councils or ASPs) not allowed to own assets that are not wired to meet the Australian Standard AS3000; o Lack of council skills or experience in managing electricity assets of this nature; o Loss of minimum economies of scale in councils owning relatively few assets individually (eg it costs 40-50% more per luminaire to purchase 10 lights vs purchasing 1000-10,000 lights) and a consequent need to re-aggregate the assets which a likely requirement for ACCC approval to do so; and o Identifying and encouraging prospective competitive service suppliers and developing the commercial framework (eg comparable to the UK PFI framework which has taken many years to develop).

C. Has the current approach resulted in greater (or less) competition in the construction or provision of public lighting services?

The current regulatory approach has not changed competition or the prospects for competition which are extremely limited. As discussed above and unlike the provisions in other jurisdictions, there are no NSW provisions allowing a customer to request a third party to alter, relocate, or replace public lighting assets. And, in any event, Ausgrid customers would have to first pay Ausgrid’s high claimed residual asset charges to exit current arrangements and these charges present a significant financial barrier to greater competition.

AER Question 2 The AER seeks comments regarding the use of Option 1. In particular: A. What are the main advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

SSROC agrees with Endeavour Energy that the introduction of third type of capital charge has the potential to further increase complexity. And, SSROC agrees with Ausgrid that there may be

49 opportunities to greatly simplify pricing, avoiding the increasing complexity implied in Option 1. Furthermore, there would appear to be opportunities to do this without significant price shocks or misleadingly price signals because:

• Capital costs (and maintenance charges) for many closely related assets are very similar • Many lighting types used in the past are no longer used in new installations and, by the time the next regulatory period commences, it is unlikely that any of the asset types approved for use at the start of the last regulatory period will be accepted Standard Luminaires for new installations in the next regulatory period. It should therefore be possible to draw a line under old asset types, with no need determine new capital charges for anything other than the new asset types.

SSROC would also suggest that asset age assumptions can be considerably improved as the age of all Ausgrid assets from about 2000 is known accurately. In addition, the age range of particular lighting types is well understood and the age of most ‘special installations’ (eg parks, reserves and decorative lighting types) appears readily ascertained from Ausgrid’s inventory and council records.

AER Question 3 The AER seeks comments on Endeavour Energy’s submission. In particular: A. What are key advantages and disadvantages of the approach proposed by Endeavour Energy? B. Would the averaging of capital costs used to calculate the annuity for assets constructed in the 10 year period 2009 to 2019 disadvantage third party providers of these assets?

SSROC agrees with Endeavour Energy that the introduction of third type of capital charge has the potential to further increase complexity. However, councils are not in a position to determine the price distortions that 10 year averaging of capital costs might create but would welcome modelling to assess the potential impact of such an approach.

AER Question 4 The AER seeks comments on Ausgrid’s submission. In particular: A. Would a simplified pricing structure such as this come at the expense of cost reflective prices?

Councils have no objections in principle to a simplified pricing approach, provided that cost- reflectivity and price shocks are modelled first. However, councils are not in a position to assess the potential windfall gains and losses of Ausgrid’s proposed approach nor the degree of potential non- cost reflectivity of bundling. Councils welcome Ausgrid’s proposal to model various pricing scenarios.

B. Would this approach permit the entry of third party providers of public lighting services?

Councils do not believe that moves to simplify pricing would have any material impact for contestability or result in any increase in competition.

Other Comments:

INTERIM TARIFFS TO FACILITATE ADOPTION OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Public lighting is entering a period of rapid change with technologies such as LEDs, light emitting plasma, adaptive lighting controls and others emerging quickly and fundamentally changing the mix between capital, energy and maintenance costs. In recent years, LEDs for example, have seen declining capital costs of some 30% per annum and simultaneous increases in efficiency at a similar rate. It is common for major LED luminaire manufacturers to replace models every six months in the

50 current market.

The current regulatory approach, which implicitly assumes relative stability in technologies, progressive increases in costs in line with CPI and a relatively similar maintenance regime for all public lighting assets does not appear well suited to dealing with the next generation of emerging lighting technology. The process for pricing new technology is lengthy and complex. Indeed, by the time a pricing approval process is finished, the product being priced is likely to have been superseded.

SSROC suggests that, if DNSPs and councils agree on it, there should be some provision made by the AER for an interim tariff for new technologies to allow trials and initial adoption to take place easily without the need for a lengthy AER pricing approval process. The AER might reasonably set a volume limit on such interim tariffs (eg 500 luminaires) after which a formal pricing approval would be required.

SSROC notes that, if the pricing model used by the DNSPs were transparent, it is much more likely that DNSPs and councils could readily agree on interim tariffs for new technologies under such an approach.

51

SECTION 4 FOR INFORMATION

ITEM 4.5 Council Participation in Contracts

Purpose of the To provide an update to the Committee on Council Participation in Contracts. report: Background: SSROC enters into a variety of contracts on a regional basis. Councils, prior to the contracts being awarded, generally commit to be participants in a contract. Current Status: The attached “Attachment - Council Participation in Contracts List” shows current and future procurement contracts and associated initiatives operating across the region.

The document is based on data held by SSROC provided by Councils and suppliers. If the information is not completely accurate please advise SSROC to enable the list to be corrected.

It should be noted that in some instances genuine circumstances arise that a Council abandoning a preferred supplier agreement. These circumstances include where a lack in continuity of supply emerges, final specifications do not fulfil a Council’s requirements, or where a Council’s original intention is not carried through.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report 2. Acknowledge the importance of all Councils involvement in all procurement projects and actively encourage involvement in existing and new contracts within their Council.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

52 SSROC SHARED SERVICES AND PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY

EXISTING CONTRACTS

INFRINGEMENT TEMPORARY HARDWARE INDUSTRIAL LINE MARKING TIMBER VEHICLE TYRE COPY PAPER CONTRACT PAPER STAFF SUPPLY FOOTWEAR SERVICES SUPPLY SUPPLY

CLOSED CURRENT CURRENT FINALISING RFT FINALISING RFT OPEN TENDER OPEN TENDER OPEN TENDER CONTRACT PHASE TENDER CONTRACT CONTRACT

COUNCIL PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING ASHFIELD ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ BANKSTOWN ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ BOTANY ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ BURWOOD ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ CANADA BAY ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ CANTERBURY ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ HURSTVILLE ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ KOGARAH ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ LEICHHARDT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ MARRICKVILLE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ RANDWICK ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ROCKDALE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SYDNEY ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SUTHERLAND ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ WAVERLEY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ WOOLLAHRA ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

EXISTING CONTRACTS

*CARBON ASPHALT READY MIXED EMPLOYEE **ELECTRICITY CBA BANKING ASPHALT EX- BROOM & MANAGEMENT SUPPLY & LAY CONCRETE ASSISTANCE CONTRACT SUPPLY SERVICES BIN SUPPLY BRUSH SUPPLY SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLY SERVICES

CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CONTRACT PHASE CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT

COUNCIL PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING ASHFIELD ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ BANKSTOWN ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ BOTANY ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ BURWOOD ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ CANADA BAY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ CANTERBURY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ HURSTVILLE ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ KOGARAH ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ LEICHHARDT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ MARRICKVILLE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ RANDWICK ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ROCKDALE ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ SYDNEY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ SUTHERLAND ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ WAVERLEY ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ WOOLLAHRA ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ * Hornsby, Willoughby and North Sydney Councils also participate. ** Six other non-SSROC Councils participate.

Council Participation List 53 SSROC SHARED SERVICES AND PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY

EXISTING CONTRACTS

ROAD & SODIUM AGRICULTURAL STATIONERY TREE PRUNING TRAFFIC HYPOCHLORITE PRODUCT LANDFILL CONTRACT SUPPLY SERVICES EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY

CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT CONTRACT PHASE CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT

COUNCIL PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING ASHFIELD ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ BANKSTOWN ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ BOTANY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ BURWOOD ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ CANADA BAY ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ CANTERBURY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ HURSTVILLE ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ KOGARAH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ LEICHHARDT ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ MARRICKVILLE ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ RANDWICK ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ROCKDALE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ SYDNEY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ SUTHERLAND ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ WAVERLEY ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ WOOLLAHRA ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NOTE: Other initiatives not listed include Corporate Services' Benchmarking, Advertising Services and Internal Audit Services.

PROPOSED CONTRACTS SECURITY PLAY MATTRESS PLANT & TREE PRINTING CASH HVAC TELECOMS / FIRE SERVICES EQUIPMENT COLLECTION CONTRACT SUPPLY SERVICES COLLECTION SERVICES BCP SUPPLY SERVICES SERVICES

DEVELOPING DEVELOPING DEVELOPING DEVELOPING DEVELOPING FINALISING RFx FINALISING RFx FINALISING RFx CONTRACT PHASE SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION

COUNCIL PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING ASHFIELD ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ BANKSTOWN ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ BOTANY ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ BURWOOD ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ CANADA BAY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ CANTERBURY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ HURSTVILLE ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ KOGARAH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ LEICHHARDT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ MARRICKVILLE ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ RANDWICK ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ROCKDALE ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SYDNEY ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ SUTHERLAND ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ WAVERLEY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ WOOLLAHRA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Council Participation List 54 SSROC SHARED SERVICES AND PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY

PROPOSED CONTRACTS

ADVANCED PLANT & RATE NOTICE CONCRETE PEST CONTROL SHADE SAIL SOFT FALL LANDFILL WASTE EQUIPMENT PAPER CONTRACT PIPE SUPPLY SERVICES SUPPLY SUPPLY TREATMENT HIRE COORDINATION

CLOSED CLOSED FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE OPEN TENDER CONTRACT PHASE TENDER TENDER DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

COUNCIL PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING ASHFIELD ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ BANKSTOWN ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ BOTANY ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ BURWOOD ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ CANADA BAY ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ CANTERBURY ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ HURSTVILLE ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ KOGARAH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ LEICHHARDT ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ MARRICKVILLE ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ RANDWICK ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ROCKDALE ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ SYDNEY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ SUTHERLAND ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ WAVERLEY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ WOOLLAHRA ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗

Council Participation List 55

SECTION 4 FOR INFORMATION

ITEM 4.6 Contract Management System

Purpose of the To provide an overview of the planned SSROC Contract Management System. report: Background: In light of the ongoing nature of procurement activity and long-term commitment of SSROC in taking a greater role in the development and administration of joint contracts, the need for a contract management system has become evident. Current Status: A customised database has been ordered from a developer for the management of SSROC contracts and all their general administrative requirements. This database will be tailored to an exact fit for the work SSROC is required to do and will offer multiple benefits that include: • Improved contract information management on one platform; • Better status reporting in ‘real-time’; • Operational transparency; • Better financial management; • Improved controls; • Greater assurance for auditing and compliance.

The development of this database has commenced and it is expected to be operational by June of this year.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

56

SECTION 5 CURRENT ACTIVITIES

ITEM 5.1 Procurement Activity

Purpose of the To provide an update on procurement activity within SSROC. report: Background: The success of procurement activities in SSROC is promoted as one of the key benefits for Council membership. Nevertheless, continuous improvements are necessary to ensure member Councils receive maximum benefits. Current Status: There has been a strong start to the first half of the year with over 10 new agreements under construction, being tailored to delivering on the exact requirements of participating member Councils’ needs. Multiple retenders are also underway continuing previously successful agreements that have completed their term whilst remaining in real demand across the region.

Interest levels from member Councils and overall participation has also been very positive, although ongoing effort is required to ensure effective communication between SSROC and all Councils to facilitate the best possible results for individual Councils and the region as a whole.

Continued efforts are made within the SSROC secretariat and the Supply Management Group, in striving to deliver on improved supply efficiencies and financial savings for all participating member Councils.

Local Government Procurement (LGP) has also recently undertaken a review in response to an emergent need across NSW Councils for changes to the Division of Local Government’s Procurement Guidelines 2009. As part of this review, many Councils’ personnel are actively involved in recommending improvements, updates and change in order to streamline, remove ambiguity and integrate best practice business processes into the legal framework for procurement. The working group is Chaired by the General Manager of LGP, Brian O’Mara and members are Phill Scott of LGP, Ian Rudgely of the City of Sydney Council, Mal Ackerman of WSROC, Greg Riddell of Wagga Wagga Council, Michael Robinson of Port Macquarie Hastings Council, and David Howes of SSROC. Recommendations for change will be made to the Division of Local Government as the outcome of this review.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

57

SECTION 5 CURRENT ACTIVITIES

ITEM 5.2 Shared Services Opportunities

Purpose of the To promote the awareness of shared services opportunities. report: Background: Shared services initiatives between member Councils still remains the greatest opportunity for value adding work by Regional Organisations of Councils. Real benefits can take many forms beyond pure cost savings such as improvements in quality, timeliness, technology utilisation and sharing of expertise and experiences across a larger geographical and personnel base. It is recognised that more can be achieved and a continuous improvement philosophy is appropriate.

At the March 2012 Ordinary Meeting, Delegates raised and discussed the opportunity for regional shared services, and asked that opportunities be examined, although it should remain the responsibility of individual Councils to decide whether or not particular opportunities would be in their interests. Current Status: At their April meeting, General Managers formed a small working group to identify, research and set the scope for shared services initiatives for consideration by Councils.

The working group agreed its terms of reference as “to evaluate shared service opportunities across SSROC member Councils based on the SSROC suitability criteria and development model”.

Opportunities will be scoped and presented with sufficient information to enable each Council to decide whether or not it in their interests to participate further

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

58

SECTION 5 CURRENT ACTIVITIES

ITEM 5.3 Current Submissions

Purpose of the To identify submissions currently being developed, and provide an opportunity for the report: Committee to offer comments. Background: SSROC Secretariat develops submissions in relation to priority issues as resources permit, usually to a deadline imposed externally. Whenever the deadline allows, the Committee’s input to the submission is sought. Current Status: The following submissions are currently being developed, but have not yet been drafted:

• “Sydney over the next 20 years – A Discussion Paper” is described as the first step in the development of a new Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney. Comments will be sought from Councils through several officers’ working groups. The deadline for submissions is 29 June 2012.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee:

1. Receive and note the report. 2. Notify the secretariat of any issues that it would like to raise in relation to these submissions.

PROGRAM DELIVERY COMMITTEE 17 MAY 2012

59