PUBLIC AGENDA This Agenda is provided for the assistance and information of members of the public.
AGENDA
NOTICE is hereby given that an Ordinary meeting of the Kingborough Council will be held at the Civic Centre, 15 Channel Highway, Kingston on Monday, 22 January 2018 at 5.30pm
Back (L – R): Cr Paul Chatterton, Cr Mike Percey, Cr Sue Bastone, Cr Dean Winter, Cr Richard Atkinson Front (L – R): Cr Dr Graham Bury, Cr Flora Fox, Mayor Cr Steve Wass, Deputy Mayor Cr Paula Wriedt, Cr David Grace
QUALIFIED PERSONS
In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, I confirm that the reports contained in Council Meeting Agenda No. 2 to be held on Monday, 22 January 2018 contain advice, information and recommendations given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendations.
Gary Arnold GENERAL MANAGER
16 January 2018
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Open Session Page No.
Apologies 2
Confirmation of Minutes of Council Meeting No. 1 held on 8 January 2018 2
Workshops held Since Council Meeting on 8 January 2018 2
Declarations of Interest 2
Transfer of Agenda Items 2
Guidelines for Public Question Time 3
Questions on Notice from the Public 4
1 Traffic Issues on North Roslyn Avenue 4
2 Ratepayers Forum 5
Questions Without Notice from the Public 5
Questions on Notice from Councillors 5
1 Bus Stop on Jindabyne Road Near St Aloysius School 5
2 Bus Stop, Rubbish Bin and Other Issues Outside Commonwealth Bank, Kingston CBD 6
3 Litter on the Road at Kettering 6
4 Woodbridge Cemetery 7
Questions Without Notice from Councillors 7
Motions of Which Notice has been Given 7
Blackmans Bay Coastal Land Tenure 7
Petitions Still Being Actioned 9
Petitions Received in Last Period 9
Officers Reports to Planning Authority 10
Delegated Authority for the Period 20 December 2017 to 9 January 2018 10
DA-2017-447 - Development Application for Additions to Existing Dwelling at 45 Gemalla Road, Margate for Mr B I and Mrs S J Nicolson 13 ORDER OF BUSINESS
Open Session Page No.
DA-2017-430 - Development Application for Demolition and Alterations to Dwelling at 42 Flinders Esplanade, Taroona for Mr P F Hesketh 25
DA-2017-535 - Development Application for Garage Extension to Existing Dwelling at 46A Taroona Crescent, Taroona for Smeekes Drafting Pty Ltd 56
Officers Reports to Council 77
Local Government Reform 77
Bruny Island Airstrip 83
Taroona and Hinsby Beach Tenure 91
Kingborough Cash-In-Lieu of On-Site Car Parking Policy 94
Review of the Long Term Financial Plan and Long Term Asset Management Plan 103
Policy 2.1 - Councillors Expenses and Provision of Facilities 158
Policy 1.15 - Corporate Credit Card 169
General Managers Performance Review 184
Information Reports 185
Mayor’s Communications 186
Financial Report for the Period 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2017 191
Governance and Property Services Quarterly Report for the Period October to December 2017 241
Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session 249
AGENDA of an Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held at the Kingborough Civic Centre, 15 Channel Highway, Kingston on Monday, 22 January 2018 at 5.30pm.
From To Time Occupied Open Council 5.30pm Planning Authority Open Council Closed Council Open Council TOTAL TIME OCCUPIED
AUDIO RECORDING
The Chairperson is to direct commencement of the recording.
Declare meeting open (time), welcome all in attendance and read:
“All persons in attendance are advised that it is Council policy to record Council Meetings.
The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website.
In accordance with Council Policy, I now ask staff to confirm that the audio recording has commenced.”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS
The Chairman will acknowledge and pay respect to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community as the traditional and original owners and continuing custodians of the land on which we now meet, and acknowledge elders past and present.
ATTENDEES
Councillors:
Mayor Councillor S Wass Deputy Mayor Councillor P Wriedt Councillor R Atkinson Councillor S Bastone Councillor Dr G Bury Councillor P Chatterton Councillor F Fox Councillor M Percey Councillor D Winter
Staff:
TITLE NAME
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 1 22 January 2018 APOLOGIES
Cr David Grace
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING NO. 1 HELD ON 8 JANUARY 2018
MOVED SECONDED
That the Minutes of Council Meeting No. 1 held on 8 January 2018 be confirmed.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE COUNCIL MEETING ON 8 JANUARY 2018
DATE PURPOSE 15/1/2018 Huon Aquaculture Snug Play Space
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
In accordance with Regulation 8 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 and Council’s adopted Code of Conduct, the Mayor requests Councillors to indicate whether they have, or are likely to have, a pecuniary interest (any pecuniary benefits or pecuniary detriment) or conflict of interest in any item on the Agenda.
TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS
Are there any items, which the meeting believes, should be transferred from this agenda to the closed agenda or from the closed agenda to the open agenda, in accordance with the procedures allowed under Section 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 2 22 January 2018 GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
At each meeting of Council or a Council Committee there will be an opportunity for questions to be asked by any member of the public. A question may either be in writing, or may be verbally asked at the meeting. You are reminded that the forum is designed to accommodate questions only. Neither the questions nor answers will be debated.
A period of 15 minutes, if required, will be set aside and the Chairperson will endeavour to deal with as many questions as possible at each meeting. If a response to a question cannot be provided at the meeting a written response will be provided as soon as practicable. If time constraints do not permit all questions to be put, the Council will reply to any question that is put in writing.
A Question must not relate to any matter that is listed on the agenda for the meeting.
Questions in Writing – A member of the public may give written notice to the General Manager 7 days before a meeting of a question to be put to the meeting. The question will appear in the agenda of the meeting, and a written response will be recorded in the minutes. There is no standard form for such questions, but they should be clearly headed Question(s) on Notice.
Questions asked at the Meeting – At the commencement of Question Time the Chairperson will ask members of the public present, if there are any questions, and if so what are those questions? This procedure is to permit the Chairperson to determine an appropriate time limit for Question Time and perhaps limit the opportunity for multiple questions, and to determine whether each question is appropriate. There is to be no discussion, preamble or embellishment of any question at this time.
The Chairperson will then determine which of those questions will be accepted and will provide the reason for any refusal; will determine the order of the questions, and may set a time limit for Question Time. The Chairperson may require a question to be put on notice and in writing.
A member of the public present may only ask one question at a time. The Chairperson may give preference to questions from other members of the public before permitting second or further questions from a member of the public. The Chairperson may rule that a multi-part question is in fact two or more questions, and deal with them accordingly.
The Chairperson may rule a question inappropriate, and thus inadmissible if in his or her opinion it has already been asked, is unclear, irrelevant, offensive or relates to any matter which would normally be considered in Closed Session.
Lengthy preambles or introductions are discouraged, and the Chairperson may require that a member of the public immediately put the question.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 3 22 January 2018 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
1 Traffic Issues on North Roslyn Avenue
At the Council meeting on 8 January 2018, Ms Tricia Ramsay asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
“I represent a group of residents that live on North Roslyn Avenue. A petition was launched on 13 June 2017 from residents of North Roslyn Avenue regarding problems associated with excess traffic speeds and volumes as well as parking and pedestrian issues. Since then only two meetings with petition instigators have been held. Petitioners are concerned that they have seen no practical improvements to safety and amenity issues that were raised in the petition. In November 2017 Council staff promised to schedule another meeting with petition instigators. That meeting was to be held in December to discuss the progress of issues. That meeting was not held. During December petition instigators tried to contact the relevant Council employees about the proposed meeting. Two e-mails and two phone calls made during that period remain unanswered. I therefore suggest that the seriousness of the issues raised in the petition appear to be lost on Council employees. Councillor Atkinson has two questions at previous Council meetings in pursuit of remedy of the North Roslyn Avenue traffic problems. On page 4 of this evening’s agenda, Tony Ferrier predicts that in 20 years the population of Kingborough will be larger than any other Tasmanian Municipality. Our region’s growing tourism industry will place even more strain on our section of road that was designed to cater for nearly 2000 vehicles a day. On behalf of residents of North Roslyn Avenue, my question in two-fold. What practical improvements will be proposed and implemented and what time frame is intended for the implementation of solutions to the issues raised in our petition?”
Officer’s Response:
Further investigation is required to gain a better appreciation of where the traffic is coming from and going to. An area wide traffic survey is required and will be undertaken in the coming months after school commences and motorists settle in to their typical routines.
Council has already committed to the following improvements:
Missing guide posts will be replaced – should be completed by end of January.
CONCEALED ENTRANCE advance warning signage will be installed at strategic locations along the northern section of Roslyn Avenue – should be completed within 4 weeks.
Council will investigate options to give motorists visual cues such as pavement markings and other advance warning signage to encourage motorists (and cyclists who were also exceeding the speed limit) to travel at or below the speed limit – a proposal should be completed within 4 weeks.
Council will investigate appropriate devices to be installed at the Beach Road traffic control signals to stop motorists cutting the corner – a proposal should be completed within 4 weeks.
Council will consider other options once the more detailed traffic analysis is completed.
The options for further improvements to this area will then be discussed as part of a report to Council after the traffic survey is completed and the data analysed.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 4 22 January 2018 2 Ratepayers Forum
At the Council meeting on 8 January 2018, Mr Mervyn Reed asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
“The Kingborough Ratepayers Association Inc would like to know when the Council is going to organise a Ratepayer Forum to discuss the budget, and the cost cutting options for 2018. We are not interested in on-line forums, and wat a forum where all ratepayers can attend if they so wish. Other Councils involve their ratepayers in this process, but I understand that the General Manager is not keen on this process. The ratepayers, however, are not the least bit interested in a rate increase over the CPI which is 1.8%. Therefore a forum discussing the budget and cuts to spend with the ratepayers is essential in our view to enable the ratepayers to have a say on the budget formulation of the Council in what is an election year. It is highly unlikely that the ratepayers association will support any Councillor standing for re- election who votes for a rate increase of more than the CPI, regardless of circumstances.”
Officer’s Response:
Council is currently developing a communications and consultation plan regarding the 2018 budget process, which will include a variety of ways for the community to have their say. The plan will be presented to Council for consideration and updates will be published on Council’s website, social media channels and in local media outlets.
Sarah Wilcox – Communications Officer
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS
1 Bus Stop on Jindabyne Road near St Aloysius School
At the Council meeting on 8 January 2018, Cr Atkinson asked the following questions without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
“My first two questions relate to a letter that I received from a resident who said she would have been quite happy to address the meeting but she is a woman in her eighties who lives at Kingston Beach and doesn’t come out in the evenings and nor is there any way for her to get here because her question relates to public transport:
She uses the bus stop and is often inconvenienced by parents who park in the bus stop during busy times of day and she has contacted Council on a number of instances to ask what can be done and suggested painting stripes on the road and so on but feels like she is not getting any response. I wanted to know what action Council can take to make sure that the bus stop is available as a bus stop.”
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 5 22 January 2018 Officer’s Response:
Council Officers will investigate the option of more clearly marking the bus zone area and follow up with increased compliance in the area.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
2 Bus Stop, Rubbish Bin and Other Issues Outside Commonwealth Bank, Kingston CBD
At the Council meeting on 8 January 2018, Cr Atkinson asked the following questions without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
“The second question was from the same letter and I quote:
The state of the major bus stop in Kingston outside the Commonwealth Bank problems rubbish bin 30cm from seating, smelly and offensive, a vertical pipe also used for rubbish, state of the footpath, paving broken and uneven, hotch potch of surfaces, gradients, too many to count, both east to west, north to south, obstructing branches of trees, bus shelter seats four if you’re lucky, large people, people who park their shopping on the seat, this stop with about 20 people waiting to catch the bus, many sit on the ground.”
This is an issue that I’ve raised before. Is there anything that we can do about the state of the major bus stop in Kingston?”
Officer’s Response:
This section of Channel Highway is highlighted for reconstruction within the next two years, which will include liaising with Metro as to the public transport infrastructure. In the meantime, Council Officers will inspect the area and undertake any necessary work on the bin and footpath to ensure the area is safe and amenable to users.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
3 Litter on the Road at Kettering
At the Council meeting on 8 January 2018, Cr Atkinson asked the following questions without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
I was speaking with a number of residents of Kettering on the weekend and two of them, particularly, raised the issue of litter on the road from the Channel to Cygnet. I think they are talking about the Nicholls Rivulet Road, I’m not sure. Both of them, without any prompting, were concerned about litter along the road and I wanted to know what responsibility we have for cleaning up that letter or preventing it in the future or who the responsibility lies with?”
Officer’s Response:
The responsibility for Nicholls Rivulet Road is the Department of State Growth; Council Officers will pass on the concerns to a representative of the Department.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 6 22 January 2018 4 Woodbridge Cemetery
At the Council meeting on 8 January 2018, Cr Bastone asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
“I’ve been contacted by a constituent about the condition of the Woodbridge Cemetery. The Middleton and the Kettering cemeteries are very well maintained. The one at Woodbridge you can barely see the graves, the grass is waist high. Since I think all three of them are probably non-operating cemeteries I don’t understand why one of them is not mowed and the other two are?”
Officer’s Response:
Unlike the Middleton and Kettering cemeteries which are maintained by Council, the Woodbridge cemetery’s vegetation historically has been maintained by the Woodbridge Community Association. The Association met on the 9 January 2018 but was unable to determine a date in order to conduct vegetation maintenance. As the cemetery is Council owned, Council’s reserves unit will undertake an assessment and general maintenance activity of the land. Future liaison with the Association will take place to establish an acceptable maintenance programme.
Scott Basham – Acting Manager Governance & Property Services
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
Blackmans Bay Coastal Land Tenure
The following Notice of Motion was submitted by Cr Winter:
MOVED Cr Winter SECONDED
That Council rescind its decision of 14 March 2017 (Minute ref 114/5- 17) in relation to the coastal reserve area to the north of Blackmans Bay Beach and give approval for Council Officers to immediately commence the necessary legal processes to secure tenure over the land.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 7 22 January 2018 Background
• A young woman lost her life almost a year ago after falling from the Blackmans Bay Blowhole cliffs
• Council had been maintaining this area for 'many years', according to a report to Council on 14 March 2017. However, through a review prompted by the death, Council discovered that it did not actually have formal tenure over the land in question.
• At that meeting, Council Officers recommended that Council commenced work to formalise tenure at the site. Council instead chose to defer the decision, with some Councillors citing the unresolved status of the Coroner's work into the death and the potential cost of implementing recommendations as reasons to defer
• On 22 May 2017, it was reported that the land in question was actually privately owned. Given the land in question contains public infrastructure and is generally popularly used by the public, this Notice of Motion seeks to commence work to formalise this.
Officer’s Response:
The report to the Council meeting on 14 March 2017 recommended that Council seek a lease agreement from the Crown over the coastal reserve to the north of Blackmans Bay Beach. Council resolved “that the recommendation be deferred until after the coronial enquiry is concluded” (Minute C114/5-17 refers).
On 3 April 2017 advice was received from Crown Land Services that the land is not Crown land and remains in private ownership and likely belongs to a private estate. This information was provided to Council on 22 May 2017 in response to a Question on Notice from Cr Winter.
Given the ownership of the land is in the name of a deceased estate and has not changed hands since 1876, it is unlikely that Council would be able to make contact with the estate. The most likely course of action would be for Council to pursue acquisition of the land pursuant to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1993 or the Abandoned Lands Act 1973 should this Notice of Motion be supported.
When the report was prepared for the Council meeting on 14 March 2017, it appeared that the land in question was Crown land. Subsequent advice has confirmed that this is not the case. Further, when the report was written, it was assumed the coronial enquiry would be concluded in 2017 and that also is not the case.
The coastal reserve area to the north of Blackmans Bay Beach has been maintained for decades by Council and contains public infrastructure. Council has licenced the adjoining Crown land since 1936 so it is reasonable to assume Council’s maintenance of the adjoining reserve also commenced around that time.
The question that Council needs to resolve is whether the coastal reserve to the north of Blackmans Bay Beach should remain in the ownership of a private estate or be acquired by Council. Crown Land Services have advised that they will not be seeking to take on ownership of the reserve.
Given Council’s maintenance of the area probably dates back to 1936 and the land contains public infrastructure it appears appropriate for Council to acquire the land. The process to acquire land from an estate is likely to take many months and is unlikely to be completed prior to the conclusion of the coronial enquiry.
In order for Council officers to commence the necessary legal process to acquire the land Council would need to support this Notice of Motion and rescind its decision of 14 March 2017.
Gary Arnold – General Manager
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 8 22 January 2018 PETITIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED
There are no petitions still being actioned.
PETITIONS RECEIVED IN LAST PERIOD
At the time the Agenda was compiled, no petitions had been received.
OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 9 22 January 2018 PLANNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION
Planning Authority Meeting commenced at
OFFICERS REPORTS TO PLANNING AUTHORITY
FILE NO 17.170 DATE 10 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 20 DECEMBER 2017 TO 9 JANUARY 2018
The following are matters that have received delegated approval from the Manager – Development Services for the period 20 December 2017 to 9 January 2018
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT/USE
DA-2017-459 Mr JA Webster and Mrs BG Webster Extension to existing dwelling – New 392 Sandfly Road Conservatory & Sun Room MARGATE DA-2017-579 Mr EP O’Toole and Mrs HM O’Toole Deck U2/9 Crystal Downs Drive BLACKMANS BAY
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT/USE
DA-2017-320 SJM Property Developments Pty Ltd Dwelling and shed McGowans Road MARGATE (CT 234074/1) DA-2017-323 G Hills & Partners Architects Dwelling 35A Blowhole Road BLACKMANS BAY DA-2017-368 Maveric builders Pty Ltd Dwelling 14 Advocate Drive KINGSTON DA-2017-421 Mr T J Koeller Dwelling 231 Cripps Road WOODBRIDGE
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 10 22 January 2018 DA-2017-476 Mr AR Ryan Dwelling 41 Auburn Road KINGSTON BEACH DA-2017-479 Cunic Homes Dwelling 2320 Channel Hwy LOWER SNUG DA-2017-482 Mr CM Bridge and Mrs AK Bridge Extension to existing shed – Storage & 497 Tinderbox Road Tool Shed TINDERBOX DA-2017-488 McCarthy Reed Architects Alterations and extension to existing 3 Ewing Avenue dwelling – Change 2ND Storey & 3 New KINGSTON BEACH Patios DA2017-490 Mr P Cuthbertson Additions to clubhouse – Patio - ‘Sandfly Memorial’ Longley Cricket Club 770 Sandfly Road SANDFLY DA-2017-498 G Hills & Partners Architects Dwelling 18 Sunsail Street SNUG DA-2017-517 Wilson Homes Dwelling 19 Eldridge Drive KINGSTON DA-2017-524 Dirt Building Design Shed 318 Tinderbox Road TINDERBOX DA-2017-531 Mr DH Halton Shed 875 Huon Highway SANDFLY DA-2017-539 Mr J Pashev Extension to existing dwelling – New 7 Jewel Court covered patio BLACKMANS BAY DA-2017-546 Mr RW Scales Change of Use from Visitor 57 Thomas Road Accommodation to Residence WOODBRIDGE
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR LOT SUBDIVISION/BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT/STRATA/STAGED DEVELOPMENT SCHEME/ADHESION ORDER/SEALED PLAN AMENDMENT
DAS-2017-24 PDA Surveyors Subdivision and boundary adjustment 3 & 17 John Street and 42 Channel Highway KINGSTON STR-2017-28 Rogerson and Birch Surveyors Strata unit 1 and 2 30 Mount Royal Road KINGSTON BEACH
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 11 22 January 2018 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR NO PERMIT REQUIRED
DA-2017-456 Smeekes Drafting Pty ltd Alterations to existing Dwelling 186 Sandfly Road MARGATE DA-2017-585 Tassie Homes Pty Ltd Dwelling 53 Apolline Drive KINGSTON DA-2017-594 Mr T Cuthbertson Refurbishment of Office Shop 3/20 Channel Highway KINGSTON
RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the report be noted.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 12 22 January 2018 FILE NO DA-2017-447 DATE 9 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER SAMUEL MCCROSSEN - SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DA-2017-447 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING AT 45 GEMALLA ROAD, MARGATE FOR MR B I AND MRS S J NICOLSON
Application Number: DA-2017-447 Applicant: Mr B I and Mrs S J Nicolson Owner: Mr B I and Mrs S J Nicolson Zoning: Light Industrial Discretions: Development of Non-Conforming Use, Front Setback, Attenuation, Waterway and Coastal Protection Existing Land Use: Single Dwelling No. of Representations: Nil Planning Issues: Extension to a Non-Conforming Use, Attenuation Recommendation: Refusal
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 The Proposal
This application seeks approval for an addition to an existing ‘non-conforming’ dwelling at 45 Gemalla Road, Margate. The additions would include a new bedroom, study/lounge, bathroom and verandah constructed at the rear of the existing dwelling. A new front doorway entrance would be constructed at the front of the existing building. The development would result in the number of bedrooms increased to four, with potential for the ‘study’ to be used as an additional bedroom or lounge room.
The additions would have a maximum height of 4.4m above natural ground level and would have a minimum setback of 4m from the front boundary. The additions would have a minimum setback of 6.2m from the western side boundary and 9.2m from the eastern side boundary.
The estimated cost of the proposed works is $120,000. The floor area of the building would be expanded from 131m2 to 184m2; an increase of 53m2 or 40%.
The dwelling is an existing non-conforming use, meaning that it is a use that was previously lawfully established, but now prohibited by the planning scheme, due to the zoning.
1.2 The Site
The land has an area of 1704m2 with frontage and vehicle access to Gemalla Road. The property contains a dwelling, outbuildings and trees arounds it perimeter, there is no significant slope. A minor watercourse is located along the western boundary of the site. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 13 22 January 2018 The surrounding area is similarly zoned Light Industrial forming part of the broader industrial estate of Margate. The area contains a range of industrial uses, including warehouses, boat building factories, workshops, and seafood processing facilities. The site is within an attenuation area designated in the Scheme Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme) to manage the environmental impacts of the fish processing plant located at 2/38 Gemalla Road. Channel Marine, which sells and services boats, is located immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. Opposite the site are a number of workshops and warehouses, while a fish processing plant is located at 2/38 Gemalla Road, approximately 70m to the south of the site. Another seafood processing plant is located approximately 100m to the south-east, while a boat building factory is located approximately 250m to the east.
The Margate industrial area has significant potential for further industrial use and development with 7 properties zoned Light Industrial currently undeveloped; equating to over 10ha vacant land area.
The subject property is located within a row of 5 non-conforming dwellings extending along the same side of Gemalla Road. A further 7 non-conforming dwellings are located in a group further east on Gemalla Road.
1.3 Background
The area was similarly zoned Industrial under the previous Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000. Under that scheme, additions of up to 25% of the gross floor area (GFA) of a building could be considered for non-conforming uses. While the 2000 Scheme was in effect, the following developments of existing non-conforming uses were approved:
35 Gemalla Road – addition to dwelling increasing the GFA by 19%;
39 Gemalla Road – replacement of outbuilding;
66 Gemalla Road – carport; and
76 Gemalla Road – addition to dwelling increasing the GFA by 25%.
No approvals have been granted under the current Scheme for the non-conforming uses.
2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
The land is zoned Light Industrial under the Scheme. The proposed use is classed as residential - single dwelling. The proposal is discretionary because it is a non- conforming use and does not meet the Acceptable Solutions for frontage setback, attenuation, and waterway protection.
The relevant part of the Scheme is:
Clause 9.1 – Special Provisions: Changes to an Existing Non-Conforming Use.
While assessment of this application must be undertaken wholly against the requirements of Clause 9.1 of the Scheme, the planning authority may have regard to the purpose and provisions of the zone and any applicable codes. The following part of the Scheme are therefore relevant:
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 14 22 January 2018 Part 24 – Light Industrial Zone;
Code E6.0 - Parking and Access Code;
Code E7.0 - Stormwater Management Code;
Code E9.0 - Attenuation Code; and
Code E11.0 – Waterway and Coastal Protection Code.
Discretionary assessment is required against the following Scheme standard:
(a) Clause 9.1 – Changes to An Existing Non-Conforming Use.
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 22/11/2017 to 5/12/2017). No representations were received.
2.3 Part 9 - Special Provisions of the Scheme
The use and development of a Single Dwelling is normally prohibited in a Light Industrial Zone; however an application for an addition to an existing non-conforming use is assessable under Clause 9.1 of the Scheme as follows:
9.1 Changes to an Existing Non-conforming Use
9.1.1 Notwithstanding any other provision in this planning scheme, whether specific or general, the planning authority may at its discretion, approve an application:
(a) to bring an existing use of land that does not conform to the scheme into conformity, or greater conformity, with the scheme; or
(b) to extend or transfer a non-conforming use and any associated development, from one part of a site to another part of that site; or
(c) for a minor development to a non-conforming use,
where there is –
(a) no detrimental impact on adjoining uses; or
(b) the amenity of the locality; and
(c) no substantial intensification of the use of any land, building or work.
In exercising its discretion, the planning authority may have regard to the purpose and provisions of the zone and any applicable codes.
The applicant proposes to extend development associated with a non-conforming use in accordance with (b). The application must demonstrate that the development would not result in a detrimental impact on the surrounding industrial uses (a), and that there would not be a substantial intensification of the existing use of the land, building, or ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 15 22 January 2018 work (c).
Given the nature of the use, it is considered that the most relevant matter determining intensification of the use is the spatial expansion and capacity of occupation of the building. As discussed, the floor area of the building would increase from 131m2 to 184m2; an increase of 53m2 or 40%, also increasing the number of bedrooms and living rooms. In the absence of a Scheme definition for the term ‘substantial intensification’, it is considered that the most meaningful reference point for an acceptable increase to floor area of a non-conforming use would be the 25% increase provided for by the previous Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000. Using this rationale, an appropriate increase to the floor area capped at 25% would be 32m2 or a total floor area of 163m2. It is considered that the proposed increase in floor area would provide opportunity for more people to live on the site (possibly 2-3 more), representing a substantial intensification. Such an intensification would be a clear conflict with the Purpose of the Zone, which is to provide for manufacturing, processing, repair, storage and distribution of goods and materials in a location where land use conflict is minimised.
Furthermore, the intensification is also in conflict with the provisions of the Attenuation Code (see section 2.5 for details relating to the Attenuation Code). A key purpose of the Code is to minimise the likelihood for sensitive use to conflict with, interfere with, or constrain uses with potential to cause environmental harm. Records of complaints previously made by residents of Gemalla Road in relation to the fish processing plant at 2/38 Gemalla Road is evidence of land use conflict. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed intensification of the use would not cause significant detrimental impact on the operations of surrounding industrial uses. In this case, expansion of sensitive use and development within proximity of the fish processing plant can only serve to exacerbate existing land use conflicts.
An additional consideration in this case is the capital investment that would be made in the property, with the estimated cost of the proposed works being $120,000. The Zone Purpose statement made in Clause 24.1.1.3 of the Scheme states that the Light Industrial Zone is intended to minimise land use conflict in order to protect industrial viability. Such investment in the expansion of the existing residential use would increase the value of the property by a significant amount; the land use conflict being the increase in value of the subject property lowering the likelihood that the property would be bought and developed for industrial purposes as intended by the Scheme. Clause 9.1 is intended to control on the intensification of non-conforming use and development, in part to ensure that it is viable to eventually convert the land to its intended use.
As discussed, while assessment of this application must be undertaken wholly against the requirements of Clause 9.1 of the Scheme, the planning authority may have regard to the purpose and provisions of the zone and any applicable codes. Relevant considerations are discussed in the following sections.
2.4 Strategic Planning
Light Industrial Zone Purpose Statements:
24.1.1.1 To provide for manufacturing, processing, repair, storage and distribution of goods and materials where off-site impacts are minimal or can be managed to minimise conflict or impact on the amenity of any other uses.
24.1.1.2 To promote efficient use of existing industrial land stock.
24.1.1.3 To minimise land use conflict in order to protect industrial viability and the safety and amenity of sensitive land uses in adjacent zones.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 16 22 January 2018 24.1.1.4 To provide industrial activity with good access to strategic transport networks.
Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements:
The Scheme details separate Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for the main towns in the municipal area. The following Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements are relevant to the assessment of this application:
24.1.2 Local Area Objectives
Local Area Objectives Implementation Strategy MARGATE (a) This light industrial area is a preferred (a) The potential for adverse impacts on location for maritime related amenity is to be reduced through industries, provided residential attention to noise mitigation, visual amenity can be protected and the measures, traffic control and local road scale of development will not overly upgrades. dominate the landform.
24.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements
Desired Future Character Statements Implementation Strategy MARGATE (a) Future industrial activities should be (a) Development proposals will be required carried out in a manner that to be sensitively designed to avoid minimises adverse impacts on overwhelming the character of the residential amenity, environmental landscape, to protect local amenity and and coastal values, and local public values and to contribute to the infrastructure. progressive upgrade of the local road system.
Attenuation Code Purpose Statement:
E9.1.1 The purpose of this provision is to:
(a) minimise adverse effect on the health, safety and amenity of sensitive use from uses with potential to cause environmental harm; and
(b) minimise likelihood for sensitive use to conflict with, interfere with or constrain uses with potential to cause environmental harm.
As discussed below, the proposal satisfies the majority of the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria of the Scheme; however the proposal also fails to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the Attenuation Code and the requirements of Clause 9.1 of the Scheme. Accordingly, the proposal is inconsistent with the Purpose Statements of the Zone and Attenuation Code.
2.5 Code E9.0 Attenuation
The land is within an Attenuation Area for the fish processing plant at 2/38 Gemalla Road and is therefore subject to the Attenuation Code.
Clause E9.7.2 – Development for Sensitive Use in Proximity to Use with Potential to Cause Environmental Harm
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 17 22 January 2018 A1.
There is no Acceptable Solution
The proposal is assessed against Clause E9.7.2 P1 as follows:
P1 – Development for sensitive use must not result in potential to be impacted by environmental harm from use with potential to cause environmental harm, having regard to all of the following:
(a) the nature of the use with potential to cause environmental harm; including:
(i) operational characteristics;
(ii) scale and intensity;
(iii) degree of hazard or pollution that may emitted from the activity;
(b) the degree of encroachment by the sensitive use into the Attenuation Area or the attenuation distance;
(c) measures in the design, layout and construction of the development for the sensitive use to eliminate, mitigate or manage effects of emissions.
The proposed additions would be in proximity of boat building factories, workshops, and seafood processing facilities. The Council’s records show that there have been a number of complaints made about surrounding industrial uses from residents of Gemalla Road. In particular, a number of those complaints concern noise, odour, and external lighting emanating from the fish processing plant at 2/38 Gemalla Road. In a response to a request for additional information relating to how the proposal complies with the Code, the applicant submitted a letter stating that the building additions have been sited to help protect the residents from noise and dust infiltration. However no information has been provided detailing how the building fabric would be designed to achieve same. Additionally, no information has been provided to demonstrate how the building would be protected from odours from the fish processing plant. Accordingly, it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development satisfies the above Performance Criteria.
3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
Health
As discussed, the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of the Attenuation Code. There are no environmental health issues relevant to the proposed development.
Engineering
There are no significant engineering issues relevant to this application. As discussed, Council's Development Engineer has assessed the application and is satisfied that the proposal meets the relevant Acceptable Solutions of the Parking and Access and Stormwater Management Codes.
Environmental Planning
There are no environmental planning issues relevant to the proposed development.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 18 22 January 2018 3.2 External Referrals
No external referrals were required or undertaken as part of this application.
3.3 Representations
No representations were received.
4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposal seeks approval for an addition to an existing dwelling at 45 Gemalla Road, Margate. The proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 9.1 and the Attenuation Code of the Scheme. It is therefore recommended that a planning permit for the proposed use and development be refused.
6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application additions to existing dwelling at 45 Gemalla Road, Margate for Mr B I and Mrs S J Nicolson be refused on the following grounds:
1. The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 9.1.1 of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 in that the proposed additions would be a substantial intensification of an existing non-conforming use.
2. The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 9.1.1 of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 in that the use and development of the proposed additions would conflict with, and cause significant detrimental impact on the operations of surrounding industrial uses, particularly the fish processing plant at 2/38 Gemalla Road, Margate.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
Attachments: 1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plan (4)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 19 22 January 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 20 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 21 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 22 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 23 22 January 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 24 22 January 2018 FILE NO DA-2017-430 DATE 9 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER CASSI DEVRIES – PLANNER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DA-2017-430 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION AND ALTERATIONS TO DWELLING AT 42 FLINDERS ESPLANADE, TAROONA FOR MR P F HESKETH
Application Number: DA-2017-430 Applicant: Mr P F Hesketh Owner: Mr P F Hesketh and Ms V M Collins
Zoning: Low Density Residential
Discretions: Building Envelope, Local Area Code, Coastal Erosion Hazard Code, Waterways and Coastal Protection Code, Biodiversity Code Existing Land Use: Residential No. of Representations: Two Planning Issues: Building envelope; visual impact Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 The Proposal
The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 42 Flinders Esplanade, Taroona.
The application proposes demolition of the existing bedroom, store and garage and internal alterations to reconfigure the remaining floor plan. A double-storey addition is to be constructed on the southern side of the dwelling, consisting of a ground level carport, open plan living and dining area, kitchen, laundry, deck and pergola, with an upper level study, bedroom and ensuite. The proposed design is considered contemporary with a feature skillion roof form and materials that depart from the current use of traditional materials (weatherboard).
The proposal includes the removal of six trees as shown on the plans and upgrade of the existing cross-over.
1.2 The Site
The dwelling is contained within the subject lot at 42 Flinders Esplanade, Taroona, as described within Certificate of Title Volume 12198 Folio 27. The lot measures 647m2 in area and is situated on the eastern side of Flinders Esplanade, Taroona. It currently supports a single-storey weatherboard dwelling (constructed circa 1945) and a detached garage. The slope of the land declines approximately 3.5m from the western frontage to the eastern rear boundary.
An established pattern of lower density residential development exists in the area which contains dwellings of varying size. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 25 22 January 2018 Directly adjoining the site is a public right-of-way to the south and the foreshore reserve to the east. To the north is a single-storey residential property.
Figure 1: Aerial photograph of the subject site
Figure 2: View of subject site from Flinders Esplanade
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 26 22 January 2018
Figure 3: View of existing dwelling on subject site from the public right-of-way
1.3 Background
The development application was submitted in September 2017. Further information was requested relating to compliance with the Waterways and Coastal Protection Code, Coastal Erosion Hazard Code, Landslide Hazard Code, Local Development Code, the building envelope and information requested by TasWater. Once this information was provided, the application was advertised. A written extension of the statutory timeframe was agreed to until 23 January 2018.
2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
The land is zoned Low Density Residential (Area C) under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Residential Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.
The relevant parts of the Scheme are:
Part 12.0 – Low Density Residential Zone
E3.0 Landslide Hazard Code
E6.0 – Parking and Access Code
E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code
E10.0 Biodiversity Code
E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 27 22 January 2018 E16.0 Coastal Erosion Hazard Code
E25.0 Local Development Code
The following discretions apply to the development:
(b) Clause 12.4.2 Setbacks and building envelope A3/P3 and A4/P4.
(c) Clause E10.7.1 Buildings and Works.
(d) Clause E11.7.1 Buildings and Works
(e) Clauses E16.6 and E16.7.1 Use Standards and Buildings and Works
(f) Clause E25.7.1 Building height in the coastal proximity
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in the representations, the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 16/12/2017 to 9/1//2018). Two (2) representations were received during the public exhibition period.
The following issues were raised by the representors:
(a) Visual impact to streetscape
(b) Out of character with the area
(c) Proposed discretions to height, building envelope and setback are considered excessive
(d) Impact to the public right of way and adjoining properties
(e) Services
2.3 Strategic Planning
The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:
Zone Purpose Statements of the Low Density Residential zone
The relevant zone purpose statements of the Low Density Residential zone are to:
12.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development on larger lots in residential areas where there are infrastructure or environmental constraints that limit development.
12.1.1.3 To avoid land use conflict with adjacent Rural Resource or Significant Agricultural zoned land by providing for adequate buffer areas.
12.1.1.4 To provide for existing low density residential areas that usually do not have reticulated services and have limited further subdivision potential.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 28 22 January 2018 Clause 12.1.2 – Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements
The Scheme details separate Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for the main towns in the municipal area. The following Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements are relevant to the assessment of this application.
12.1.2 Local Area Objectives
Local Area Objectives Implementation Strategy TAROONA (a) The relative low residential density (a) Infill development should only be of Taroona will be maintained and encouraged on sites convenient to any significant change to higher urban facilities and services. densities is to be avoided. (b) Areas within Taroona that are zoned (b) Existing larger lot sizes are to be Low Density Residential are to be retained in order that there is sufficient developed so that both visual land to accommodate substantial landscape and natural vegetation on site and provide for the environmental values are protected. desired landscape and natural amenity with only minimal expansion of the existing urban footprint permitted.
12.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements
Desired Future Character Statements Implementation Strategy TAROONA (a) Taroona is to continue to be a (a) Multi-unit housing is to be discouraged seaside suburb mainly containing other than in the vicinity of the Taroona single detached dwellings with shopping centre. established landscaped gardens. (b) The existing neighbourhood (b) The visual amenity of hillsides and character that is associated with the skylines is retained by providing for area’s landscape and larger lots that are able to retain environmental values should be sufficient native vegetation. Native protected. vegetation is to be protected along the coastline and alongside gullies and watercourses. In some cases these areas also provide a buffer or transition between more closely settled urban areas and other areas with high natural values.
Development of the site for residential purposes is consistent with the purpose of the Low Density Residential zone.
The relevant Local Area Objective and Desired Future Character Statement for Taroona seek to maintain existing amenity of the area and encourage lower density development. The application does not increase density in accordance with the local area objectives and compliance with the requirements of the acceptable solution imply that this objective and character statement are met. Any assessment against a performance criteria must demonstrate that the objective and character statement are met.
The report assesses the proposal against the relevant development standards and the proposal predominantly complies with the acceptable solutions, where it does not, it is ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 29 22 January 2018 able to demonstrate compliance with the relevant performance criteria. In summary, the proposal is not considered to conflict with the Local Area Objective or Desired Future Character Statement for Taroona.
2.4 Zone
The site is zoned Low Density Residential (Area C) under the Scheme. This zone provides a range of Use and Development Standards and the proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows.
12.0 Low Density Residential Zone
The proposal is for demolition and alterations to an existing dwelling, which is classified within the Residential use class. As such, the proposal will not create a new land use conflict.
A single dwelling is a ‘Permitted use’ within the Low Density Residential Zone.
12.4 Development Standards for Residential Buildings and Works
Clause 12.4.2 – Setbacks and building envelope
A1. A survey plan was provided identifying that the existing garage (proposed to be demolished) is setback 4.4m from the front boundary and the proposed addition is to be constructed at the same setback. As such, the proposal is in accordance with A1(a).
A2. The proposed carport is located on the ground level directly below the proposed upper level addition, with the façade setback 4.4m from the front boundary. As such, the proposal is in accordance with A2(b)
A3. The setback to the north (side) will be unchanged, with the exception of the decking – the envelope is satisfied. The setback to the west (front) will be increased by 900mm, as a result of the garage replacement, however the built form will be double storey (less than 8.5m in height) in place of single storey (the upper level is setback an additional 900mm from the lower level) – the envelope is satisfied. The setback to the south (side) will be increased by 375mm (from zero setback), however the built form will be double storey where it was previously single storey – a section of the upper level, and a small part of the roof of the lower level will protrude outside the envelope. The setback to the east (rear) will decrease to 4.0m for the wall with the eave of that roof form protruding outside the envelope by 900mm – the roof and part of the room will protrude outside of the envelope.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 30 22 January 2018 As the proposal does not meet the acceptable solution A3 it must meet the performance criteria P3.
P3 The siting and scale of a dwelling must:
(a) not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by:
(i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; or
(iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling when viewed from an adjoining lot; and
(b) provide separation between dwellings on adjoining lots that is compatible with that prevailing in the surrounding area.
P3. As identified above, the proposed dwelling protrudes the building envelope at the southern side boundary. The subject site is separated from the dwelling at 44 Flinders Esplanade by a 1.83m wide right-of-way. The dwelling to the south at 44 Esplanade is setback approximately 6 metres from the proposed development, with little outlook toward it as there is only a single corner window in the far north-eastern corner (facing the coast). The protrusion into the envelope at the rear (east) does not affect residential properties as it is the coastal reserve.
Shadow diagrams were provided showing the windows of the neighbouring residence will retain approximately 90% of the solar access which is currently available between 9am-12pm at 21 June, and demonstrate that overshadowing already exists in the afternoon. The overshadowing to the private open space will be increased, particularly in the rear portion of the site. It is noted that the site that will be overshadowed as an extensive private open space to the rear, thereby providing good opportunity for solar access despite the overshadowing occurring from the proposed development. No representation was received from this southern neighbour objecting to the development.
The application identifies that the development has been designed to be double storey at the front of the site and single storey at the rear (with sublevel access available) in order to minimise the impact to neighbouring properties in terms of visual presence of the built form.
It is considered that the proposal still achieves separation between dwellings consistent with the prevailing character of the area.
As such, the proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with the Performance Criteria P3.
A4. The proposed site is adjacent to the coast (to the east) and contains garden vegetation. While there are no trees of high conservation value within the site, there is one large white gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) in the adjacent coastal reserve. The tree root protection zone (TPZ) of this tree extends into the subject land and the proposed development will encroach approximately 5% into the TPZ.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 31 22 January 2018 As the proposal encroaches into the TPZ of a high conservation value trees, the proposal must be assessed against the performance criteria.
P4 Buildings and works are designed and located to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset impacts on trees of high conservation value.
The performance criteria requires that buildings and works are designed and located to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset impacts on trees of high conservation value. The development has been designed to avoid encroachment and impacts are minimised to an acceptable level under AS4970-2209 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Providing a condition is included in the permit requiring the implementation of tree protection measures, the proposal complies with P4.
Clause 12.4.3 – Site coverage and private open space
A1. The proposal is considered to meet the acceptable solution A1.
(a) The proposed dwelling area is 238.3 m2.
The site area is 647 m2. The proposed site coverage is therefore 36.7%.
(b) At least 25% of the site area is free from impervious surfaces.
A2. Adequate private open space (POS) is to be provided to the east of the proposed dwelling which complies with the minimum area and dimension requirements, and is directly accessible from the main living areas.
Clause 12.4.4 – Sunlight and overshadowing
A1. The proposed dwelling is considered to meet the acceptable solution A1 as there is sufficient North facing glazing in the open plan kitchen/dining/living and lounge room.
Clause 12.4.5 – Width of openings for garages and carports
A1. The proposed carport width is not over 6 m wide. Therefore the proposal meets the acceptable solution A1.
Clause 12.4.6 – Privacy
A1. The proposed deck on the northern elevation is setback 1m from the northern side boundary and is 1.2m above natural ground level. The applicant has advised that a privacy screen is proposed to ensure that privacy between neighbouring properties is maintained, and a condition should be placed on any permit to ensure this is achieved. As such, the proposal complies with Acceptable Solution A1.
A2. The proposed dwelling is setback 1.8m from the northern side boundary, 4m from the rear boundary and 2.35m from the southern side boundary. The windows in the side elevations all have a sill height greater than 1.7m above the floor level, and as such meet the Acceptable Solution A2.
12.4.7 Frontage fences
A1. It is proposed to construct a 1.5m high timber fence along the front boundary. The design provides more than 30% transparency for the entire height, and as such complies with Acceptable Solution A1.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 32 22 January 2018 2.5 Code Matters
E3.0 Landslide Hazard Code
Parts of the site are located within Low and Medium Landslide Hazard Areas. To verify whether the development involves major works as defined in Table E3.3 or is considered a major extension subject to the Landslide Hazard Code, further information was requested. In response an assessment was provided by a suitably qualified person that demonstrated that the gross floor area of the extension was less than 200m2 and the volume of cut less than 100m3. On this basis, the proposal is exempt under the Landslide Hazard Code.
While the Landslide Hazard Code is not triggered, a landslide risk assessment was still submitted (Cromer, 24 November 2017). This assessment makes a number of recommendations to mitigate the level of risk of landslide to an acceptable level. These measures are recommended for inclusion as a condition of approval (see discussion below in relation to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Code).
E5.0 Road and Rail Asset Code
The submitted plans and details comply with all relevant acceptable solutions of E5.0 Road and Rail Asset Code of Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.
E6.0 - Parking and Access Code
Clause E6.6.1 Number of Car Parking Spaces
The proposal complies with the requirements of the number of on-site car parking spaces, as there is sufficient area available for the parking of two (2) cars in accordance with the requirements of Table E6.1.
E7.0 - Stormwater Management Code
E7.7.1 Stormwater Drainage and Disposal
The plans and supporting documentation address the Acceptable Solutions because the stormwater from the new dwelling will be dispersed public infrastructure.
E10.0 Biodiversity Code
Clause E10.7.1 P1 – Buildings and works impacting on biodiversity values
A1. As the proposal encroaches into the TPZ of a high conservation value trees, the proposal must be assessed against the performance criteria. The performance criteria requires that buildings and works are designed and located to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset impacts on trees of high conservation value. The development has been designed to avoid encroachment and impacts are minimised to an acceptable level under AS4970-2209 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Providing a condition is included in the permit requiring the implementation of tree protection measures, the proposal complies with P4.
E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code
The Waterway and Coastal Protection Zone extends into the property. As the proposed works are not located within a building area on a plan of subdivision approved under this planning scheme, the proposal must be assessed against the performance criteria. An assessment was submitted by a suitable qualified person (Enviro-dynamics, 16 November 2017) demonstrating the proposed development ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 33 22 January 2018 complies with Clause E11.7.1 P1 as follows:
(a) there are no intact values present on the site;
(b) run-off impacts are mitigated and managed through implementation of sediment fences at the edge of the building area. These measures are proposed to be maintained until construction works are completed and ground cover is established;
(c) there will be no impacts on coastal vegetation;
(d) N/A;
(e) N/A;
(f) N/A;
(g) N/A;
(h) N/A;
(i) a condition will be included in the permit requiring works to be undertaken generally in accordance with 'Wetlands and Waterways Works Manual' (DPIWE, 2003) and “Tasmanian Coastal Works Manual” (DPIPWE, Page and Thorp, 2010).
As the proposal does not involve a new stormwater discharge point and proposes connecting to the existing Council stormwater system, the proposal complies with Clause E11.7.1 A4.
E16.0 Coastal Erosion Hazard Code
The proposed development is located within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area shown on the planning scheme maps. The proposal also involves a change of use of part of the existing buildings on site from a non-habitable use to a habitable use. Accordingly, a coastal vulnerability report by a suitably qualified person was required to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the performance criteria of Clauses E16.6 and E16.7.1 of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Code. A Coastal Erosion Report (Cromer, 20 November 2017) submitted in response to this request demonstrates that the proposal complies with Clause E16.6 as follows:
(a) there is no increased risk to users;
(b) there is no increased reliance on public infrastructure;
(c) the need for future remediation is minimal;
(d) no developer contribution is required.
The Coastal Erosion Report also demonstrates that the proposal complies with Clause E16.67.1 as follows:
(a) The coastal erosion risk of the escarpment is not required to be managed for continued residential development of this property and therefore the level of risk to life and the erosion risk is not increased by the development;
(b) – (c) Identified stormwater management measures during and after construction are capable of mitigating erosion risk to an acceptable level;
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 34 22 January 2018 (d) Development will not increase the need for future mitigation works;
(e) Health and safety of people is not placed at risk;
(f) No natural features will be impacted;
(g) Development will not compromise public foreshore access;
(h) Access to the site will not be compromised by future erosion;
(i) No developer contribution is required; and
(j) The property is not a mobile landform.
A condition should be included in the permit requiring the proposed stormwater measures and recommended mitigation measures in Cromer (20 November 2017) to be implemented.
E25.0 Local Development Code
The Local Development Code applies to building height of residential development on lots in the coastal proximity area. As the subject site abuts a coastal reserve, the property is subject to this code.
Under the Code, the Acceptable Solution for building height is a maximum of 5m. The application proposes to construct dwelling additions which are a maximum height of 6.6m above the ground level. As such, the proposal does not meet the Acceptable Solution and requires assessment against Performance Criteria P1:
P1. Building height must satisfy all of the following:
(a) ensure there is no unreasonable loss of amenity on adjoining lots by:
(i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; or
(iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling; and
(b) provide separation between dwellings on adjoining lots that is compatible with that prevailing in the surrounding area.
The area is characterised by a mix of single and double storey dwellings, and the proposed separation from neighbouring dwellings is not dissimilar to other examples in the area. Whilst the right of way does not form a part of the subject property, it does assist in providing additional separation between the proposed development and the southern neighbour. As discussed previously, the proposed development will not result in an unreasonable impact to the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings by way of overshadowing, overlooking, or visual impact as the location of the existing windows and decks has been taken into consideration. Nor will the proposed development result in extensive loss of views to other properties on the opposite side of Flinders Esplanade.
As such, the proposal is considered to meet the Performance Criteria P1. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 35 22 January 2018 3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
Health
There are no environmental health issues relevant to the proposed development.
Engineering
There are no engineering issues relevant to the proposed development.
Environmental Planning
Council’s Environmental Planner has assessed the development application in response to the Landslide Hazard Area, Biodiversity Protection Area, Waterway and Coastal Protection Area and Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
The proposal triggers the following environmental discretions:
12.4.2 P4 – impacts on trees of high conservation value
E3.7.1 – buildings and works in a Landslide Hazard Area
E10.7.1 P1 (b) – buildings and works impacting on moderate priority biodiversity values
E11.7.1 P1 – buildings and works within a Waterway and Coastal Protection Area
E16.6 and E16.7.1 – use standards and buildings and works within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
The assessment of these discretions was provided at Section 2.5, and in summary the application has been recommended for approval subject to conditions requiring the implementation of tree protection measures and stormwater mitigation measures.
3.2 External Referrals
TasWater
The application was referred to TasWater in accordance with the requirements of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. TasWater has provided its response to the Council Notice of Planning Application Referral including conditions of approval to be included in any permit issued for the development. A copy of the conditions from TasWater has been included in the attachments to this report.
3.3 Representations
Two (2) representations were received during the public exhibition period and the issues raised are discussed in detail as follows:
Representation Planner’s Response (a) Visual impact to streetscape Concern was raised that the subject property is one of the first properties visible when entering Flinders Esplanade and that the proposed development will set a precedent for future excessive developments in the area.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 36 22 January 2018 The streetscape however already features several other examples of multi-storey dwellings on both sides of the Esplanade, including more recent developments. The proposed upper level addition of a single bedroom, ensuite and study is above approximately a third of the dwellings overall footprint, and the majority of the dwelling will be at ground level. As such, the visual impact is considered to be in keeping with the streetscape. (b) Out of character with the area Concern is raised that the development will adversely impact the leafy character of the local neighbourhood. Whilst the proposal seeks to remove a number of trees, several other trees will continue to surround the building, preserving the leafy surrounds. The existing hedge at the front property boundary is to be replaced with a timber paling fence, which is a reasonable way to make the private open space in the front garden more accessible and suit the needs of the residents. (c) Proposed discretions to height, Concern is raised that the proposed building is more building envelope and setback than 7.5m above natural ground level, and exceeds the are considered excessive building envelope at the upper level and rear setback. Notwithstanding, the proposal has been assessed against the relevant Performance Criteria for these standards and is considered to meet the requirements of the Scheme with respect to the impact to adjoining properties. (d) Impact to the public right of Concern is raised that the building plans appear to way and adjoining properties assume the right to use the public walkway as the setback between neighbouring dwellings. The plans clearly identify the location of the right of way. Even if the right of way was not there, the Scheme still allows for discretionary applications to be made for development proposals that do not meet the Acceptable Solutions. The application was advertised and no representations were received from directly adjoining properties. (e) Services Concern is raised that the reduced southern setbacks will constrain the future location of services. The application was referred to TasWater who have approved the development subject to standard conditions. As such, this issue is not relevant.
4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposed single dwelling development is fully compliant with the relevant standards, as the proposal is considered acceptable and meets the requirements of the relevant Acceptable Solutions or Performance Criteria. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 37 22 January 2018 6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for demolition and alterations to dwelling at 42 Flinders Esplanade, Taroona for Mr P F Hesketh be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No. 2017-430 and Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 24 November 2017. This Permit relates to the use of land or buildings irrespective of the applicant or subsequent occupants, and whoever acts on it must comply with all conditions in this Permit. Any amendment, variation or extension of this Permit requires further planning consent of Council.
2. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit showing the provision of a privacy screen between the deck on the northern side of the dwelling and the side boundary line. The privacy screen is to be provided where the deck exceeds 1m in height above natural ground level, and is to be no less than 1.7m in height with a uniform transparency of no more than 25% in order to achieve reasonable privacy between dwellings. The screens must be installed prior to occupation of the dwelling.
3. A drainage design plan in accordance with the Director of Building Control Specified List, Schedule 2, at a scale of 1:200, designed by a qualified hydraulic designer, showing the location of the proposed sewer and stormwater house connection drains; including the pipe sizes, pits and driveway drainage, must be submitted with the application for Plumbing Permit.
4. The conditions as determined by TasWater, and set out in the attached Appendix A, form part of this permit.
5. No felling, lopping, ringbarking or otherwise injuring or destroying of native vegetation or individual native trees is approved as part of this planning permit.
6. All adjacent native vegetation, including the individual white gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) tree on the adjacent Coastal reserve must be retained and appropriately protected during and after construction to ensure that no damage is inflicted that may impact upon the health of the trees or cause them to die. This includes establishing and maintaining a Tree Root Protection zone between any works and adjacent native vegetation prior to commencement of construction in accordance with AS 4970-2009 to exclude:
a) Storing of building materials;
b) Vehicular traffic;
c) Placement of fill; and
d) Excavation works.
Evidence of satisfactory installation of this fencing is to be provided to Council prior to the commencement of any on-site works.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 38 22 January 2018 In addition, the following tree protection measures must be adhered to following construction for all areas within the Tree Root Protection Zone but outside the footprint of the approved works:
e) the existing soil level must not be altered around the Tree Root Protection Zone of the trees (including the disposal of fill, placement of materials or the scalping of the soil); and
f) the Tree Root Protection Zone must be free from the storage of fill, contaminates or other materials; and
g) machinery and vehicles are not permitted to access the Tree Root Protection Zone.
7. To reduce the spread of weeds or pathogens, all machinery must take appropriate hygiene measures prior to entering and leaving the site as per the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control produced by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.
Any imported fill materials must be sourced from quarries able to provide documentation as to the weeds present on the source site in order to minimise introduction of new weeds and pathogens to the area.
8. Building plans submitted for the development must demonstrate they incorporate the construction recommendations in the Geotechnical Risk Assessment (Cromer, W,C, 2017, Geotechnical summary, site classification, wind classification and landslide risk management for proposed additions to existing house, 42 Flinders Esplanade, Taroona).
9. The stormwater runoff from all new impervious areas must be disposed of by gravity to Council’s reticulated stormwater system to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services.
10. The new vehicular access must be constructed in accordance with the Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD-RO9, TSD-E01 and TSD-RF01) in standard grey concrete with a broomed non-slip finish from the kerb crossing layback to the lot boundary. The existing redundant vehicular access must be removed and the kerb and channel reconstructed in accordance with the Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD-R14, TSD- R15, TSD-E01 and TSD-R11 if applicable) to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services. A Permit to carry out works within a Council road reservation must be obtained prior to any works commencing within the Council road reservation.
11. Prior to the commencement of site works a soil and water management plan must be submitted to Council for approval. The plan must be in accordance with NRM South Soil and Water Management of Construction Sites – Guidelines and Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD-SW28). A site inspection of the implemented plan by the Council’s Development Inspector must be satisfactorily undertaken with the principal contractor prior to the commencement of any work on site.
ADVICE
A In accordance with section 53(5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 this permit lapses after a period of two years from the date on which it is granted if the use
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 39 22 January 2018 or development in respect of which it is granted is not substantially commenced within that period.
B The developer should obtain a Plumbing Permit for the development prior to commencing construction.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
Attachments:
1. TasWater Conditions (2) 2. Location Plan (1) 3. Proposal Plans (12)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 40 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 41 22 January 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 42 22 January 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 43 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 44 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 45 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 46 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 47 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 48 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 49 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 50 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 51 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 52 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 53 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 54 22 January 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 55 22 January 2018 FILE NO DA-2017-535 DATE 12 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER MELISSA STEVENSON – COORDINATOR STATUTORY PLANNING ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DA-2017-535 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR GARAGE EXTENSION TO EXISTING DWELLING AT 46A TAROONA CRESCENT, TAROONA FOR SMEEKES DRAFTING PTY LTD
Application Number: DA-2017-535 Applicant: Smeekes Drafting Pty Ltd Owner: Mr D J C Kerr and Ms A D Pafitis Zoning: Low Density Residential (Area C) Discretions: Front setback, garage setbacks, building envelope and site coverage Existing Land Use: Residential No. of Representations: Three (3) Planning Issues: Setbacks, site coverage Recommendation: Approval with conditions
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 The Proposal
The proposal involves alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 46A Taroona Crescent. The works involve the demolition of an existing storage shed, a section of a concrete panel wall and a section of the existing entry deck. A new double garage will then be constructed in the location of the structures to be demolished. The new building works are located 3.58m off the front boundary at the closest point and have a floor area of 42.7m2 and a maximum height of 2.81m. The garage addition is to be constructed of core-ten steel cladding to match the existing dwelling, with a Colorbond roof in ‘Shale Grey’.
1.2 The Site
The subject site is contained within Certificate of Title Volume 11730 Folio 76, and has an area of 716m2. The lot is triangular in shape and has frontage to Taroona Crescent to the south. Land to the north/northeast contains Taroona Park and a carpark servicing the foreshore and beach area is located at the end of Taroona Crescent. A residential lot is located immediately adjoining the subject land to the northwest.
The subject land and surrounding properties are shown in the aerial imagery contained within Plate 1.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 56 22 January 2018
Plate 1 – Aerial image showing subject land and surrounding properties
The existing development on the site can be seen in Photo 1 below.
Photo 1 – Photo of existing development on subject site taken from opposite side of Taroona Crescent looking northeast
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 57 22 January 2018 1.3 Background
The dwelling on the property was approved as part of DA-2002-221 on 21 August 2002. The current application was submitted in November 2017. The applicant has agreed to an extension of time for Council to determine the application until 30 January 2018.
2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
The land is zoned Low Density Residential (Area C) under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Residential Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.
The relevant parts of the Scheme are:
Part 12.0 – Low Density Residential Zone
Code E3.0 – Landslide Code
Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code
Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code
Code E10.0 – Biodiversity Code
Code E25.0 – Local Development Code
The following discretions apply to the development:
(a) Clause 12.4.2(A1) – setbacks and building envelope – front setback is less than 4.5m
(b) Clause 12.4.2(A2) – setbacks and building envelope – garage setback is less than 5.5m
(c) Clause 12.4.2(A3) – setbacks and building envelope – proposed building is not contained within the required building envelope
(d) Clause 12.4.3(A1) – Site coverage and private open space – site coverage exceeds 25%
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in the representations, the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 02/12/2017 to 15/12/2017). Three (3) representations were received during the public exhibition period.
The following issues were raised by the representors:
(a) Significance of the architecture of the existing dwelling and incompatible design
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 58 22 January 2018 (b) Not in keeping with residential amenity of the area and streetscape impacts
(c) Safety concerns with reversing onto road
(d) Outdoor storage areas
2.3 Strategic Planning
The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:
Zone Purpose Statements of the Low Density Residential zone
The relevant zone purpose statements of the Low Density Residential zone are to:
12.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development on larger lots in residential areas where there are infrastructure or environmental constraints that limit development.
The zone purpose statements for the Low Density Residential zone are not directly relevant to the assessment of the proposed development, however as it is an addition to an existing single dwelling, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant statement above.
Clauses 12.1.2 and 12.1.3 – Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements
The Scheme details separate Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for the main towns in the municipal area. The following Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements are relevant to the assessment of this application.
12.1.2 Local Area Objectives
Local Area Objectives Implementation Strategy TAROONA (a) The relative low residential density of (a) Infill development should only be Taroona will be maintained and any encouraged on sites convenient to significant change to higher densities urban facilities and services. is to be avoided. (b) Areas within Taroona that are zoned (b) Existing larger lot sizes are to be Low Density Residential are to be retained in order that there is sufficient developed so that both visual land to accommodate substantial landscape and natural environmental vegetation on site and provide for the values are protected. desired landscape and natural amenity with only minimal expansion of the existing urban footprint permitted.
The proposal does not involve a change to the density of development in terms of the number of dwellings and whilst it has a slightly increased site coverage which is above the maximum desirable for Taroona it is not considered to be in conflict with the Local Area Objectives as it does not impact upon any natural environmental values and has minimal impact on the visual landscape. The portion of the site to contain the additions is already developed with hardstand and the remainder of the site is landscaped. There will be no impact on this existing landscaping.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 59 22 January 2018 The proposal is therefore considered to be in keeping with the Local Area Objectives for Taroona as contained in Clause 12.1.2.
12.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements
Desired Future Character Statements Implementation Strategy TAROONA (a) Taroona is to continue to be a (a) Multi-unit housing is to be discouraged seaside suburb mainly containing other than in the vicinity of the Taroona single detached dwellings with shopping centre. established landscaped gardens. (b) The existing neighbourhood (b) The visual amenity of hillsides and character that is associated with skylines is retained by providing for the area's landscape and larger lots that are able to retain environmental values should be sufficient native vegetation. Native protected. vegetation is to be protected along the coastline and alongside gullies and watercourses. In some cases these areas also provide a buffer or transition between more closely settled urban areas and other areas with high natural values.
The proposal does not involve a change to the use of the site as it will still be a single dwelling. There will be no impact on existing landscaping and the portion of the site to contain the additions is already developed with hardstand. The landscape and environmental values on the site will be protected and the development is not on a hillside or skyline. The proposal is therefore not considered to be in conflict with the Desired Future Character Statements for Taroona as contained in Clause 12.1.3.
2.4 Zone
The site is zoned Low Density Residential under the Scheme. This zone provides a range of Use and Development Standards and the proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:
Clause 12.2 – Use Table
The proposed dwelling alterations and additions are categorised within the Residential Use Class which is a No Permit Required use as it is a single dwelling.
Clause 12.4.2 – Setbacks and building envelope
A1.
Clause A1 of 12.4.2 sets the requirements for the setback of a dwelling to a frontage. As the lot is an ordinary lot the front setback requirement is 4.5m. The proposed building works are not parallel to the boundary; however at the closest point (the southeastern corner) the building is 3.58m from the front boundary. It therefore does not comply with the Acceptable Solution and must be assessed against the Performance Criteria which states:
A dwelling must:
(a) be compatible with the relationship of existing buildings to the road in terms of setback or in response to slope or other physical constraints of the site; and
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 60 22 January 2018 (b) have regard to streetscape qualities or assist the integration of new development into the streetscape.
The subject land is triangular in shape and has a long (46.94m) frontage with Taroona Crescent. Due to the irregular shape of the lot it is difficult for development on the site to comply with all the setbacks and the existing dwelling is currently constructed, in part, within the front boundary setback. A copy of the site plan showing the existing and proposed development in relation to the front setback is shown in Plate 2 below.
Plate 2 – Plan showing proposed development in relation to the front boundary setback which is shown as a dashed line (entire entry deck is existing)
As the above plan demonstrates a small portion of the existing entry deck and stairs already encroaches within the front setback and a small portion of the garage is proposed to also encroach. It is considered that the small encroachment is acceptable as it is compatible with the relationship of the existing buildings to the road and responds to the irregular shape of the land.
The proposed garage has a flat roof and a maximum height of 2.81m. It is proposed to occupy an area that is currently used for parking. There is a mix of development types in the immediate streetscape with the lots on the southern side of Taroona Crescent not being accessed directly off this section of the road and high concrete block walls being constructed on the front boundary. It is considered that the proposal has regard to the existing streetscape qualities. Compliance with the Performance Criteria P1 is therefore achieved.
A2.
Clause A2 of 12.4.2 sets the requirements for the setback of a garage or carport to a frontage.
The proposal is for a new garage and as such A2 is relevant. The proposal does not meet the Acceptable Solution A2 as it is not setback 5.5m from the frontage, does not ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 61 22 January 2018 have a portion of the dwelling located above and the slope is not steeper than 1 in 5. The proposal must therefore be assessed against the provisions of the Performance Criteria P2 which states:
The setback of a garage or carport from a frontage must:
provide separation from the frontage that complements or enhances the existing streetscape, taking into account the specific constraints and topography of the site; and allow for passive surveillance between the dwelling and the street.
As described above, the garage is considered to have regard to the existing streetscape qualities taking into account the constraints of the irregular shape of the lot and the existing development.
There is currently limited passive surveillance from this section of the building directly to the street as there are no windows in this section of the building and the entry deck is screened by an existing block wall. The construction of the proposed garage will not have any significant impact on the passive surveillance and there is adequate opportunities for surveillance from the remainder of the existing dwelling which has large windows directly overlooking the street (see Photos 2 and 3 below).
Photo 2 – Photo of existing dwelling taken from southeast of site showing windows overlooking Taroona Crescent
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 62 22 January 2018
Photo 3 – Photo of existing dwelling taking from southern side of Taroona Crescent showing windows overlooking road
It is therefore considered that the proposal can be supported pursuant to the performance Criteria P2.
A3.
Clause A3 of 12.4.2 sets the requirements for a dwelling to be contained within a building envelope. The garage is located less than 1.5m from the side boundary, however it has a length of less than 9m. The existing part of the dwelling (laundry) located to the north of the proposed garage is located in close proximity to the side boundary, although the information submitted with the application and available on Council's files indicates that the existing building is likely to be within 1.5m of the boundary. The combined length of the building within 1.5m of the boundary is therefore likely to be greater than 9m. In addition, the proposed garage encroaches within the front setback. It is therefore not contained within the required building envelope and must be assessed against the Performance Criteria P3 which states:
The siting and scale of a dwelling must:
(a) not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by:
(i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; or
(iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling when viewed from an adjoining lot; and
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 63 22 January 2018 (b) provide separation between dwellings on adjoining lots that is compatible with that prevailing in the surrounding area.
The proposed garage is located to the southeast of the adjoining dwelling and therefore will not cause a reduction in sunlight to habitable rooms and/or private open space of the adjoining dwelling. The only area to be affected by overshadowing would be the road.
The visual impacts of the proposed garage are not considered to be significant as the building has a low roof line and wall height. When viewed from the adjoining lot to the northwest the impact is considered unlikely to be significant as the wall height is only 2.81m, there is already a concentre block wall on the boundary and the adjoining lot is higher than the subject land and as such the garage will not obstruct the views from the existing windows on the eastern elevation of the adjoining dwelling, as can be seen in Photo 4 below.
Photo 4 – Photo of existing dwellings on subject site and neighbouring property taken from southeast of site
There is a mix of setbacks for existing development in the vicinity and it is considered that the proposal is compatible.
Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Criteria P3 is therefore considered achieved.
A4.
Clause A4 of 12.4.2 requires that no trees of high conservation value will be impacted. The proposal does not involve any impacts on trees of high conservation value and therefore the Acceptable Solution A4 is met.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 64 22 January 2018 Clause 12.4.3 – Site coverage and private open space for all dwellings
A1.
Clause A1 of 12.4.3 sets the requirements for the site coverage of all dwellings and the site area free from impervious materials. A maximum site coverage of 25% is allowable and there must be a site area of which at least 25% is free from impervious surfaces.
The existing site coverage for the development is 34.7%, whilst the proposed site coverage is 38.8%. This is in excess of the maximum allowable 25% and the proposal must therefore be assessed against the provisions of the Performance Criteria P1 which states:
Dwellings must have:
(a) private open space that is of a size and dimensions that are appropriate for the size of the dwelling and is able to accommodate:
(i) outdoor recreational space consistent with the projected requirements of the occupants; and
(ii) operational needs, such as clothes drying and storage; and
(b) have reasonable space for the planting of gardens and landscaping.
(c) not be out of character with the pattern of development in the surrounding area; and
(d) not result in an unreasonable loss of natural or landscape values.
As can be seen in Photo 1 above, the site for the proposed garage is currently either occupied by buildings, hardstand parking areas or decks. The proposal will not affect the existing outdoor areas used for recreational needs of the residents. There are two existing decks off the living areas, one to the north and one to the east, which will be unchanged by the proposal. The site is also fully landscaped and there will be no loss of natural or landscape values as a result of the development. The existing development at 44 Taroona Crescent, to the northwest of the site, has a similar site coverage of 38% and has been the subject of a recent assessment under the same planning scheme (DA-2016-463). The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Performance Criteria P1
There will be no change to the extent of impervious surfaces as a result of the development as the location of the proposed garage is currently hardstand area.
A2.
Clause A2 of 12.4.3 sets the requirements for private open space for a dwelling. The standards relate to area, dimensions, accessibility, orientation and gradient. The proposal will not alter the private open space arrangements for the existing dwelling and as such this clause is not relevant.
Clause 12.4.4 – Sunlight and overshadowing
A1.
Clause A1 of 12.4.4 sets the requirements for sunlight for a dwelling. As the proposal is for a garage and does not alter the habitable room windows of the dwelling, this clause is not relevant. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 65 22 January 2018 A2. and A3.
Clauses A2 and A3 relate to multiple dwellings. As this is an application for a single dwelling, these clauses are not relevant.
Clause 12.4.5 – Width of openings for garages and carports
A1.
Clause 12.4.5(A1) requires that a garage or carport within 12m of a primary frontage has a maximum total width of openings facing the primary frontage not exceeding 6m or half the width of the frontage (whichever is the lesser).
In this proposal, the garage is within 12m of and faces the street. The opening is 5.4m which is less than 6m and significantly less than half the width of the frontage. Compliance with the provisions of the Acceptable Solution A1 is therefore achieved.
Clause 12.4.6 – Privacy
A1.
Clause 12.4.6(A1) is not relevant as the proposal does not involve a balcony, deck, roof terrace, parking space, or carport with a finished surface level more than 1m above natural ground level.
A2.
Clause 12.4.6(A2) is not relevant as the proposal does not involve habitable room windows or doors with a floor level more than 1m above natural ground level.
A3.
Clause 12.4.6(A3) is not relevant as there is no shared driveway or parking space.
Clause 12.4.7 – Frontage fences
The proposal does not involve the construction of a front fence. Accordingly this clause is not relevant.
Clause 12.4.8 – Waste storage for multiple dwellings
The proposal is not for multiple dwellings and therefore this clause is not relevant.
Clause 12.4.9 – Residential density for multiple dwellings
The proposal is not for multiple dwellings and therefore this clause is not relevant.
2.5 Code Matters
Code E3.0 – Landslide Code
Most of the subject land is located within the Low Landslide Hazard Area under Code E3.0 – Landslide Code, as indicated in Plate 3 below.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 66 22 January 2018
Plate 3 – Subject land showing area affected by the Low Landslide Hazard Area
In accordance with Clause E3.4(c) buildings within a Low Landslide Hazard Area are exempt from the Code. Accordingly, the application cannot be considered in relation to the provisions of Code E3.0.
Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code
The relevant provisions of Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code have been assessed by Council's development engineering section. A total of 2 parking spaces is required. The proposal is for a double garage which meets the requirements of the Code.
The proposal is consistent with the requirements of all relevant Acceptable Solutions within the Code.
Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code
The relevant provisions of Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code have been considered by Council’s development engineering unit. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of all relevant Acceptable Solutions. Conditions have been provided for inclusion in any permit issued regarding relevant matters.
Code E10.0 – Biodiversity Code
A portion of the subject land is located within a Biodiversity Protection Area under Code E10.0 – Biodiversity Code, as indicated in Plate 4 below.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 67 22 January 2018
The proposed building works are located clear of the code overlay and will not impact any existing native vegetation. Accordingly, the provisions of the Code are not applicable to the application.
Code E25.0 – Local Development Code
The lot fronts a road (Taroona Crescent) that in turn fronts the coast. If the road did not exist then the lot would abut the coast. It is therefore considered that the proposal is subject to the provisions of Code E25.0 Local Development Code as it involves residential development on a lot in the coastal proximity area as defined in the Code.
Clause E.25.7.1 – Building Height in the coastal proximity
A1.
The Acceptable Solution A1 requires that building height must be no more than 5m. As the building height of the proposed garage is 2.81m, the proposal is compliant with the Acceptable Solution A1.
3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
Health
There are no environmental health issues relevant to the proposed development.
Engineering
The proposal has been assessed by Council’s development engineering unit and found to comply with all relevant Acceptable Solutions. Standard conditions of approval have been provided for inclusion in any permit issued.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 68 22 January 2018 Environmental Planning
There are no natural resource management issues relevant to the proposed development.
3.2 External Referrals
There were no external referrals required as part of this application.
3.3 Representations
The issues raised in the representations are discussed in detail below:
(a) Significance of the architecture of the existing dwelling and incompatible design
All three of the representors have raised concerns about the design of the proposed development and believe that it adversely impacts on the architectural integrity of the existing development. Background information has been provided in relation to the history of the development of the site, including the architect. It is acknowledged by the representors that the house is not listed on any local or state heritage registers but they believe that it is a place of significant architectural merit and if assessed would likely be included on a heritage register due to its features.
The subject land is not listed on the State Heritage Register and is not listed as a Heritage Place in Code E13.0. It is also not located within a Heritage Precinct under Code E13.0. Accordingly, Council has no planning control over the impacts of the proposal on the architectural integrity of the building.
(b) Not in keeping with residential amenity of the area and streetscape impacts
The representors are all concerned that the proposal is not in keeping with the residential amenity of the area and will have adverse visual impacts on the streetscape. They raise concerns that the proposal does not meet the boundary setback requirements for garages and that it exceeds the maximum site coverage for Taroona.
The proposal has been considered against the Performance Criteria standards for setbacks, building envelope and site coverage and has been assessed as being consistent with these requirements. It is considered that the impacts on amenity, landscape and streetscape are acceptable.
(c) Safety concerns with reversing onto road
One of the representors is concerned that pedestrian safety will be compromised if a car were to back out of the garage located so close to the footpath and near a sharp bend in the road.
Currently two parking spaces are provided in the location of the proposed garage and there are no turning facilities on site. This situation will not change as a result of the proposed development. There are also no provisions under the Scheme requiring vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction for a single dwelling. Notwithstanding this, consideration has been given by Council's Development Engineer to the impact of a garage in the proposed location rather than an open parking area and it is considered to be acceptable in this instance.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 69 22 January 2018 (d) Outdoor storage areas
Two of the representors have raised concerns that the proposal does not comply with Clause 12.4.1 which requires outdoor storage areas to be located behind the building line. The concern is that the location of the gas tanks does not meet this requirement and will be visually prominent from the street.
Clause 12.4.1 only relates to Non-dwelling development and as such is not relevant to the assessment of the application.
4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposal is for a garage addition to an existing single dwelling in an established residential area. The proposal involves some demolition works and the conversion of an existing open parking area to a covered garage. It relies on discretions relating to setbacks, building envelope and site coverage. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant Performance Criteria and found to comply with these requirements. Issues raised by representors have been addressed, however many of the concerns raised are not matters controlled by the planning scheme.
The proposal is recommended for approval subject to standard conditions.
6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for garage extension to existing dwelling at 46A Taroona Crescent, Taroona for Smeekes Drafting Pty Ltd be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No. DA-2017-535 and Council Plan Reference No. P1 submitted on 15 November 2017. This Permit relates to the use of land or buildings irrespective of the applicant or subsequent occupants, and whoever acts on it must comply with all conditions in this Permit. Any amendment, variation or extension of this Permit requires further planning consent of Council.
2. The external building materials of all buildings applying to this development must be of types and colours that are sympathetic to the surrounding Taroona Crescent Heritage Precinct environment and must be to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services. Unpainted reflective metal surfaces or inappropriate colour schemes will not be approved.
3. No felling, lopping, ringbarking or otherwise injuring or destroying of native vegetation or individual trees is approved as part of this planning permit.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 70 22 January 2018 4. A drainage design plan in accordance with the Director of Building Control Specified List, Schedule 2, at a scale of 1:200, designed by a qualified hydraulic designer, showing the location of the proposed sewer and stormwater house connection drains; including the pipe sizes, pits and driveway drainage, must be submitted with the application for Plumbing Permit.
ADVICE
A. In accordance with section 53(5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 this permit lapses after a period of two years from the date on which it is granted if the use or development in respect of which it is granted is not substantially commenced within that period.
B. This Permit does not constitute building approval. The developer should obtain a Building Permit for the development prior to commencing construction.
C. The developer should obtain a Plumbing Permit for the development prior to commencing construction.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
Attachments:
1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plans (4)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 71 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 72 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 73 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 74 22 January 2018 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 75 22 January 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 76 22 January 2018 OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES
Open session of Council resumed at
OFFICERS REPORTS TO COUNCIL
FILE NO 25.11 DATE 9 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER GARY ARNOLD – GENERAL MANAGER
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Future Direction 5 Community leadership Strategic Outcome 5.2 The community is well represented at regional and State Government levels Strategy 5.2.2 Further develop and communicate Council’s position on local government reform and in order that it can provide optimum benefits to the Kingborough community
1.1 To inform Council of developments in relation to voluntary Council amalgamations and/or shared services with other councils.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 In February 2015 the Minister for Local Government invited all Councils in Tasmania to regional meetings to commence discussions on Local Government reform.
2.2 Council has considered reports on Local Government Reform at its meetings on 27 January 2015, 23 February 2015, 27 April 2015, 4 May 2015, 25 May 2015, 24 August 2015, 27 June 2016 and 24 April 2017.
2.3 At the Council meeting held on 25 May 2015, Council resolved to “invite Hobart City Council, Glenorchy City Council and Huon Valley Council to join Kingborough Council in seeking funding from State Government for professional facilitation to guide discussion and decision making on the scope and terms of reference for a joint feasibility study”.
2.4 At the 24 August 2015 Council meeting, Council resolved to approve the terms of reference for a feasibility study into voluntary amalgamations (Minute C285/11-15 refers).
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 77 22 January 2018 2.5 As a result of that decision, Council joined with Hobart City Council, Clarence City Council and Glenorchy City Council in a joint feasibility study in relation to a possible greater Hobart Council.
2.6 The four Councils agreed on the following guiding principles for assessing reforms:
- is in the interest of ratepayers,
- improves the level of services for communities,
- preserves and maintains local representation, and
- ensures that the financial status of the entities is strengthened.
2.7 The study undertaken by SGS Economics & Planning was finalised in January 2017.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The Local Government Act 1993 sets out the process required to enact changes to the structure of Local Government in Tasmania.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 The Greater Hobart Feasibility Study Final Report identified 5 options, as follows.
4.1.1 Business as usual
4.1.2 Merger of Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough Councils
4.1.3 Strategic Alliance of Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough Councils
4.1.4 Merger of Hobart, Glenorchy and Clarence Councils
4.1.5 Merger of Hobart and Glenorchy Councils
4.2 Council workshopped the study with the consultants on 6 March 2017.
4.3 Council subsequently considered a report at its meeting on 24 April 2017 and resolved to “seek urgent intervention from the Minister for Local Government to allow Huon Valley Council Commissioner Taylor to hold discussions with Kingborough Council on all available options for local government reform, including amalgamation” (minute C182/8-17 refers).
4.4 On 16 August 2017 the Minister responded and advised that until a democratically elected Council returned to Huon Valley, discussions would not cover voluntary amalgamation options.
4.5 Two days earlier, on 14 August 2017, Clarence City Council resolved to undertake community consultation on the options contained in the SGS Economics and Planning Report and also the options contained in the KPMG “South East Councils Feasibility Study Report.
4.6 Following community consultation, Clarence City Council at its meeting on 18 December 2017 resolved, in part, that “Council advises the Minister for Local Government that Council does not wish to pursue voluntary amalgamation option with the Greater Hobart councils”.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 78 22 January 2018 4.7 Hobart, Glenorchy and Kingborough councils are yet to determine a position on the SGS final report.
4.8 Given that Clarence City Council was the only Council involved in two studies it was appropriate that Kingborough await Clarence forming a position for two main reasons.
4.9 Firstly, the only amalgamation option in the SGS Report involving Kingborough included Clarence.
4.10 Secondly, like Clarence, Kingborough has endeavoured to position itself so that our community would be able to consider, compare and contrast two reports. However, our efforts to get a joint study with Huon Valley Council have stalled.
4.11 It is now timely for Council to consider its position on the SGS Final Report and acknowledge that discussions with Huon Valley Council on anything involving potential amalgamation feasibility studies will not happen until after the October 2018 local government elections at the earliest, if at all.
4.12 Clarence’s decision not to pursue voluntary amalgamation options with the Greater Hobart Councils leaves Kingborough with two choices in relation to the SGS Final Report. Namely, Option 1 Business as Usual or Option 3 Strategic Alliance between all four Councils.
4.13 It could be argued that Option 1 “business as usual” has always been the fall back position. However, as identified in the SGS Report “the stand-alone option does nothing to improve the outcomes for the community”.
4.14 In stark contrast, Option 3 Strategic Alliance of all four Councils results in a net benefit of $294 million dollars over a 20 year timeframe according to the SGS Final Report.
4.15 It therefore comes as no surprise that Clarence City Council also resolved at its meeting on 18 December 2017 to support Option 3 and “advise the Minister for Local Government that Council wishes to seek establishment of a Strategic Alliance of Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough councils to oversee an integrated approach to strategic planning for sustainable and competitive urban growth with metropolitan Hobart, underpinned by a Greater Hobart Act”.
4.16 The Greater Hobart Local Government Reform Feasibility Study was the result of the four Greater Hobart councils agreeing to explore the merits or otherwise of local government reform (collaboration, mergers or boundary adjustments) in order to achieve operational efficiencies, improved service delivery, enhanced strategic capacity and greater advocacy.
4.17 A coordinated and cooperative effort is urgently required to develop a framework for such an alliance and to scope out the relevant governance related issues. A high priority will need to be given to forward planning and how the relationship with the State Government will work – particularly in regard to the many complex and inter-related economic, transport, land use, infrastructure, tourism, and societal issues that need to be addressed.
4.18 It may well be that some form of new coordinating body would be established. One model to look at is the Greater Sydney Commission. This is much larger than what might be possible for Hobart, but its coordination and forward planning role might be one to emulate. Great care will be needed to avoid duplication or to add another layer of bureaucracy. The focus will need to be on performing functions that are currently not being done very well (most forward planning activities in fact fit into that category).
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 79 22 January 2018 4.19 All of the suggested options within the SGS report on Greater Hobart included the need for a Capital City Act in order to recognise and make clear the relationship between local government and the State government. All of the other capital cities already have this type of legislation.
4.20 The following summary indicates that none of them necessarily provide a good model for Hobart.
Perth – legislation was enacted in WA in 2016 to create a Capital City Act that recognises the City of Perth as the State’s pre-eminent local government.
Melbourne – the City of Melbourne Act 2001 focuses mainly on the relationship between the State Government and the City council.
Brisbane – the City of Brisbane Act 2010 is very detailed legislation that covers all of the operations of this very large city council – similar to what Tasmania’s Local Government Act does.
Adelaide – the City of Adelaide Act 1998 focuses on a number of matters that specifically relate to Adelaide being the State’s capital city.
Sydney – the City of Sydney Act 1988 is quite operational in nature and focuses on elections and the role of the council’s planning committee.
4.21 In Hobart’s case, a Greater Hobart Act will need to accommodate the recommended Strategic Alliance between the four councils and create the means by which these Councils interact with the State Government in ensuring that Greater Hobart is managed and developed in a coordinated and sustainable manner (such as might be facilitated by a new coordinating body).
4.22 A Greater Hobart Act is therefore seen as necessary as it will formally recognise the important inter-relationship between the four Councils and State Government.
4.23 The SGS Report says that “for any form of collaboration to succeed in the future there is a need (a) to involve State Government, (b) to ensure there are clear roles and responsibilities for member councils and the State, (c) to have specific requirements on what the Act must deliver, and (d) to ensure outcomes support the interests of the wider community by removing the opt out option of single members”.
4.24 The Australian Government has announced it intends to establish a City Deal with all capital cities in the coming years. On 16 January 2018 the Prime Minister made the announcement about a City Deal for Hobart.
4.25 There are three City Deals already in place – Townsville (November 2016), Launceston (April 2017) and Western Sydney (October 2016). City Deals are an initiative of the Australian Government, bringing together the three levels of government, the community and private enterprise to create place-based partnerships. They align the planning, investment and governance necessary to accelerate growth and job creation, stimulate urban renewal and drive economic reforms. They aim to secure the city’s future prosperity and liveability.
4.26 Although the finer detail for the Hobart City Deal has not been identified, the Federal Government normally sees the six main focus areas as being infrastructure and investment; liveability and sustainability; housing; innovation and digital opportunities; governance, city planning and regulation; and jobs and skills. City Deals provide an opportunity for all three levels of government to develop a tailored approach and
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 80 22 January 2018 collective plans for growth that commit to the actions, investments, reforms and governance needed to implement them.
4.27 The successful implementation of the Hobart City Deal will offer the stimulus needed to accelerate a number of major projects that could be critical in Hobart’s future sustainable development.
4.28 There are obvious connections between a Strategic Alliance of the four Councils, a Greater Hobart Act and the City Deal. All of them require a common strategic planning framework and, ultimately a suite of planning documents that describe how the region will be managed and developed in future.
4.29 In the absence of a voluntary amalgamation, a Strategic Alliance of the four Councils will provide the greatest net benefit over a 20 year timeframe.
4.30 If the future development of Kingborough and the Greater Hobart region is to be managed in the most sustainable manner, then there must be a strategic planning framework in place that underpins and integrates the ‘Strategic Alliance’, a Greater Hobart Act and any City Deal. This requires a pragmatic and inclusive approach that fully explores all of the inter-relationships and inter-dependencies.
4.31 Importantly, a Strategic Alliance will address a current gap in strategic planning, not impact any future potential voluntary amalgamations, improve the chances of successful outcomes from a City Deal for Greater Hobart and thus deliver significant beneficial outcomes for our communities as identified in the SGS Final Report.
5 FINANCE
5.1 The SGS Greater Hobart Feasibility Study Final Report identifies a net benefit of $294 million dollars over a 20 year time frame for Option 3 Strategic Alliance of Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough councils.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 There are no environmental implications with this report.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 Should the recommendation in this report be supported it is proposed that the Mayor provides a media release and Council communicate the decision widely.
8 RISK
8.1 Option 3, in the SGS Final Report, a Strategic Alliance of Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough councils in the SGS Study requires the introduction of a Greater Hobart Act.
8.2 One of the main risks is that the State Government may not introduce a Greater Hobart Act.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 The SGS Greater Hobart Local Government Reform Final Feasibility Report makes a compelling case for the establishment of a Strategic Alliance of the four councils.
9.2 The Final Report identifies that “in Greater Hobart there have been past attempts to take an integrated approach for sustainable and competitive urban growth, in the form of the Southern Metropolitan Master Planning Authority, Southern Metropolitan ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 81 22 January 2018 Planning Authority, Hobart Metropolitan Councils Association and more recently the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority. While important, these former collaborations have all failed to deliver the anticipated outcomes. This was mostly driven by the lack of a Capital City Act and individual councils not agreeing on strategic directions and the ability of councils to opt out of strategic decisions, thereby undermining the collective benefits of the joint approach. The commitment of State Government is also crucial given its key role in delivering regional transport infrastructure, social infrastructure facilities, and other ‘city- shaping’ investments”.
9.3 The Final Report goes on to say “for any form of collaboration to succeed in the future there is a need (a) to involve State Government, (b) to ensure there are clear roles and responsibilities for member councils and the State, (c) to have specific requirements on what the Act must deliver, and (d) to ensure outcomes support the interests of the wider community by removing the opt out option of single members”.
9.4 If the future development of Kingborough and the Greater Hobart region is to be managed in the most sustainable manner, then there must be a strategic planning framework in place that underpins and integrates a ‘Strategic Alliance’, a Greater Hobart Act and any City Deal. This requires a pragmatic and inclusive approach that fully explores all of the inter-relationships and inter-dependencies.
9.5 Importantly, a Strategic Alliance will address a current gap in strategic planning, not impact any future potential voluntary amalgamations, improve the chances of successful outcomes from a City Deal for Hobart and thus deliver significant beneficial outcomes for our communities as identified in the SGS Final Report.
9.6 It is recommended that Council support Option 3 of the SGS Greater Hobart Feasibility Study Final Report. This involves the establishment of a Strategic Alliance of Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough councils to oversee an integrated approach to strategic planning for sustainable and competitive urban growth within metropolitan Hobart, underpinned by a Greater Hobart Act.
10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council advises the Minister for Local Government, the Lord Mayor of Hobart and Mayors of Clarence and Glenorchy, that Council supports Option 3 of the SGS Greater Hobart Feasibility Study Final Report and that Council seeks the establishment of a Strategic Alliance of Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough councils to oversee an integrated approach to strategic planning for sustainable and competitive urban growth within metropolitan Hobart, underpinned by a Greater Hobart Act.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 82 22 January 2018 FILE NO 5055254 DATE 5 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER TONY FERRIER – DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD – GENERAL MANAGER
BRUNY ISLAND AIRSTRIP
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 2.0 Sustainable land use and infrastructure management Strategic Outcome 2.2 Community infrastructure is enhanced, replaced and maintained Strategy 2.2.6 Review future needs, plus maintain and develop recreational and sporting facilities
1.1 This report reviews Council’s obligations in owning and operating the Bruny Island Airstrip and potential options for its future management.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Bruny Island Airstrip is located just north of the Neck on Bruny Island Main Road, Great Bay. The property is owned by Council and part of the land is currently leased to a private commercial operator (Island Scenic Flights) where an aircraft hangar and office has been constructed. The purpose of this report is to consider matters relating to the future ownership and management of the airstrip.
2.2 The land was originally donated to the Bruny Island community by Arthur Edward Lowe and ownership was transferred to the Bruny Island Council. The original airstrip was built by community volunteers. It was officially opened by the State Government’s Transport Minister in 1963. The airstrip was transferred to Kingborough Council at the time of council amalgamations in 1993. The aerial transport of a medical officer to the Island occurred up until 1994. It has in the past been primarily used for private access and emergency purposes.
2.3 Council has in the recent past had concerns about its capacity to maintain and operate the airstrip in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Various matters relating to the inspection and maintenance costs were considered in 2008 and 2010. The necessary maintenance and upgrade works were carried out in order to meet the CASA safety requirements.
2.4 In 2010 Council considered the issuing of a license to allow a commercial operator, Island Scenic Flights, to utilise the airstrip for commercial scenic flights. A development application (DA 2012-239) was submitted for an aircraft hangar and office and a planning permit was issued in January 2013. Island Scenic Flights has been operating at this site since that time. The current license is over an area that includes the aircraft hangar and office and the original fee was $1,750.00 per annum (indexed to CPI). The term of the license is 20 years (expires 1/3/2033) with an option for an additional 20 years from the completion of the term of the license.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 83 22 January 2018 3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Council has a statutory obligation to ensure that the airstrip complies with the minimum standards adopted by CASA as stated within the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 92–1(1) Guidelines for Aeroplane Landing Areas.
3.2 CASA Regulation Part 135 relates to Australian Air Transport Operations for Small Aeroplanes and is yet to come into effect (though original consultation on the proposed changes commenced almost 20 years ago). It will introduce higher standards for charter operators on such airstrips as at Bruny Island and may further restrict the current use.
3.3 A valuation of the land has been obtained in accordance with Section 177(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 The airstrip is available for general public use and no landing fees are charged. It is generally considered to be impractical to charge landing fees as there is no permanent presence at the airstrip. Island Scenic Flights are the main user, with other occasional usage by private individuals, tourist operators and aeronautical clubs. Council insures the facility and carries the liability for its use. The airstrip is inspected on a weekly basis (with records kept) and essential maintenance is carried out by Council’s Works staff (though limited by available equipment and in-house knowledge of airstrip management).
4.2 Council has routinely commissioned reports on the condition of the airstrip by a specialist consultant. The latest report was undertaken by Airports Plus Pty Ltd in April 2017. This report included the following maintenance and upgrade recommendations:
The pavement should be regravelled within the next 1-2 years due to the loss of fines as a direct result of the increased use following the establishment of charter and joy flights business.
The requirements from the CASA require a total runway strip width of 60m. Vegetation has encroached into this area and in some areas this is in the region of 5-10m encroachment. This vegetation needs to be removed.
The wick off the edge of the gravel runway needs to be removed. The wick was approximately 300mm with a vertical face. While this is an effective drainage practice for rural roads it was considered to be a potentially fatal practice adjacent to runways. It should be noted that this was immediately rectified by Council upon receipt of this advice.
4.3 This report from Airports Plus also identified the following concerns:
The airstrip is being inspected by persons who are not familiar with the specific requirements for maintaining airstrips, though this can be remedied by specific training.
Neighbouring property owners and tenants have unrestricted access to the site.
Tree growth is an issue on either side of the runway strip and also approach and take off areas which is contained on land that Council does not own or control.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 84 22 January 2018 4.4 The report concluded that any of these risks could be considered as potentially catastrophic, as similar hazards have been attributed to fatalities in the past. It also concluded that, based on all these concerns, Council should dispose of the airstrip from its portfolio of properties.
4.5 In reviewing the recent report received from Airports Plus, an investigation has been conducted into the history of ownership of the airstrip, the pattern of use, the cost of annual maintenance of the airstrip and the cost of implementing the maintenance recommendations of the report. Consultation has also been undertaken with relevant stakeholders and community comment has been sought. The results of these investigations are contained within this report.
4.6 Another Civil Aviation Safety Regulation requirement is that Council must appoint an airport manager. Airservices is Australia’s air navigation service provider – in regard to air traffic control, aviation rescue and fire-fighting and air navigation services. They hold and maintain current contact details of owner/operators of Aircraft Landing Areas. Such owner/operators are required to register with Airservices and nominate a responsible person – otherwise referred to as an Aeronautical Data Originator. This person then must obtain a Data Product Specification to ensure all data relating to the airstrip is exchanged through a quality controlled process. Council must now nominate this person. One thought was to utilise the current licensee but he would need to be trained and compensated accordingly.
4.7 The use of the airstrip by pilots and aircraft is largely under the discretion of the individual pilot and, under the current circumstances, this is largely unregulated. The Civil Aviation Advisory Publication No:92-1(1) provides guidelines for aeroplane landing areas such as the Bruny airstrip, however these are guidelines only. CASA takes no active role in ensuring small airstrips such as this comply with what are effectively only guidelines rather than rules. While the Airport Plus report has identified some potentially dangerous aspects of the current use, it does not appear that such use is necessarily in breach of any laws, regulations or other requirements of a Federal, State or local authority.
4.8 There appears to be five potential options in regard to the future of the airstrip and a brief assessment of the pros and cons follows.
retain and upgrade the airstrip and continue to operate under current arrangements;
retain and upgrade the airstrip and to then lease or licence it to a third party who would be responsible for its ongoing maintenance and operation;
sell the airstrip as is and pass on all upgrade/maintenance responsibilities to a private operator;
upgrade the airstrip and then transfer ownership and all subsequent responsibilities to a community group; or
close the airstrip.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 85 22 January 2018 Option For Against (1) Council to own Strong local community Not core business for Council – and manage support. plus expertise required to airstrip No impact on existing inspect and maintain the airstrip licencee and other users of is beyond Council’s current the airstrip. capacity. Guarantees ongoing Substantial capital investment provision of the airstrip and required to bring it up to services that operate from standard. it. Substantial ongoing operational costs to maintain (see Finance section). Ongoing liability issues for Council – including increased insurance premiums and litigation risk. (2) Lease or licence Transfers some of Substantial capital investment the airstrip Council’s ongoing risk required to bring it up to management and standard maintenance liabilities. Council still has a degree of Ensures the ongoing responsibility to ensure that the availability of the airstrip. facility operates safely. Potential for changes to how the facility is operated, as current levels of access may be restricted. Requires a third party willing to take on the future responsibilities. (3) Sell the airstrip Significant cost savings to Requires a third party willing to Council and removal of all take on the future future liabilities. responsibilities. Potential to generate funds Once sold, there is no for alternate community guarantee that the new owner assets on Bruny Island. will continue to operate the facility as an airstrip. Community opposition due to privatisation of a public asset. (4) Transfer to a Ensures the ongoing Questionable whether a community group availability of the airstrip. community group is capable of Airstrip is retained in local meeting the ongoing CASA ownership. requirements or willing to take on the financial, management and risk responsibilities. Requires a group to be formed for this purpose. (5) Close the airstrip Significant cost savings to This facility is lost to the Council and removal of all community – impacting on future liabilities. current and potential users, including tourism. Impact on existing licensee. Likely community and business objections.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 86 22 January 2018 4.9 There is no obvious optimal option that can be chosen from the list above and it is unclear whether there are interested parties that would be willing to operate or own the airstrip. A first step in determining the most suitable option and better informing the decision making process would be to seek expressions of interest for any interested party to operate or own the airstrip.
4.10 A significant constraint in regard to any disposal option is that there is an existing licence over part of the airstrip, held by Island Scenic Flights. There are no current grounds to allow Council to terminate this licence, in the absence of any breach of the licence terms or conditions. Any future consideration of a sale or lease of the property will need to protect the existing interests of this licence to Island Scenic Flights.
5 FINANCE
5.1 The annual maintenance costs necessary to meet the required standards have been calculated to be $30,942 per annum. This includes a maintenance grade once per year, a roll with a heavy roller twice a year, weed and grass spraying once a year, slashing once per year, a weekly inspection and training for the inspection officer. In order to implement the further works indicated as necessary by the Airports Plus report, a one-off cost of $175,362 has been determined. This includes vegetation removal, airstrip resheeting and fencing costs to ensure security of the airstrip (from wallabies and unauthorised entry).
5.2 A license fee of $1,750.00 per annum (indexed to CPI) is received each year from the existing licensee.
5.3 In June 2017 a market valuation of the land was obtained and it was determined to be $120,000.
5.4 Council currently pays an annual insurance premium of $2,218.50 for “Hangarkeepers Liability” that covers “liability for the airfield premises”, “liability for aircraft in care, custody or control” and “liability for aircraft maintenance, sales or repairs”.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 The main environmental impact of the airstrip is that surrounding vegetation needs to be kept cleared for landing and take-off safety purposes. Wildlife needs to be kept off the airstrip due to the danger of potential collisions with aircraft.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 Comments have been sought from a range of stakeholders in relation to the future of the facility. A general summary of the responses is as follows:
Bruny Island Advisory Committee (BIAC) – has recommended to Council that the airstrip be retained in Council ownership as a community asset. Following further information on the future airstrip management options and the upgrade and maintenance costs, the current BIAC resolution (at its 14 December 2017 meeting) is that the suggestion to seek expressions of interests from potential alternative operators in relation to the airstrip is supported.
Bruny Island Community Association (BICA) – Strongly recommend that the airstrip be retained within Council ownership for the benefit of the whole community as was intended when the land was originally donated. BICA also stated that a caveat should be placed on the title to restrict the sale of the airstrip.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 87 22 January 2018 Bruny State Emergency Services – There are no recent records of the Bruny SES having to use the facility, but a set of landing lights are carried if needed for an emergency night landing.
Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) – The TFS seldom use the airstrip. The TFS use of aircraft is confined to helicopters and these can be landed in a range of locations close to any incident and any support infrastructure and fuel for establishing a heli-base can be brought to those locations as required. Fixed wing water bombers have been used on Bruny, as late as last summer, however these are based and supported from Cambridge. A decision to base fixed wing aircraft on this airstrip is not relevant for firefighting plans for the island.
Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) – The RFDS does not use the Bruny airstrip for fixed wing aircraft as it does not comply with requirements. Rescues are undertaken from the island by helicopter which can land in various locations close to any incident. The RFDS does not see any benefit in upgrading the airstrip for their use.
Adjoining neighbour/owner – Has stated his longstanding knowledge of the airstrip and strongly believes that the airstrip should not be privatised. He disputes the extent of maintenance carried out by Council to date.
Local residents (including Bruny Island History Group) – Consider that the airstrip should be retained in Council ownership and is necessary for emergency services.
Wynyard Aero Club – This club uses the airstrip once every two years as part of their circumnavigation of Tasmania. At this event approximately 30 aircraft land at Bruny. The club said the airstrip is probably only suitable for experienced pilots but highlighted the need for such facilities throughout the state.
Island Scenic Flights – The current licensee says that the airstrip is used 7 days a week. By mid-August 2017, the business had carried 734 passengers with 342 take-offs and landings that year. This is equivalent to about 540 take-offs and landings each year. It was also reported that the airstrip is also used by private pilots (detailed figures are not available but estimated to be about 3-4 each weekend), by Aero Clubs and by Par Avion for training purposes.
7.2 The property is not considered to be public land as defined by the Local Government Act 1993 and is therefore not subject to the statutory public advertising requirements. However should Council decide to lease or sell the land, it would be appropriate to publicly advertise this intention in order to identify any interested party.
8 RISK
8.1 The Airports Plus report indicates that Council is exposed to a number of risks in owning and maintaining the airstrip. These include that:
the airstrip is being inspected and maintained by Council staff that are not appropriately trained or qualified;
the current condition of the runway does not meet optimum safety standards and requires re-sheeting;
unrestricted access by unauthorised persons and wildlife presents a safety hazard; and
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 88 22 January 2018 encroachment of vegetation upon the runway and flight path does not meet Civil Aviation Advisory Guidelines for Landing Areas.
8.2 The report concluded that the above risks could be considered as potentially catastrophic as fatalities have been attributed to such hazards in the past. Council must provide an airstrip in accordance with CASA regulations and there is a concern that they will only become more onerous over time. Council may also need to eventually appoint a permanent air traffic controller on site in order to comply with Airservices requirements.
8.3 An example of the potential risk is a legal decision made against Kempsey Shire Council in September 2017. This involved a collision between a kangaroo and an aircraft where Council was ordered to pay damages of $195,853.51 because of damage to the aircraft (no-one was hurt in the incident) – as the council was found to be negligent for “failure to take precautions”.
8.4 There are a number of risks associated with any decision made to transfer maintenance, inspection and ongoing management responsibilities to another person, business or organisation. If Council retains ownership and leases the airstrip, then legal provisions will need to be in place that ensures all safety requirements are being adequately addressed. There is a risk that no private operator may want to take on the responsibility of the airstrip maintenance. There may be difficulties in generating revenue from users and making the airstrip pay. It is also likely that Council may need to first bring the airstrip up to the full standard necessary prior to transfer.
8.5 There is also the risk that, if the airstrip is transferred, then general access to the public may be restricted by a private operator. This however could be protected through appropriate lease or covenant provisions.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 While Council owns and manages the Bruny Island airstrip, it must do so in a manner that is in full accord with all of the relevant regulations. Not to do so is untenable from both a legal and a risk management perspective, as highlighted in the recent report from Airports Plus.
9.2 There is clearly strong local community support for the retention of the airstrip in Council ownership. This is largely based on the fact that the land was donated to Council and that the land has previously been used for emergency services. In regard to the latter, it is apparent that the airstrip is now not used for community emergency purposes. Both the RFDS and TFS say it provides no benefit to them. The main beneficiaries of the airstrip appear to be the commercial operator, Island Scenic Flights and the private users of the site such as individual pilots (of which there are a few on the Island) and Aero Clubs.
9.3 Council does have an obligation to retain the existing licence and allow Island Scenic Flights ongoing access to the airstrip. This is subject to there being no significant breaches to the licence terms and conditions.
9.4 Council will need to determine whether there is sufficient public need for the airstrip, bearing in mind the current levels of use, the type of uses that occur, the costs to bring the airstrip up to a suitable standard, other ongoing maintenance costs (to meet inspection, staff training and site maintenance requirements) and the future operational risks and liabilities associated with operating a public airstrip.
9.5 It is questionable as to whether Council is able to meet the increasing regulations and level of expertise required to operate an airstrip. It is also debatable as to whether this
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 89 22 January 2018 is the type of facility that should be managed by a Council, particularly when it is apparently only used for private purposes.
9.6 Many within the local community hold the view that it is important that Council continues to own and preferably operate the airstrip. They feel that Bruny Island should have a publicly available airstrip. Nevertheless, it is now necessary to further explore the options that have been presented within this report and this can only be done by initially seeking expressions of interests from potentially alternative operators.
9.7 Ideally, Council would like to transfer all upgrading, maintenance and operational responsibilities at minimum cost. This would be the starting point from which further negotiations could be conducted with any other interested parties. The recommendation below is that such expressions of interest be sought. A further report to Council will be prepared following the receipt and analysis of these submissions.
10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council seeks expressions of interest into the future operation and management of the Bruny Island Airstrip and that any submissions received be the subject of a further report to Council.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 90 22 January 2018 FILE NO 19.18 DATE 3 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER DANIEL SMEE - MANAGER, GOVERNANCE & PROPERTY SERVICES ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER
TAROONA AND HINSBY BEACH TENURE
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 1.0 A safe, healthy and supportive community
Strategic Outcome 1.3 Safe, active and healthy local communities
Strategy 1.3.3 Enforce regulations that protect the safety, amenity and convenience of the public.
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide advice in relation to the land tenure at Taroona and Hinsby beaches.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 It is generally assumed by the public that Council is responsible for the management of Taroona and Hinsby beaches.
2.2 This position has been reinforced by Council actively managing the restrictions of dogs on these beaches through signage and patrols by Compliance officers.
2.3 Recent correspondence from Crown Land Services has clarified that Council has no tenure over the beach or adjoining foreshore reserve, other than a 2m wide corridor in which a public walking track is located (as shown in red below).
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 91 22 January 2018 3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Council’s Dog Management Policy applies only to Council owned or managed land. In the absence of any tenure over the beaches in question, the default position under the Dog Control Act 2000 would be a requirement for dogs to be on a lead (as opposed to the current prohibition).
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 In the past year, Council has received a petition from local residents of Taroona seeking greater access for dogs on Taroona and Hinsby beaches, as well as a petition supporting the maintenance of the current prohibitions.
4.2 In order to be able to manage the expectations of the community in regard to dog restrictions, it is necessary for Council to obtain formal tenure over these two beaches.
4.3 The merits of the arguments behind the opposing viewpoints will be addressed as part of the review of Council’s Dog Management Policy, that will shortly be undertaken now as the Dog Control Amendment Bill 2017 has obtained Royal Assent and the Dog Control Act 2000 has been amended.
4.4 In the interim, it is recommended that Council pursue a licence from the Crown over the two beaches.
5 FINANCE
5.1 It is expected that the licence would be granted at a peppercorn rental and would not result in any additional maintenance responsibility to Council than is currently being undertaken.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 Obtaining tenure over the beaches and adjoining foreshore areas would enable Council to have greater control over environmental outcomes – particularly in relation to dog management.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 Given that there is a perception that Council currently manages both Taroona and Hinsby beaches, it is not considered that this is a matter that requires community consultation.
8 RISK
8.1 Formal tenure over the beaches would provide clarity with respect to Council’s risk management responsibilities.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 It has recently been ascertained that Council does not have any tenure over Taroona and Hinsby beaches other than a 2m wide walking track running through the adjoining foreshore and Taroona Park that is owned by Council.
9.2 Given that Council has historically managed and maintained the area, this situation is undesirable and formalisation by means of a licence with the Crown is recommended as an appropriate course of action.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 92 22 January 2018 10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council seek a licence from the Crown over the Taroona and Hinsby beaches and adjoining foreshore areas.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 93 22 January 2018 FILE NO 28.9, 12. 140 DATE 19 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER TONY FERRIER – DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD – GENERAL MANAGER
KINGBOROUGH CASH-IN-LIEU OF ON-SITE CAR PARKING POLICY
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 2.0 Sustainable land use and infrastructure management Strategic Outcome 2.2 Community infrastructure is enhanced, replaced and maintained Strategy 2.2.4 Ensure there is appropriate public parking facilities within each of the municipality’s commercial areas
1.1 This report proposes that Council adopt a policy that allows cash contributions to be made in lieu of on-site parking being provided.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Development proposals are required, under the planning scheme, to provide sufficient car parking to meet the reasonable needs of those future developments. There are developments standards that define the amount of parking that is required for different types and scales of land uses. This car parking is normally contained within the same land as the actual new development, however there are many situations where this is either not possible or appropriate. Council does then have the option to require the equivalent amount of money to be provided, rather than the on-site construction of car parking spaces. This is usually referred to as a ‘cash-in-lieu of parking contribution’.
2.2 Such contributions are normally made or are needed within more heavily built up areas. It is often both inefficient and poor urban planning to expect every individual property (many of which are quite small) to provide all of the car parks that might be needed or generated by the development within that property. Most urban councils do have policies and/or procedures in place to accommodate cash-in-lieu of parking contributions.
2.3 Although Kingborough Council has, in the past, taken the equivalent cash rather than requiring on-site parking, there is currently no policy in place to guide how this should be done in a consistent manner. This report proposes that Council adopt such a policy. It is expected that such a policy will be needed more in future, particularly in regard to the facilitation of the future Kingston Park development and higher commercial densities within central Kingston more generally.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The parking requirements under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 are defined within the Parking and Access Code. This requires that there are sufficient on- site parking spaces to meet the future demand created by the development being assessed. This is defined by a set number of parking spaces for different uses – unless a parking plan has been prepared for the local area or the alternative performance criteria can all be met.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 94 22 January 2018 3.2 The objective for Clause E6.6.1 Number of Car Parking Spaces within that Code is that:
(a) there is enough car parking to meet the reasonable needs of all users of a use or development, taking into account the level of parking available on or outside of the land and the access afforded by other modes of development.
(b) a use or development does not detract from the amenity of users or the locality by:
(i) preventing regular parking overspill;
(ii) minimising the impact of car parking on heritage or local character.
3.3 The Acceptable Solution A1 states that the number of on-site car parking spaces must be no less than the number specified in Table E6.1, except if the site is subject to a parking plan for the area adopted by Council, in which case parking provision (spaces or cash-in-lieu) must be in accordance with that plan.
3.4 The Performance Criteria P1 states that the number of on-site car parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the use having regard to all of the following:
(a) …. (h)
(i) the appropriateness of a financial contribution in lieu of parking towards the cost of parking facilities or other transport facilities, where such facilities exist or are planned in the vicinity;
(j) any verified prior payment of a financial contribution in lieu of parking for the land;.
(k) …. (m)
3.5 The Performance Criteria would be relied upon if the development proposal is not able to provide the required number of parking spaces (as per Table E6.1) or there is no adopted “parking plan” for the area.
3.6 The parking requirements under the State Planning Provisions are defined within the Parking and Sustainable Transport Code. These requirements are similar to those under the existing Interim scheme.
3.7 The objective for Clause C2.5.1 Car Parking Numbers within that Code is that an appropriate level of car parking spaces are provided to meet the needs of the use.
3.8 Acceptable Solution A1 states that the number of on-site car parking spaces must be no less than the number specified in Table C2.1 excluding if:
(a) the site is subject to a parking plan for the area adopted by council, in which case parking provision (spaces or cash-in-lieu) must be in accordance with that plan;
(b) the site is contained within a parking precinct plan and subject to Clause C2.7
(c) the site is subject to Clause C2.5.5; or
(d) it relates to an intensification of an existing use or development or a change of use where ….. etc.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 95 22 January 2018 3.9 The Performance Criteria P1 states that the number of on-site car parking spaces must meet the reasonable needs of the use having regard to ….. and then it lists the various criteria that needs to be met for “uses excluding dwellings” and for “dwellings”. The SPPs also provide for situations where a “parking precinct plan” is in place (clause C2.7.1) for those localities where the amount of on-site parking needs to be minimised.
3.10 Both the current and future planning schemes accommodate the capacity to provide cash-in-lieu of parking contributions.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Off-street car parking has an important role in meeting community needs. The public requires safe and convenient car parking in order to access local businesses, sporting and recreational facilities and government services. When developers cannot provide adequate car parking on site or where a more suitable site is preferred, then a cash-in- lieu of parking contribution can be applied as an alternative means to satisfy public demand.
4.2 The proposed Policy provides a set of guidelines for the consideration and acceptance of cash-in-lieu contributions for on-site car parking not provided by a development. These contributions are to be equivalent to the actual parking requirements of the Council’s planning scheme. A parking plan for that local area will form the basis for the use of funds that have been collected by way of the cash-in-lieu of parking contribution. These funds are held in trust by the Council for the provision or improvement of car parking and/or transport infrastructure for public transport, walking or cycling.
4.3 For central Kingston, it is proposed that the cash-in-lieu of parking contributions will be utilised to provide improvements in accordance with the previously adopted Central Kingston Parking Strategy and the Kingston Park Site Development Plan. Both of these reports include specific on-ground parking improvements. As well as this it is also possible to implement other measures that reduce the demand for parking – such as public transport, walking or cycling infrastructure. These existing ‘parking plans’ are subject to further review and a more detailed plan for Kingston Park will be prepared in the near future.
4.4 The Policy applies to all uses and development in all zones within the planning scheme. However it is most likely to be applied within the commercial areas of Kingston and, to a lesser extent Kingston Beach, Blackmans Bay, Margate and Snug.
4.5 Each of Kingborough’s commercial centres and villages have different characteristics and car parking requirements. These differences need to be considered when considering cash-in-lieu contributions. Such an alternative can enhance local urban design (such as by avoiding carparks being part of the streetscape) and make for safer, more walkable commercial centres. Greater efficiency is obtained when public parking spaces, built with the revenue from cash-in-lieu, allows for shared parking among different sites with differing peak parking times and therefore fewer spaces are required to meet the combined peak parking demand.
4.6 In considering whether car parking should be provided on site or whether a cash contribution should be required, there are three main alternatives. They are:
(i) mandatory on-site provision (the normal or conventional outcome);
(ii) optional on-site provision with cash-in-lieu if parking is not provided for (as proposed and justified by the developer); and
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 96 22 January 2018 (iii) restriction or prohibition of on-site provision (usually within heavily built up areas where on-site parking is inappropriate and cash-in-lieu is the only option).
4.7 In general, cash-in-lieu or restrictions on on-site parking do make sense where there is the potential for more efficient joint provision. Concentrated parking in designated areas create efficiencies that may include:
better traffic circulation due to fewer entry/exit points;
cost efficiencies in parking area construction due to economies of scale;
more efficient traffic and pedestrian use patterns;
the capacity to expand the commercial footprint in areas most suitable for retail and office development; and
the increased multi-use of parking areas, such as might be needed at different times of the day.
4.8 It is therefore often desirable to encourage developers to opt for paying cash in lieu of parking and the Policy should include some incentives for this to occur. The policy leaves the choice to the developer as to how much car parking is provided on site versus how much is paid for by a cash-in-lieu contribution. The planning scheme provisions will sometimes impose restrictions that influence this decision.
4.9 The money that is collected by Council would normally be spent on the construction of new public parking areas. These public parking areas will service a number of private businesses and public needs. The resultant synergies mean that the total parking required would be less than the total of what is required individually for each use under the planning scheme. Some allowance for a reduced cash-in-lieu contribution can be made to accommodate this fact.
5 FINANCE
5.1 The cash-in-lieu contribution is calculated by adding the cost to construct a single car parking space to the value of the land that this space occupies. This amount is then multiplied by the number of spaces that constitutes the planning scheme shortfall.
5.2 The construction cost for this same single parking space is assumed to be currently about $5,000. This is based on recent construction costs and is assumed to be for an open single level type parking area. A typical figure would be at least $20,000 per parking space if a multi-level structure was necessary.
5.3 The Policy does not advocate a set $ figure for the construction of the parking area. Such a figure will change over time and be different according to the type of parking facility that is proposed to be constructed. The contribution amount will be influenced by any Parking Plan that is in force.
5.4 The Policy adopts the Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking for the design of a car parking space. Based on this, it is assumed that 30m² is required as a minimum for a single car parking space (taking into account access and manoeuvring). This is then used to calculate the value of the affected land (based on a local and up-to-date per m² rate). This value will of course vary for different localities.
5.5 As an example, a conservative average of the value of vacant land within the Kingston CBD is about $500/m². At 30m², this is equivalent to $15,000, to which is added the
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 97 22 January 2018 $5,000 for the construction costs. Therefore the total cash-in-lieu contribution for a single parking space in central Kingston is likely to be in the order of about $20,000.
5.6 It is proposed that a community benefit factor be applied to this cost estimate. This would recognise the benefits obtained from having concentrated public parking as described in paragraph 4.7 above. Accordingly, the cash-in-lieu contribution would be reduced by 25%. This type of benefit has been applied by other councils.
5.7 Council does maintain a “Car Parking Reserve” and this currently contains $46,248. This money is from past cash-in-lieu of parking contributions. There have not been any recent contributions made. It appears that this money was mainly collected prior to 1999 and there is no record of any outstanding commitments.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 There are no environmental issues to consider in regard to this matter.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 This Policy, if adopted, would be communicated to all prospective developers and would be available on Council’s website.
8 RISK
8.1 If this Policy, or something similar, is not adopted, then the procedures for obtaining cash-in-lieu of parking will not be clear. This may result in future opportunities for disputing Council’s calculation.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 A cash-in-lieu of on-site parking policy is required in order to confirm Council’s requirements. This will assist in the future coordinated development of the more built up areas of the municipality, such as the Kingston CBD and Kingston Park in particular.
9.2 The proposed policy provides a framework for how the cash-in-lieu contributions are calculated and how the money is to be spent. It is also the first step in preparing parking plans for areas such as Kingston Park that more precisely describe the future parking facilities that could be funded from cash-in-lieu of parking contributions.
10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council adopt the attached Cash-in-Lieu of Parking Policy.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 98 22 January 2018 NEW POLICY FOR APPROVAL
Policy No …. CASH-IN-LIEU OF LAST NEXT MINUTE PARKING POLICY REVIEW REVIEW REF Feb 2018 Feb 2020
POLICY 1.1 Council recognises that there will be benefits in taking the equivalent cash STATEMENT: from prospective developers rather than requiring the on-site provision of parking spaces to support the needs of the proposed new use or development. 1.2 Procedures need to be in place that describes when the cash-in-lieu of parking is required, how it is to be calculated and how the accumulated funds are to be spent by Council. 1.3 The commercial centres and more heavily built up areas of the municipality will benefit from the provision of concentrated public parking and reducing the need for on-site parking. Cash-in-lieu of parking contributions will enable funds to be used for these purposes.
DEFINITIONS: 2.1 “Construction cost” means the earthworks, structures, access, drainage, pavement, kerbing, marking out, signage and landscaping works. 2.2 “Planning scheme” means the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 – or subsequent replacement.
OBJECTIVE: 3.1 The objectives of this policy are that: the duplication of parking facilities in Kingborough is reduced and that developers are able to maximise the use of their land; the amount of parking provided is sufficient to meet the future needs of the use and/or development of the subject land; there is a complementary policy to support the cash-in-lieu of parking provisions within the planning scheme; there will be an appropriate number of car parking spaces made available; the efficient use of parking spaces is promoted through the consolidation of car parking facilities; there will be an equitable charging of cash-in-lieu contributions for on-site car parking spaces; the method of calculating the value of cash-in-lieu contributions is clear, reasonable and fair; and a set of guidelines is provided for the use of funds held in trust for the provision or improvement of car parking and/or transport infrastructure for public transport, walking or cycling in Kingborough.
PRINCIPLES: 4.1 The principles to guide the implementation of this Policy are: the Policy will be applied in a manner that is consistent with and supports the assessment of development applications in accordance with the planning scheme that applies to the Kingborough municipality; accordingly, the Policy does not replace a developer’s obligation to provide on-site parking, as required under the planning scheme;
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 99 22 January 2018 the contribution of cash-in-lieu for parking is not a general revenue collection exercise, but rather is a means by which the Council accommodates the parking demand created in the locality due to a parking shortfall associated with development; the Policy adopts 30m² as the requirement for a parking space on a development site (which includes the proportionate areas for access and manoeuvring) and this will form the basis for the calculation of land value; public parking spaces constructed with the revenue from cash-in-lieu contributions do provide an added public benefit and, to acknowledge this, the total cash contribution (land and construction costs) will be reduced by a factor of 25%; any car parking spaces provided as a result of cash-in-lieu contributions shall remain available to the public, be administered by Council and be subject to such a fee structure as the Council may devise; all cash-in-lieu contributions revenue is to be hypothecated for the provision or improvement of car parking and or infrastructure for public transport, walking or cycling in Kingborough; and this policy may be supported by complementary Parking Plans that would be prepared for specific areas and which would describe in greater detail how revenue from cash-in-lieu contributions would be spent.
PROCEDURE: General (POLICY DETAIL) 5.1 Council will require development proposals to provide the car parking required for that development as prescribed in the planning scheme, unless a cash-in-lieu of car parking contribution is approved under this Policy. 5.2 This Policy applies to every application for use or development under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 that relies upon or has implications for providing and managing public off street car parking within the Kingborough municipal area in accordance with E6.0 Parking and Access Code of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 or the subsequent planning scheme that includes the Parking and Sustainable Transport Code (in accordance with the State Planning Provisions). 5.3 In waiving the need to provide on-site parking, Council will require a cash-in- lieu contribution instead. The amount of the cash-in-lieu contribution is to be determined based on the cost of the land, plus the cost of constructing the parking area or facility. 5.4 Council is not obliged to accept a cash-in-lieu contribution if it is practicable and desirable to provide the required number of car parking spaces on the land. 5.5 The Policy is to be implemented under delegation as and where appropriate for all applications for use or development where required car parking is not met on site. Determining the number of parking spaces required 5.6 The planning scheme includes the criteria by which the number of parking spaces that need to be provided is determined. This is defined under the Acceptable Solution by a set number of parking spaces for each of the potential land uses or is determined by way of an assessment against the Performance Criteria under the same clause. 5.7 The Performance Criteria requires that the reasonable needs of the use must be met, having regard to clause E6.6.1(P1) in the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 or in regard to clause C2.5(P1) in the State Planning Provisions, for when the new Kingborough planning scheme comes into force.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 100 22 January 2018 5.8 If the developer is unable to meet the on-site parking requirements of the planning scheme or it is inappropriate to do so, then it may be necessary to require a cash-in-lieu of car parking contribution. Calculating the value of a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution 5.9 The amount of cash-in-lieu is to be determined based on the cost of the land, plus the construction costs for any necessary car parking. 5.10 The construction costs per square metre will be established by determining the average capital costs associated with the provision of car parking spaces in Council constructed car parks. This is assumed to be 30m² per parking space and includes the proportionate area required for access and manoeuvring. 5.11 The amount of a cash-in-lieu of car parking contribution is: (i) the cost to construct the equivalent car parking area; and (ii) where it is necessary to purchase land (or where Council land is to be used) an additional amount is required to be paid that is calculated as follows – 30m² X land value/m² X number of car parking spaces. The land value/m² is to be determined from a valuation by a Land Valuer within the meaning of the Land Valuers Act 2001 at the developer’s expense at the date of approval of the planning permit or at the discretion of the General Manager derived from any recent land valuation for nearby land plus a 10% contingency. 5.12 The total of the construction cost and the land value is then reduced by a public benefit factor of 25%. This acknowledges the likelihood of public parking being shared across different sites and at different times, plus improvements to public parking and transport infrastructure should be partly funded by the broader community. 5.13 The means of payment shall be as follows: (i) Payment is to be made prior to the issue of a Building Permit or, where no Building Permit is required, prior to the commencement of use. (ii) The General Manager may accept terms for the staged payment on a quarterly basis over a maximum period of two years from the issue of a Building Permit or, where no Building Permit is required, from the commencement of use. This is subject to the terms being stipulated in a Deed between the developer, the land owner and the Council, or a Part 5 Agreement, pursuant to section 71 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 registered on the relevant land title prior to the issue of a Building Permit or, where no Building Permit is required, prior to the commencement of use. The cash-in-lieu of car parking contribution payment is to be a debt due to the Council recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction. Utilising cash-in-lieu contributions 5.14 All monies received through the application of this Policy are to be applied to a cash-in-lieu of car parking contribution fund. This will include details that describe any commitments that relate to the future expenditure of the funds that are being held in trust by Council. 5.15 The following guidelines apply to the expenditure of cash-in-lieu funds: - expenditure must be in accordance with any Council adopted parking plan that applies to a particular locality – such as the Central Kingston Parking Strategy and the Kingston Park Site Development Plan; or - in the absence of such an adopted parking plan, then any contribution received by Council may be spent in any manner or at any time at the full discretion of Council.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 101 22 January 2018 5.16 Funds are to be used for the following: - acquisition of land for parking in the municipal area; - construction of public parking, both on-street and off-street; - improvement to existing public parking facilities and on-street parking; - servicing of loans obtained to provide public parking; or - construction or upgrade of public transport, walking or cycling infrastructure which would result in a reduced demand for parking in that area. 5.17 Council is not required to consult with the developer on any matter related to the expenditure of any contribution.
GUIDELINES: 6.1 The Cash-in-Lieu of Parking Policy will be implemented in the first instance by Council planning staff when assessing development applications that require additional parking to be provided. Staff will assess the respective merits of whether on-site parking is appropriate or whether better public outcomes are achieved from cash-in-lieu contributions. This assessment will be informed by the provisions within the planning scheme, as well as any other relevant local planning study or report.
COMMUNICATION: 7.1 All Councillors and employees will be briefed on this policy as part of individual induction programs and on an on-going basis.
LEGISLATION: 8.1 The following statutory documents should be considered in conjunction with this policy: Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 – or subsequent replacement
RELATED Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 DOCUMENTS:
AUDIENCE: The Cash-in-Lieu of Parking Policy primarily applies to the Council planning authority in the exercise of its duties in assessing development applications that require parking provisions within the planning scheme to be met. Prospective developers need to be aware of this Policy and it is publicly accessible via Council’s website.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 102 22 January 2018 FILE NO 10.138 DATE 5 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER JOHN BREEN – CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD – GENERAL MANAGER
REVIEW OF THE LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN AND LONG TERM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 6 A well administered organisation Strategic Outcome 6.1 Internal financial and governance arrangements are maintained to a high standard
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with updates to the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and the Long Term Asset Management Plan (LTAMP). Copies of both plans are attached as appendices to this report.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The long term financial and asset plans provide the foundation and principles for moving forward over the ensuing 10 year period.
2.2 The Local Government Act 1993 requires that the General Manager must prepare estimates of Council's revenue and expenditure each year. The annual budget supports Council’s Strategic Plan and should be consistent with Council’s LTFP and LTAMP.
2.3 Effective financial planning dictates long term financial goals and priorities need to be developed and agreed. This in turn increases the level of transparency in the development and presentation of Council’s financial planning to the community.
2.4 The key principles which underpin the LTFP are :
maintain a fair and equitable rating structure.
maintain current service levels.
improve Council’s financial performance.
achieve operating surpluses.
progressively increase funding for asset renewal.
improve Council’s financial position and capacity to fund new projects.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 103 22 January 2018 3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The Local Government Act 1993 requires:
82. Estimates
(1) The general manager must prepare estimates of the council's revenue and expenditure for each financial year.
70. Long-term financial management plans
(1) A council is to prepare a long-term financial management plan for the municipal area.
(2) A long-term financial management plan is to be in respect of at least a 10 year period.
(3) A long-term financial management plan for a municipal area is to –
(a) be consistent with the strategic plan for the municipal area; and
(b) refer to the long-term strategic asset management plan for the municipal area; and
(c) contain at least the matters that are specified in an order made under section 70F as required to be included in a long-term financial management plan.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 The LTFP is based on a number of assumptions that underpin the financial performance of Council into the future. The following are the key assumptions:
Rate increases of 4.0% per annum until 2021.
The stormwater removal rate to increase in line with rate increases.
Fees and charges to increase in line with CPI.
Employee costs increase in line with the Enterprise Agreement.
Material and contract costs to increase at 1.5% per annum until 2021. This is 1.0% below the expected inflation rate and will require careful management of costs.
Depreciation expense to increase by 4.5% per annum as a result of capital expenditure on the high school site and an expected 3.0% per year revaluation of infrastructure assets.
Funding for asset renewal is set at 70% to 80% of depreciation, with additional funds available for new and upgraded assets.
4.2 The LTAMP outlines the Council’s plans to operate and maintain its asset portfolio to achieve the following objectives:
Ensure the asset base contributes to the strategic objectives by providing the required levels of service.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 104 22 January 2018 Ensure infrastructure is maintained at a safe and functional standard as set out in individual asset management plans.
Ensure the inspection and maintenance plans for all Council assets are sufficient to meet the legislative and operational requirements in order to deliver the required levels of service to the community.
4.3 The LTAMP will be subject to significant review over the next two years as a result of work currently underway to conduct condition assessment of all Council infrastructure assets and community service delivery expectations. This information will inform the future plans for asset replacement.
5 FINANCE
5.1 The LTFP and LTAMP will provide the financial principles to guide the future development of annual budgets. The overall objective is to improve Council’s financial performance and position so as to ensure Council’s financial sustainability into the future.
6 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
6.1 The LTFP and LTAMP will be publicly available from Council’s website or a copy may be obtained from Council’s customer service desk.
7 RISK
7.1 From a financial sustainability perspective, Council’s critical risks are that:
It is not generating sufficient cash from operating activities to fund the required level of infrastructure renewal investment over the next 10 years.
The level of service provided by Council’s infrastructure will decline considerably if infrastructure renewal investment is less than 70% to 80% of depreciation.
Should Council continue to report sizeable deficits (before capital grants) into the future it may need to undertake a review of services.
It may fail to sustainably finance long term service delivery needs accompanying municipal growth.
It may suffer reputational damage and financial loss as a result of inconsistent and poor financial planning.
8 CONCLUSION
8.1 The LTFP and LTAMP are provided to Council for formal adoption.
8.2 The LTFP and LTAMP provide the foundation and principles for moving forward over the ensuing 10 year period and ensuring Council is financially sustainable.
8.3 The LTFP and LTAMP are to be reviewed annually and updated to reflect Council’s current financial performance and priorities.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 105 22 January 2018 9 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council formally adopt the Long Term Financial Plan and the Long Term Asset Management Plan.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 106 22 January 2018
LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN
2016/17 to 2025/26
Updated January 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 107 22 January 2018 Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1.1 Strategic Planning Framework 4 1.2 Current financial performance and position 4 Long Term Asset Management Plan 5 2 LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN OVERVIEW 6 2.1 Underlying Result 6 2.2 Opportunities and Challenges 7 2.3 Planning Assumptions 8 3 OPERATING REVENUES 10 3.1 Rates and Levies 11 3.2 User Charges and Statutory Fees 11 3.3 Grants - Operating 11 3.4 Other Revenue 11 3.5 Interest and Dividends 12 3.6 Grants - capital 12 3.7 Contributions, Non Cash Contributions and Net Gain from Sale of Assets 12 4 OPERATING EXPENDITURE 13 4.1 Depreciation 13 4.2 Employee costs 13 4.3 Materials and contracts, Other Expenses 14 4.4 Levies to State Government 14 5 ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED CASH POSITION 15 5.1 Estimated Cash Flow Statement 15 5.2 Cash flows from operating activities 16 5.3 Cash flows from investing activities 16 5.4 Cash flows from financing activities 16 5.5 Restricted and unrestricted cash and investments 17 5.6 Statutory reserves 17 5.7 Discretionary reserves 17 5.8 Cash at end of year 17 6 ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED FINANCIAL POSITION 18 6.1 Estimated Financial Position 18 6.2 Current Assets and Non-Current Assets 18 6.3 Current Liabilities and Non-Current Liabilities 18 7 KEY FINANCIAL INDICATORS 19 7.1 Key Indicators and Financial Sustainability Benchmarks 19 7.2 Underlying Result Ratio 19 7.3 Net Financial Liability Ratio 19 7.4 Asset Consumption Ratio 20 7.5 Asset Sustainability Ratio 21 8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 22 8.1 Inflation Adjusted Expenditure 22 8.2 General Rates 22 8.3 Asset Revaluation 22 Appendix A Statement of Comprehensive Income 24 Appendix B Statement of Financial Position 25 Appendix C Statement of Cash Flows 26
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 2 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 108 22 January 2018 Long Term Financial Plan 2016/17 to 2025/26 1 Executive Summary
The Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is an important component of the Council’s financial management framework which will ensure that the Council can deliver on the strategies detailed in the Kingborough Strategic Plan 2015-2025. The Strategic Plan provides the necessary direction for the future delivery of services by the Council.
The key priority areas detailed in the 2015 Strategic Plan are;
A safe, healthy and supportive community
Sustainable land use and infrastructure management
A healthy natural environment
A vibrant local economy
Community leadership
A well administered organisation
The LTFP is a guiding document to consider when developing the annual plan and budget estimates rather than a document that is dictating future decisions of Council, or what Council will spend. The LTFP reflects the estimated amount of funds Council will have at its discretion in future years based on a number of specific planning assumptions.
The LTFP also establishes greater transparency and accountability of Council to the community.
Financial sustainability is a key challenge facing local government due to several contributing factors including increased demand for services, aging infrastructure, constraints on revenue growth, continuing population growth, and cost increases in excess of CPI.
The LTFP aims to improve Council’s overall financially sustainability into the future. The key principles underpinning the LTFP are:
Maintain a fair and equitable rating structure Maintain current service levels
Continuous improvement in Council’s financial performance, so as to achieve operating surpluses
Progressively increasing funding for asset maintenance and renewal Continuous improvement in Council’s financial position.
It is important to note that movements in the underlying assumptions to the LTFP can have a significant effect on the financial results of the Council. Section 8 on page 22, outlines the impact of changes to assumptions in key areas such as general rates and expenditure levels.
The LTFP covers the 10 year planning horizon from 2016/17 to 2025/26. The planning assumptions used in the development of the LTFP are explained within section 2.2.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 3
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 109 22 January 2018 1.1 Strategic Planning Framework
The LTFP is an important part of Council’s overall financial management framework. The following table demonstrates the context of how the LTFP fits into Council’s overall financial management framework.
Our Vision Core Values Long term planning Our Vision (10 years +) Long Term Financial Plan Long Term Asset Management Plan
Goals and Key Objectives Strategic Plan 2010-2020 Medium term planning Strategic Plan (3-5 years) Strategic Delivery Plan 2010-2015
Financial Statements Short term planning Annual Plan and Activities and Initiatives Estimates Key Strategic Activities (12 months) Other Information
Financial Statements Accountability Audited Statements Performance Statement (Year End)
1.2 Current financial performance and position
An analysis of Council’s underlying financial performance during the period from 2009/10 showed that there is an unsustainable gap between operating expenditure and revenue. The transfer of water and sewerage functions and activities to the newly formed Southern Water Corporation (now TasWater) had a significant impact on Council’s financial outlook. Allowing an operational deficit to continue into the long term would ultimately jeopardize the adequate funding of capital expenditure and Council’s capacity to maintain and replace existing community assets.
Based on current service levels and the assumptions detailed in section 2.2, Council is intending to close the gap between projected expenditures and projected income in the short term.
Council has attempted to curtail capital expenditure for new assets instead focusing on the renewal and rehabilitation of existing assets. Council aims to maintain its infrastructure and assets at an acceptable standard. This involves developing and integrating long-term infrastructure and asset management plans with the LTFP to provide for the continued investment in maintenance, renewal and replacement of asset stock.
A key project for Council over the next ten years will be the development of the Kingston Park site. This project will have an impact on the financial performance over the period of the project due to the need to borrow funds to allow for capital expenditure on the site. At different stages through the project, land will be released for sale to allow for a reduction in borrowings to minimise the cost impact. Despite the receipt of grant funds, there is a possibility that the project will leave Council with some borrowings that will need to be paid off over future years.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 4
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 110 22 January 2018 Long Term Asset Management Plan
Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans have been developed to ensure that Council continues to provide effective and comprehensive management of its infrastructure asset portfolios. The Asset Management Plans are separate documents to the LTFP, however high level details are provided below as the funding for the capital works program is generated through an effective LTFP.
Council should strive toward ensuring asset renewal and replacement expenditure that on average matches depreciation for long term financial sustainability. However given the current financial position and the need to move to an underlying surplus, Council is only able to afford to fund asset renewal at a rate of 70% to 80% of depreciation. This level of expenditure can only be sustained for a short period of time otherwise infrastructure will deteriorate to the point where significant expenditure is required to restore the assets.
The asset management plans indicate that over the next 10 years Council should be spending a minimum of $7.0M (unadjusted for inflation) per annum on asset capital renewal. An annual capital works program of $7.0M would maintain Council’s current infrastructure at a reasonable standard in the short term. From 2021 onwards, the LTFP enables Council to fund 100% of depreciation on capital renewal projects which in today’s dollars would equate to $8.8 million.
Capital funding in excess of the $7.0M for capital renewal purposes is available for upgrading or new infrastructure projects. This funding is limited to $1.0M plus funds provided under the Roads to Recovery program.
Further details on annual capital spend and funding is located within Section 5.3 – ‘Cash Flows from Investing Activities’.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 5
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 111 22 January 2018 2 Long Term Financial Plan Overview
2.1 Underlying Result
When evaluating an entities financial performance it is important to distinguish between operating and capital items, as well as non-recurring one-off items.
The table below breaks down Council’s overall result to assist in assessing Council’s underlying financial performance over the ten year period of the LTFP.
STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m
Total Recurring Revenue 37.6 38.5 39.3 40.9 42.5 43.9 45.5 46.9 48.5 50.0 Total Recurring Expenses 38.0 38.8 39.9 41.1 42.2 43.5 44.9 46.2 47.7 49.1 Underlying Surplus (Deficit) before Capital items (0.4) (0.4) (0.6) (0.2) 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Capital Grants 1.9 2.2 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Contributions - non cash 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Net Gain from Sale of Assets (0.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants in Advance 1.1 (1.1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Note: Amounts in the tables have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.
Council’s underlying surplus before capital items is estimated to improve from a deficit of $0.4M in 2016/17 to a surplus of $0.3M in 2020/21.
The 2016/17 overall net result, a net surplus of $5.0M, is due to the receipt of $2.7 million in non- monetary assets and $1.9 million in grants for capital projects.
The development of the Kingston park site will result in Council requiring borrowings over the ten year period of the LTFP, which in turn will add an interest cost to expenditure. The LTFP includes borrowings of $12.0M in 2018 to2019 to fund the construction of the main road through the site and the community hub building. Council will also receive $2.8 million in grant funds in four payments in 2018. It is expected that in 2026, Council will have around $4.0M debt from the project with the final stages of land still to be sold.
An underlying surplus by 2020/21 would be a strong achievement in light of the loss of $0.6 million in dividends from Taswater and increasing depreciation expense as a result of asset revaluations and componentisation. A surplus by 2020/21 is dependent on the effective management of services and related costs.
The LTFP expresses Council’s commitment towards striving to improve the underlying result and ensure depreciation is fully funded and break-even overall results are consistently achieved in future financial years.
The following sections discuss the planning assumptions used in deriving the LTFP and provide further explanations on each of Council’s main revenue and expenditure line items. The final section provides a trend analysis using a number of financial sustainability indicators and ratios.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 6
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 112 22 January 2018 2.2 Kingborough Demographics
The 2016 census identified that Kingborough’s population was then 35,853. The 2016 Census indicated that Kingborough is one the fastest growing municipalities in the state with a population increase of 5.8% during the period 2011 to 2016. This is higher than the overall Tasmanian population increase within the same period of 2.95% and less than the Australian average of 8.8%.
The population growth for Kingborough is essentially being driven by migration into the municipality, which is motivated by both personal choice (based on the area’s natural attractions) and economic factors (such as the availability of suitable residential land and housing). The 2016 Census shows that the largest groups moving to Kingborough in the last five years came from other states and territories (2,266) and from within Tasmania (6,558).
Kingborough continues to experience the impacts of the ‘sea change’ phenomena. New residents are coming to retire or to live in the naturally beautiful environment. Kingborough offers opportunities for new residents with residential land within relatively easy commuting distance to Hobart. This convenience, together with increasing retail, service and educational opportunities and pleasant urban and rural surroundings, is a strong attraction for new residents.
Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that the median age of Kingborough residents was 42, which is also the median age for Tasmania overall. There were 6,629 people over the age of 65 in Kingborough which represents 18.5% of the total population.
Some of the other population and social characteristics for Kingborough that are expected to continue into the future include:
A relatively high median household income. The median weekly household income for Kingborough was reported as $1,364, significantly higher than the $1,100 for Tasmania.
Relatively low unemployment rates. The unemployment rate for Kingborough on Census night was 5% compared to 7% in Tasmania. In Kingborough, 48% of residents were in the labour force, compared to 45.7% in Tasmania. Residents were employed in education, government administration and services industries. The most common occupations included Professionals 26%, Clerical and Administrative Workers 14.7%, Technicians and Trades Workers 13.3%, Managers 13%, and Community and Personal Service Workers 11.6%.
Relatively high education standards. In Tasmania, 53.4% of the population had year 12 and above qualifications, compared to 66.5% in Kingborough.
Relatively high internet use. Nearly 86.5% of households were connected to the internet, compared to 78% in Tasmania.
More affluent socio-economic profile, as the Census results show that Hobart and Kingborough are the most advantaged local government areas in Tasmania. However, there are pockets of disadvantage in the municipality at the local level.
There are other statistical results that are also relevant. For example, Kingborough displays relatively high commuter characteristics with over 60% of the labour force travelling for work outside of Kingborough. Only 5% of residents travel to work by public transport (bus) with most travelling by car.
The next Census will be conducted in 2021.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 7
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 113 22 January 2018 Key Statistics (2016 Census) Kingborough Tasmania Population 35,853 528,000 Population increase 2006-2011 5.8% 3.0% Median age 42 42 % aged over 65 18.5% 19.5% Dwellings with internet access 87% 78% Rent payments >30% of household income 8.0% 10.2% Mortgage payments >30% of household income 5.7% 5.1% Median weekly household income $1,364 $1,100 Households with gross weekly income <$650 19.7% 26.3% Households with gross weekly income >$3,000 12.6% 8.3% Unemployment 5.0% 7.0%
Source: ABS census 2016
2.3 Planning Assumptions
The base for the preparation of the LTFP is the Annual Plan Estimates for 2017/18, with one-off or non recurring events adjusted for.
The LTFP has been prepared by setting percentage increases for various classes of expenditure and income and then reviewing each line item where a variance to the pattern is likely to occur. In many instances the straight use of the below percentage will therefore not produce the same outcome as shown below.
The planning assumptions used in the development of the LTFP are summarized in the table below.
REVENUE CATEGORY COMMENTARY Rates and Levies Indexed at 4.0% for 2018 to 2021 and then 3.0% annually Rates Growth Annual increase of 0.5% in rate revenue from growth User Charges Indexed at 3.0% annually Operating and Capital Grants Indexed at 3.0% annually Based on expected return of 2.5% of Council’s year-end cash Interest Revenue balance Other Revenue and Contributions Indexed at 3.0% annually
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY COMMENTARY The plan currently assumes a flat increase across all materials and Materials and Contracts contract expenditure of 1.5% (2.5% less 1.0% achieved through savings) to 2021 Indexed to allow for performance based progression and annual Employee Costs award movements. Combined index estimated at 3.0% Indexed to reflect increase in valuation of infrastructure assets Depreciation (3.0%) and annual capital work program additions Other Expenses Indexed at 2.5% annually
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 8
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 114 22 January 2018 3 Operating Revenues
This section analyses the projected revenues of Council from 2017/18 to 2025/26. The table and graph below summaries movements in Council’s key revenue streams over the period. 2017/18 2020/21 2025/26 Revenue Type $'000 $'000 $'000 Rates & Levies 26,698 30,438 36,187 Statutory fees and fines 1,629 1,780 2,064 User Charges 1,498 1,637 1,897 Grants - Operating 2,867 4,247 4,924 Other Income 4,721 4,375 4,969 Total Operating Revenue 37,413 42,478 50,041 Grants - Capital 2,200 400 400 Non Cash Contributions 200 200 200 Net Gain From Sale of Assets - - -
Total Revenue 39,813 43,078 50,641
40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000
$'000 10,000 5,000 - Rates & Levies Statutory fees User Charges Grants - Other Income and fines Operating Operating Revenue 2017/18 2020/21 2025/26
3.1 Rates and Levies
The LTFP assumes the annual general rate increase from 2018/19 to 2020/21 will be 4%. This assumption is in line with the increases for the past nine years and is designed to ensure Council delivers an underlying surplus by 2021.
The LTFP includes a Stormwater Rate of $58 per household in 2017/18. The Stormwater Rate is being used to fund the essential upgrades to the current stormwater system which is struggling to cope with the increased usage that it being placed on it. This charge will be indexed in line with the increases to the general rate.
The LTFP assumes a 0.5% annual increase in rate revenue through growth in the number of rateable properties. For example in 2017/18 Council estimates that $150,000 of additional revenue will be received through supplementary rating. This assumption is based on the average growth in rateable properties in Kingborough over the past 5 years. Current figures indicate an amount in excess of 0.5% is being received due to the number of new properties being developed.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 9
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 115 22 January 2018 The increase in expenditure due to increase in demand for services from population growth is addressed within section 4 below.
There are a number of properties which are public, educational, religious or charitable in use or ownership and which are in part, or in full, exempt from general rates. The level of annual remissions estimated in the LTFP is consistent with recent decisions regarding exemptions provided to charitable institutions.
Garbage collection charges and recycling charges are estimated to increase by 4% annually over the period. This increase is consistent with the estimated increase in related expenditure for these services.
The increase in the three fire rate levies that Council collects on behalf of the Tasmanian Fire Commission are also offset by an identical increase in the related expenditure payment.
3.2 User Charges and Statutory Fees
User charges relate to the recovery of service delivery costs through the charging of fees to users of Council’s services. These include the hire of halls and sporting grounds, Kingborough Sports Centre fees, engineering fees and private works recoveries. The key principle in setting user fees has been to ensure that increases approximate CPI increases or market levels.
Statutory fees and fines relate mainly to those levied in accordance with legislative requirements. They include, building fees, planning fees, health related fees, parking fines, and animal registrations.
Council’s user charges and statutory fees may be influenced by growth in the municipality, CPI movements and additional operating revenue streams.
The LTFP assumes an increase in user charges and statutory fees consistent with an estimated CPI of around 3%.
3.3 Grants - Operating
Operating grants are funds received from both the State and Federal Government for the purpose of delivering Council services.
The main source of grant revenue is from the State Grants Commission (SGC) in the form of Financial Assistance Grants (FAG). Council has little control over the level of FAG received with changes likely to occur as a result of a change in population or distribution methodologies.
The FAG’s are fixed for a three year period until 2017/18 after which time it they will grow by an expected 3% over the period of the LTFP. It is unlikely that there will be any increase in grants, or provision of new grants, for current services. Any reduction or discontinuance of grants will need to be offset by a corresponding reduction in expenditure.
3.4 Other Income
Other Council revenue has been increased 3% annually in line with projected CPI and comprises:
government rates remission reimbursements,
reimbursement for State Government works,
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 10
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 116 22 January 2018 motor tax reimbursement,
salary and other reimbursements.
3.5 Interest and Dividends
Estimated interest income over the ten year period is derived from Council’s expected cash position at the end of each financial year using an estimated market rate of 2.5%.
The level of interest revenue fluctuates from 2018 to 2021 due to the withdrawal of funds for the capital works program. Interest revenue then gradually increases from $0.147M in 2020/21 to $0.291M in 2025/26 in line with Council’s cash balance.
As part owner of the Tasmanian Water & Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd, Council is entitled to receive dividends. It is expected that the level of dividends declared will be $1.8m in 2017/18 and then reduce to $1.2 million from 2018/19 due to TasWater retaining funds to complete its water and sewerage upgrades. There is a possibility of no dividend in 2025/26 due to the potential State Government takeover of TasWater and the uncertainty around dividend revenue. This scenario is modelled under section 8 Sensitivity Analysis.
3.6 Grants - capital
Capital grants include all monies received from State, Federal and community sources for the purposes of funding the capital works program. The LTFP reflects the Commonwealth Roads to Recovery funding and grant funds for the Kingston Park project. There is $2.2M in 2017/18 and $1.40M in 2018/19 before reducing back to $0.4M from 2019/20.
In accordance with Council’s budget principles the capital grant income related to potential grant applications in the future were not factored into the LTFP.
Any additional Capital funding received will not impact on the underlying operating result as the funds will be expended on new capital projects.
3.7 Contributions, Non Cash Contributions, Net Gain on Sale and Other Revenue
The revenue reported under contributions relate to external funds received from developers under the Public Open Space and Tree Preservation policies, or other contributions received from the public for capital works or operational purposes. The level of contributions from 2017/18 to 2025/26 reflects a conservative estimate, and reflects an annual CPI adjustment of 3.0%.
Non cash contributions are made up of assets donated to Council from property developers in the form of infrastructure (roads and storm water etc) where at the completion of the development Council assumes responsibility for maintaining and replacing the infrastructure. As developer contributions are non-cash and capital in nature they do not affect the underlying operating result and have therefore been excluded from the LTFP
Should Council dispose of any property during the ten year period this would be considered as additional revenue. Other revenue reflects non-recurring revenue such as FAG’s paid in advance.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 11
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 117 22 January 2018 4 Operating Expenditure
This section analyses the expected expenditure of Council from 2017/18 to 2025/26. The table and graph below summarises the movements in Council’s key expenditure items over the period. 2017/18 2020/21 2025/26 Expenditure Type $'000 $'000 $'000 Depreciation 9,644 10,759 13,160 Employee Costs 14,010 15,309 17,747 Materials &Contracts 9,114 9,520 10,770 Other Expenses 3,880 4,283 4,846 Cost of Assets Retired 600 400 400 Borrowing Costs 100 210 156 Levies to State Government 1,485 1,695 2,013 Total Operating Expenditure 38,833 42,176 49,093
20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000
10,000 $'000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - Depreciation Employee Costs Materials &Contracts Other Expenses Operating Expenditure
2017/18 2020/21 2025/26
4.1 Depreciation
Depreciation is an accounting measure which allocates the value of assets over their useful lives.
Council’s infrastructure assets are held at depreciated replacement cost to ensure adequate provision for renewal of existing infrastructure through depreciation expense. The amount spent on asset renewal in any given year is determined by Council’s longer term capital works program.
Depreciation is estimated to increase $3.6m or 38% from $9.6M in 2017/18 to $13.2M in 2025/26. The increase reflects the additional depreciation expense for capital projects completed as part of the annual capital works program. In particular, the capital expenditure on Kingston Park will have a significant impact. Infrastructure contributions from developers and the annual revaluation of infrastructure (estimated at 3.0%) also increase the level of Council’s depreciation expense.
4.2 Employee costs
Employee costs include all salaries and wages and all employment related expenses including payroll tax, employer superannuation, leave entitlements, fringe benefits tax, workers compensation insurance and professional development.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 12
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 118 22 January 2018 Employee costs are estimated to increase $3.8m or 26% from $14.0M in 2017/18 to $17.7m in 2025/26. The increase in Council employee costs reflect an estimated Enterprise Bargaining Agreement percentage increase and a percentage increase for performance based progression.
Employee numbers and costs need to be carefully managed into the future. Council is currently developing a Workforce Plan to guide long-term planning in this area. Increased staff numbers as a result of implementing new services and enhancing existing services need to be funded through additional revenue or kept to a minimum. The LTFP assumes that staff costs are maintained at 2016/17 levels with only increases in line with the Enterprise Agreement.
4.3 Materials and contracts, Other Expenses
Materials and contracts include the purchase of consumables, payments to contractors for the provision of services, insurances, and utility costs. Utility costs relate to telecommunications, water, sewerage, and electricity.
Materials and contracts, and other expenses are estimated to increase $1.7m or 18% from $9.1M in 2018/19 to $10.8M in 2025/26.
As part of the productivity drive throughout Council, material and contracts costs have only been increased by 1.5% up until 2021.This equates to a $100k savings per annum if inflation increases are around the expected 2.5% Reserve Bank target. To achieve this result, careful control will be required over discretionary expenditure on materials and contracts.
Despite the significant service delivery pressures, through controlling cost increases Council aims to maintain the level of growth in materials and contracts expenditure to 2.5% from 2021 onwards.
The half a percent growth in rates through increased rateable properties, including new houses is not expected to have a significant impact on the level of ‘non-recoverable’ service costs. It is reasonable to assume new subdivisions would require minimal maintenance over the period of this LTFP. Street lighting and street sweeping are potential ‘new’ costs which are not directly recoverable, however these are expected to be minimal.
4.4 Cost of Assets Retired
The cost of assets retired represents the write off of infrastructure assets as a result of the renewal or upgrade of the asset. On occasions, assets deteriorate at a greater rate than the expected life of the asset and there is a need for capital expenditure to restore the asset to full capacity. In this scenario, there is a write-off of the remaining asset which becomes an expense to Council. The write- off for 2017/18 is expected to be $0.6 M and this is expected to reduce over time once the new asset management system is providing reliable data to allow depreciation to be accelerated on these types of assets.
4.5 Levies to State Government
Levies to State Government include land tax and state fire levies. State fire levies are collected on behalf of the State Fire Commission. These funds are passed directly to the State Fire Commission and Council has no control over the levies.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 13
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 119 22 January 2018 5 Analysis of Estimated Cash Position
5.1 Estimated Cash Flow Statement
This section analyses the projected cash flows from the operating, investing and financing activities of Council from 2016/17 to 2025/26. The cash flow from operating activities is a key factor in determining the level of capital expenditure that can be sustained without using existing cash reserves.
The analysis is based on three main categories of cash flows:
1. OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Refers to the cash generated or used in the normal service delivery functions of Council. Cash remaining after paying for the provision of services to the community may be available for investment in capital works, or repayment of debt.
2. INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Refers to cash generated or used in the enhancement or creation of infrastructure and other assets. These activities also include the acquisition and sale of other assets such as vehicles, property and equipment.
3. FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Refers to cash generated or used in the financing of Council functions and include borrowings from financial institutions and advancing of repayable loans to other organisations. These activities also include repayment of the principal component of loan repayments for the year.
The table below summarises Council’s net cash flows over the ten year period. STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m
Net Cash Flow from Operating Activities 8.5 8.0 9.0 9.8 10.6 11.2 11.8 12.4 13.0 13.6
Net Cash Flow used in Investing Activities (8.2) (20.6) (14.2) (8.7) (8.7) (10.5) (8.9) (8.8) (13.1) (13.4)
Net Cash Flow from Financing Activities 1.9 14.2 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 (3.6) (3.6) 0.4 0.4
NET (DECREASE)/INCREASE IN CASH HELD 2.2 1.6 (3.8) 1.4 2.3 1.1 (0.7) 0.0 0.3 0.6
Cash at the Beginning of the Year 7.4 9.6 11.2 7.4 8.8 11.1 12.2 11.5 11.5 11.9
CASH AT THE END OF THE YEAR 9.6 11.2 7.4 8.8 11.1 12.2 11.5 11.5 11.9 12.4
Statutory Reserves (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) Descretionary Reserves (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) Other Commitments (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) Carried Forwards (4.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0)
UNRESTRICTED CASH AT YEAR END 1.6 6.2 2.4 3.8 6.1 7.2 6.5 6.5 6.9 7.4
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 14
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 120 22 January 2018 The graph below shows the cash balance over the past four years and the projections to 2025/26. There is a declining trend in cash balances due to ongoing underlying deficits and the need to invest in new capital works. This trend will continue until 2018/19 where cash will fall to $7.4M and then will start to climb to be around the $12M mark from 2021 until 2026. Given Council has around $4M in statutory and discretionary reserves, it needs to maintain a cash balance above $5M at a minimum.
5.2 Cash flows from operating activities
The net cash flow from operating activities is estimated to increase from $8.5M in 2016/17 to $12.2M in 2025/26. The increase comprises an increase in receipts from ratepayers and user charges of $10.1M, which is partially offset by an increase in payments to suppliers and staff of $4.0M. There is also a loss of $1.2M resulting from the potential loss of the Taswater dividend.
The net cash flow from operating activities in important as it allows appropriate funding foe asset renewals and the development of upgraded or new assets.
5.3 Cash flows from investing activities
Funds required for the capital works program (including carry forwards) are estimated to be between $9.0M and $21.6M during the ten year period due primarily to works on the Kingston Park site. This is offset by proceeds from asset sales from the sale of land at the Kingston Park site commencing in 2021.
This capital expenditure funding allows for the renewal and upgrade of existing assets and the creation of new assets.
The increase in the capital works program is primarily funded by increased cash from operating activities. There will however be some borrowings to fund the new works at the Kingston Park site.
The asset management plans indicate that over the next 10 years Council should be spending approximately $7.0M (unadjusted for inflation) per annum on asset renewal. Additional funds will be spent on new or upgraded assets.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 15
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 121 22 January 2018 5.4 Cash flows from financing activities
To fund the capital works on the Kingston Park site, Council will need to borrow funds during the early stages of the project. Once land is sold, the borrowings will be repaid commencing from 2021 onwards until the debt is finalised.
Over the period 2016/17 to 2025/26, Council’s available cash balance is estimated to fall to $7.4M in 2018/19 and then increase back to $12.4M in 2025/26. The increased cash would provide options for Council to potentially fund new assets into the future, subject to appropriate levels of liquidity being maintained.
5.5 Restricted and unrestricted cash and investments
Cash and cash equivalents held by Council are restricted in part, and not fully available for Council’s operations. The forecasted unrestricted cash balance is detailed at the bottom of the Statement of Cash Flows.
5.6 Statutory reserves
Statutory reserves are funds that must be used in accordance with legislative and contractual obligations. These funds are not available for any other purpose. It is estimated that Council will have subdivision infrastructure related deposits of $1.0M throughout the ten year period.
5.7 Discretionary reserves
Discretionary funds are set aside by Council for a specific purpose and unless there is a Council resolution these funds should only be used for those purposes. The estimated discretionary reserve balances for the financial year ends are shown in the below table. For the purposes of the LTFP the reserve balances are maintained at the same level throughout the ten year period as detailed below.
RESERVE $'000 Public Open Space 1,100 Car Parking 50 Boronia Hill Reserve 10 Plant Replacement 100 Office Equipment Replacement 80 Hall Equipment Replacement 70 Sports Centre Equipment Replacement 100 Emergency Reserve 50 Emergency Services Reserve 10 Tree Preservation Reserve 400 IT Reserve 40 Administration Reserve 90 TOTAL 2,100
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 16
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 122 22 January 2018 5.8 Cash at end of year
Overall the total unrestricted cash at year end is forecasted to increase from $1.0M in 2018/19 to $4.0M in 2025/26. Maintaining an unrestricted cash balance above $2M is considered reasonable in light of Council’s annual operational and capital spend.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 17 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 123 22 January 2018 6 Analysis of Estimated Financial Position
6.1 Estimated Financial Position
This section analyses the projected movements in assets, liabilities and equity from 2016/17 to 2025/26. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m $'m
Total Current Assets 10.5 12.3 8.5 9.9 12.2 13.3 12.6 12.6 13.0 13.5
Total Non-Current Assets 597.2 629.6 569.4 598.4 628.6 663.1 699.1 735.6 773.9 813.7
TOTAL ASSETS 607.7 641.9 577.9 608.3 640.8 676.4 711.7 748.3 786.9 827.2
Total Current Liabilities 6.8 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.9
Total Non-Current Liabilities 0.7 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 6.8 2.9 2.9 2.9
TOTAL LIABILITIES 7.5 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.4 15.5 11.6 11.7 11.8
NET ASSETS 600.2 622.8 558.7 589.0 621.5 657.0 696.2 736.7 775.2 815.5
TOTAL COMMUNITY EQUITY 600.2 622.8 558.7 589.0 621.5 657.0 696.2 736.7 775.2 815.5
6.2 Current Assets and Non-Current Assets
Current assets comprise cash, investments and receivables. Current assets are estimated to fluctuate between $10M and $14M for the life of the LTFP. The variation is primarily due to changes in Council’s cash and investment balance.
Non-current assets primarily include infrastructure assets. Non-current assets are estimated to increase $216.5M. This movement is primarily due to the 3.0% annual revaluation of assets as well as the capital expenditure on the Kingston Park site.
6.3 Current Liabilities and Non-Current Liabilities
Liabilities include creditors, employee provisions and other liabilities.
The balance of payables is difficult to predict as it depends mainly on the progress and timing of capital works.
It has been assumed that the level of staff positions will remain reasonably static and that leave balances will be managed so that leave provisions remain constant.
Loan borrowings will fluctuate between $4M and $12M over the life of the LTFP reaching the peak in 2018/19 as construction of the main road and community hub are completed.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 18
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 124 22 January 2018 7 Key Financial Indicators
7.1 Key Indicators and Financial Sustainability Benchmarks
The following graphs illustrate the key financial indicators over the ten year period of the LTFP.
It is important to note that the ratios are only indicators of financial performance and should not be considered in isolation when determining financial sustainability. It is important to consider the ratios over time to consider trends. The results taken together over time indicate financial performance.
The Auditor General compared the financial sustainability of Councils by using generally accepted key financial ratios. The Auditor General uses the following ratios to measure the sustainability of a local government entity which are interrelated and enable both self analysis and comparative analysis with other local government entities. The ratios used are below.
7.2 Underlying Result Ratio
The underlying surplus ratio expresses the operating surplus as a percentage or the recurring operating income. A result greater than 0.0% indicates a surplus, the larger the surplus the stronger the result and therefore stronger assessment of sustainability. A negative result indicates a deficit which cannot be sustained in the long term.
The underlying surplus ratio is calculated from using revenue from the comprehensive income statement adjusted for capital grants income, developer contributions and any other material one- off (non-recurring) items of revenue.
The underlying surplus ratio for 2016/17 is below the Benchmark of 0.0% and indicates Council is not currently fully funding its depreciation expense. However over a four year period the ratio is trending upwards and an underlying surplus ratio above 0.0% is achieved by 2020/21. The result in 2025/26 of a 1.9% operating surplus ratio results from the continued financial improvement from 2020/21.
7.3 Net Financial Liability Ratio
This measure shows whether Council’s total liabilities can be met by its liquid assets. An excess of total liabilities over liquid assets means that, if all the liabilities fell due at once, additional revenue would be needed to fund the shortfall.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 19
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 125 22 January 2018 Net Financial Liability Ratio 10.0% 8.0% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% 2017 2021 2026 -3.5% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% -20.9% Net Financial Liability Ratio
Whilst Council’s percentage in 2016/17 is over the 0.0% benchmark, the borrowings associated with the construction at the Kingston Park site lead to the negative ratio in 2020/21. The repayment of the majority of the debt from 2021, leads to improved ratio in 2025/26.
7.4 Asset Consumption Ratio
The asset consumption ratio indicates the level of service potential available in Council’s existing asset base. The ratio is calculated by dividing the depreciated replacement cost over the current replacement cost and is an indicator of the remaining useful life of the infrastructure asset. The benchmark for this ratio is between 50% and 80%.
The above ratio for Council’s roads, indicate that there is a reasonable level of service potential available within the existing asset base. Also a positive sign is that the ratio is increasing over the ten year period as a result of capital expenditure on the road network.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 20
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 126 22 January 2018 Asset Consumption Ratio - Drainage 80% 71% 73% 75%
60%
40%
20%
0% 2017 2021 2026 Asset Consumption Ratio - Drainage
The asset consumption ratio for drainage assets shows a high level of service potential as well as an increasing ratio over the ten year period. This is a reflection of the capital expenditure program to update drainage infrastructure.
7.5 Asset Sustainability Ratio
The asset sustainability ratio indicates whether a Council has been maintaining existing assets at a consistent rate. The ratio is calculated as the total capital renewal expenditure divided by depreciation expense. A result of greater than 100% indicates that spending on existing assets is greater than the rate of depreciation base. The benchmark result is 100%.
The above graph shows that Council is struggling to meet the 100% benchmark for capital expenditure on asset renewal. While this shortfall is sustainable in the short term, it would be of a concern if the trend continued over an extended period.
This ratio highlights the need for Council to continue to build cash reserves, through the generation of an underlying surplus, to allow increased expenditure on asset infrastructure. Once this is achieved, an asset sustainability ratio of 100% will be delivered.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 21
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 127 22 January 2018 8 Sensitivity Analyses
8.1 Inflation Adjusted Expenditure
The assumptions related to the revenue streams and expenditure line items may have a significant impact on the long term forecast result of Council. The level of inflation adjusted expenditure is likely to be the most subjective and has the greatest potential to significantly impact the LTFP.
The below analysis demonstrates the sensitivity of the LTFP to changes in the level of expenditure that is increased by the inflation rate.
The LTFP assumes that certain expenditure increase in line with the expected inflation rate of 2.5%. If the rate of inflation is 1.0% above the assumed rate, then the effect will be as follows:
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yearly Variance 127,796 260,054 395,984 535,669 680,145 829,542 983,999 1,143,655 1,308,652 Accum Variance 127,796 387,850 783,834 1,319,503 1,999,647 2,829,190 3,813,189 4,956,844 6,265,496
Operating Surplus (503) (644) (1,075) (853) (507) (479) (507) (526) (628)
Over a 9 year period Council would have generated $6.3M less in cash flow as a result of the inflation rate being 1.0% greater than expected.
The impact on the underlying operating result would be significant as the underlying deficit would continue for the life of the LTFP.
This outcome is considered unsatisfactory and clearly demonstrates the importance of limiting the level of annual increases in expenditure to 2.5%.
8.2 General Rates
The below analysis demonstrates the sensitivity of the LTFP to changes in the level of rates income.
The LTFP assumes a 4.0% annual increase in rates to 2021 and then a 3.0% increase from that date. If the assumption is changed to 3.0 % and 2.0%, the dollar impact is calculated as follows:
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 $ (000) $ (000) $ (000) $ (000) $ (000) $ (000) $ (000) $ (000) $ (000) Yearly Variance (252,125) (507,249) (776,291) (1,059,902) (1,356,004) (1,665,060) (1,987,549) (2,323,967) (2,674,828) Accum Variance (252,125) (759,374) (1,535,665) (2,595,567) (3,951,572) (5,616,632) (7,604,181) (9,928,148) (12,602,975)
Operating Surplus (627) (891) (1,456) (1,377) (1,183) (1,314) (1,511) (1,707) (1,994)
Over the nine year period Council would have generated $12.6M less in cash as a result of a 3.0% annual increase in rates than 4.0% to 2025/26. This would result in Council needing to borrow funds to continue operating as a going concern.
Also no underlying operating surplus would be achieved during the life of the LTFP.
8.3 Asset Revaluation
The LTFP is based on annual asset revaluations averaging 3.0% over the life of the LTFP.
This assumption is based on past results, but the revaluation rate can be quite volatile and is very much dependent on market conditions at the time.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 22
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 128 22 January 2018 The following shows the impact on depreciation expense of a 4.0% increase in the average level of asset revaluation over the life of the LTFP:
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yearly Variance (114,061) (233,416) (358,540) (488,702) (624,130) (765,570) (913,281) (1,067,316) (1,227,986) Accum Variance (114,061) (347,478) (706,018) (1,194,719) (1,818,850) (2,584,419) (3,497,701) (4,565,016) (5,793,003)
Operating Surplus (489) (618) (1,038) (806) (451) (415) (436) (450) (547)
Over the nine year period Council would generate $5.8 million less in cash as a result of the increased level of asset revaluation.
No underlying operating surplus would be achieved over the life of the LTFP.
8.4 Dividend
The State Government has commenced a process to take over Taswater. The legislation to enable this takeover, was passed by the lower house, but was rejected by the upper house. The Government has indicated that this will be an election issue and therefore could be raised again if the Liberal Party is re-elected at the March 2018 election.
The following is the impacts of a Government takeover and the worst case scenario of dividends only being paid up to 2025 as promised by the Government:
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yearly Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1,220,000) Accum Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1,220,000)
Operating Surplus (384) (679) (317) 173 351 477 617 681 (457)
The figure indicate that Council will deliver an underlying operating deficit of $457k if no dividend is received in 2025/26.
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 23
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 129 22 January 2018
APPENDIX A - STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Actual 2016-17 Forecast 2017-18 LTFP 2018-19 LTFP 2019-20 LTFP 2020-21 LTFP 2021-22 LTFP 2022-23 LTFP 2023-24 LTFP 2024-25 LTFP 2025-26
Recurring Revenue Rates 23,870 25,213 26,311 27,500 28,744 29,756 30,804 31,889 33,012 34,174 Fire Service Levies 1,441 1,485 1,552 1,622 1,695 1,754 1,815 1,879 1,945 2,013 Total Rates & Fire Levies 25,311 26,698 27,862 29,122 30,438 31,510 32,619 33,767 34,956 36,187 Reimbursements 1,790 1,629 1,678 1,728 1,780 1,834 1,889 1,945 2,004 2,064 User Charges 1,364 1,498 1,543 1,589 1,637 1,686 1,736 1,788 1,842 1,897 Grants - Operating 4,820 2,867 4,003 4,124 4,247 4,375 4,506 4,641 4,780 4,924 Contributions - cash 844 603 618 633 649 665 682 699 716 734 Interest 192 144 211 208 201 266 372 380 367 374 Other Income 2,114 1,927 1,984 2,044 2,105 2,168 2,233 2,300 2,369 2,441 Gain from Sale of Assets 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dividends - TasWater 1,848 1,848 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 Share of profit (loss) in associate/subsidiary 257 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Total Operating Income 38,669 37,413 39,320 40,868 42,478 43,924 45,458 46,942 48,455 50,041
Recurring Expenses Materials and Contracts 9,055 9,114 9,240 9,379 9,520 9,758 10,001 10,252 10,508 10,770 Employee Costs 13,753 14,010 14,430 14,863 15,309 15,768 16,241 16,729 17,231 17,747 Depreciation 9,097 9,644 9,915 10,420 10,801 11,200 11,700 12,191 12,691 13,217 Levies to State Government 1,437 1,485 1,552 1,622 1,695 1,754 1,815 1,879 1,945 2,013 Borrowing Costs 0 100 210 210 210 210 216 148 152 156 Other Expenses 4,015 3,880 4,077 4,179 4,283 4,390 4,500 4,613 4,728 4,846 Carrying Amount of Assets Retired 637 600 500 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Total Operating Expenses 37,995 38,833 39,924 41,072 42,218 43,480 44,874 46,211 47,654 49,150
Unusual Items Grants in Advance (1,049) 1,049 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Underlying Surplus (Deficit) before Capital items (375) (371) (604) (204) 260 444 584 731 801 891
Capital and Non-Recurring Items Capital Grants 1,854 2,200 1,400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Contributions - non cash 2,710 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Net Gain from Sale of Assets (231) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants in Advance 1,050 (1,050) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) 5,008 979 996 396 860 1,044 1,184 1,331 1,401 1,491
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 24
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 130 22 January 2018 APPENDIX B - STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
Actual 2016-17 Forecast 2017-18 LTFP 2018-19 LTFP 2019-20 LTFP 2020-21 LTFP 2021-22 LTFP 2022-23 LTFP 2023-24 LTFP 2024-25 LTFP 2025-26 Current Assets Cash 4,348 2,348 2,348 2,348 2,348 2,348 2,348 2,348 2,348 2,348 Investments 5,225 8,853 5,025 6,463 8,754 9,858 9,152 9,188 9,511 10,078 Receivables 830 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Other 69 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Current Assets 10,472 12,301 8,473 9,911 12,202 13,306 12,600 12,636 12,959 13,526
Non-Current Assets Land and Buildings 167,610 173,253 179,036 182,560 186,231 190,258 194,461 198,850 203,431 208,213 Plant and Vehicles 4,884 5,157 5,374 5,606 5,856 6,269 6,719 7,208 7,741 8,320 Furniture and Equipment 173 223 259 296 333 397 463 530 598 668 Infrastructure Assets 329,109 355,577 383,020 408,156 434,435 464,425 495,725 527,271 560,382 594,747 Intangible Assets 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 Receivables 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 Investment - Copping Waste Authority 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 Investment - Southern Water 93,676 93,676 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Non-Current Assets 597,209 629,643 569,445 598,375 628,611 663,106 699,125 735,615 773,909 813,705
TOTAL ASSETS 607,681 641,943 577,918 608,285 640,813 676,412 711,725 748,252 786,867 827,231
Current Liabilities Creditors 3,221 3,221 3,221 3,221 3,221 3,221 3,221 3,221 3,221 3,221 Provisions 2,113 2,166 2,220 2,275 2,332 2,391 2,450 2,512 2,574 2,639 Loan Borrowings 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Trust Funds & Deposits 1,418 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,001 1,002 Total Current Liabilities 6,752 8,387 8,441 8,496 8,553 8,612 8,671 8,733 8,796 8,862
Non-Current Liabilities Loan Borrowings 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 6,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Provisions 729 747 766 785 805 825 845 867 888 910 Total Non-Current Liabilities 729 10,747 10,766 10,785 10,805 10,825 6,845 2,867 2,888 2,910
TOTAL LIABILITIES 7,481 19,134 19,207 19,282 19,358 19,436 15,517 11,599 11,685 11,772
NET ASSETS 600,199 622,808 558,710 589,003 621,454 656,975 696,207 736,651 775,182 815,458
Community Equity Reserves 340,040 361,670 296,576 326,473 358,064 392,541 430,590 469,704 506,833 545,618 Accumulated Surplus 260,159 261,138 262,134 262,530 263,390 264,434 265,617 266,948 268,349 269,840 TOTAL COMMUNITY EQUITY 600,199 622,808 558,710 589,003 621,454 656,975 696,207 736,651 775,182 815,458
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 25 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 131 22 January 2018 APPENDIX C - STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
Actual 2016-17 Forecast 2017-18 LTFP 2018-19 LTFP 2019-20 LTFP 2020-21 LTFP 2021-22 LTFP 2022-23 LTFP 2023-24 LTFP 2024-25 LTFP 2025-26
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts from Ratepayers & Users 32,346 31,751 33,068 34,483 35,961 37,198 38,478 39,802 41,171 42,589 Payments to Suppliers & Staff (29,286) (27,004) (27,748) (28,421) (29,112) (29,916) (30,743) (31,593) (32,466) (33,364) Interest 192 144 211 208 201 266 372 380 367 374 Operating Grants 4,820 2,867 4,003 4,124 4,247 4,375 4,506 4,641 4,780 4,924 Dividends - TasWater 1,848 1,848 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 1,220 Borrowing Costs 0 (100) (210) (210) (210) (210) (216) (148) (152) (156) Contributions - cash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Payments to Government (1,437) (1,485) (1,552) (1,622) (1,695) (1,754) (1,815) (1,879) (1,945) (2,013) Net Cash Flow from Operating Activities 8,483 8,022 8,993 9,782 10,612 11,178 11,801 12,423 12,976 13,574
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Proceeds from the Sale of Assets 269 400 585 400 855 2,445 4,499 3,959 400 400 Investment in KWS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Developer Contributions 844 603 618 633 649 665 682 699 716 734 Acquisition of Capital Assets (incl Plant) (9,320) (21,595) (15,423) (9,778) (10,225) (13,584) (14,089) (13,445) (14,169) (14,542) Net Cash Flow used in Investing Activities (8,207) (20,592) (14,220) (8,745) (8,721) (10,474) (8,908) (8,787) (13,053) (13,408)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES Repayment of Borrowings 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4,000) (4,000) 0 0 Repayment of Community Service Loan 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Receipts from Government - Capital 1,854 2,200 1,400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Loan proceeds 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cash Flow from Financing Activities 1,888 14,200 1,400 400 400 400 (3,600) (3,600) 400 400
NET (DECREASE)/INCREASE IN CASH HELD 2,164 1,630 (3,828) 1,438 2,291 1,105 (706) 36 323 567
Cash at the Beginning of the Year 7,407 9,571 11,201 7,373 8,811 11,102 12,206 11,500 11,536 11,859
CASH AT THE END OF THE YEAR 9,571 11,201 7,373 8,811 11,102 12,206 11,500 11,536 11,859 12,426
Statutory Reserves (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) Descretionary Reserves (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) Other Commitments (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) Carry Forwards (4,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)
UNRESTRICTED CASH AT YEAR END 1,571 6,201 2,373 3,811 6,102 7,206 6,500 6,536 6,859 7,426
Kingborough Council Updated December 2017 P a g e | 26
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 132 22 January 2018
LONG TERM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Updated January 2017
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 133 22 January 2018 Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 1.1. Introduction 4 1.2. Overview 4 1.3. Asset Base 5 1.4. Asset Condition 5 1.5. Financial Projections 7 1.6. Future Demand 7 1.7. Levels of Service 7 1.8. Conclusion 8 2. Road and Footpath Network 9 2.1. Asset Information 9 2.2. Condition Summary 10 2.3. Renewal Summary 11 2.4. Maintenance Summary 14 2.5. Road and footpath Summary 16 3. Stormwater 17 3.1. Asset Information 17 3.2. Condition Summary 19 3.3. Renewal Summary 19 3.4. Maintenance Summary 21 3.5. Stormwater Drainage Summary 21 4. Buildings 22 4.1. Asset Information 22 4.2. Condition Summary 22 4.3. Renewal Summary 23 4.4. Maintenance Strategy 23 4.5. Buildings Summary 23 5. Bridge & Jetties 24 5.1. Asset Information 24 5.2. Condition summary 25 5.3. Renewal Summary 26 5.4. Maintenance Strategy 27 5.5. Bridge Summary 27 6. Parks and Reserves 27 6.1. Asset Information 27 6.2. Condition Summary 29 6.3. Renewal Summary 30 6.4. Maintenance Summary 31 6.5. Parks and Reserves Summary 31 7. Overall Financial Summary 32 7.1. Normalising Future Expenditure 34
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 134 22 January 2018 1. Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
In 2015 Council developed and adopted its Strategic Plan which set out Council’s vision, values and future directions. Council’s vision is for kingborough to be:
"A vibrant, diverse and connected community, with well managed natural and physical assets and a wide range of economic and lifestyle opportunities.”
To assist Council in achieving this vision, a number of outcomes and strategies were developed. The following outcomes links Asset Management Plans to Council’s vision and future directions:
2.1 Strategic plans provide the necessary guidance to manage future developments and infrastructure needs. 2.2 Community infrastructure is enhanced, replaced and maintained.
The Long Term Asset Management Plan sits within the strategic planning framework and documents in broad terms the principles and directions for the management and maintenance of Council’s asset base.
An Asset Management Policy (Policy 3.15) is the overarching document that defines the roles and responsibilities in respect to the management of Council’s assets and provides the link between this document and Council’s Strategic and Operational Plans.
1.2 Overview
Kingborough Council owns and is responsible for the management, operation and maintenance of a diverse asset portfolio that provides services to the community. Individual Asset Management Plans (IAMP’s) have been developed to ensure that Council continues to provide effective and comprehensive management of its infrastructure asset portfolios. IAMP’s have been completed for the following asset portfolios:
• Roads and footpaths – Section 2
• Stormwater – Section 3
• Buildings – Section 4
• Bridges and jetties– Section 5
• Parks and Reserves – Section 6
These plans outline Council’s desire to operate and maintain its asset portfolio to achieve the following objectives: • ensure the asset base contributes to the strategic objectives by providing the required levels of service; • ensure infrastructure is maintained at a safe and functional standard as set out in the IAMP’s; and • ensure the inspection and maintenance plans for all Council assets are sufficient to meet the legislative and operational requirements in order to deliver the required levels of service to the community. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 135 22 January 2018 This summary document brings together the key aspects of the IAMP’s into a single, user-friendly format.
1.3 Asset Base
The investment in Council’s portfolio of infrastructure assets has occurred over a number of decades. Ongoing investment has created an asset base which has a current written down value of $477M. The split between asset classes as at December 2017 is illustrated below.
Replacement Accumulated Written Down Portfolio Value ($’M) Depreciation Value ($'M) Million) ($'M) Roads and Footpaths 433 216 217 Stormwater 96 28 68 Bridges 29 13 16 Buildings 73 16 57 Land 53 0 53 Land under roads 57 0 57 Plant and equipment 9 4 5 Other 10 6 4 Total 760 283 477
The above reflects the componentisation of the roads and stormwater asset classes undertaken in 2016/17, which has provided for a more accurate appreciation of the financial position of these asset classes.
1.4 Asset Condition
Infrastructure assets owned by Kingborough Council are generally considered to be in reasonable condition.
While the age and condition of individual assets within each class varies, consistent asset renewal and maintenance investment over a long period of time has ensured that the asset base overall is in good condition and is considered appropriate for the current level of service which they are expected to provide. Notwithstanding this some sub asset class areas have historically had less attention than desired and a backlog of works exists in these areas, in particular, road seals.
The table below provides a summary of the asset condition across infrastructure classes in the form of percentages of remaining life. This format provides an easy comparison across asset classes, however it should be noted that it provides an indication only of the actual condition of assets.
Nevertheless, ongoing condition audits and assessments provide up to date information on the asset base which enable the remaining life to be updated regularly. It is intended to improve this in the future by extending condition assessments to more asset types and doing more spot inspections on underground assets.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 136 22 January 2018 Portfolio Remaining Life Roads and Footpaths 67% Stormwater 72% Bridges 67% Buildings 77% Other 67% Total 67%
As part of the condition rating process, assets can be categorised based on a simple numerical rating system. Asset condition is measured using a 1 to 5 rating system as described below:
Condition Community Rating Condition Description Index Scale 1 New/Excellent New asset or providing a very high level of service. Good condition with no indicators of any future 2 Good obsolescence and providing a good level of service Aged and in fair condition providing an adequate 3 Fair level of service. No signs of immediate or short term obsolescence. Will need to renew, upgrade or dispose in near 4 Poor future. Is reflected via inclusion in the 5 year Capital Works Plan. Below an acceptable level of service. Requires 5 Very Poor renewal/upgrade immediately within the following year or so.
Council has invested significantly in asset management systems, independent auditing and asset data capture to build a clear picture of Council’s asset stock and condition. In 2017, a new asset management system was purchased as well as a predictor model to assist in the development of future plans. Council is also a member of the National Asset Management Strategy (NAMS) asset management program which was developed to facilitate high level asset management skills and documentation in Local Government.
Council also has independent audits undertaken on various asset types that provide an external reference and risk management component to Council’s asset management activities.
Examples of the data captured to date include:
Field asset attribute data
Maintenance and capital activity actions
Condition monitoring information
Vested assets from development
Examples of independent audits include:
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 137 22 January 2018 Pavement Management Systems for road surface condition information
GR Webb Consulting for pavement strength testing
AUSSPAN for bridge condition inspections
The development and implementation of a Pavement Management System to further develop the current performance and predicted performance of the local road network is an example of Council’s program of continuous improvement to its asset data and resulting capital and operational planning.
1.5 Asset Capacity and growth of the municipality
Many of the required capital projects and need for increased maintenance are driven by capacity constraints and the relatively fast pace of expansion of the municipality. This continues to put strain on Council’s available budgets and is a major driver of the projected spends outlined in Council’s LTFP. Identifying and quantifying the ongoing and future costs is a challenge but is reflected in work Council Officers have undertaken in areas such as development of the stormwater rate and realignment of maintenance budgets. Work will continue on better quantifying these amounts through development of initiatives such as improved flood modelling allowing for future development within the municipality and service level standards for our maintenance activities.
1.6 Financial Projections
Financial projections for maintenance and capital renewal costs have been completed for all infrastructure classes. Maintenance cost estimates assume the asset is maintained to provide its current engineering levels of service over the expected life of the asset, while renewal costs estimate the expected capital expenditure required to replace the asset at the end of its useful life.
The average projected capital renewal expenditure for infrastructure over the next 10 years is approximately $8.2M (unadjusted for inflation). The funds available through the Long Term Financial Plan for the renewal of infrastructure assets is $7.0M based on funding 80% of current depreciation levels.
Projected total annual maintenance expenditure over the next 10 years is approximately $4.7 million, subject to CPI increases.
1.7 Future Demand
Council’s fundamental role is to provide services to the community and is a critical contributor to ensuring sustainable and well serviced communities.
There are many factors that affect future demand for assets including population change, changes in demographics, seasonal factors, vehicle ownership, consumer preferences and expectations, economic, agricultural practices, climate change, environmental awareness, etc. Future demand for assets may be for both improved existing assets and the need for upgrade or new assets.
Issues such as changing demands for particular services, changing mixes in the balance between public and private service provisions and changing community expectations of service levels, all affect the need for assets.
Future development is a major factor in the need to provide new and improved assets and particularly in existing areas where large amounts of infill development can occur.
The effects of climate change and potential sea level rise, are already being considered in Council’s
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 138 22 January 2018 infrastructure planning, particularly with coastal assets. Kingborough has a number of low lying coastal settlements which, given the 100 year sea level rise projections, will be severely affected by coastal erosion, shoreline recession, increased water tables and inundation.
These impacts may result in loss of property which has social impacts, but also Council’s infrastructure in these zones will require replacement or relocation which will have a significant impact on financial sustainability.
These impacts on Council’s infrastructure services will be specifically considered as part of the Annual Plan and budget process.
1.8 Levels of Service
Each asset class discussed in this LTAMP have community and technical levels of service which govern the management practices, expenditure, maintenance and operations associated with them. These levels of service are not discussed in this over-arching summary but are part of the individual Roads, Bridges, Stormwater, Buildings and Parks and Reserves asset management plans.
1.9 Conclusion
Asset Management Plans are a first step towards an integrated management program for Kingborough Council’s assets and will be updated annually as part of the Annual Plan and Budget process.
The actions resulting from the Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans include continuous improvement of asset management practices, provision of financial forecasts for inclusion in the Long Term Financial Plan, budget allocations and ongoing improvements of the plans to ensure accurate reflection of the asset portfolios and contemporary asset management practices.
Developments since the last update of the Long Term Asset Management Plan include componentisation of the road and stormwater asset classes and future developments include componentisation of building assets, improved condition assessments and improved knowledge of future capacity constraints.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 139 22 January 2018 2. Road and Footpath Network
2.1 Asset Information
Kingborough’s roads and footpath network comprises road pavements, wearing surface (seal), footpaths, kerb and channel and other minor infrastructure such as pedestrian refuges and islands.
Council provides a road network in partnership with the Department of State Growth (DSG) to ensure that Kingborough has an extensive transport network and is accessible, safe and efficient for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. The network includes the Bruny Island Ferry service which links the mainland to the Council and State owned road network on the island.
Kingborough Council also manages a major network of paths and cycleways which provide pedestrian and cyclist linkages and trafficable roadside interfaces. Associated with this network are kerb and channel, traffic islands and median assets which provide delineation, pedestrian refuge and landscaping to the road and footpath network.
Kingborough has a mix of sealed and unsealed roads with most major settlements having a completely sealed road system. The unsealed road network is predominantly in the rural areas and extends to the municipal boundaries. The most predominant sealed surface type is Spray Seal which is 80% of the total sealed road network.
The assets covered by this asset management plan are shown below.
Road Type Road Length (km) Spray Seal 178 Asphalt 102 Unsealed 268 Total 548 Footpath Type Footpath Length (km) Concrete 162 Asphalt 32 Others 17 Total 211
A brief description of each class of asset is presented below. Urban and rural roads with a bitumen Sealed Roads surface typically spray seal (two coat seal) or asphalt. Mostly rural roads formed and surfaced with Unsealed Roads imported granular material. Paths to cater for pedestrian and cycle movements within road reserves, Footpaths and Shared Paths constructed with a mix of concrete, hot mix and gravel surfaces. Typically constructed of concrete on the edge of sealed roads to formalise the traffic Kerb and Channel corridor and convey surface stormwater to the underground pipe drainage network.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 140 22 January 2018 2.2 Condition Summary
A review of the actual lives being achieved, industry research and the likely renewal actions that would be undertaken on the individual components, revealed that it is commonly accepted that each component of a road has a varied useful life as follows: Seal: 15 years Base: 60 years Sub-base: 120 years Formation (Sub-grade)/Greenfield costs: Infinite
This position is supported by Austroads guide AP-144-00 Valuation of Road Infrastructure Assets in Australia and New Zealand notes “Road assets, especially pavements, can be restored to as-new or near-new condition (or service potential) through physical treatments such as rehabilitation.”
The actual maintenance renewal intervals for the gravel road network are subject to a number of influencing factors such as the traffic volume and type, environmental conditions and required levels of service. The intervals are adjusted according to these factors and are accounted for in renewal planning.
The remaining life of the sealed road and footpath assets is based on the age of the asset linked to projected deterioration models sourced from asset material and condition information obtained from rolling condition audits. These audits provide an update to the expected life of the asset which is then used to amend estimated replacement/renewal requirements.
The average remaining life of Council’s road assets are:
Condition Summary Asset Type Remaining Life (Average)
Sealed roads 65% 2.6 Unsealed roads 71% 1.1 Total 67% 2.1
2.3 Renewal Summary
A model for the lifecycle of sealed road pavements is presented below and highlights the maintenance and renewal stages of a road pavement life.
In the “Do Nothing” phase, the asset deteriorates slowly and maintenance is generally not required. In the “Maintain” phase, activities will need to be performed to minimise continued deterioration. In the “Rehabilitate” or “Renewal” phase, activities are undertaken that restore the asset to a condition close to that of the original.
The importance of the timing for intervention for renewal of assets is paramount. If renewal activities are not undertaken in a timely manner, the condition of the asset may deteriorate rapidly to failure, and the cost of reconstruction, may be many times that of renewal/remedial activities.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 141 22 January 2018
Under the ‘replacement’ option, replacement costs for existing road assets averages $6M (unadjusted for inflation) per year over 90 years when considering the overall renewal profile over one cycle of their useful lives (refer graph). However, due to constraints in funding capacity, the average available fund for the next 10 years is approximately $5M.
ROAD ASSET REPLACEMENT COSTS
20 REPLACEMENT COST 18 20 YR AVE
Millions 16 30 YR AVE 14 12 AVERAGE 10 8 6 4 2
-
2032 2044 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2035 2038 2041 2047 2050 2053 2056 2059 2062 2065 2068 2071 2074 2077 2080 2083 2086 2089 2092 2095 2098 2101 2104 2107 2110 2113 2116
The replacement graph provides a high level indication of the spend required over the long term, however for the snapshot window of the next 10 years consideration also needs to be given to backlog of works associated with previous under investment in areas of the asset stock and also the need to replace/upgrade assets early than their life span to take into account pressures associated with development.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 142 22 January 2018 The development of a robust 10 year Capital Works Program is a delivery priority to provide Council with the ability to manage long term financial commitments and also to cater and adequately manage large, future infrastructure renewal investments.
As part of the asset management development process, Council must undertake regular full condition audits for the road and footpath network. These allow valid assessments and comparisons be made to prioritise capital works and manage risks associated with defects.
Council currently has a 5 year capital works program which reflects priority capital spend within a 5 year timeframe.
The peaks in the above graphs are indicative of assets with an assumed construction date. For example, after the 1967 bush fires, many records were lost. As a result some assets were assigned an assumed construction date. Also a number of road assets have a zero life and therefore are due for renewal in 2017. Council is undergoing a continuous process of data review to more accurately define the construction dates of these assets which will be refined by field condition assessment and modelling to determine remaining life.
2.4 Maintenance Summary
Maintenance refers to works undertaken to address minor defects such as pothole patching, edge‐ break patching, minor kerb repair works or footpath grinding. These treatment works are undertaken to keep Council’s Road assets in a safe and operational condition, but not necessarily to improve the overall condition of these assets.
Typical defects used to determine intervention levels include:
• Cracking: Crocodile and linear related to pavement and surface fatigue.
• Pavement defects: related to pavement deformities in localised areas such as shape loss and sub grade movements, local rutting, shoving and deformities.
• Ravelling: related to asphalt age/fretting and fatigue.
• Local Surface defects: Related to minor surface deformities and groups of potholes, delaminating.
• Stripping: Loss of stone from spray seal surface.
• Flushing: Excess bitumen pumping on surface of spray seals.
• Kerb and gutter: alignment, distortion, cracking, shape loss, structural failures, roll backs and channel deficiencies.
• Footpath: cracking, stepping, distortion and tree root defects.
Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Reactive maintenance work is typically 35% of total maintenance expenditure. Planned maintenance work is typically 30% of total maintenance expenditure. Cyclic maintenance work is typically 35% of total maintenance expenditure.
If road assets are left to deteriorate (i.e. sufficient capital expenditure is not allocated), then the amount of distresses being fixed under routine maintenance will increase and hence the routine maintenance expenditure required will also increase. Equally, if the condition of these assets improves then the routine maintenance expenditure required will decrease. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 143 22 January 2018 The level of maintenance budget for road assets in 2017/18 is below.
Road and Footpath Maintenance Amount
1.40.200.0000 Agricultural Drains 20,000
1.40.201.0000 Asphalt Corrections 140,000
1.40.201.0000 Pedestrian Crossing Maintenance 10,000
1.40.206.0000 Crossover Repairs 12,000
1.40.208.0000 Culvert Cleaning 55,000
1.40.210.0000 Culvert Replacement 50,000
1.40.212.0000 Dead Animal Removal 7,000
1.40.214.0000 Drainage - Easements 30,000
1.40.216.0000 Footpath Inspection 20,000
1.40.218.0000 Footpath Repair 190,000
1.40.222.0000 Guide Posts 70,000
1.40.224.0000 Handrails & Guardrails 65,000
1.40.225.0000 Illegal Dumping of Rubbish 12,000
1.40.228.0000 Kerb & Gutter Maintenance 65,000
1.40.229.0000 KWS Site Maintenance 20,000
1.40.231.0000 Linemarking 10,000
1.40.234.0000 Sealed - Major Repairs 150,000
1.40.239.0000 Sealed - Minor Repairs 280,000
1.40.240.0000 Sealed - Edge Break Repairs 100,000
1.40.241.0000 Sealed - Pothole Repairs 120,000
1.40.242.0000 Sealed - Shoulder Reinstatement 170,000
1.40.243.0000 Sealed - Shoulder Grading 110,000
1.40.245.0000 Sealed - Table Drain Maintenance 160,000
1.40.246.0000 Unsealed - Maintenance Grading 280,000
1.40.247.0000 Pothole Patching 120,000
1.40.248.0000 Unsealed - Table Drains 140,000
1.40.249.0000 Unsealed - Road Surface Repairs 100,000
1.40.253.0000 Roundabout Maintenance 10,000
1.40.254.0000 Retaining Walls 12,000
1.40.256.0000 Roadside Slashing 240,000
1.40.258.0000 Signs 95,000
1.40.260.0000 Storm Damage 100,000
1.40.262.0000 Sweeping 132,000
1.40.265.0000 Traffic Island Maintenance 10,000
1.40.266.0000 Tree Removal & Maintenance 185,000
1.40.272.0000 Weed Spraying 60,000 Total 3,350,000
2.5 Road and footpath Summary
Kingborough Council has an integrated network of roads and footpath infrastructure which provide the pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle network requirements for the municipal area. Council’s fundamental role is to provide services to the community and its road assets are a critical contributor to ensuring connected and well serviced communities. Overall the network is in good condition and the asset class is providing an adequate level of service for the community. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 144 22 January 2018 There are a number of significant spikes in the road asset replacement costs graph. To accommodate this, Council will need to bring forward some of these renewals in the years prior. Historical under investment in asset renewal in areas such as reseals and resheeting has left a backlog of work that will require an injection of funds over the next 10 years, resulting in the need for increased investment in the road asset stock.
A maintenance expenditure of approximately $3.4M annually is also necessary to maintain the current service level of roads and footpaths within Kingborough.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 145 22 January 2018 3. Stormwater 3.1 Asset Information
The stormwater network is designed to capture and convey stormwater flows, provide runoff management and flood mitigation responsibilities for the municipal area. The network is made up of road reserves, underground stormwater pipes, open channels, creeks, waterway detention basins and gross pollutant traps which capture, treat and convey stormwater.
The system of pits, underground pipes, open channels and minor creeks are classified as the minor system and convey stormwater runoff from minor storm events (rainstorm events that occur on average once every 10 or 20 years). This system is augmented by the major system of major creeks, waterways and rivers are used to convey major storm events that produce flows that are in excess of the capabilities of the minor system.
During these high flow events road reserves and park land areas will provide overland flow paths and be inundated with stormwater for short periods of time in order to reduce the risk to adjacent properties from flooding.
Approximately 66% of the replacement value of Council’s storm water infrastructure has been constructed with reinforced concrete. The remaining 33% has been constructed with uPVC or high density polyethylene (HDPE).
The stormwater infrastructure covered by this asset management plan is shown below.
Asset Type Length or Quantity Box Culverts 1.26 km Grated Trench 293 m Pipes 255.19 km Subsoil Drains 15.42 km Open Drains 17.72 km Grated Pits 2,548 Units Side Entry Pits 1,182 Units Headwalls (Inlet/Outlet) 1,714 Units Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT’s) 8 Units Detention Basins 2 Basins
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 146 22 January 2018 3.2 Condition Summary
The remaining life of stormwater drainage assets is based on their age and condition deterioration since installation. The average remaining life of stormwater assets is 72% of expected life which indicates that the network is relatively young and in good condition.
The average remaining life of stormwater is shown below.
Asset Type Remaining Life Condition Summary
Box Culverts 71% 3
Grated Trench 70% 2
Piped Reticulation 71% 2
Subsoil Drains 88% 2
Open Drains 74% 2
Average 72% 2
3.3 Renewal Summary
The asset renewal profile for stormwater assets has been developed by modelling the expected asset remaining life based on the known age of the pipe and projected condition. The projected renewal expenditure for drainage assets over the next 100 years is shown in the following graphs.
Over the 100 year lifecycle, renewal costs for stormwater drainage assets are on average $1.0M per year. Renewal expenditure over the next 10-30 years is lower than the lifecycle average as the network is relatively young, in good condition and as such does not require significant immediate attention.
As part of Council works planning and programming, there is often an opportunity to bring forward stormwater renewal works which coincide with street resurfacing renewal requirements to reduce cost liability for stormwater renewal.
Whilst there is little projected growth, the impacts on existing reticulated infrastructure from development undertaken to date is considered to be high. With the rapid infill development of area like Taroona and Blackmans Bay, there are now capacity limitations in much of the network.
Council is embarking on a project to hydraulically model the entire reticulated stormwater network to identify upgrade and renewal projects to address some of these limitations. This will result in expenditure on the upgrade of certain assets to provide increased levels of flooding protection.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 147 22 January 2018 STORMWATER ASSET REPLACEMENT COSTS
8 REPLACEMENT 7 COST Millions 20 YR AVE 6 30 YR AVE
5 AVERAGE
4
3
2
1
-
2038 2077 2116 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2041 2044 2047 2050 2053 2056 2059 2062 2065 2068 2071 2074 2080 2083 2086 2089 2092 2095 2098 2101 2104 2107 2110 2113 2017
The above graph shows the future capital renewal requirements based on the expected life of each stormwater asset. The average renewal is $1.0M, while the blue line indicates the average expenditure split into 20 year cycles and the green line the 30 year average cycle expenditure.
Expenditure on the upgrade of stormwater assets to meet capacity requirements will be on top of the renewal amount.
3.4 Maintenance Summary
Proactive maintenance programs are required to prevent blockages in pipes and inlets leading to surcharge or flooding, collapse of pipes and/or trenches and minimise contaminated outflows.
The level of annual maintenance budget for 2017/18 is represented below:
Stormwater Maintenance Amount 1.41.280.0000 Inspection & Site Checks 30,000 1.41.282.0000 Manhole Construction 65,000 1.41.284.0000 Pit Cleaning 65,000 1.41.286.0000 Pipe Cleaning 70,000 1.41.290.0000 Repairs of Pipes 30,000 1.41.292.0000 House Connections 20,000 1.41.294.0000 Cleaning Gross Pollutant Traps 50,000 Total 330,000
3.5 Stormwater Drainage Summary
Kingborough Council has a fully developed stormwater network which provides stormwater ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 148 22 January 2018 management and flood mitigation control for the municipality. Over the next 10 years there is a lesser requirement for asset renewal and the timing of non-critical renewal requirements can be linked to associated road and footpath renewal projects to minimise disruptions and inconvenience to the public.
There are will be a continuing number of capacity driven renewal or upgrade projects, however the full magnitude of the impact will not be available until all the hydraulic modelling has been undertaken. The annual renewal/replacement allocation should therefore be considered with this in mind.
Overall the projections for the next 10 years for Asset Renewal should be consistent with the 90 year renewal requirement average being approximately $1.0M per annum. Expenditure on the upgrade of the network will increase this figure to well beyond the $1.0M in some years.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 149 22 January 2018 4. Buildings
4.1 Asset Information
Kingborough Council owns a diverse property and building portfolio which comprises of operational facilities and community facilities.
Buildings with a replacement value greater than $500,000 are detailed below and represent greater than 75% of the total buildings replacement value.
Total Replacement Remaining Life Asset Type Asset Description Value (Years) Sports Facility Main Stadium 7,847,500 67 Civic Centre Civic Centre 5,597,280 87 Sports Facility Twin Ovals Complex 4,637,524 96 Clubrooms Twin Ovals Sports Pavilion 3,189,205 98 Sports Facility KSC Stadium Netball Courts 2,355,868 97 Sports Facility Kingborough Gymnastics Centre 2,167,932 96 Sports Facility Indoor Cricket Stadium 1,738,800 67 Miscellaneous Structures Waste Transfer Station - BC & S 1,678,295 57 Miscellaneous Structures Barretta Compactor 1,589,452 22 Community Hall Senior Citizens Club 1,159,240 67 Community Hall Alonnah Hall 950,725 77 Sports Facility Table Tennis Centre 912,990 67 Community Hall Kettering Hall 883,070 67 Administration / Service Centre Family Day Care Centre 795,150 67 Community Hall Kingston Beach Hall 773,200 57 Clubrooms Lightwood Park Club House 675,500 67 Miscellaneous Structures Barretta Saw Tooth 667,536 97 Community Hall Taroona Hall 594,150 67 Community Hall Woodbridge Hall 586,190 57 Community Hall Margate Hall 583,125 57 Clubrooms Alzheimers Centre 575,400 72 Amenities Snug Oval Change Rooms 569,930 67 Administration / Service Centre Depot Offices and Ameneities 545,421 67 Community Hall Blackmans Bay Hall 542,190 77 Clubrooms Kingston Beach Football & Cricket Club 540,000 67 Clubrooms Fusion Clubrooms 536,300 67 Clubrooms Sherburd Oval Cricket club 507,640 57 Community Hall Dennes Point Hall Upgrade 506,635 96
4.2 Condition Summary
Council undertakes regular condition inspections on all Council buildings on a three month interval. The inspections focus on most aspects of the structure including legislative compliance (fire systems, emergency lighting etc), building structure and fabric, electrical services, hydraulic services vertical transport (lifts) and building amenity (fit outs, carpets, fittings etc).
Council buildings are constructed with long lived materials, including concrete, brick and/or steel with independent lives in the order of 100 years or greater. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 150 22 January 2018 Maintenance programs have and will continue to ensure maximum useful lives are achieved. It is Council’s view effective maintenance programs provide the most economic benefit and financial sustainability in light of high replacement values. Council is proactively looking to improve these processes to ensure the maximum useful life of assets.
4.3 Renewal Summary
An analysis of the remaining useful lives of Council buildings highlighted that over the next 10-25 years the complete renewal and replacement of buildings will be minimal. However it is expected that building maintenance costs will increase over time.
4.4 Maintenance Strategy
Proactive maintenance programs are required to prevent unnecessary deterioration of buildings. Current annual building maintenance budgets are detailed below.
Building Maintenance Amount 1.56.164.6170 Building Maintenance - CC 60,000 1.56.164.6182 Cleaning - CC 12,000 1.56.164.6274 Light & Power - CC 62,750 1.56.480.0000 Hall Scheduled Maintenance 104,792 1.56.482.0000 Hall Unscheduled Maintenance 61,100 1.56.483.0000 Hall Cleaning 27,545 1.56.485.0000 Hall Toilet Repairs 12,000 1.56.488.0000 General Building Maintenance 132,264 1.56.489.0000 Asbestos Audit 0 Total 472,451
4.5 Buildings Summary
Kingborough Council has a diverse portfolio of building assets which provide accommodation to its staff and provide facilities throughout the municipal area. The recently constructed buildings are in fair to good condition and there is currently no backlog of deferred renewal works.
Pre-war assets that were vested to Council are a priority for renewal and will require the majority of building capital outlay and maintenance allocations to ensure serviceability. This will be prioritised and staged through Council’s capital works planning process.
Renewal expenditure is minimal over the next 10-20 years given the relatively young age of the majority of buildings, particularly those of high value. Most renewal expenditure will be on minor items such as hall and facilities upgrades.
Projected annual maintenance costs for the next ten years will commence at approximately $0.47M and is expected to increase annually between 3%-6%.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 151 22 January 2018 5 Bridges & Jetties
5.1 Asset Information
Bridges constructed with concrete and steel account for over 96% of Council’s replacement value of bridges. The remaining 4% are timber bridges, and Council’s asset replacement program for bridges has identified that the remaining timber bridges will be replaced within the next 5 years.
Within Kingborough there are 17 boat ramps with an average replacement value of approximately $84K. There are also 9 jetties and excluding the Alonnah Pontoon ($3.606M) the average replacement value is approximately $112K.
5.2 Condition summary
Based on the construction type, environmental conditions, traffic volumes and loadings present in Kingborough, independent structural auditing by AUSSPAN and industry standard research (refer Austroads AP-R235 Remaining Life of Road Infrastructure Assets: An overview) it is reasonable to assume a bridge constructed with concrete and steel has an estimated useful life of 100 years. Again Council’s maintenance program for bridges has and will continue to ensure useful lives are maximised and bridges are able to carry legal loadings within safety parameters.
Boat ramps have a useful life of 100 years and jetties 50 years. Excluding the Alonnah Pontoon which is fully written down the average remaining useful life for jetties is 78%.
Asset Type Remaining Life Condition Summary (Average)
Boat Ramp 72% 2
Jetty 78% 2
Box Culvert 62% 2
Multi Plate Arch 68% 3
Concrete Bridges 78% 2
Pipe Culvert 59% 2
Pontoon 24% 4
Timber Bridge concrete abutments 53% 2
Timber Bridge timber abutments 65% 2
Total 67% 2
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 152 22 January 2018 5.3 Renewal Summary
The asset renewal profile bridges and jetties have been developed by modelling the expected asset remaining life based on the known age of the asset and projected condition.
Renewal expenditure over the next 10-30 years is lower than the lifecycle average as the assets are relatively young, in good condition and as such does not require significant immediate attention.
5.4 Maintenance Strategy
Current annual bridge and Jetty maintenance estimates are detailed below.
Bridge Activities
1.42.202.0000 Boat Ramps 16,000
1.42.302.0000 Bridge Handrail Repairs 5,000
1.42.306.0000 Bridge General Maintenance 70,000
1.42.310.0000 Bridge Inspections 55,000
1.42.312.0000 Jetty Maintenance 25,000
Total Bridge Expenses 171,000
5.5 Bridge Summary
Council bridges are in good to excellent condition. The four big ticket items on the horizon are the Alonnah Pontoon rehabilitation ($500K), the Browns River footbridge rehabilitation ($400K), the Snug Beach footbridge rehabilitation ($150K) and Barnes Bay jetty rehabilitation ($210K).
Renewal expenditure is minimal over the next 10-20 years given that the majority of timber bridges have recently been replaced with concrete structures.
Projected average annual maintenance cost is $180K annually. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 153 22 January 2018 6. Parks and Reserves
6.1 Asset Information
Kingborough has a large suite of Parks and Reserves assets which includes all street and park furniture assets, recreational elements (playgrounds, BBQ’s etc) and other urban furniture items. These assets contribute to the amenity and user friendly aspect of the municipal area.
Council undertakes a range of internal and external inspection programs to monitor condition and comply with the relevant Australian Standards for equipment safety.
Examples of this include monthly monitoring of soft fall and equipment condition, quarterly compliance auditing and annual external engineering certification of all playground equipment.
The Parks and Reserves asset base has a current replacement value in excess of $2M.
6.2 Condition Summary
Remaining life of depreciated urban element assets (BBQ’s, Playgrounds) are based on age (installation date) and condition audits. The average remaining life of depreciated urban element assets is 42%.
Asset Type Remaining Life Condition Summary (Average)
BBQ 20% 4
Feeding Platform 45% 3
Play Equipment 39% 3
Shelter 41% 3
Other 73% 2
Grand Total 42% 3
6.3 Renewal Summary
The asset renewal profile has been developed by modelling asset remaining lives based on asset expected life, known installation dates and available condition information. The chart below shows replacements over a 20 year period as most assets in this class have relatively short lives.
Over the life of all Urban Element assets the projected average annual renewal expenditure for the next 20 years is $0.11M.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 154 22 January 2018
6.4 Maintenance Summary
For assets which are replaced on an ad hoc basis (seats, bins etc) an annual allocation determined from historical replacement rates has been applied to cover renewal costs.
Over the life of all urban element assets the projected average annual maintenance cost for the next ten years is $330K per annum.
Reserves Amount 1.56.490.0000 Playground Inspections 5,000 1.56.491.0000 Playground Maintenance 34,000 1.56.492.0000 BBQ Maintenance 24,000 1.56.493.0000 Graffiti Removal 5,000 1.56.494.0000 Public Toilet Cleaning 228,000 1.56.495.0000 Public Toilet Repairs 36,000 Total 332,000
6.5 Parks and Reserves Summary
Council has a significant number of Parks and Reserves Assets which improve the amenity and experience of users. The majority of these assets are replaced in an ad hoc manner as their condition warrants. It is anticipated that expenditure over the longer term for Parks and Reserves will increase as additional users demand improved public amenity and experience within the municipal area.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 155 22 January 2018 7. Overall Financial Summary
Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans have been developed to ensure that Council continues to provide effective and comprehensive management of its infrastructure asset portfolios. The Asset Management Plans are separate documents to the LTFP. However a high level summary has been provided as the funding for the capital works program is generated through an effective LTFP.
The asset renewal profile for infrastructure assets has been developed by modelling the expected asset remaining life based on the known age of the infrastructure and projected condition. The projected renewal capital expenditure for infrastructure assets over the next 80 years is shown below.
The combined financial projections for all asset classes covered in this plan are detailed within the following graph. Over the next 10 years, the projection sits at an average rate of $8.1M per annum, unadjusted for inflation. Due to constraints in available funding, Council have allocated 80% of required funding to the renewal of infrastructure assets at $7.0M. This amount is included in the Long Term Financial Plan.
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET REPLACEMENT COSTS
30 REPLACEMENT COST 20 YR AVE
Millions 25 30 YR AVE
AVERAGE 20
15
10
5
2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053 2055 2057 2059 2061 2063 2065 2067 2069 2071 2073 2075 2077 2079 2081 2083 2085 2087 2089 2091 2093 2095 2097 2099 2101 2103 2105 2107 2109 2111 2113 2115 - 2017
The graph illustrates there are peaks and troughs over the 80 year period representing the fluctuations in the annual value of expired infrastructure assets in any one year. Council’s Asset Management Plans dictate that consistent annual capital spend is the most effective approach in maintaining existing infrastructure. The graph shows a number of peaks, mainly due to road asset renewals. Council should bring about the steady renewals of those assets in the preceding years where very little capital expenditure is indicated. By using this method, as the next generation of renewals come due, a levelling effect will appear in future modelling. Over the next 10 years a higher investment is required that will taper back to the long term average over time due to the need to address backlogs, in particular with road assets.
The asset management plans therefore indicate that over the next 10 years Council should be spending approximately $8.1M (unadjusted for inflation) per annum on capital renewal. The available level of capital expenditure of $7.0M for the renewal and rehabilitation of infrastructure ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 156 22 January 2018 assets is below the requirement and will require additional expenditure in future years to maintain infrastructure at acceptable levels.
Capital funding in excess of the $7.0M for capital renewal purposes is available for new infrastructure projects. The Long Term Financial Plan estimates the potential capital spend on new assets over the next 10 years at $1.0M per annum in today’s dollars. The figure does not include expenditure on Kingston Park which is being funded through borrowings to be repaid through future land sales on the site.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 157 22 January 2018
FILE NO 12.68 DATE 5 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER JOHN BREEN - CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER
POLICY 2.1 - COUNCILLORS EXPENSES AND PROVISION OF FACILITIES
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 6.0 A well administered organisation Strategic Outcome 6.3 Legislative obligations are met Strategy 6.3.2 Implement fair and just regulatory and statutory compliance regimes that implement legislation and monitor potential unauthorised activities.
1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the updated policy on Councillors expenses and provision of facilities policy.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The current Policy was approved by Council in October 2015.
2.2 The policy provides direction on the types of expenditure that Council will reimburse and the facilities that will be available to Councillors.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The Local Government Act 1993 at Schedule 5, states:
1. Expenses
(1) A council, on or before 1 January 2006, is to –
(a) adopt a policy in respect of payment of expenses incurred by councillors in carrying out the duties of office; and
(b) make a copy of the policy available for public inspection.
(2) A councillor is entitled to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses in accordance with the policy adopted under sub-clause (1) in relation to –
(a) any prescribed expenses; and
(b) any other expenses the council determines appropriate.
2. Loan of services, facilities and equipment
A council may decide to provide support services, facilities and equipment on loan to a councillor on any conditions it considers appropriate.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 158 22 January 2018 4 DISCUSSION
4.1 The attached policy (with tracked changes) highlights the changes to the policy.
4.2 The main change to the policy is the removal of the clauses that requires Council to provide dedicated telephone/data communication line and mobile telephones to Councillors. These clauses have been removed as it is expected that Councillors will want to use their own mobile phone and internet connection. Council will reimburse telecommunication costs up to $80 per month and provide a mobile data usage package for portable devices up to $100 per month.
4.3 A minor adjustment has been made to travelling expenses to note that a standard allowance is paid for travelling costs by the tax office of 66 cents per kilometre.
5 FINANCE
5.1 The proposed changes to the Policy will not result in any additional expenditure.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 There are no environmental considerations related to this report.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 The policy will be made available to the public on Council’s website.
8 RISK
8.1 This Policy is aimed at ensuring appropriate reimbursement to Councillors for expenditure incurred whilst carrying out their duties as an elected member in line with the legislative requirements.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 The Policy has been updated to clarify the home facilities and telecommunication reimbursements for Councillors in line with legislative requirements.
10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council approves the Policy 2.1 Councillors Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy, as attached to this report.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 159 22 January 2018
EXISTING POLICY WITH TRACKED CHANGES
PAYMENT OF COUNCILLORS Policy Number 2.1 EXPENSES AND PROVISION OF
FACILITIES LAST NEXT MINUTE REF REVIEW REVIEW C352/13-15 Oct 2015Jan Nov 2017Jan 2018 2020
POLICY 1.1 This policy aims to ensure that Councillors are provided with adequate and STATEMENT: reasonable expenses and facilities to enable them to carry out their civic responsibilities. In addition, the policy provides transparency in the way expenses and facilities are provided and clear accountability when expenses are claimed or Council provided facilities are used. 1.2 This policy also aims to provide procedures for the payment of Councillor expenses and to ensure that there is no confusion in relation to the claiming and payment of expenses by Councillors. 1.3 This Policy is consistent with the requirements of all Councillors under the “Councillors Code of Conduct Policy” to act honestly and to not make any improper use of their position, including to gain, or attempt to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for themselves or for any other reason or to cause, or attempt to cause, damage to the Council.
2.1 To provide guidance to Councillors in the interpretation of the provision of OBJECTIVE: reimbursement of expenses incurred whilst carrying out their duties as an elected member. The Local Government Act 1993 at Schedule 5, states: 1. Expenses (1) A council, on or before 1 January 2006, is to – (a) adopt a policy in respect of payment of expenses incurred by councillors in carrying out the duties of office; and (b) make a copy of the policy available for public inspection. (2) A councillor is entitled to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses in accordance with the policy adopted under sub-clause (1) in relation to – (a) any prescribed expenses; and (b) any other expenses the council determines appropriate. 2. Loan of services, facilities and equipment A council may decide to provide support services, facilities and equipment on loan to a councillor on any conditions it considers appropriate.
SCOPE: 3.1 This policy applies to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors as elected from time to time.
DEFINITIONS: Councillor shall include the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and may be construed as reference to either singular or plural as the case may be.
PROCEDURE: Travelling Expenses (POLICY DETAIL) 4.1 Other than in respect of the Mayor, and subject to the prior provision of the supporting evidentiary documentation required by this Policy, the Council will pay to or on behalf of a Councillor an allowance towards necessary out-of- pocket expenses for conveyance in travelling. The amount payable will be up to a maximum of $4,500 per financial year after which all travel costs will be ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 160 22 January 2018 met by the Councillor whether they are business or private in nature. This applies in respect of the following: a) to and from the meetings of Council, or meeting of any committee of Council, and other meetings where a Councillor has been delegated or authorised by Council to attend; b) upon inspections or business within the municipal area in compliance with a resolution of Council; c) upon inspections or business outside the municipal area where a Councillor has been delegated or authorised by the Mayor or Council to undertake such a function; d) upon inspections or business as arranged by the General Manager; or e) to attend any seminar, conference or training course in compliance with a resolution of Council; or f) travelling to and from meetings with residents and ratepayers in response to their request or problem. 4.2 The travelling allowance shall be paid in accordance with the motor vehicle rates prescribed by the Australian Taxation Office. for an “Ordinary Care 1601cc – 2600cc” (currently 7466 cents per kilometre). 4.3 Travelling expenses shall not apply to travel, either inside or outside the municipal area, where alternative arrangements are made for travel and the Councillor has elected not to utilise these arrangements. 4.4 A Councillor shall not claim travel or other expenses for activities that are not directly related to current business to be considered by Council, or where the expenses would otherwise have been incurred as a result of private business. 4.5 In respect of each and every claim, in order to receive payment, a Councillor must provide a Mileage Log Form detailing: Date of travel Origin Destination Distance travelled Purpose of trip Motor vehicle make / engine size together with a declaration stating that the amount claimed has been expended in the performance of their duties as a Councillor. 4.6 All claims must be lodged within 10 business days following the end of the month the expenses relate to. Mayoral Vehicle 5.1 A motor vehicle will be provided for use by the Mayor. The vehicle is primarily for bona fide Council business both inside and outside of the municipal area. The vehicle may also be used by the Mayor for other incidental private mileage where it is convenient for him to do so, however the Mayor will keep a record of such usage and will reimburse Council at the same rate as other Councillors are reimbursed for usage of their private vehicles in carrying out their functions as a Councillor. The vehicle will usually be garaged at the Mayor’s usual place of residence and any travel between his residence and the Civic Centre will not be considered to be private use for calculation of any mileage reimbursement. 5.2 Other Councillors can arrange to use the vehicle if required to attend meetings/seminars/functions on behalf of the Council. Arrangements for the use of the vehicle are to be made with the Mayor. Home Facilities 6.1 Council may provide each Councillor with home computer facilities. Where ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 161 22 January 2018 practicable the computer facilities will be provided at the time of election to Council, and will be replaced upon each subsequent re-election to Council. These facilities may be used by Councillors for purposes other than carrying out the duties of office. 6.2 The home computer facilities shall comprise a desktop desktop computer of a type currently provided for Council staff, together with additional facilities for backup s, together with a printer, fax and scannerand multi-function printer devices. Where necessary training will be provided in the use of the equipment and the software necessary for discharge of the duties of office. Each Councillor will be responsible for undertaking adequate backups and for restoring data in the event of hardware or software failure. Council will insure the equipment for loss and accidental damage. 6.3 A Councillor can elect to instead of a desktop computer be provided with a laptop portable computer/tablet or ipad with mobile data access. In such circumstances the Councillor will agree to in future receive all official Council information (including agendas and minutes) electronically. A Councillor who receives their information electronically will not be provided with “hard copy” information and will then be expected to utilise their laptop at meetings etc. 6.4 The The Councillor will sign an acknowledgement in accordance with the relevant Council Information Technology Policy prior to the installation of the computer equipment. 6.5 Council will provide to each Councillor’s home a dedicated telephone/data communication line using broadband technology where available, and will pay all installation, connection and usage costs associated with the line. The service provider will forward the accounts for such line directly to Council. Council will provide regular usage reports to Councillors. Service and usage costs will not expected to exceed $200 per month or $2,400 for the financial year. Councillors should monitor their usage reports for usage that is not in accordance with Council business and arrange reimbursement to Council of any amount that constitute excessive private usage. 6.6 Council will provide Councillors with a standard landline telephone and answering machine. 6.7 Where appropriate, Council may provide a mobile telephone and/or data service instead of a fixed telephone service. This will be at the discretion of the General Manager.
6.8 Council will reimburse all reasonable additional telecommunication costs incurred by a Councillor. A Councillor in submitting a claim for such costs will detail as a minimum the number of calls being claimed. A Councillor will further keep a record of the nature of each call so as to substantiate each claim or enable Council to review whether such claims are reasonable and in accordance with this policy. 6.9 Where at the request of a CouncillorCouncil will reimburse the cost of a a dedicatedfixed home voice/telephone internet service inclusive of usage charges, or computer is not provided by Council, telephone rental charges only in respect of a standard landline configuration and the cost of a broadband service up to a maximum of $80 80 per month will be reimbursed (if claimed). Where a portable computer/tablet with mobile data service is provided by Council, the maximum mobile service and data usage charges paid by Council will be $100 per month. Any monthly excess usage charges are required to be reimbursed to Council.
Where a Councillor chooses to use a non-Council provided portable computer/tablet for accessing Council business papers (refer 6.3), Council will reimburse mobile data usage charges associated with the device (if applicable) up to a maximum of $100 per month (if claimed). The maximum total value of electronic communications service and usage
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 162 22 January 2018 charges (both claimed and provided) is $180 per month per Councillor. 6.10 All claims must be lodged within 10 business days following the end of the month the expenses relate to. 6.11 Where for private purposes a Councillor uses the home computer or telecommunication facilities provided by Council, they will reimburse Council for additional costs incurred. 6.12 Within 14 days from resigning from Council or losing office a Councillor will arrange for the return of all Council-provided equipment and facilities. Council will reinstate and make good any damage or alteration caused and necessarily made as a result of the installation of the facilities. 6.13 Upon the scheduled replacement of the equipment, or upon resigning or losing office, a Councillor may if it is acceptable to the General Manager purchase all or part of the equipment at a mutually acceptable sum, such sum to be not less than market value. Meals 7.1 When appropriate, Council will provide meals for Councillors attending meetings. 7.2 Where required by the Mayor or in compliance with a resolution of Council to represent Council, a Councillor will be reimbursed for the cost of any attendance fee, meal or refreshment. Conferences and Seminars 8.1 Council will pay to or on behalf of a Councillor the registration and out-of- pocket expenses, other than those paid in accordance with other clauses of this policy, in respect of attendances at any conference or seminar approved by the Mayor or in compliance with a resolution of Council.
Other Expenses 9.1 Council will reimburse any necessary out-of-pocket expenses for attendance upon inspections or upon business of Council, but not donations or gratuities. Provision of Support and Facilities 10.1 Council will provide secretarial support at the Civic Centre for the Mayor. This support will also be made available to the Deputy Mayor when acting in the capacity of Mayor. 10.2 Council will provide Councillors with meeting facilities at the Civic Centre. 10.3 Council will provide Councillors with business cards and stationery. Dependent Person Care 11.1 Council will reimburse all reasonable costs necessarily incurred by a councillor in the care of any person who is dependent on the councillor and who requires the care while the councillor is carrying out his or her duties or functions as a councillor. Reimbursement of costs will only be made in accordance with the purposes outlined in Section 4.1.
11.2 All claims for reimbursement of Dependent Person Care will be made on the appropriate claim form and include satisfactory evidence of the expense.
Insurance 12.1 Council will provide an insurance cover for a Councillor against personal injury, professional indemnity, and Directors and Officers liability, arising out of or in the course of carrying out by such Councillor of any business of Council or the performance by such Councillor of any function in their capacity as a member of Council.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 163 22 January 2018
Dispute Resolution 13.1 If in the opinion of the General Manager, a claim for reimbursement of expenses is unreasonable or does not meet with requirements of this policy and agreement cannot be reached with the Councillor, the matter will be referred to Council for final decision.
Pro-rata Payments 14.1 Where a Councillor is appointed part way through a financial year their maximum amount allowable under sections 4.1 and 6.4 will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for that particular financial year.
COMMUNICATION: Councillors of Kingborough Council.
LEGISLATION: Section 340a and Schedule 5 Local Government Act 1993.
DEFINITIONS: Councillor shall include the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and may be construed as reference to either singular or plural as the case may be.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 164 22 January 2018
UPDATED POLICY FOR APPROVAL
PAYMENT OF COUNCILLORS Policy Number 2.1
EXPENSES AND PROVISION OF LAST NEXT MINUTE FACILITIES REVIEW REVIEW REF Jan 2018 Jan 2020
POLICY 1.1 This policy aims to ensure that Councillors are provided with adequate and STATEMENT: reasonable expenses and facilities to enable them to carry out their civic responsibilities. In addition, the policy provides transparency in the way expenses and facilities are provided and clear accountability when expenses are claimed or Council provided facilities are used. 1.2 This policy also aims to provide procedures for the payment of Councillor expenses and to ensure that there is no confusion in relation to the claiming and payment of expenses by Councillors. 1.3 This Policy is consistent with the requirements of all Councillors under the “Councillors Code of Conduct Policy” to act honestly and to not make any improper use of their position, including to gain, or attempt to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for themselves or for any other reason or to cause, or attempt to cause, damage to the Council.
DEFINITIONS: Councillor shall include the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and may be construed as reference to either singular or plural as the case may be.
OBJECTIVE: 2.1 To provide guidance to Councillors in the interpretation of the provision of reimbursement of expenses incurred whilst carrying out their duties as an elected member. The Local Government Act 1993 at Schedule 5, states: 1. Expenses (1) A council, on or before 1 January 2006, is to – (a) adopt a policy in respect of payment of expenses incurred by councillors in carrying out the duties of office; and (b) make a copy of the policy available for public inspection. (2) A councillor is entitled to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses in accordance with the policy adopted under sub-clause (1) in relation to – (a) any prescribed expenses; and (b) any other expenses the council determines appropriate. 2. Loan of services, facilities and equipment A council may decide to provide support services, facilities and equipment on loan to a councillor on any conditions it considers appropriate.
SCOPE: 3.1 This policy applies to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors as elected from time to time.
Travelling Expenses PROCEDURE: (POLICY DETAIL) 4.1 Other than in respect of the Mayor, and subject to the prior provision of the supporting evidentiary documentation required by this Policy, the Council will pay to or on behalf of a Councillor an allowance towards necessary out-of- pocket expenses for conveyance in travelling. The amount payable will be up to a maximum of $4,500 per financial year after which all travel costs will ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 165 22 January 2018 be met by the Councillor whether they are business or private in nature. This applies in respect of the following: a) to and from the meetings of Council, or meeting of any committee of Council, and other meetings where a Councillor has been delegated or authorised by Council to attend; b) upon inspections or business within the municipal area in compliance with a resolution of Council; c) upon inspections or business outside the municipal area where a Councillor has been delegated or authorised by the Mayor or Council to undertake such a function; d) upon inspections or business as arranged by the General Manager; or e) to attend any seminar, conference or training course in compliance with a resolution of Council; or f) travelling to and from meetings with residents and ratepayers in response to their request or problem. 4.2 The travelling allowance shall be paid in accordance with the motor vehicle rates prescribed by the Australian Taxation Office. (currently 66 cents per kilometre). 4.3 Travelling expenses shall not apply to travel, either inside or outside the municipal area, where alternative arrangements are made for travel and the Councillor has elected not to utilise these arrangements. 4.4 A Councillor shall not claim travel or other expenses for activities that are not directly related to current business to be considered by Council, or where the expenses would otherwise have been incurred as a result of private business. 4.5 In respect of each and every claim, in order to receive payment, a Councillor must provide a Mileage Log Form detailing: Date of travel Origin Destination Distance travelled Purpose of trip together with a declaration stating that the amount claimed has been expended in the performance of their duties as a Councillor. 4.6 All claims must be lodged within 10 business days following the end of the month the expenses relate to. Mayoral Vehicle 5.1 A motor vehicle will be provided for use by the Mayor. The vehicle is primarily for bona fide Council business both inside and outside of the municipal area. The vehicle may also be used by the Mayor for other incidental private mileage where it is convenient for him to do so, however the Mayor will keep a record of such usage and will reimburse Council at the same rate as other Councillors are reimbursed for usage of their private vehicles in carrying out their functions as a Councillor. The vehicle will usually be garaged at the Mayor’s usual place of residence and any travel between his residence and the Civic Centre will not be considered to be private use for calculation of any mileage reimbursement. 5.2 Other Councillors can arrange to use the vehicle if required to attend meetings/seminars/functions on behalf of the Council. Arrangements for the use of the vehicle are to be made with the Mayor. Home Facilities 6.1 Council may provide each Councillor with home computer facilities. Where practicable the computer facilities will be provided at the time of election to Council, and will be replaced upon each subsequent re-election to Council. These facilities may be used by Councillors for purposes other than carrying out the duties of office.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 166 22 January 2018 6.2 The home computer facilities shall comprise a desktop computer together with backup and multi-function printer devices. Where necessary training will be provided in the use of the equipment and the software necessary for discharge of the duties of office. Each Councillor will be responsible for undertaking adequate backups and for restoring data in the event of hardware or software failure. Council will insure the equipment for loss and accidental damage. 6.3 A Councillor can elect to instead of a desktop computer be provided with a portable computer/tablet with mobile data access. In such circumstances the Councillor will agree to in future receive all official Council information (including agendas and minutes) electronically. A Councillor who receives their information electronically will not be provided with “hard copy” information and will then be expected to utilise their laptop at meetings etc. 6.4 The Councillor will sign an acknowledgement in accordance with the relevant Council Information Technology Policy prior to the installation of the computer equipment. 6.5 Council will reimburse the cost of a fixed home voice/internet service inclusive of usage charges up to a maximum of $80 per month (if claimed). Where a portable computer/tablet with mobile data service is provided by Council, the maximum mobile service and data usage charges paid by Council will be $100 per month. Any monthly excess usage charges are required to be reimbursed to Council. Where a Councillor chooses to use a non-Council provided portable computer/tablet for accessing Council business papers (refer 6.3), Council will reimburse mobile data usage charges associated with the device (if applicable) up to a maximum of $100 per month (if claimed). The maximum total value of electronic communications service and usage charges (both claimed and provided) is $180 per month per Councillor. 6.6 All claims must be lodged within 10 business days following the end of the month the expenses relate to. 6.7 6.12Within 14 days from resigning from Council or losing office a Councillor will arrange for the return of all Council-provided equipment and facilities. Council will reinstate and make good any damage or alteration caused and necessarily made as a result of the installation of the facilities. 6.8 Upon the scheduled replacement of the equipment, or upon resigning or losing office, a Councillor may if it is acceptable to the General Manager purchase all or part of the equipment at a mutually acceptable sum, such sum to be not less than market value. Meals 7.1 When appropriate, Council will provide meals for Councillors attending meetings. 7.2 Where required by the Mayor or in compliance with a resolution of Council to represent Council, a Councillor will be reimbursed for the cost of any attendance fee, meal or refreshment. Conferences and Seminars 8.1 Council will pay to or on behalf of a Councillor the registration and out-of- pocket expenses, other than those paid in accordance with other clauses of this policy, in respect of attendances at any conference or seminar approved by the Mayor or in compliance with a resolution of Council. Other Expenses 9.1 Council will reimburse any necessary out-of-pocket expenses for attendance upon inspections or upon business of Council, but not donations or gratuities. Provision of Support and Facilities 10.1 Council will provide secretarial support at the Civic Centre for the Mayor. This support will also be made available to the Deputy Mayor when acting in the capacity of Mayor.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 167 22 January 2018 10.2 Council will provide Councillors with meeting facilities at the Civic Centre. 10.3 Council will provide Councillors with business cards and stationery. Dependent Person Care 11.1 Council will reimburse all reasonable costs necessarily incurred by a councillor in the care of any person who is dependent on the councillor and who requires the care while the councillor is carrying out his or her duties or functions as a councillor. Reimbursement of costs will only be made in accordance with the purposes outlined in Section 4.1. 11.2 All claims for reimbursement of Dependent Person Care will be made on the appropriate claim form and include satisfactory evidence of the expense. Insurance 12.1 Council will provide an insurance cover for a Councillor against personal injury, professional indemnity, and Directors and Officers liability, arising out of or in the course of carrying out by such Councillor of any business of Council or the performance by such Councillor of any function in their capacity as a member of Council. Dispute Resolution 13.1 If in the opinion of the General Manager, a claim for reimbursement of expenses is unreasonable or does not meet with requirements of this policy and agreement cannot be reached with the Councillor, the matter will be referred to Council for final decision. Pro-rata Payments 14.1 Where a Councillor is appointed part way through a financial year their maximum amount allowable under sections 4.1 and 6.4 will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for that particular financial year. COMMUNICATION: Councillors of Kingborough Council. LEGISLATION: Section 340a and Schedule 5 Local Government Act 1993. DEFINITIONS: Councillor shall include the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and may be construed as reference to either singular or plural as the case may be.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 168 22 January 2018 FILE NO 12.213 DATE 5 JANUARY 2018 OFFICER JOHN BREEN - CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER
POLICY 1.15 - CORPORATE CREDIT CARD
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 6.0 A well administered organisation Strategic Outcome 6.3 Legislative obligations are met Strategy 6.3.2 Implement fair and just regulatory and statutory compliance regimes that implement legislation and monitor potential unauthorised activities.
1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the updated policy on Corporate Credit Cards.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The current Corporate Credit Card Policy was approved by Council in May 2017.
2.2 As a result of the recent Tasmanian Audit Office (TAO) review of credit card usage by Councils’ General Managers and Elected Members, the policy has been updated to ensure the findings of the review are included in the policy.
2.3 The review also took into account feedback from the Glenorchy Board of Enquiry on credit card usage.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 There are no specific statutory requirements or obligations relating to the issuing or use of Council credit cards.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 The report from the TAO on credit card usage was generally positive in regards to the policy and practices of Kingborough Council. It did however identified three questions for consideration in regards to credit card controls:
4.2 Were credit and transaction limits appropriate to the council’s requirements?
4.3 Were appropriate controls around the acceptable use of credit cards in place?
4.4 Were there appropriate controls around the return of credit cards?
4.5 In regards to card limits, the Council has relatively low limits of $5,000 for the General Manager and Deputy General Manager and $2,000 for all remaining card holders. These are regarded as acceptable limits, but clause 2.1 (c) has been included to require a review every two years to ensure the limits are still relevant.
4.6 For transaction limits, the policy under section 2.4 (b) limits credit card transactions to the card users delegate authority. This is also regarded as being an acceptable limit.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 169 22 January 2018 4.7 In regards to the acceptable use of credit cards, section 2.3 (e) has been updated to be clear on the types of expenditure that is not to be put on credit cards.
4.8 The final issue of the return of credit cards is addressed by section 2.2 (a), and has been further strengthened by including a section on the exit checklist to ensure cards are returned before staff leave Council.
4.9 The policy has also been updated to increase the combined limit for all cardholders from $30,000 to $40,000 to allow for additional cards in the future.
4.10 A change has also been made to 2.6 (a) to ensure the reconciliation of credit cards to the statement is the responsibility of the card user, and the finance officer will have a checking role as part of the settlement process.
5 FINANCE
5.1 Changes identified as part of the Policy will not add additional expenditure to Council.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 There are no environmental considerations related to this report.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 The policy will be made available to the public on Council’s website.
8 RISK
8.1 This Policy is aimed at ensuring appropriate use of credit cards by employees to reduce the risk of financial and reputational damage to Council.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 The Policy has been update to address the issues raised in the TAO review of Council credit card usage.
10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council approves the Policy 1.15 Corporate Credit Card Policy, as attached to this report.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 170 22 January 2018
EXISTING POLICY WITH TRACKED CHANGES
Policy Manual No: 1.15 CORPORATE CREDIT CARD POLICY
Related Legislation: Issue and use of Credit Cards is not specifically mentioned in the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) or associated Local Government Regulations, however appropriate governance of the use of Credit Cards is essential to provide the effective system of internal financial controls required to satisfy the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas). The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) specifies requirements for recovery of GST paid in conducting business activities. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth) specifies expenses and benefits that are subject to fringe benefits tax, record keeping and reporting requirements. Related Council Documents: Council’s Purchasing Policy (Policy No. 3.7) sets out the requirements to ensure that best value is obtained when purchasing goods and/or services and is applicable to purchases made with Credit Cards. Council’s Delegations – Purchasing & Payables Limits defines the expenditure amounts that named Employees are authorised to commit and approve. Scope and Application: This policy applies to all persons using Credit Cards including: Employees issued with a card in their name; Employees using a card held by another employee cardholder; Commencement Date: May 2017January 2018 Review Date: May 2019January 2020 Department responsible for the The General Manager is responsible for the implementation of the operation of the policy: Corporate Credit Card Policy. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for reviewing the policy every two years and for ensuring employees are aware of the policy requirements. Key Concept and Definitions: Credit Cards are corporate credit cards arranged and paid for (card fees and transactions) by Kingborough Council for Council business use. References to Credit Cards include Debit Cards. Employee means any person (paid or unpaid) conducting Council business and includes Executive Managers and the General Manager. Councillors includes the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. Cardholder means an Employee who has been issued with a Credit Card. Card User means an Employee making purchases using a Credit Card and includes a Cardholder using the Credit Card issued to them. GST Act means the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 171 22 January 2018
1999 (Cth). A Valid Tax Invoice is an invoice satisfying the requirements of the GST Act (for international transactions a valid invoice).
1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
Kingborough Council is committed to implementing effective financial controls to minimise the costs and risks associated with purchasing activities.
The purpose of this policy is to set out a framework for the use of Credit Cards including appropriate use and reporting of expenditure.
2 POLICY STATEMENT
2.1 Allocation of Credit Cards
a) Credit Cards will be issued to the holder of the positions identified in Appendix 1 – Allocation of Credit Cards, with the limits stated in Appendix 1. Credit cards will not be issued to Councillors.
b) The General Manager is authorised to approve the issue of additional Credit Cards to other Employees with a limit not exceeding $2,000 (each card), provided that the combined limit of Additional Cardholders does not exceed $30,00040,000.
b)c) Card limits are to be reviewed every two years in line with card usage.
c)d) Council resolution is required prior to increasing any of the limits stated in Appendix 1.
d)e) Council resolution is required prior to issue of Credit Cards exceeding either of the limits stated in 2.1 b).
2.2 Return of Credit Cards
a) Credit Cards must be returned to the nominated Finance Officer as soon as they are no longer required.
b) Where a Cardholder is leaving Council employment the Credit Card must be returned and the requirements of clause 2.5 d) (receipts, allocations and approvals) satisfied prior to their departure.
2.3 Authorised Transactions
a) Use of Credit Cards is not a preferred purchasing method and is limited to purchasing of goods and services that cannot be purchased efficiently and cost effectively by other means. Except in an emergency, Credit Cards must should not be used where Council purchase orders would be accepted and where use of a purchase order would not incur substantial additional internal or external costs or missed opportunity. Where used in emergency situations a written record of the justification for use of the Credit Card must be retained in Council’s document records system. The written record must be authorised by the General Manager, or where the General Manager is the Cardholder, by the Deputy General Manager or the Chief Financial Officer after review by the Mayor.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 172 22 January 2018
b) Credit Cards may only be used for transactions involving a substantial Council business related component and cannot be used where all of the expenditure is private. Council business related transactions includes individual travel, accommodation and meal payments where these are legitimate expenses that would be fully refundable by Council if paid for by an individual. Credit cards should not be used to purchase fuel except in exceptional circumstances as a fuel card is provided in each Council vehicle. Credit cards should not be used for the payment of fines.
c)b) Any private expenditure incurred on a Credit Card transaction must be repaid to Council no later than 14 days from the date of the Credit Card statement containing the transaction. If a Credit Card is inadvertently used for an entirely private transaction a written explanation of the circumstances must be retained in Council’s document records system. The written record must be authorised by the General Manager, or where the General Manager is the Cardholder, by the Deputy General Manager or the Chief Financial Officer after review by the Mayor.
d)c) The requirements of Purchasing Policy No 3.7 apply to purchases using Credit Cards. Multiple Credit Card transactions (at the same time or over extended periods) must not be used to avoid the need to obtain quotations that would otherwise be required under the Purchasing Policy.
e)d) Credit Cards may be used for transactions by EFTPOS, telephone or internet provided that a Valid Tax Receipt (where available) is obtained for each transaction.
e) Credit Cards must not be used to obtain the following:
• cash advances.
• payment of fines.
• purchase of fuel (except where fuel cards are not available for use).
• travel expenditure on minibar purchases or in-room movies.
• business and first class airline travel.
1.1.1• entertainment expenditure, except where authorised and signed-off by an Executive Manager, prior to incurring the expenditure.
g)f) Credit Card transactions must not be authorised by a cardholder who could appear to have benefited from the goods or services obtained through that transaction. Generally authorisation will be provided by the “next level up” manager unless the General Manager and Mayor are involved where authorisation will be provided by the Chief Financial Officer.
2.4 Card User Responsibilities
a) Card Users are required to complete an Acceptance of Corporate Credit Card Policy form prior to using a Credit Card.
b) Card Users are responsible for ensuring that Credit Card purchases do not exceed their delegated authority (refer Council’s Delegations – Purchasing & Payables Limits) unless prior approval has been obtained from an Employee with the required delegated authority. ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 173 22 January 2018
c) Card Users are required to obtain a Valid Tax Receipt (in addition to a credit card transaction receipt) for every Credit Card transaction.
d) Card Users are required to complete Credit Card Transaction forms, obtain authorisation from their manager (subject to satisfying 2.3 f)) and forward a completed form with a Valid Tax Receipt for each transaction to the nominated Finance Officer on a monthly basis.
2.5 Cardholder Responsibilities
a) Cardholders are responsible for complying with any terms and conditions advised to them by the card issuer when receiving the Credit Card, including notification of loss of the Credit Card.
b) Cardholders are required to complete an Acceptance of Corporate Credit Card Policy form prior to initial issue, and at each re-issue, of a Credit Card.
c) Cardholders must ensure that the limit on the Credit Card issued to them is not exceeded.
d) Cardholders are responsible for obtaining a Valid Tax Receipt (where available) and Credit Card Transaction form for any transaction where the required documents have not been provided by the Card User.
e) Cardholders are responsible for Credit Card transactions on their card until a completed and authorised Credit Card Transaction form and Valid Tax Receipt (where available) have been provided in accordance with 2.4 d).
f) Cardholders are required to acquit the monthly statement of transactions and return it to the Finance Officer within two weeks of the end of the month.
g) Cardholders are responsible for security of Credit Cards and for any costs arising from use of a Credit Card where reasonable steps have not been taken to prevent unauthorised use of the Credit Card.
h) Cardholders are authorised to allow other Employees or Councillors to use the Credit Card issued to them, however the Cardholder remains responsible for ensuring compliance with this Policy.
2.6 Credit Card Reconciliation
a) The nominated Finance Officercardholder is responsible for reconciliation of monthly Credit Card statements. and for informing the Cardholder of any transactions for which Credit Card Transaction forms and/or Valid Tax Receipts have not been received. The Finance Officer will check the reconciliation as part of the settlement process.
b) The General Manager is required to approve payment of monthly Credit Card statements, for other Cardholders, to confirm that the Credit Card Transaction forms appropriately represent the transactions in the statement. The Deputy General Manager or the Chief Financial Officer is required to approve payment of Monthly Credit Card statements for a Credit Card issued to the General Manager, after they have been reviewed by the Mayor.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 174 22 January 2018
3 BREACHES OF THE POLICY
Breaches of this Policy, or any related procedures, may result in cancellation of the Credit Card and/or a range of administrative actions which depending on the nature and extent of the breach may be subject to Council’s Counselling and Disciplinary Policy and/or civil/criminal proceedings. Cancellation of Credit Cards under this clause will be reported to the Audit Panel and will be noted in the Panel minutes sent to Council.
4 REVIEW
This Policy will be reviewed every two years.
Approved:
GARY ARNOLD Date General Manager
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 175 22 January 2018
APPENDIX 1 – ALLOCATION OF CREDIT CARDS This Policy authorises issue of Credit Cards to the holder of the positions and with the limits stated below:
Position Credit Limit General Manager $ 5,000 Deputy General Manager $ 5,000 Chief Financial Officer $ 2,000 Executive Manager Engineering $ 2,000 Executive Manager Information Services $ 2,000 Executive Manager Organisational Development $2,000 Manager Environmental Services $ 2,000 Manager Community Services $ 2,000 Manager Governance and Property Services $ 2,000 Executive Assistant $ 2,000 Plant & Fleet Co-ordinator $ 2,000 Coordinator Community Services $2,000
The General Manager may approve issue of additional Credit Cards with a limit not exceeding $2,000 each card provided that the combined limit of additional Cardholders does not exceed $340,000, as authorised in clause 2.1 b) of this Policy.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 176 22 January 2018
APPENDIX 2 – ACCEPTANCE OF CORPORATE CREDIT CARD POLICY
ACCEPTANCE OF CORPORATE CREDIT CARD POLICY
Name: ………………………………………………………………..……………………..
Position: ……………………………………………………………………………..………..
Acceptance as a Cardholder/Card User (delete as appropriate)
I have read and understood Kingborough Council Corporate Credit Card Policy, in force at the date below, and agree to abide by its requirements as a
Cardholder/Card User (delete as appropriate)
I have also read and understood the terms and conditions of the Credit Card issuer, provided to me with the Credit Card.
Signature: ………………………………………………………………………………..
Dated: ……………………………………………………………………………………..
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 177 22 January 2018
UPDATED POLICY FOR APPROVAL
Corporate Credit (Policy No. 1.15) LAST NEXT MINUTE Card Policy REVIEW REVIEW REF Jan 2018 Jan 2020
Related Legislation: Issue and use of Credit Cards is not specifically mentioned in the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) or associated Local Government Regulations, however appropriate governance of the use of Credit Cards is essential to provide the effective system of internal financial controls required to satisfy the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas). The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) specifies requirements for recovery of GST paid in conducting business activities. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth) specifies expenses and benefits that are subject to fringe benefits tax, record keeping and reporting requirements. Related Council Council’s Purchasing Policy (Policy No. 3.7) sets out the requirements to Documents: ensure that best value is obtained when purchasing goods and/or services and is applicable to purchases made with Credit Cards. Council’s Delegations – Purchasing & Payables Limits defines the expenditure amounts that named Employees are authorised to commit and approve. Scope and Application: This policy applies to all persons using Credit Cards including: Employees issued with a card in their name; Employees using a card held by another employee cardholder; Department responsible The General Manager is responsible for the implementation of the Corporate for the operation of the Credit Card Policy. policy: The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for reviewing the policy every two years and for ensuring employees are aware of the policy requirements. Key Concept and Credit Cards are corporate credit cards arranged and paid for (card fees and Definitions: transactions) by Kingborough Council for Council business use. References to Credit Cards include Debit Cards. Employee means any person (paid or unpaid) conducting Council business and includes Executive Managers and the General Manager. Councillors includes the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. Cardholder means an Employee who has been issued with a Credit Card. Card User means an Employee making purchases using a Credit Card and includes a Cardholder using the Credit Card issued to them. GST Act means the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth). A Valid Tax Invoice is an invoice satisfying the requirements of the GST Act (for international transactions a valid invoice).
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 178 22 January 2018
1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ______Kingborough Council is committed to implementing effective financial controls to minimise the costs and risks associated with purchasing activities. The purpose of this policy is to set out a framework for the use of Credit Cards including appropriate use and reporting of expenditure.
2 POLICY STATEMENT ______2.1 Allocation of Credit Cards a) Credit Cards will be issued to the holder of the positions identified in Appendix 1 – Allocation of Credit Cards, with the limits stated in Appendix 1. Credit cards will not be issued to Councillors. b) The General Manager is authorised to approve the issue of additional Credit Cards to other Employees with a limit not exceeding $2,000 (each card), provided that the combined limit of Additional Cardholders does not exceed $40,000. c) Card limits are to be reviewed every two years in line with card usage. d) Council resolution is required prior to increasing any of the limits stated in Appendix 1. e) Council resolution is required prior to issue of Credit Cards exceeding either of the limits stated in 2.1 b). 2.2 Return of Credit Cards a) Credit Cards must be returned to the nominated Finance Officer as soon as they are no longer required. b) Where a Cardholder is leaving Council employment the Credit Card must be returned and the requirements of clause 2.5 d) (receipts, allocations and approvals) satisfied prior to their departure. 2.3 Authorised Transactions a) Use of Credit Cards is not a preferred purchasing method and is limited to purchasing of goods and services that cannot be purchased efficiently and cost effectively by other means. Credit Cards should not be used where Council purchase orders would be accepted and where use of a purchase order would not incur substantial additional internal or external costs or missed opportunity. b) Credit Cards may only be used for transactions involving a substantial Council business related component and cannot be used where all of the expenditure is private. Council business related transactions includes individual travel, accommodation and meal payments where these are legitimate expenses that would be fully refundable by Council if paid for by an individual. Any private expenditure incurred on a Credit Card transaction must be repaid to Council no later than 14 days from the date of the Credit Card statement containing the transaction. If a Credit Card is inadvertently used for an entirely private transaction a written explanation of the circumstances must be retained in Council’s document records system. The written record must be authorised by the General Manager, or where the General Manager is the Cardholder, by the Deputy General Manager or the Chief Financial Officer after review by the Mayor. c) The requirements of Purchasing Policy No 3.7 apply to purchases using Credit Cards. Multiple Credit Card transactions (at the same time or over extended periods) must not be used to avoid the need to obtain quotations that would otherwise be required under the Purchasing Policy. d) Credit Cards may be used for transactions by EFTPOS, telephone or internet provided that a Valid Tax Receipt (where available) is obtained for each transaction.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 179 22 January 2018
e) Credit Cards must not be used to obtain the following: cash advances. payment of fines. purchase of fuel (except where fuel cards are not available for use). travel expenditure on minibar purchases or in-room movies. business and first class airline travel. entertainment expenditure, except where authorised and signed-off by an Executive Manager, prior to incurring the expenditure. f) Credit Card transactions must not be authorised by a cardholder who could appear to have benefited from the goods or services obtained through that transaction. Generally authorisation will be provided by the “next level up” manager unless the General Manager and Mayor are involved where authorisation will be provided by the Chief Financial Officer. 2.4 Card User Responsibilities a) Card Users are required to complete an Acceptance of Corporate Credit Card Policy form prior to using a Credit Card. b) Card Users are responsible for ensuring that Credit Card purchases do not exceed their delegated authority (refer Council’s Delegations – Purchasing & Payables Limits) unless prior approval has been obtained from an Employee with the required delegated authority. c) Card Users are required to obtain a Valid Tax Receipt (in addition to a credit card transaction receipt) for every Credit Card transaction. d) Card Users are required to complete Credit Card Transaction forms, obtain authorisation from their manager (subject to satisfying 2.3 f)) and forward a completed form with a Valid Tax Receipt for each transaction to the nominated Finance Officer on a monthly basis 2.5 Cardholder Responsibilities a) Cardholders are responsible for complying with any terms and conditions advised to them by the card issuer when receiving the Credit Card, including notification of loss of the Credit Card. b) Cardholders are required to complete an Acceptance of Corporate Credit Card Policy form prior to initial issue, and at each re-issue, of a Credit Card. c) Cardholders must ensure that the limit on the Credit Card issued to them is not exceeded. d) Cardholders are responsible for obtaining a Valid Tax Receipt (where available) and Credit Card Transaction form for any transaction where the required documents have not been provided by the Card User. e) Cardholders are responsible for Credit Card transactions on their card until a completed and authorised Credit Card Transaction form and Valid Tax Receipt (where available) have been provided in accordance with 2.4 d). f) Cardholders are required to acquit the monthly statement of transactions and return it to the Finance Officer within two weeks of the end of the month. g) Cardholders are responsible for security of Credit Cards and for any costs arising from use of a Credit Card where reasonable steps have not been taken to prevent unauthorised use of the Credit Card. h) Cardholders are authorised to allow other Employees to use the Credit Card issued to them, however the Cardholder remains responsible for ensuring compliance with this Policy.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 180 22 January 2018
2.6 Credit Card Reconciliation a) The cardholder is responsible for reconciliation of monthly Credit Card statements. The Finance Officer will check the reconciliation as part of the settlement process. b) The General Manager is required to approve payment of monthly Credit Card statements, for other Cardholders, to confirm that the Credit Card Transaction forms appropriately represent the transactions in the statement. The Deputy General Manager or the Chief Financial Officer is required to approve payment of Monthly Credit Card statements for a Credit Card issued to the General Manager, after they have been reviewed by the Mayor.
3 BREACHES OF THE POLICY ______Breaches of this Policy, or any related procedures, may result in cancellation of the Credit Card and/or a range of administrative actions which depending on the nature and extent of the breach may be subject to Council’s Counselling and Disciplinary Policy and/or civil/criminal proceedings. Cancellation of Credit Cards under this clause will be reported to the Audit Panel and will be noted in the Panel minutes sent to Council.
4 REVIEW ______This Policy will be reviewed every two years.
Approved:
GARY ARNOLD Date General Manager
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 181 22 January 2018
APPENDIX 1 – ALLOCATION OF CREDIT CARDS This Policy authorises issue of Credit Cards to the holder of the positions and with the limits stated below:
Position Credit Limit General Manager $ 5,000
Deputy General Manager $ 5,000 Chief Financial Officer $ 2,000 Executive Manager Engineering $ 2,000 Executive Manager Information Services $ 2,000 Executive Manager Organisational Development $2,000 Manager Environmental Services $ 2,000 Manager Community Services $ 2,000 Manager Governance and Property Services $ 2,000 Executive Assistant $ 2,000 Plant & Fleet Co-ordinator $ 2,000 Coordinator Community Services $2,000
The General Manager may approve issue of additional Credit Cards with a limit not exceeding $2,000 each card provided that the combined limit of additional Cardholders does not exceed $40,000, as authorised in clause 2.1 b) of this Policy.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 182 22 January 2018
APPENDIX 2 – ACCEPTANCE OF CORPORATE CREDIT CARD POLICY
ACCEPTANCE OF CORPORATE CREDIT CARD POLICY
Name: ………………………………………………………………..……………………..
Position: ……………………………………………………………………………..………..
Acceptance as a Cardholder/Card User (delete as appropriate)
I have read and understood Kingborough Council Corporate Credit Card Policy, in force at the date below, and agree to abide by its requirements as a
Cardholder/Card User (delete as appropriate)
I have also read and understood the terms and conditions of the Credit Card issuer, provided to me with the Credit Card.
Signature: ………………………………………………………………………………..
Dated: ……………………………………………………………………………………..
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 183 22 January 2018
GENERAL MANAGERS PERFORMANCE REVIEW
The General Manager, Mr Gary Arnold commenced with Kingborough Council on 17 February 2014.
The General Manager’s Contract of Employment states: 8.1” Your performance will be reviewed as required and at least annually by Council, or by Council appointing an external consultant in its discretion but following consultation with you”.
Council last year undertook to review the General Manager’s performance in house.
Council has until 28 days before the review to provide the General Manager in writing, the details of any particular concerns that Council would like to address at the review.
As soon as practicable after the review, but no later than 31 March 2018, Council will provide the General Manager with its written assessment of performance.
MOVED SECONDED
That: a) The Performance Review shall be overseen and determined by a Committee comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors ……………………………….. b) The Performance Review input will include Councillors and Council Senior Management.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 184 22 January 2018
INFORMATION REPORTS
MOVED SECONDED
That the following information reports be noted:
1. Mayor’s Communications.
2. Financial Report for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2018.
3. Governance and Property Services Quarterly Report for the period October to December 2017.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 185 22 January 2018
MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Wass reported the following:
Appointments / Activities
1 4.00 p.m. Tuesday 21.11.17 In company with Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier, met with General Manager, Petuna Aquaculture, Mr Richard Miller to be updated on plans to operate in Storm Bay. Venue: Civic Centre.
2. 1.40 p.m. Wednesday 22.11.17 Together with Councillors Fox and Grace, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Ms McGuire, Youth Development Officer, Ms Swards, Communications Officer, Ms Wilcox, announced the winners of the Antarctic Experience, both from Taroona High School. Venue: Taroona Primary School, Taroona.
3. 2.00 p.m. Thursday 23.11.17 In company with Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier, attended Metro Tasmania 2017 Southern Stakeholder Function. Venue: Tasmania Hockey Centre, New Town.
4. 7.00 p.m. Thursday 23.11.17 Attended Dementia Friendly Tasmania, AGM. Venue: Y Space, Beach Road, Kingston.
5. 10.15 a.m. Friday 24.11.17 Attended Launch of 2017 ABC Giving Tree appeal. Venue: ABC, Hobart.
6. 1.00 p.m. Sunday 26.11.17 Attended and provided short presentation to Huon Valley Climate Change Forum. Venue: Huonville Town Hall, Huonville.
7. 11.00 a.m. Monday 27.11.17 Attended Southern Tasmanian Councils Association AGM. Venue: Lord Mayors’ Court Room, Town Hall, Hobart.
8. 3.30 p.m. Monday 27.11.17 Met with Ms Ann Kinsbury to be informed of the work done by Community Care. Venue: Civic Centre.
9. 11.00 a.m. Tuesday 28.11.17 Met with Mr William Wei to discuss development opportunities within Kingborough and specifically Kingston Park. Venue: Various development sites and Civic Centre.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 186 22 January 2018
10. 5.45 p.m. Tuesday 28.11.17 In company with Natural Areas Interpretation Officer, Ms Jupe, attended Bookend Trust End of Year Presentation, both providing presentations. Also attending, Councillor Dr Bury and NRM Co-ordinator, Ms Quinn. Venue: Stanley Burbury Theatre, UTAS, Sandy Bay.
11. 3.30 p.m. Wednesday 29.11. 17 Attended TasWater Board Selection Committee Meeting. Venue: By teleconference.
12. 1.30 p.m. Thursday 30.11.17 In company with Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier, Lord Mayor of Hobart, Mayor of Clarence, General Managers of Clarence and Hobart, met with the Minister for Local Government, the Hon Peter Gutwein MP to discuss Greater Hobart Councils involvement in a potential Hobart City deal. Venue: Parliament House, Hobart.
13. 9.00 a.m. Friday 1.12.17 In company with the Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier, attended Audit Panel Meeting. Venue: Civic Centre.
14. 10.00 a.m. Friday 1.12.17 In company with Councillors Wriedt, Bastone and Grace attended and officially opened Kingborough Helping Hands ‘Sharing Tree’. Venue: Shopping Foyer, Channel Court Shopping Centre, Kingston.
15. 9.30 a.m. Saturday 2.12.17 In company with fellow Councillors and Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier, attended Kingborough Community Consultative Forum general meeting. Venue: Civic Centre.
16. 10.00 a.m. Thursday 7.12.17 In company with staff, attended Crime Stoppers “My Home, Our Community’ media campaign documentary. Venue: Shopping Foyer, Channel Court Shopping Centre, Kingston.
17. 11.00 a.m. Monday 11.12.17 Attended Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority General Meeting. Venue: Sorell Council Chambers, Sorell.
18. 3.00 p.m. Monday 11.12.17 In company with Councillor Percey attended Channel Men’s Shed with part of the Grootegast sister city delegation, with President Peter Shelley providing them background to the facility and tour of the premises. Venue: Channel Men’s Shed, Van Morey Road, Margate.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 187 22 January 2018
19. 6.00 p.m. Monday 11.12.17 In company with fellow Councillors, Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier and staff attended reception to welcome sister city Mayor of Grootegast, Ard van der Tuuk, Councillors and delegates to Kingborough, and to acknowledge Tasmania’s European discovery in 1642 by Abel Tasman. Venue: Civic Centre.
20. 6.00 p.m. Tuesday 12.12.17 Attended Woodbridge School’s Annual Presentation of Awards Night. Venue: Woodbridge School, Woodbridge.
21. 9.30 a.m. Wednesday 13.12.17 Attended Southern Christian College 2017 Annual Presentation Assembly. Venue: Southern Christian College, Redwood Road, Kingston.
22. 2.30 p.m. Wednesday 13.12.17 In company with Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier, met with United Petroleum General Manager, Mr Poh Lee and Tasmanian Business Development Manager, Mr Jason Yeoman. Venue: Civic Centre.
23. 3.00 p.m. Wednesday 13.12.17 In company with Acting General Manager, Mr Ferrier, hosted a meeting with the Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Rene Hidding, MP and Bruny Island Community Association President, Mrs Fran Davis and Member, Mrs Jenny Boyer to discuss a number of Bruny Island issues. Venue: Civic Centre.
24. 11.45 a.m. Thursday 14.12.17 Attended Community Care general distribution day. Venue: Kingborough Family Church, Glory Place, Huntingfield.
25. 3.30 p.m. Thursday 14.12.17 Attended Kingston Park Steering Committee meeting. Venue: Civic Centre.
26. 5.00 p.m. Thursday 14.12.17 At invitation of the Board of the Channel Mens Shed and together with Councillors Bastone, Bury, Chatterton, and Fox attended Annual BBQ and Drawing of Fundraising Raffle. Venue: Channel Mens Shed, Van Morey Road, Margate.
27. 7.00 p.m. Friday 15.12.17 In company with fellow Councillors, General Manager, Mr Arnold, and Executive Management Team attended Councillors Christmas Dinner. Venue: Room 23, Beach Road, Kingston Beach.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 188 22 January 2018
28. 12.00 Noon Wednesday 20.12.17 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold met with Mr Julian Proud to discuss Building Application. Venue: Civic Centre.
29. 1.00 p.m. Wednesday 20.12.17 Attended Margate Primary School 2017 Grade 6 Leavers Assembly. Venue: Margate Primary School.
30. 4.00 p.m. Wednesday 20.12.17 Attended Senator Bilyk’s Volunteer Afternoon Tea. Venue: Senator Bilyk’s Office, Kingston Plaza, Kingston.
31. 7.00 p.m. Wednesday 20.12.17 Attended Kingston High School 2017 Presentation Assembly. Venue: Kingborough Sports Centre Gymnasium, Kingston View Drive, Kingston.
32. 11.00 a.m. Thursday 21.12.17 Attended Illawarra Primary School Final Assembly Grade 6 Leavers 2017. Venue: Illawarra Primary School, Tinderbox Road, Blackmans Bay.
33. 1.30 p.m. Thursday 21.12.17 Attended Blackmans Bay Primary School Grade 6 Leavers’ Assembly. Venue: Blackmans Bay Primary School, Roslyn Avenue, Blackmans Bay.
34. 1.30 p.m. Friday 22.12.17 Attended and Officially Opened United Petroleum’s new Service Station. Venue: United Petroleum, Channel Highway, Kingston.
Attended By Representative Of The Mayor 1. 7.30 p.m. Friday 1.12.17 Deputy Mayor Councillor Wriedt attended Tasmanian Community Achievement Awards, Gala Presentation Dinner. Venue: Hotel Grand Chancellor, Hobart.
2. 8.50 p.m. Sunday 10.12.17 Councillor Fox met, welcomed and transported sister city, Grootegast Mayor, Mr Ard van der Tuuk, Councillors and delegation members to Kingston. Venue: Hobart International Airport, Cambridge.
3. 12.00 Noon Monday 18.12.17 Councillor Percey attended Bruny Island District School End of Year Assembly. Venue: Bruny Island District School, School Road, Alonnah.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 189 22 January 2018
4. 9.30 a.m. Tuesday 19.12.17 Councillor Winter attended St Aloysius Catholic College Thanksgiving Liturgy and Awards Presentation. Venue: St Aloysius Catholic College, Huntingfield Campus, Huntingfield.
5. 10.30 a.m. Tuesday 19.12.17 Councillor Fox attended Channel Christian School Leavers Assembly. Venue: Channel Christian School, Endeavour Avenue, Margate.
6. 1.30 p.m. Tuesday 19.12.17 Councillor Percey attended Calvin Primary School 2017 Final Assembly. Venue: Calvin Primary School, Kingston.
7. 7.00 p.m. Tuesday 19.12.17 Councillor Dr Bury attended Taroona High School 2017 Presentation Evening. Venue: Taroona High School, Meath Avenue, Taroona.
8. 7.00 p.m. Tuesday 19.12.17 Councillor Fox attended Calvin Christian School Graduation and Prize Giving Ceremony. Venue: C3 Convention Centre, Anglesea Street, South Hobart.
9. 1.30 p.m. Wednesday 20.12.17 Councillor Dr Bury attended Kingston Primary School Grade 6 Leavers’ Assembly. Venue: Kingston Primary School, Church Street, Kingston.
10. 1.30 p.m. Thursday 21.12.17 Councillor Dr Bury attended Taroona Primary School Grade 6 Leavers’ Assembly. Venue: Taroona Primary School, Channel Highway, Taroona.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 190 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY, 2017 TO 31 DECEMBER, 2017
SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL 23RD JANUARY, 2018
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 191 22 January 2018
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Table of Contents Page No
Cash Balances……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Cash & Investments………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..…. 5 Comments on Financials…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………..….. 6 Budget Reconciliation Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Summary Operating Statement All Programs……………………………………………………………………………………... 8 Summary Operating Statement Governance……………………………………………………………………………..………… 9 Summary Operating Statement Corporate Services…………………………………………………………………….………. 10 Summary Operating Statement Governance & Property Services………………………………………………..……… 11 Summary Operating Statement Community Services…………………………………………………………………….……. 12 Summary Operating Statement Environmental Services…………………………………………………………………..…. 13 Summary Operating Statement Infrastructure Services…………………………………………………………………….... 14 Operating Income/Expenses………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 15 Governance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 15-16 Organisation Development.………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….. 17 Finance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18 Information Services……………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………. 19 Compliance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Property & Emergency Management……………………………………………………………………….……………………. 21 Building & Turf Management………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 22-23 Environmental Health…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 24 Natural Resource Management (NRM)…………………………………………………………………………………………. 25 Building & Plumbing Services…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 26 Town Planning…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………… 27 Community Services………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………… 28 Arts & Culture………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 29 Family Day Care……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Manor Gardens……………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………….… 31 Kingborough Sports Centre…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 32 Engineering…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 33 Works……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..… 34 Waste Management………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………… 35 Recreation & Reserves………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 36 Stormwater……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 Transport……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38-39 Plant………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40 Private Works………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Capital Works Summary …………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………… 42
3
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 192 22 January 2018
CASH BALANCES
Balance Type July August September October November December January February March April May June Reserves As per Reserves sheet totals $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 Held in Trust Trust Deposit Register 1.02.000.2008.2068.2069 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 Unexpended Capital Works $ 6,866,507 $ 8,793,292 $ 8,474,830 $ 8,835,012 $ 5,929,198 $ 5,856,478
Current Year Total Committed Cash $ 10,992,507 $ 12,919,292 $ 12,600,830 $ 12,961,012 $ 10,055,198 $ 9,982,478 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Previous Year Total Committed Cash $ 22,260,012 $ 21,664,134 $ 21,556,844 $ 21,578,461 $ 21,084,100 $ 19,907,885 $ 19,510,920 $ 18,443,458 $ 18,100,176 $ 17,758,479 $ 16,922,418 $ 15,243,035
Uncommitted Funds $ 703,571 $ 3,107,965 $ 823,422 $ 1,155,813 $ 3,094,335 $ 1,501,630 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Current Year Total Cash $ 11,696,078 $ 16,027,257 $ 13,424,252 $ 14,116,825 $ 13,149,533 $ 11,484,108 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Previous Year Total Cash $ 9,043,247 $ 12,312,121 $ 11,378,449 $ 12,456,837 $ 10,173,763 $ 8,476,956 $ 10,964,070 $ 10,783,101 $ 9,926,136 $ 10,176,197 $ 11,037,997 $ 9,492,322
$18,000,000 Total Cash & Investments
Total Cash & Investments 2016/2017 $16,000,000 Total Cash & Investments 2017/2018
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$- July August September October November December January February March April May June
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 193 22 January 2018
CASH & INVESTMENTS
CASH ACCOUNTS Interest Rate Maturity Date July August September October November December January February March April May June CBA - Overdraft Account $ 4,146,838 $ 2,777,745 $ 1,494,562 $ 3,859,955 $ 2,772,279 $ 965,777 CBA - AR Account $ 330,043 $ 12,986 $ 187,966 $ 100 $ 95,057 $ 211,543 CBA - Bruny Passbook $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2
Total Cash $ 4,476,883 $ 2,790,733 $ 1,682,530 $ 3,860,057 $ 2,867,338 $ 1,177,322 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
INVESTMENTS CBA At Call 1.40% At-Call $ 54,115 $ 54,179 $ 54,242 $ 54,306 $ 54,369 $ 54,433 Bendigo (2) 2.40% 17-Jan-18 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,012,329 $ 2,012,329 $ 2,012,329 NAB (1) Term Deposit 2.40% 30-Jan-18 $ 1,028,029 $ 1,034,493 $ 1,034,493 $ 1,034,493 $ 1,040,615 $ 1,040,615 NAB (2) Term Deposit 2.40% 26-Feb-18 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,017,753 $ 3,017,753 Mystate 2.45% 18-Mar-18 $ 1,027,516 $ 3,033,977 $ 3,033,977 $ 3,033,977 $ 3,033,977 $ 3,056,989 Tascorp HT 1.50% Managed Trust $ 1,086,263 $ 2,087,729 $ 589,995 $ 590,746 $ 591,529 $ 592,282 Tascorp Cash Indexed 1.10% Managed Trust $ 2,023,271 $ 2,026,146 $ 2,029,015 $ 530,916 $ 531,624 $ 532,385
Total Investments $ 7,219,195 $ 13,236,524 $ 11,741,722 $ 10,256,768 $ 10,282,195 $ 10,306,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Current Year Total Cash & Investments $ 11,696,078 $ 16,027,257 $ 13,424,252 $ 14,116,825 $ 13,149,533 $ 11,484,108 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Previous Year Cash & Investments $ 9,043,247 $ 12,312,121 $ 11,378,449 $ 12,456,837 $ 10,173,763 $ 8,476,956 $ 10,964,070 $ 10,783,101 $ 9,926,136 $ 10,176,197 $ 11,037,997 $ 9,492,322
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 194 22 January 2018
COMMENTS ON FINANCIALS
The following items are significantly higher/lower than budget:
OPERATING INCOME Rates Rates income is higher than budget by $208k due to general rates (+$150k), garbage rates (+$45k) and Stormwater rate (+$13k) being higher than the budget estimate.
User Fees User Fees are $122k over budget primarily due to Town Planning being over budget by $90k as a result of engineering fees paid on a few large developments and the Sports Centre is $42k over budget primarily due to sales revenue from the kiosk.
Grants Recurrent Grants Recurrent is $444k under budget due primarily to the FAGS grants being $532k under budget resulting from the prepayment of funds in June 2017. Grants for Family Day Care are $213k under budget due to reduced numbers of clients and the transfer of the business. These losses have been offset by $65k in State Government grants and $150k in Federal Government grants that were not in the budget.
Contributions – Cash contributions are $146k over budget due to the receipt of $100k in public open space Cash funds for the Panorama Estate development and $57k in tree preservation funds for the Wattle Street development in November.
Reimbursements Reimbursements are $175k over budget due to an increase in the pensioner rebate, as well as some timing differences in payments. This is offset by an increase in expenditure on pensioner rebates.
OPERATING EXPENSES Employee Costs Employee Costs are $107k under budget due primarily to savings from the delay in approving the wage increase under the Enterprise Agreement and the transfer of the Family Day Care business. In addition, capital oncosts from Engineering Services are well above expectations and Corporate Services are running 1.5 FTE's below budget. This is offset by Governance and Property Services which is $115k over budget due to increase staff costs on turf and compliance activities.
Loan Interest The Loan Interest account is $96k under budget due to the later than expected need to undertake borrowings.
Materials and Materials and Services is $376k under budget primarily due to Services Community Services Services being $227k under budget as a result of the transfer of the Family Day Care business. Governance and Property is also $41k under budget and Corporate Services is $65k under budget. These are offset by Environmental Services which is $31k over budget due to costs associated with the cat management program.
Depreciation Depreciation is $38k over budget due to the impacts of the 10% revaluation in buildings during 2016/17 and the 3.7% revaluation of infrastructure assets at 30 June 2017.
Profit on Disposal The profit on the disposal of assets of $74k primarily relates to the sale of land in Kingston of Assets View Drive for $51k, with the remainder being the profit on the sale of plant and vehicles.
OTHER NON-OPERATING EXPENDITURE/REVENUE Grants Capital The variance of $694k resulted from the early payment of the Roads to Recovery grant for 2017/18.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 195 22 January 2018
BUDGET NOTES
RECONCILIATION OF ORIGINAL TO FORECAST BUDGET
BUDGET UNDERLYING RESULT (860,240)
Forecast Changes: Rates above budget 200,000 Depreciation - impacts of revaluations (100,000) Loan Interest - delayed borrowings 140,000 Share of Profit in Associate/Subsidiary 200,000 User Fees - above budget 100,000
FORECAST UNDERLYING RESULT (320,240)
Budget Net Surplus 139,758 Adjustments Above 540,000 Capital Grant - Kingston Park Federal Grant 50% 1,400,000 Grants for 2017/18 Received in Advance (1,050,000)
FORECAST BUDGET 1,029,758
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 196 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Summary Operating Statement ALL
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 25,180,050 24,972,500 207,550 25,062,500 25,262,500 200,000 Income Levies 1,528,263 1,485,000 43,263 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 828,387 828,080 307 1,629,160 1,629,160 (0) User Fees 846,241 723,770 122,471 1,397,790 1,497,790 100,000 Grants Recurrent 1,626,372 2,070,710 (444,338) 3,917,400 2,867,400 (1,050,000) Contributions - Cash 367,646 221,328 146,318 602,696 602,696 (0) Reimbursements 1,094,970 920,000 174,970 1,052,000 1,052,000 (0) Other Income 252,477 291,902 (39,425) 874,604 874,604 (0) Internal Charges Income 274,996 246,000 28,996 491,000 491,000 (0) Total Income 31,999,402 31,759,290 240,112 36,512,150 35,762,150 (750,000)
Expenses Employee Costs 7,467,846 7,574,988 107,142 14,009,759 14,009,759 (0) Expenses Levies 763,423 742,500 (20,923) 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Loan Interest 0 96,000 96,000 240,000 100,000 140,000 Materials and Services 4,285,439 4,661,054 375,615 9,113,549 9,113,549 (0) Other Expenses 2,569,488 2,648,940 79,452 3,880,424 3,880,424 (0) Internal Charges Expense 237,496 245,748 8,252 491,500 491,500 (0) Total Expenses 15,323,692 15,969,230 645,538 29,220,232 29,080,232 140,000
Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 16,675,710 15,790,060 885,650 7,291,918 6,681,918 (610,000)
Depreciation 4,801,541 4,763,580 37,961 9,544,160 9,644,160 (100,000) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 74,202 0 74,202 (600,000) (600,000) (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 11,948,371 11,026,480 921,891 (2,852,242) (3,562,242) (710,000)
Interest 120,125 72,000 48,125 144,000 144,000 (0) Dividends 914,818 924,000 (9,182) 1,848,000 1,848,000 (0) Share of Profits/(Losses) of Invest. in Assoc. 0 0 0 - 200,000 200,000 NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 12,983,314 12,022,480 960,834 (860,242) (1,370,242) (510,000)
Grants Capital 694,475 0 694,475 800,000 2,200,000 1,400,000 Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) 13,677,789 12,022,480 1,655,309 139,758 1,029,758 890,000
TOTAL CASH GENERATED 8,181,773 7,258,900 922,873 (10,404,402) (11,014,402) (410,000)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 197 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Operating Statement Governance
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 21,994,442 21,844,500 149,942 21,922,500 22,072,500 150,000 Income Levies 1,528,263 1,485,000 43,263 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) User Fees 40,000 39,600 400 80,000 80,000 (0) Grants Recurrent 762,489 1,080,000 (317,511) 2,160,000 1,110,000 (1,050,000 ) Contributions - Cash 258,070 186,000 72,070 372,000 372,000 (0) Reimbursements 1,094,970 920,000 174,970 1,052,000 1,052,000 (0) Other Income 35,614 39,600 (3,986) 204,200 204,200 (0) Internal Charges Income 40,000 48,000 (8,000) 96,000 96,000 (0) Total Income 25,753,848 25,642,700 111,148 27,371,700 26,471,700 (900,000) Expenses Employee Costs 281,698 287,956 6,258 555,233 555,233 (0) Expenses Levies 763,423 742,500 (20,923) 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 158,543 199,000 40,457 373,000 373,000 (0) Other Expenses 1,616,597 1,575,698 (40,899) 2,118,900 2,118,900 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 2,820,261 2,805,154 (15,107) 4,532,133 4,532,133 (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 22,933,587 22,837,546 96,041 22,839,567 21,939,567 (900,000)
Depreciation 40,743 36,600 (4,143) 73,200 73,200 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets (74,202) 0 74,202 600,000 600,000 (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 22,967,046 22,800,946 166,100 22,166,367 21,266,367 (900,000) Interest 1,135 0 1,135 0 - (0) Dividends 914,818 924,000 (9,182) 1,848,000 1,848,000 (0) Share of New Profits/(Losses) of Invest. In Assoc 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 23,882,999 23,724,946 158,053 24,014,367 23,114,367 (900,000)
Grants Capital 694,475 0 (694,475) 800,000 2,200,000 1,400,000 Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) 24,577,474 23,724,946 852,528 25,014,367 25,514,367 500,000
TOTAL CASH GENERATED 23,842,256 23,688,346 153,910 23,941,167 23,041,167 (900,000)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 198 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Operating Statement Corporate Services
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 131,526 157,200 (25,674) 314,400 314,400 (0) User Fees 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash (1,423) 0 (1,423) 0 - (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 55,989 76,800 (20,811) 165,600 165,600 (0) Internal Charges Income 113,496 114,000 (504) 227,000 227,000 (0) Total Income 299,588 348,000 (48,412) 707,000 707,000 (0)
Expenses Employee Costs 1,302,141 1,385,618 83,477 2,661,269 2,661,269 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 96,000 96,000 240,000 100,000 140,000 Materials and Services 355,867 420,500 64,633 587,000 587,000 (0) Other Expenses 582,761 604,100 21,339 909,700 909,700 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 2,240,769 2,506,218 265,449 4,397,969 4,257,969 140,000
Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (1,941,181) (2,158,218) 217,037 (3,690,969) - 3,550,969 (140,000)
Depreciation 64,805 82,800 17,995 165,600 165,600 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (2,005,986) (2,241,018) 235,032 (3,856,569) - 3,716,569 (140,000)
Interest 118,990 72,000 46,990 144,000 144,000 (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,886,996) (2,169,018) 282,022 (3,712,569) (3,572,569) (140,000)
Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,886,996) (2,169,018) 282,022 (3,712,569) (3,572,569) (140,000)
TOTAL CASH GENERATED (1,951,801) (2,251,818) 300,017 (3,878,169) (3,738,169) (140,000)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 199 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Operating Statement Governance & Property Services
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 209,628 179,900 29,728 332,800 332,800 (0) User Fees 119,825 85,770 34,055 167,640 167,640 (0) Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash 33,265 0 33,265 0 - (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 7,104 3,300 3,804 6,600 6,600 (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 369,822 268,970 100,852 507,040 507,040 (0)
Expenses Employee Costs 878,548 763,215 (115,333) 1,460,556 1,460,556 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 541,149 606,104 64,955 1,213,258 1,213,258 (0) Other Expenses 49,334 106,900 57,566 193,400 193,400 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 1,469,031 1,476,219 7,188 2,867,214 2,867,214 (0)
Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (1,099,209) (1,207,249) 108,040 (2,360,174) - 2,360,174 (0)
Depreciation 64,381 60,900 (3,481) 125,800 125,800 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (1,163,590) (1,268,149) 104,559 (2,485,974) - 2,485,974 (0)
Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,163,590) (1,268,149) 104,559 (2,485,974) (2,485,974) (0)
Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,163,590) (1,268,149) 104,559 (2,485,974) (2,485,974) (0)
TOTAL CASH GENERATED (1,227,971) (1,329,049) 101,078 (2,611,774) (2,611,774) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 200 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Operating Statement Community Services
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 291 0 291 0 - (0) User Fees 566,544 566,000 544 1,085,350 1,105,350 20,000 Grants Recurrent 606,611 810,710 (204,099) 1,577,400 1,577,400 (0) Contributions - Cash 61,233 35,328 25,905 70,696 70,696 (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 13,882 12,600 1,282 25,000 25,000 (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 1,248,561 1,424,638 (176,077) 2,758,446 2,778,446 20,000
Expenses Employee Costs 988,083 1,076,778 88,695 2,069,874 2,069,874 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 478,522 705,616 227,094 1,381,482 1,381,482 (0) Other Expenses 171,280 164,306 (6,974) 319,152 319,152 (0) Internal Charges Expense 40,000 48,000 8,000 96,000 96,000 (0) Total Expenses 1,677,885 1,994,700 316,815 3,866,508 3,866,508 (0)
Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (429,324) (570,062) 140,738 (1,108,062) - 1,088,062 20,000
Depreciation 129,827 121,200 (8,627) 246,400 246,400 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (559,151) (691,262) 132,111 (1,354,462) - 1,334,462 20,000
Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (559,151) (691,262) 132,111 (1,354,462) (1,334,462) 20,000
Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (559,151) (691,262) 132,111 (1,354,462) (1,334,462) 20,000
TOTAL CASH GENERATED (688,978) (812,462) 123,484 (1,600,862) (1,580,862) 20,000
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 201 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Operating Statement Development Services
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 452,974 442,998 9,976 885,996 885,996 (0) User Fees 105,070 18,000 87,070 36,000 116,000 80,000 Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 558,044 460,998 97,046 921,996 1,001,996 80,000
Expenses Employee Costs 982,819 972,100 (10,719) 1,866,916 1,866,916 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 69,104 66,360 (2,744) 132,720 132,720 (0) Other Expenses 52,166 77,996 25,830 154,492 154,492 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 1,104,089 1,116,456 12,367 2,154,128 2,154,128 (0)
Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (546,045) (655,458) 109,413 (1,232,132) - 1,152,132 80,000
Depreciation 3,296 3,360 64 6,720 6,720 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (549,341) (658,818) 109,477 (1,238,852) - 1,158,852 80,000
Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (549,341) (658,818) 109,477 (1,238,852) (1,158,852) 80,000
Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (549,341) (658,818) 109,477 (1,238,852) (1,158,852) 80,000
TOTAL CASH GENERATED (552,637) (662,178) 109,541 (1,245,572) (1,165,572) 80,000
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 202 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Operating Statement Environmental Services
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 33,968 47,502 (13,534) 95,004 95,004 (0) User Fees 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Grants Recurrent 257,273 180,000 77,273 180,000 180,000 (0) Contributions - Cash 1,500 0 1,500 150,000 150,000 (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 264 402 (138) 804 804 (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 293,005 227,904 65,101 425,808 425,808 (0)
Expenses Employee Costs 525,715 536,219 10,504 1,029,681 1,029,681 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 344,673 313,788 (30,885) 777,576 777,576 (0) Other Expenses 26,664 19,650 (7,014) 39,300 39,300 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 897,052 869,657 (27,395) 1,846,557 1,846,557 (0)
Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (604,047) (641,753) 37,706 (1,420,749) - 1,420,749 (0)
Depreciation 1,411 1,320 (91) 2,640 2,640 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (605,458) (643,073) 37,615 (1,423,389) - 1,423,389 (0)
Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (605,458) (643,073) 37,615 (1,423,389) (1,423,389) (0)
Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (605,458) (643,073) 37,615 (1,423,389) (1,423,389) (0)
TOTAL CASH GENERATED (606,869) (644,393) 37,524 (1,426,029) (1,426,029) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 203 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Operating Statement Infrastructure Services
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Income Rates 3,185,608 3,128,000 57,608 3,140,000 3,190,000 50,000 Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 0 480 (480) 960 960 (0) User Fees 14,803 14,400 403 28,800 28,800 (0) Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash 15,000 0 15,000 10,000 10,000 (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 139,624 159,200 (19,576) 472,400 472,400 (0) Internal Charges Income 121,500 84,000 37,500 168,000 168,000 (0) Total Income 3,476,535 3,386,080 90,455 3,820,160 3,870,160 50,000
Expenses Employee Costs 2,505,061 2,553,102 48,041 4,366,230 4,366,230 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 2,341,361 2,349,686 8,325 4,648,513 4,648,513 (0) Other Expenses 70,688 100,290 29,602 145,480 145,480 (0) Internal Charges Expense 197,496 197,748 252 395,500 395,500 (0) Total Expenses 5,114,606 5,200,826 86,220 9,555,723 9,555,723 (0)
Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (1,638,071) (1,814,746) 176,675 (5,735,563) - 5,685,563 50,000
Depreciation 4,497,078 4,457,400 (39,678) 8,923,800 9,023,800 100,000 Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (6,135,149) (6,272,146) 136,997 (14,659,363) - 14,709,363 (50,000)
Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (6,135,149) (6,272,146) 136,997 (14,659,363) (14,709,363) (50,000)
Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (6,135,149) (6,272,146) 136,997 (14,659,363) (14,709,363) (50,000)
TOTAL CASH GENERATED (10,632,227) (10,729,546) 97,319 (23,583,163) (23,733,163) (150,000)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 204 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Governance – Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE
RATES AND FIRE LEVIES General Rate 21,994,442 21,844,500 149,942 21,922,500 22,072,500 (150,000) Fixed Charge - Baretta Rehab. 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Rates - Stormwater 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Rates - Charges 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Fire Levy 1,528,263 1,485,000 43,263 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) TOTAL RATES AND LEVIES 23,522,705 23,329,500 193,205 23,407,500 23,557,500 (150,000)
STATUTORY FEES AND FINES Statutory Fees and Fines 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Recovered legal and collection costs 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL FEES AND FINES 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0)
USER FEES User Fees 40,000 39,600 400 80,000 80,000 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 40,000 39,600 400 80,000 80,000 (0)
GRANTS RECURRENT Grants - Federal 547,594 1,080,000 (532,406) 2,160,000 1,110,000 1,050,000 Grants - State 65,000 0 65,000 0 0 (0) Grants - Other 149,895 0 149,895 0 0 (0) TOTAL RECURRENT GRANTS 762,489 1,080,000 (317,511) 2,160,000 1,110,000 1,050,000
GRANTS CAPITAL Grants - Federal Capital 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Grants - State Capital 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Grants - Other Capital 694,475 0 694,475 800,000 800,000 (0) TOTAL CAPITAL GRANTS 694,475 0 694,475 800,000 800,000 (0)
OTHER INCOME SOURCES Contributions - Cash 258,070 186,000 72,070 372,000 372,000 (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 (0) 200,000 200,000 (0) Interest 1,135 0 1,135 0 0 (0) Internal Charges Income 40,000 48,000 (8,000) 96,000 96,000 (0) Other Income 35,614 39,600 (3,986) 204,200 204,200 (0) Transfers Income 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Pensioner Rate Remission (State Govt) 1,094,970 920,000 174,970 1,052,000 1,052,000 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 74,202 0 74,202 (600,000) (600,000) (0) Investment Copping 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Investment Water Corporation 914,818 924,000 (9,182) 1,848,000 1,848,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 2,418,809 2,117,600 (301,209) 3,172,200 3,172,200 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 27,438,478 26,566,700 871,778 29,619,700 28,719,700 900,000
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 205 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Governance – Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 281,698 287,956 6,258 555,233 555,233 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Consultants 12,955 18,000 5,045 36,000 36,000 (0) Contractors 25,518 40,000 14,482 55,000 55,000 (0) Materials 510 1,800 1,290 3,600 3,600 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 9,987 11,400 1,413 22,800 22,800 (0) Plant Hire 829 0 (829) 0 0 (0) Water & Sewerage 107,817 126,000 18,183 252,000 252,000 (0) Telephone 612 1,200 588 2,400 2,400 (0) Light & Power 314 0 (314) 0 0 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 0 600 600 1,200 1,200 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 158,542 199,000 40,458 373,000 373,000 (0)
DEPRECIATION 40,743 36,600 (4,143) 73,200 73,200 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Payroll Tax 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Councillors Expenses 27,862 43,000 15,138 68,500 68,500 (0) Councillors Allowances 186,906 183,000 (3,906) 366,000 366,000 (0) Land Tax 78,451 70,000 (8,451) 280,000 280,000 (0) Rate Remissions 1,100,706 1,020,000 (80,706) 1,062,000 1,062,000 (0) Legal Fees 3,338 3,000 (338) 6,000 6,000 (0) Tourism 56,180 60,000 3,820 60,000 60,000 (0) Valuation Fees 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Advertising & Marketing 11,471 19,800 8,329 39,600 39,600 (0) Bank Charges 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Subscriptions 66,562 87,500 20,938 87,500 87,500 (0) Postage 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Other expenses 85,121 89,398 4,277 149,300 149,300 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 1,616,597 1,575,698 (40,899) 2,118,900 2,118,900 (0)
FIRE LEVIES 763,423 742,500 (20,923) 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) LOAN INTEREST 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) INTERNAL CHARGES EXPENSE 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TRANSFERS EXPENSE 252,070 0 (252,070) 0 0 (0) TOTAL EXPENSES 3,113,073 2,841,754 (271,319) 4,605,333 4,605,333 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT 24,325,405 23,724,946 600,459 25,014,367 24,114,367 900,000
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 206 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Organisational Development - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 194,002 208,703 14,701 400,878 400,878 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Contractors 1,400 0 (1,400) 0 0 (0) Materials 1,666 0 (1,666) 0 0 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 5,928 4,200 (1,728) 8,400 8,400 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 0 600 600 1,200 1,200 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 8,994 4,800 (4,194) 9,600 9,600 (0)
DEPRECIATION 1,145 1,200 55 2,400 2,400 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Legal Fees 1,712 13,200 11,488 26,400 26,400 (0) Advertising & Marketing 0 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 (0) Subscriptions 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Other expenses 20,530 20,100 (430) 40,200 40,200 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 22,242 43,300 21,058 86,600 86,600 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 226,383 258,003 31,620 499,478 499,478 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (226,383) (258,003) 31,620 (499,478) (499,478) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 207 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Finance - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE STATUTORY FEES AND FINES Statutory Fees and Fines 131,526 157,200 (25,674) 314,400 314,400 (0) Recovered legal and collection costs 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL FEES AND FINES 131,526 157,200 (25,674) 314,400 314,400 (0)
OTHER INCOME SOURCES Interest 118,990 72,000 46,990 144,000 144,000 (0) Internal Charges Income 113,496 114,000 (504) 227,000 227,000 (0) Other Income 55,989 76,800 (20,811) 153,600 153,600 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 288,475 262,800 25,675 524,600 524,600 (0) TOTAL REVENUE 420,001 420,000 1 839,000 839,000 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 569,025 595,700 26,675 1,144,750 1,144,750 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Consultants 5,400 0 (5,400) 0 0 (0) Contractors 1,728 0 (1,728) 0 0 (0) Materials 7,992 0 (7,992) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 12,047 12,000 (47) 24,000 24,000 (0) Telephone 52,260 51,000 (1,260) 104,000 104,000 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 1,383 1,200 (183) 2,400 2,400 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 80,810 64,200 (16,610) 130,400 130,400 (0)
DEPRECIATION 2,250 3,600 1,350 7,200 7,200 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Liability and Property Insurance 297,423 300,000 2,577 314,000 314,000 (0) Legal Fees 7,902 1,800 (6,102) 3,600 3,600 (0) Valuation Fees 33,600 25,200 (8,400) 50,400 50,400 (0) Advertising & Marketing 11,128 2,000 (9,128) 4,000 4,000 (0) Bank Charges 20,899 0 (20,899) 0 0 (0) Subscriptions 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Postage 43,977 51,500 7,523 90,500 90,500 (0) Other expenses 137,885 171,600 33,715 343,200 343,200 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 552,814 552,100 (714) 805,700 805,700 (0)
LOAN INTEREST 0 96,000 96,000 240,000 100,000 140,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,204,899 1,311,600 106,701 2,328,050 2,188,050 140,000
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (784,898) (891,600) 106,702 (1,489,050) (1,349,050) (140,000)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 208 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Information Services - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE OTHER INCOME SOURCES Other Income 0 0 (0) 12,000 12,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 0 0 (0) 12,000 12,000 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 0 0 (0) 12,000 12,000 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 540,536 581,215 40,679 1,115,641 1,115,641 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Consultants 91 0 (91) 0 0 (0) Contractors 89,511 48,000 (41,511) 96,000 96,000 (0) Materials 2,088 0 (2,088) 0 0 (0) IT consumables 169,902 295,100 125,198 334,200 334,200 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 3,848 4,800 952 9,600 9,600 (0) Telephone 623 3,600 2,977 7,200 7,200 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 266,063 351,500 85,437 447,000 447,000 (0)
DEPRECIATION 61,410 78,000 16,590 156,000 156,000 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Other expenses 7,705 8,700 995 17,400 17,400 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 7,705 8,700 995 17,400 17,400 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 875,714 1,019,415 143,701 1,736,041 1,736,041 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (875,714) (1,019,415) 143,701 (1,724,041) (1,724,041) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 209 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Compliance - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE
STATUTORY FEES AND FINES Statutory Fees and Fines 209,628 179,900 29,728 332,800 332,800 (0) Recovered legal and collection costs 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL FEES AND FINES 209,628 179,900 29,728 332,800 332,800 (0)
USER FEES User Fees 118 0 118 0 0 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 118 0 118 0 0 (0)
OTHER INCOME SOURCES Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Other Income 6,600 0 6,600 0 0 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 6,600 0 6,600 0 0 (0) TOTAL REVENUE 216,346 179,900 36,446 332,800 332,800 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 242,971 224,018 (18,953) 430,705 430,705 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Consultants 73 0 (73) 0 0 (0) Contractors 225 1,500 1,275 3,000 3,000 (0) Materials 1,260 0 (1,260) 0 0 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 15,095 12,000 (3,095) 24,000 24,000 (0) Plant Hire 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Telephone 1,151 1,800 649 3,600 3,600 (0) Light & Power 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 743 6,000 5,257 12,000 12,000 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 18,547 21,300 2,753 42,600 42,600 (0)
DEPRECIATION 541 900 (359) 1,800 1,800 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Legal Fees 5,923 7,500 1,577 15,000 15,000 (0) Advertising & Marketing 1,180 2,200 1,020 4,000 4,000 (0) Bank Charges 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Subscriptions 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Postage 0 1,500 1,500 3,000 3,000 (0) Other expenses 12,530 42,700 30,170 85,400 85,400 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 19,633 53,900 34,267 107,400 107,400 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 281,692 300,118 18,426 582,505 582,505 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (65,346) (120,218) 54,872 (249,705) (249,705) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 210 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Property & Emergency Management - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE USER FEES User Fees 3,653 11,400 (7,747) 22,800 22,800 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 3,653 11,400 (7,747) 22,800 22,800 (0)
GRANTS RECURRENT Grants - Federal 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Grants - State 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Grants - Other 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL RECURRENT GRANTS 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 3,653 11,400 (7,747) 22,800 22,800 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 210,107 197,382 (12,725) 379,240 379,240 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Building maintenance 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Consultants 14,353 3,000 (11,353) 6,000 6,000 (0) Contractors 10,395 13,800 3,405 27,600 27,600 (0) Materials 1,601 600 (1,001) 1,200 1,200 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 1,057 6,000 4,943 12,000 12,000 (0) Telephone 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Light & Power 5,557 0 (5,557) 0 0 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 1,055 1,200 145 2,400 2,400 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 34,018 24,600 (9,418) 49,200 49,200 (0)
DEPRECIATION 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Land Tax 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Legal Fees 6,678 6,000 (678) 12,000 12,000 (0) Advertising & Marketing 142 1,500 1,358 3,000 3,000 (0) Other Expenses 22,554 44,900 22,346 69,800 69,800 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 29,374 52,400 23,026 84,800 84,800 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 273,499 274,382 883 513,240 513,240 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (269,846) (262,982) (6,864) (490,440) (490,440) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 211 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Building & Turf Management - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE USER FEES Rental - Dru Point Park 2,036 600 1,436 1,200 1,200 (0) Rental - Bruny Hall 956 100 856 100 100 (0) Rental - Kettering South Hall 200 600 (400) 1,200 1,200 (0) Rental - Kingston and Blackmans Bay Hall 13,747 12,000 1,747 24,000 24,000 (0) Rental - Margate Hall 3,058 5,400 (2,342) 10,800 10,800 (0) Rental - Sandfly Hall 760 600 160 1,200 1,200 (0) Rental - Taroona Hall 5,226 3,800 1,426 3,800 3,800 (0) Rental - 98 Beach Road Kingston 18,732 10,800 7,932 21,600 21,600 (0) Rental - Dennes Point Hall 9,290 9,270 20 18,540 18,540 (0) Rental - Twin Ovals 28,777 18,000 10,777 36,000 36,000 (0) Rental - Indoor Cricket Centre 5,760 6,000 (240) 12,000 12,000 (0) Rental - BBWWTP 6,545 7,200 (655) 14,400 14,400 (0) Rental - KWS Tower 5,940 0 5,940 0 0 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 101,027 74,370 26,657 144,840 144,840 (0)
CONTRIBUTIONS Contributions 33,265 0 33,265 0 0 (0) TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 33,265 0 33,265 0 0 (0)
OTHER INCOME Forfeited Deposit 504 300 204 600 600 (0) Sundry Receipt 12,600 3,000 9,600 6,000 6,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 13,104 3,300 9,804 6,600 6,600 (0)
INTERNAL CHARGES Salary On-Cost Recovery 159,355 168,000 (8,645) 336,000 336,000 (0) TOTAL INTERNAL CHARGES 159,355 168,000 (8,645) 336,000 336,000 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 306,751 245,670 61,081 487,440 487,440 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 203,160 198,517 (4,643) 364,015 364,015 (0)
BUILDING ACTIVITIES Building Activities 0 600 600 1,200 1,200 (0) Cleaning Civic Centre 3,863 6,000 2,137 12,000 12,000 (0) Light & Power 63,774 31,250 (32,524) 62,750 62,750 (0) Hall Scheduled Maintenance 22,535 52,398 29,863 104,796 104,796 (0) Hall Unscheduled Maintenance 27,237 30,552 3,315 61,104 61,104 (0) Hall Cleaning 6,956 13,770 6,814 27,540 27,540 (0) Hall Toilet Repairs 4,716 6,000 1,284 12,000 12,000 (0) Building Maintenance 85,205 100,332 15,127 200,664 200,664 (0) Playground Inspections 4,270 2,400 (1,870) 5,000 5,000 (0) Playground Maintenance 6,601 16,800 10,199 34,000 34,000 (0) BBQ Maintenance 1,457 12,000 10,543 24,000 24,000 (0) Graffiti Removal 100 2,400 2,300 5,000 5,000 (0) Public Toilet Cleaning 113,970 114,000 30 228,000 228,000 (0) Public Toilet Repairs 7,996 18,000 10,004 36,000 36,000 (0) TOTAL BUILDING EXPENSES 348,680 406,502 57,822 814,054 814,054 (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 212 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Building & Turf Management - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance TURF ACTIVITIES Maintenance of Grounds 258,321 198,000 (60,321) 396,000 396,000 (0) Sports Precinct 261,119 267,000 5,881 534,000 534,000 (0) TOTAL TURF ACTIVITIES 519,440 465,000 (54,440) 930,000 930,000 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Insurance Claims 0 300 300 600 600 (0) Refund Fees and Charges 32 300 268 600 600 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 32 600 568 1,200 1,200 (0)
DEPRECIATION 63,840 60,000 (3,840) 124,000 124,000 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,135,152 1,130,619 (4,533) 2,233,269 2,233,269 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (828,401) (884,949) 56,548 (1,745,829) (1,745,829) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 213 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Environmental Services - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE STATUTORY FEES AND FINES Statutory Fees and Fines 33,968 47,502 (13,534) 95,004 95,004 (0) Recovered legal and collection costs 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL FEES AND FINES 33,968 47,502 (13,534) 95,004 95,004 (0)
OTHER INCOME SOURCES Other Income 264 402 (138) 804 804 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 264 402 (138) 804 804 (0) TOTAL REVENUE 34,232 47,904 (13,672) 95,808 95,808 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 262,501 273,909 11,408 526,348 526,348 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Building maintenance 338 0 (338) 0 0 (0) Consultants 736 0 (736) 0 0 (0) Contractors 37,518 16,002 (21,516) 32,004 32,004 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 8,596 9,252 656 18,504 18,504 (0) Telephone 2,486 1,800 (686) 3,600 3,600 (0) Light & Power 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 305 1,248 943 2,496 2,496 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 49,979 28,302 (21,677) 56,604 56,604 (0)
DEPRECIATION 1,411 1,320 (91) 2,640 2,640 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Legal Fees 2,000 2,598 598 5,196 5,196 (0) Other expenses 19,633 17,052 (2,581) 34,104 34,104 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 21,633 19,650 (1,983) 39,300 39,300 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 335,524 323,181 (12,343) 624,892 624,892 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (301,292) (275,277) (26,015) (529,084) (529,084) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 214 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 NRM - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE GRANTS Grant - Cat Project 257,273 180,000 77,273 180,000 180,000 (0) TOTAL GRANTS 257,273 180,000 77,273 180,000 180,000 (0)
CONTRIBUTIONS Tree preservation 1,500 0 1,500 150,000 150,000 (0) TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1,500 0 1,500 150,000 150,000 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 258,773 180,000 78,773 330,000 330,000 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 264,614 262,310 2,304 503,333 503,333 (0)
MATERIALS AND CONTRACTS
NRM PROJECTS Weed Control 13,847 19,998 6,151 39,996 39,996 (0) Environmental Education Program 6,179 4,998 (1,181) 9,996 9,996 (0) Reserve Management 56 4,998 4,942 9,996 9,996 (0) Caregroup Support Program 4,181 6,750 2,569 13,500 13,500 (0) Revegetation Program 5,740 7,500 1,760 15,000 15,000 (0) Wildlife Program 137 2,502 2,365 5,004 5,004 (0) Waterway and Coastal Management 0 4,002 4,002 8,004 8,004 (0) Tree Management 500 1,998 1,498 3,996 3,996 (0) Sundries and Tools 3,714 4,998 1,284 9,996 9,996 (0) Plant and Vehicle 4,339 6,498 2,159 12,996 12,996 (0) NRM BUSHCARE Council Reserve Bushfire Management 1,046 25,998 24,952 51,996 51,996 (0) Bushland Reserve Signage 0 7,500 7,500 15,000 15,000 (0) Kingborough Environmental Fund 0 0 (0) 150,000 150,000 (0) OTHER PROJECTS Climate Change 41,887 27,498 (14,389) 54,996 54,996 (0) Bruny Cat Project 139,864 90,000 (49,864) 180,000 180,000 (0) Coastal Hazard Project 21,679 42,498 20,819 84,996 84,996 (0) D'Entrecasteaux Channel Environment 8,856 4,998 (3,858) 9,996 9,996 (0) Kingborough Cat Control Project 46,299 22,752 (23,547) 45,504 45,504 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND CONTRACTS 298,324 285,486 (12,838) 720,972 720,972 (0)
TOTAL NRM EXPENSES 562,938 547,796 (15,142) 1,224,305 1,224,305 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (304,165) (367,796) 63,631 (894,305) (894,305) 0
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 215 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Building & Plumbing Services - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE STATUTORY FEES AND FINES Statutory Fees and Fines 224,818 217,998 6,820 435,996 435,996 0 TOTAL FEES AND FINES 224,818 217,998 6,820 435,996 435,996 0
TOTAL REVENUE 224,818 217,998 6,820 435,996 435,996 0
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 268,823 274,869 6,046 527,671 527,671 0
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Consultants 1,620 6,000 4,380 12,000 12,000 0 Plant and Vehicles Costs 16,373 15,600 (773) 31,200 31,200 0 Telephone 403 540 137 1,080 1,080 0 Light & Power 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 0 300 300 600 600 0 TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 18,396 22,440 4,044 44,880 44,880 0
DEPRECIATION 1,622 960 (662) 1,920 1,920 0
OTHER EXPENSES Legal Fees 1,500 5,000 3,500 8,500 8,500 0 Other expenses 7,635 4,500 (3,135) 9,000 9,000 0 TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 9,135 9,500 365 17,500 17,500 0
TOTAL EXPENSES 297,976 307,769 9,793 591,971 591,971 0
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (73,158) (89,771) 16,613 (155,975) (155,975) 0
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 216 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Town Planning - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE STATUTORY FEES AND FINES Statutory Fees and Fines 228,156 225,000 3,156 450,000 450,000 (0) Recovered legal and collection costs 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL FEES AND FINES 228,156 225,000 3,156 450,000 450,000 (0)
USER FEES User Fees 105,070 18,000 87,070 36,000 116,000 (80,000) TOTAL USER FEES 105,070 18,000 87,070 36,000 116,000 (80,000)
TOTAL REVENUE 333,226 243,000 90,226 486,000 566,000 (80,000)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 713,996 697,231 (16,765) 1,339,245 1,339,245 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Consultants 30,691 15,000 (15,691) 30,000 30,000 (0) Contractors 307 13,800 13,493 27,600 27,600 (0) Materials 33 0 (33) 0 0 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 16,900 12,600 (4,300) 25,200 25,200 (0) Telephone 1,058 1,800 742 3,600 3,600 (0) Light & Power 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 1,720 720 (1,000) 1,440 1,440 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 50,709 43,920 (6,789) 87,840 87,840 (0)
DEPRECIATION 1,674 2,400 726 4,800 4,800 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Legal Fees 16,191 33,000 16,809 66,000 66,000 (0) Advertising & Marketing 19,773 24,000 4,227 48,000 48,000 (0) Bank Charges 25 0 (25) 0 0 (0) Subscriptions 857 996 139 1,992 1,992 (0) Other expenses 6,185 10,500 4,315 21,000 21,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 43,031 68,496 25,465 136,992 136,992 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 809,410 812,047 2,637 1,568,877 1,568,877 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (476,184) (569,047) 92,863 (1,082,877) (1,002,877) (80,000)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 217 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Community Services - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE
OTHER INCOME Sundry Receipts 4,913 3,000 1,913 6,000 6,000 (0) Volunteer program 2,779 3,000 (221) 6,000 6,000 (0) Program and Events Charges 4,854 5,100 (246) 10,000 10,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME 12,546 11,100 1,446 22,000 22,000 (0)
USER FEES User Fees 2,150 0 2,150 0 0 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 2,150 0 2,150 0 0 (0)
Grants Grant - State 10,260 0 10,260 0 0 (0) Total 10,260 0 10,260 0 0 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 24,956 11,100 13,856 22,000 22,000 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 226,002 216,058 (9,944) 416,460 416,460 (0)
Materials and Contracts
Community Services Programs Love Living Locally 0 2,000 2,000 10,000 10,000 (0) Kids Allowed Program 1,106 1,500 394 3,000 3,000 (0) Youth outreach 1,127 3,600 2,473 7,200 7,200 (0) School Holiday Program 6,881 8,200 1,319 17,200 17,200 (0) Yspace Operations 2,283 9,000 6,717 18,000 18,000 (0) Youth Development 4,202 6,000 1,798 12,000 12,000 (0) Volunteer Program 4,755 6,000 1,245 12,000 12,000 (0) Positive Ageing 6,874 4,200 (2,674) 8,400 8,400 (0) Community Services 119 1,200 1,081 2,400 2,400 (0) Community Development Projects 6,011 6,000 (11) 12,000 12,000 (0) Community Project Support 40,775 25,000 (15,775) 50,000 50,000 (0) Makerspace grant expense 2,927 0 (2,927) 0 0 (0) Events Support 0 4,800 4,800 10,000 10,000 (0) Salvaged Art Competition 6,203 1,750 (4,453) 3,500 3,500 (0) Community Waste Management Education 0 2,400 2,400 5,000 5,000 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 83,263 81,650 (1,613) 170,700 170,700 (0)
Other Costs Plant and Vehicle Costs 4,907 7,500 2,593 15,000 15,000 (0) Telephone Charges 2,596 2,100 (496) 4,200 4,200 (0) New Equipment and Furniture 1,114 900 (214) 1,800 1,800 (0) Consulting Services 341 3,000 2,659 6,000 6,000 (0) Advertising and Marketing 124 1,500 1,376 3,000 3,000 (0) Sundry 60 1,200 1,140 2,400 2,400 (0) Total 9,142 16,200 7,058 32,400 32,400 (0)
DEPRECIATION 38,288 31,200 (7,088) 62,400 62,400 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 356,695 345,108 (11,587) 681,960 681,960 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (331,739) (334,008) 2,269 (659,960) (659,960) 0
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 218 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Arts - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE
USER CHARGES Rental - Arts Hub 355 750 (395) 1,500 1,500 (0) TOTAL USER CHARGES 355 750 (395) 1,500 1,500 (0)
OTHER INCOME Program and Event Charges 1,337 1,500 (163) 3,000 3,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME 1,337 1,500 (163) 3,000 3,000 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 1,692 2,250 (558) 4,500 4,500 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 44,600 44,279 (321) 84,902 84,902 (0)
MATERIALS AND CONTRACTS ARTS AND
CULTURE PROGRAM Arts & Culture 5,345 10,260 4,915 20,500 20,500 (0) Kingborough Arts Prize 10,000 5,000 (5,000) 10,000 10,000 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 15,345 15,260 (85) 30,500 30,500 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 59,945 59,539 (406) 115,402 115,402 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (58,253) (57,289) (964) (110,902) (110,902) 0
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 219 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Family Day Care - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE USER FEES User Fees 61,462 107,600 (46,138) 220,800 220,800 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 61,462 107,600 (46,138) 220,800 220,800 (0)
GRANTS RECURRENT Grants - Federal 375,761 589,010 (213,249) 1,134,000 1,134,000 (0) Grants - State 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Grants - Other 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL RECURRENT GRANTS 375,761 589,010 (213,249) 1,134,000 1,134,000 (0)
OTHER INCOME SOURCES Contributions - Cash 2,958 2,280 678 4,600 4,600 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 2,958 2,280 678 4,600 4,600 (0) TOTAL REVENUE 440,181 698,890 (258,709) 1,359,400 1,359,400 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 90,168 162,280 72,112 311,845 311,845 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Building maintenance 40 0 (40) 0 0 (0) Child care payments 292,034 520,000 227,966 1,000,000 1,000,000 (0) Consultants 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Contractors 2,434 2,500 66 5,000 5,000 (0) Materials 126 0 (126) 0 0 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 2,114 5,010 2,896 10,000 10,000 (0) Light & Power 2,830 2,190 (640) 4,350 4,350 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 299,578 529,700 230,122 1,019,350 1,019,350 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Other expenses 11,804 16,500 4,696 33,000 33,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 11,804 16,500 4,696 33,000 33,000 (0)
INTERNAL CHARGES EXPENSE 16,000 24,000 8,000 48,000 48,000 (0) TOTAL EXPENSES 417,550 732,480 314,930 1,412,195 1,412,195 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT 22,631 (33,590) 56,221 (52,795) (52,795) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 220 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Manor Gardens - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE GRANTS RECURRENT Grants - Federal 220,590 221,700 (1,110) 443,400 443,400 (0) Grants - State 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Grants - Other 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL RECURRENT GRANTS 220,590 221,700 (1,110) 443,400 443,400 (0)
OTHER INCOME SOURCES Contributions - Cash 57,601 33,048 24,553 66,096 66,096 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 57,601 33,048 24,553 66,096 66,096 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 278,191 254,748 23,443 509,496 509,496 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 215,625 243,208 27,583 467,000 467,000 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Building maintenance 80 0 (80) 0 0 (0) Contractors 2,426 576 (1,850) 1,152 1,152 (0) Materials 20,551 0 (20,551) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 17,662 15,900 (1,762) 31,800 31,800 (0) Telephone 647 0 (647) 0 0 (0) Light & Power 3,378 0 (3,378) 0 0 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 23 0 (23) 0 0 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 44,767 16,476 (28,291) 32,952 32,952 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Other expenses 1,811 15,696 13,885 31,392 31,392 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 1,811 15,696 13,885 31,392 31,392 (0)
INTERNAL CHARGES EXPENSE 24,000 24,000 (0) 48,000 48,000 (0) TOTAL EXPENSES 286,203 299,380 13,177 579,344 579,344 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (8,012) (44,632) 36,620 (69,848) (69,848) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 221 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Kingborough Sports Centre - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE USER FEES KSC Fitness Centre - Membership 121,528 127,000 (5,472) 256,000 256000 (0) KSC Fitness Centre - Casual 7,495 9,000 (1,505) 19,000 19000 (0) KSC Fitness Centre - Programme 28,599 11,000 17,599 22,000 22000 (0) KSC Fitness Centre - School Bookings 4,905 2,200 2,705 3,400 3400 (0) KSC Martial Arts 13,342 14,000 (658) 27,000 27000 (0) KSC Indoor Cricket (260) 0 (260) 0 0 (0) KSC School Bookings 2,500 3,500 (1,000) 6,000 6000 (0) KSC Squash 11,895 11,500 395 21,000 21000 (0) KSC Stadium 163,447 162,000 1,447 294,000 294000 (0) KSC Table Tennis 4,856 5,800 (944) 10,800 10800 (0) KSC General Hire 2,951 2,700 251 4,900 4900 (0) KSC Hire Equipment 1,614 700 914 1,200 1200 (0) KSC Kiosk Sales 107,601 79,000 28,601 135,000 155000 (20,000) KSC Sports Goods Sale 617 750 (133) 1,350 1,350 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 471,090 429,150 41,940 801,650 821,650 (20,000)
OTHER INCOME KSC Advertising 117 1,500 1,383 3,000 3,000 (0) KSC Charges Recovered 27,038 27,000 (38) 54,000 54,000 (0) KSC Sponsorship 4,617 0 (4,617) 4,400 4,400 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 31,772 28,500 (3,272) 61,400 61,400 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 502,862 457,650 45,212 863,050 883,050 (20,000)
Expenses Employee Oncosts Employee Costs - Fitness Centre 180,263 171,084 (9,179) 328,992 328,992 (0) Employee Costs – General 232,481 239,869 7,388 460,675 460,675 (0) Total 412,744 410,953 (1,791) 789,667 789,667 (0)
Expenditure - Fitness Centre Advertising & Marketing 367 3,500 3,133 7,000 7,000 (0) Equipment Maintenance 650 1,050 400 2,000 2,000 (0) Leased Equipment 20,819 20,700 (119) 41,400 41,400 (0) New Equipment & Furniture 0 7,800 7,800 16,000 16,000 (0) Total Expenses 21,836 33,050 11,214 66,400 66,400 (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 222 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Kingborough Sports Centre - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Expenditure - General Advertising & Marketing 1,063 5,000 3,937 10,000 10,000 (0) Building Maintenance 23,730 30,000 6,270 68,000 68,000 (0) Cleaning 5,290 4,400 (890) 8,000 8,000 (0) Equipment Maintenance 7,384 2,700 (4,684) 5,400 5,400 (0) Hire Equipment Replacement 409 520 111 1,000 1,000 (0) Kiosk Purchases 49,247 40,900 (8,347) 71,800 71,800 (0) Light & Power 46,366 42,000 (4,366) 80,000 80,000 (0) New Equipment & Furniture 7,165 4,500 (2,665) 9,000 9,000 (0) Plant & Vehicle Costs - Internal 3,338 600 (2,738) 1,200 1,200 (0) Purchase Sports Goods 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Stationery 271 300 29 600 600 (0) Telephone 542 540 (2) 1,080 1,080 (0) Trophies & Awards 23 250 227 500 500 (0) Waste Disposal 2,334 3,150 816 6,300 6,300 (0) Subscriptions 3,125 3,150 25 6,300 6,300 (0) Refund Fees & Charges 59 240 181 480 480 (0) Licenses 8,521 6,600 (1,921) 13,200 13,200 (0) Sundry 1,340 540 (800) 1,080 1,080 (0) Total Other Expenses 160,207 145,390 (14,817) 283,940 283,940 (0)
DEPRECIATION 91,539 90,000 (1,539) 184,000 184,000 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 686,326 679,393 (6,933) 1,324,007 1,324,007 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (183,464) (221,743) 38,279 (460,957) (440,957) (20,000)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 223 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Engineering - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE STATUTORY FEES AND FINES Statutory Fees and Fines 0 480 (480) 960 960 (0) Recovered legal and collection costs 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) TOTAL FEES AND FINES 0 480 (480) 960 960 (0)
OTHER INCOME SOURCES Contributions - Cash 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 (0) Other Income 0 2,700 (2,700) 5,400 5,400 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 15,000 2,700 12,300 5,400 5,400 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 15,000 3,180 11,820 6,360 6,360 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 450,832 520,818 69,986 491,237 491,237 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Building maintenance 95 0 (95) 0 0 (0) Consultants 2,500 10,000 7,500 30,000 30,000 (0) Contractors 8,015 18,100 10,085 30,100 30,100 (0) Materials 144 0 (144) 0 0 (0) IT consumables 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 39,763 36,000 (3,763) 72,000 72,000 (0) Telephone 5,991 5,100 (891) 10,200 10,200 (0) Light & Power 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Minor Equipment Purchases over $1,000 1,246 2,000 754 3,000 3,000 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 57,754 71,200 13,446 145,300 145,300 (0)
DEPRECIATION 6,576 8,400 1,824 16,800 16,800 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Advertising & Marketing 0 1,300 1,300 2,500 2,500 (0) Bank Charges 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Subscriptions 2,810 5,400 2,590 12,800 12,800 (0) Other expenses 7,553 24,690 17,137 36,380 36,380 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 10,363 31,390 21,027 51,680 51,680 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 525,525 631,808 106,283 705,017 705,017 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (510,525) (628,628) 118,103 (698,657) (698,657) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 224 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Works - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE Contributions Contributions DEET 0 0 (0) 10,000 10,000 Total 0 0 (0) 10,000 10,000 (0)
Other Income Sundry Receipts 728 15,000 (14,272) 30,000 30,000 (0) Total 728 15,000 (14,272) 30,000 30,000 (0)
Oncosts Oncost Recovery Works 84,000 84,000 (0) 168,000 168,000 (0) Total 84,000 84,000 (0) 168,000 168,000 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 84,728 99,000 (14,272) 208,000 208,000 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 358,868 306,694 (52,174) 588,729 588,729 (0)
MATERIALS AND CONTRACTS Building Maintenance 7,868 19,800 11,932 40,000 40,000 (0) Cleaning 2,311 3,000 689 6,000 6,000 (0) Equipment Maintenance 600 900 300 1,800 1,800 (0) Light and Power 11,777 15,600 3,823 31,200 31,200 (0) New Equipment and Furniture 20 1,200 1,180 2,400 2,400 (0) Plant & Vehicle Costs - Depot 2,022 48,000 45,978 96,000 96,000 (0) Plant & Vehicle Costs - Works 8,054 12,000 3,946 24,000 24,000 (0) Stationery 2,553 2,400 (153) 4,800 4,800 (0) Telephone Charges 3,000 3,300 300 6,600 6,600 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 38,205 106,200 67,995 212,800 212,800 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Sundry Costs 2,940 2,100 (840) 4,200 4200 0 TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 2,940 2,100 (840) 4,200 4,200 0
DEPRECIATION 18,238 18,000 (238) 36,000 36,000 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 418,251 432,994 14,743 841,729 841,729 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (333,523) (333,994) 471 (633,729) (633,729) 0
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 225 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Waste Management - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE RATES AND FIRE LEVIES Rates - Garbage Collection 2,174,685 2,130,000 44,685 2,142,000 2,192,000 50,000 TOTAL RATES AND LEVIES 2,174,685 2,130,000 44,685 2,142,000 2,192,000 50,000
USER CHARGES Waste Management Charges Bruny 11,759 12,000 (241) 24,000 24,000 (0) Waste Charges 2,198 2,400 (202) 4,800 4,800 (0) TOTAL USER CHARGES 13,957 14,400 (443) 28,800 28,800 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 2,188,642 2,144,400 44,242 2,170,800 2,220,800 50,000
EXPENSES
CONTRACTS Garbage Removal 287,537 288,600 1,063 577,600 577,600 (0) Disposal Fees (KWS) 292,643 283,200 (9,443) 567,000 567,000 (0) Kerbside Recycling 187,977 186,000 (1,977) 372,000 372,000 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 768,157 757,800 (10,357) 1,516,600 1,516,600 (0)
WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Baretta Site Maintenance 34,692 4,800 (29,892) 10,000 10,000 (0) Light and Power 1,395 1,200 (195) 2,400 2,400 (0) Greenwaste - Barretta/Bruny 15,441 23,400 7,959 46,800 46,800 (0) Bin Transfer to Barretta 24,822 30,000 5,178 60,000 60,000 (0) Transfer Station Bruny 94,352 101,400 7,048 203,000 203,000 (0) Southern Waste Strategy Levy 0 8,000 8,000 17,000 17,000 (0) Barretta Building Maintenance 0 3,000 3,000 6,000 6,000 (0) Environmental Costs 70,987 60,000 (10,987) 125,000 125,000 (0) TOTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 241,689 231,800 (9,889) 470,200 470,200 (0)
Oncosts Oncosts - Administration 113,496 113,748 252 227,500 227,500 (0) Oncosts - Works 84,000 84,000 (0) 168,000 168,000 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 197,496 197,748 252 395,500 395,500 (0)
DEPRECIATION 69,544 66,000 (3,544) 132,000 132,000 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,276,886 1,253,348 (23,538) 2,514,300 2,514,300 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT 911,756 891,052 20,704 (343,500) (293,500) 50,000
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 226 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Recreation & Reserves - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE
OTHER INCOME Sundry Receipts 0 1,200 (1,200) 2,400 2,400 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 0 1,200 (1,200) 2,400 2,400 (0)
ONCOSTS Oncost Recovery 294,865 268,054 26,811 536,112 536,112 (0) TOTAL ONCOSTS 294,865 268,054 26,811 536,112 536,112 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 294,865 269,254 25,611 538,512 538,512 (0)
EXPENSES
EMPLOYEE ON COSTS Employee Costs - Supervisor 55,434 87,151 31,717 174,298 174298 0 Employee Oncosts R&R 179,792 205,355 25,563 360,222 360222 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEE ONCOSTS 235,226 292,506 57,280 534,520 534,520 0
RESERVE ACTIVITIES Event Support 1,144 7,862 6,718 15,700 15,700 0 Litter Bins 3,177 5,880 2,703 11,760 11,760 0 KP Site Maintenance 4,235 17,518 13,283 35,000 35,000 0 Garden Maintenance 102,151 79,986 (22,165) 159,996 159,996 0 Grass Control 290,042 214,466 (75,576) 428,952 428,952 0 Irrigation Systems - Install & Maintenance 7,513 19,398 11,885 38,760 38,760 0 KWS Maintenance 16,452 22,066 5,614 44,167 44,167 0 Litter Collection 93,580 125,008 31,428 250,000 250,000 0 Maintenance of Cemeteries 966 6,012 5,046 12,000 12,000 0 Park Infrastructure Maintenance 69,790 72,482 2,692 145,000 145,000 0 Reserve Infrastructure Maintenance 192,786 117,498 (75,288) 235,000 235,000 0 Reserve Fire Control 19,177 32,480 13,303 65,000 65,000 0 Vandalism 1,599 5,020 3,421 10,000 10,000 0 Weekly Playground Inspections 11,757 5,020 (6,737) 10,000 10,000 0 Minor Playground Repairs 13,568 12,482 (1,086) 25,000 25,000 0 Tree Inspections 8,905 15,010 6,105 29,978 29,978 0 Tree Maintenance 149,441 139,992 (9,449) 280,000 280,000 0 Tree Stump Grinding 4,432 5,020 588 10,000 10,000 0 Track Maintenance 97,760 95,020 (2,740) 190,000 190,000 0 TOTAL RESERVE EXPENSES 1,088,475 998,220 (90,255) 1,996,313 1,996,313 0
OTHER EXPENSES Insurance Claims 911 1,200 289 2,400 2,400 0 Telephone - Charges 5,952 5,400 (552) 10,800 10,800 0 TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 6,863 6,600 (263) 13,200 13,200 0
DEPRECIATION 314,368 387,000 72,632 783,000 783,000 0
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,644,932 1,684,326 39,394 3,327,033 3,327,033 0
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (1,350,067) (1,415,072) 65,005 (2,788,521) (2,788,521) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 227 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Stormwater - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE RATES AND FIRE LEVIES Rates - Stormwater Charge 1,010,923 998,000 12,923 998,000 998,000 (0) TOTAL RATES AND LEVIES 1,010,923 998,000 12,923 998,000 998,000 (0)
Oncosts Oncost Recovery 0 53,436 (53,436) 106,872 106,872 (0) TOTAL FEES AND FINES 0 53,436 (53,436) 106,872 106,872 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 1,010,923 1,051,436 (40,513) 1,104,872 1,104,872 (0)
EXPENSES Employee Oncosts - Stormwater 16,708 55,561 38,853 101,053 101,053 (0)
Stormwater Activities Inspections & Site Checks 27,393 14,998 (12,395) 30,000 30,000 (0) Manhole Maintenance 53,303 32,518 (20,785) 65,000 65,000 (0) Pit Cleaning 13,149 32,518 19,369 65,000 65,000 (0) Pipe Cleaning 27,859 35,010 7,151 70,000 70,000 (0) Repairs to Pipes 9,340 14,980 5,640 30,000 30,000 (0) House Connections 4,964 10,000 5,036 20,000 20,000 (0) Cleaning Gross Pollutant Traps 10,183 24,992 14,809 50,000 50,000 (0) TOTAL STORMWATER ACTIVITIES 146,191 165,016 18,825 330,000 330,000 (0)
DEPRECIATION 482,775 516,000 33,225 1,032,000 1,032,000 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 645,674 736,577 90,903 1,463,053 1,463,053 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT 365,249 314,859 50,390 (358,181) (358,181) (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 228 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Transport - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE ON COSTS Oncost Recovery 554,452 554,508 (56) 1,109,016 1,109,016 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 554,452 554,508 (56) 1,109,016 1,109,016 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 554,452 554,508 (56) 1,109,016 1,109,016 (0)
EXPENSES
Employee Oncosts Employee OnCosts - Supervisors 234,532 180,278 (54,254) 360,556 360,556 0 Employee OnCosts - Transport 353,583 408,253 54,670 712,071 712,071 0 Total 588,115 588,531 416 1,072,627 1,072,627 0
Road Activities Subsoil Drainage Maintenance 11,897 10,012 (1,885) 20,000 20,000 0 Sealed - Asphalt Corrections 20,341 70,012 49,671 140,000 140,000 0 Pedestrian Crossing Maintenance 316 4,980 4,664 10,000 10,000 0 Crossover Repairs 4,376 6,000 1,624 12,000 12,000 0 Rural Culvert Cleaning 19,488 27,502 8,014 55,000 55,000 0 Rural Culvert Maintenance 30,052 24,978 (5,074) 50,000 50,000 0 Dead Animal Removal 9,106 3,480 (5,626) 7,000 7,000 0 Drainage - Easements 7,621 14,990 7,369 30,000 30,000 0 Footpath Inspection 6,157 9,992 3,835 20,000 20,000 0 Footpath Repair 118,019 95,002 (23,017) 190,000 190,000 0 Guide Posts 31,990 34,988 2,998 70,000 70,000 0 Handrails & Guardrails Maintenance 4,573 32,510 27,937 65,000 65,000 0 Illegal Dumping of Rubbish 5,340 6,008 668 12,000 12,000 0 Urban Kerb & Gutter Maintenance 29,220 32,498 3,278 65,000 65,000 0 KWS Site Maintenance 2,110 10,000 7,890 20,000 20,000 0 Linemarking 3,817 5,000 1,183 10,000 10,000 0 Sealed - Major Repairs 114,028 74,992 (39,036) 150,000 150,000 0 Sealed - Minor Repairs 184,597 139,980 (44,617) 280,000 280,000 0 Sealed - Edge Break Repairs 9,108 49,998 40,890 100,000 100,000 0 Sealed - Pothole Repairs 55,143 60,008 4,865 120,000 120,000 0 Sealed - Shoulder Reinstatement 42,512 85,002 42,490 170,000 170,000 0 Sealed - Shoulder Grading 33,749 54,978 21,229 110,000 110,000 0 Sealed - Table Drain Maintenance 36,732 79,998 43,266 160,000 160,000 0 Unsealed - Maintenance Grading 220,520 140,018 (80,502) 280,000 280,000 0 Unsealed - Pothole Patching 99,930 59,978 (39,952) 120,000 120,000 0 Unsealed - Table Drains 123,920 70,010 (53,910) 140,000 140,000 0 Unsealed - Road Surface Repairs 49,889 50,008 119 100,000 100,000 0 Roundabout Maintenance 1,109 4,998 3,889 10,000 10,000 0 Roadside Retaining Walls 5,165 5,992 827 12,000 12,000 0 Roadside Slashing 65,172 119,978 54,806 240,000 240,000 0 Signage replacement/maintenance 33,555 47,500 13,945 95,000 95,000 0 Storm Damage 15,336 49,978 34,642 100,000 100,000 0 Sweeping 78,123 65,998 (12,125) 132,000 132,000 0 Traffic Island Maintenance 3,030 4,988 1,958 10,000 10,000 0 Tree Removal & Maintenance 189,185 92,498 (96,687) 185,000 185,000 0 Weed Spraying 23,855 30,002 6,147 60,000 60,000 0 Light & Power 211,361 248,000 36,639 500,000 500,000 0 Street Light Repairs 0 3,000 3,000 6,000 6,000 0 Traffic Counters 3,700 9,000 5,300 18,000 18,000 0 Total Road Expenses 1,904,142 1,934,854 30,712 3,874,000 3,874,000 0
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 229 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Transport - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Bridge Activities Boat Ramps 15,816 7,990 (7,826) 16,000 16,000 0 Bridge Guardrail Repairs 951 2,498 1,547 5,000 5,000 0 Bridge General Maintenance 38,393 35,002 (3,391) 70,000 70,000 0 Bridge Inspections 5,955 27,508 21,553 55,000 55,000 0 Jetties Maintenance 11,616 12,522 906 25,000 25,000 0 Total Bridge Expenses 72,731 85,520 12,789 171,000 171,000 0
Other Expenses Insurance Claims 1,393 2,400 1,007 4,800 4,800 0 Telephone - Charges 2,058 3,000 942 6,000 6,000 0 Total Other Expenses 3,451 5,400 1,949 10,800 10,800 0
Depreciation Depreciation 3,057,525 2,943,000 (114,525) 5,886,000 5,886,000 0 Depreciation 154,077 135,000 (19,077) 270,000 270,000 0 Total Depreciation 3,211,602 3,078,000 (133,602) 6,156,000 6,156,000 0
TOTAL EXPENSES 5,780,041 5,692,305 (87,736) 11,284,427 11,284,427 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (5,225,589) (5,137,797) (87,792) (10,175,411) (10,175,411) 0
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 230 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Plant - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE INTERNAL CHARGES EXPENSE Hire Charges - Internal 893,643 1,008,000 (114,357) 2,016,000 2,016,000 (0) TOTAL USER FEES 893,643 1,008,000 (114,357) 2,016,000 2,016,000 (0)
OTHER INCOME Reimbursements 0 12,000 (12,000) 24,000 24,000 (0) Sundry Receipts 0 300 (300) 600 600 (0) TOTAL RECURRENT GRANTS 0 12,300 (12,300) 24,600 24,600 (0)
TOTAL REVENUE 893,643 1,020,300 (126,657) 2,040,600 2,040,600 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 61,344 78,690 (17,346) 157,364 157,364 (0)
MATERIALS AND CONTRACTS GPS Tracker 348 3,000 2,652 6,000 6,000 (0) Contracts - External 5,305 4,800 (505) 9,600 9,600 (0) Parts 51,734 69,998 18,264 140,000 140,000 (0) Materials 27,616 39,600 11,984 80,000 80,000 (0) Fuel and Oil 134,605 111,000 (23,605) 225,000 225,000 (0) Workshop Consumables 3,841 8,400 4,559 17,000 17,000 (0) Workshop Expenses 6,614 13,200 6,586 26,400 26,400 (0) Workshop Equipment 2,555 9,600 7,045 20,000 20,000 (0) Motor Vehicle Registration 72,585 75,000 2,415 80,000 80,000 (0) Service and Repairs - External 62,855 64,800 1,945 130,000 130,000 (0) Tyres and Tubes 19,260 27,000 7,740 54,000 54,000 (0) Plant & Vehicle Costs - Internal 18,979 12,000 (6,979) 24,000 24,000 (0) Insurance - Motor Vehicles 44,045 45,000 955 45,000 45,000 (0) Radio Licence & Repairs 0 3,600 3,600 7,200 7,200 (0) Radio Sites - Maintenance 467 600 133 1,200 1,200 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 450,809 487,598 36,789 865,400 865,400 (0)
DEPRECIATION 393,975 384,000 (9,975) 768,000 768,000 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Sundry Costs 0 1,800 1,800 3,600 3,600 (0) Insurance Claim Excess 0 1,800 1,800 3,600 3,600 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 0 3,600 3,600 7,200 7,200 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 906,128 953,888 47,760 1,797,964 1,797,964 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT (12,485) 66,412 (78,897) 242,636 242,636 (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 231 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL – December 17 Private Works - Operating Income/Expenses
YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
REVENUE OTHER INCOME SOURCES Other Income 138,896 128,000 10,896 410,000 410,000 (0) TOTAL OTHER INCOME SOURCES 138,896 128,000 10,896 410,000 410,000 (0) TOTAL REVENUE 138,896 128,000 10,896 410,000 410,000 (0)
EXPENSES TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 63,072 49,980 (13,092) 100,000 100,000 (0)
MATERIALS AND SERVICES Contractors 11,917 0 (11,917) 0 0 (0) Materials 11,691 106,998 95,307 214,000 214,000 (0) Fuel and oil 2,664 0 (2,664) 0 0 (0) Plant and Vehicles Costs 24,250 0 (24,250) 0 0 (0) Plant Hire 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) Telephone 2,054 0 (2,054) 0 0 (0) Light & Power 4,753 0 (4,753) 0 0 (0) TOTAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES 57,329 106,998 49,669 214,000 214,000 (0)
OTHER EXPENSES Advertising & Marketing 461 0 (461) 0 0 (0) Other expenses 299 0 (299) 0 0 (0) TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES 760 0 (760) 0 0 (0)
TOTAL EXPENSES 121,161 156,978 35,817 314,000 314,000 (0)
TOTAL SURPLUS/ DEFICIT 17,735 (28,978) 46,713 96,000 96,000 (0)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 232 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017
Budget Actual IMG Carry Grants Commit- Remaini 2017/18 Adjustme Total Actual Total Forward Received ments ng nts
EXPENDITURE BY ASSET TYPE Roads 3,950,108 4,799,000 200,000 (42,538) 8,906,570 3,971,510 868,861 4,840,371 4,066,199 Stormwater 1,091,850 1,741,400 - - 2,833,250 400,578 154,139 554,717 2,278,533 Property 1,309,658 1,014,750 97,891 148,400 2,570,699 527,470 744,736 1,272,206 1,298,493 Other 461,325 626,758 - (105,862) 982,221 83,860 229,748 313,608 668,613 Sub total 6,812,941 8,181,908 297,891 - 15,292,740 4,983,417 1,997,485 6,980,902 8,311,838
Kingston Park - 10,000,000 - - 10,000,000 215,136 216,956 426,140 9,573,860 Grant total 6,527,941 17,807,150 221,000 - 24,556,091 3,843,782 1,555,352 5,393,182 19,162,909
Infrastructure Assets Kingston Park Expended 3% Committed 2%
Expended
Unexpended
Committed Unexpended
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 233 22 January 2018
CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURE BY YTD CATEGORY COMPARED TO BUDGET CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 234 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017
Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments Overall Project budget Kingston Park - 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 - - - 10,000,000 C00688 KP Boulevard Construction Kingston Park - - - - 18,323 - 6,760 (6,760) C00689 KP Promenade Design Kingston Park - - - - 376 - 376 (376) C00690 KP Community Hub Design Kingston Park - - - - 130,093 93,048 223,141 (223,141) C01614 Central Kingston Rd Design Kingston Park - - - - 43,818 - 43,818 (43,818) C01618 Boulevard Construction Kingston Park - - - - 36,075 36,075 (36,075) C01627 KP Site - Land Release Strategy Kingston Park - - - - 17,507 23,000 40,507 (40,507) C01628 KP Site - General Expenditure Kingston Park - - - - 19,500 19,500 (19,500) C03068 Kingston Park Operational Expenditure Kingston Park - - - - 25,200 45,000 70,200 (70,200) C03069 KP Community Hub Construction Kingston Park - - - - 50,413 48,130 98,544 (98,544) - 10,000,000 - - 10,000,000 341,305 209,178 538,920 9,461,080
C01375 Kingston Beach Hall Courtyard Upgrade Property 13,274 - 11,000 - 24,274 21,972 21,972 2,302 C01600 Civic Centre Renovations Property - - - - 63 - 63 (63) C01608 25A Osborne Esplanade Toilet Replacement Property - - - - 14,074 22,000 36,074 (36,074) C01611 Cat Facility Bruny Island Property 32,797 - - 32,797 1,749 - 1,749 31,048 C01612 Depot Dog Pound Waste System Property 10,170 - - 10,170 7,055 7,100 14,155 (3,985) C02313 KSC LED Light Upgrade Property 39,141 - 76,891 - 116,032 72,409 13,356 85,765 30,267 C02332 Alonnah New Toilet Block Property 126,716 - - 126,716 104,264 15,000 119,264 7,452 C02343 Kingston Beach Hall Upgrade Property 48,500 - - 48,500 37,570 37,570 10,930 C03001 Hall Acoustics - Dennes Point Hall Property - 10,000 - 10,000 - - - 10,000 C03002 Margate Hall Floor Replacement Property - 11,000 5,400 16,400 11,162 - 11,162 5,238 C03003 Sports Ground Lighting - Kingston Beach Property - 180,000 45,000 225,000 2,072 210,224 212,296 12,704 C03004 KSC Level 2 Men's Shower Room Upgrade Property - 143,750 - 143,750 - 75,800 75,800 67,950 C03005 Coningham Toilet Block Replacement Property - 175,000 - 175,000 985 - 985 174,015 C03006 Sandfly Hall Toilets - Wastewater Replacement Property - 15,000 - 15,000 20,090 20,090 (5,090) C03007 Kingston Beach Oval Gymnasium Extension Property - 60,000 10,000 - 70,000 6,039 - 6,039 63,961 C03009 Cricket Net Replacement - Woodbridge Oval Property - 33,000 - 33,000 43,923 43,923 (10,923) C03047 Tracks & Trails Assessment Property - 15,000 - 15,000 - - - 15,000 C03067 Depot Security Upgrade Property - - 14,835 14,835 14,835 - 14,835 - C03071 Depot Improvements 17/18 Property - 60,000 (14,835) 45,165 7,499 40,535 48,033 (2,868) C01133 Snug to Margate Cycleway Property 3,549 - - 3,549 4,757 15,837 20,594 (17,045) C01182 Margate to Snug shared path Property 686,286 - - 686,286 20,545 1,363 21,908 664,378 960,433 702,750 97,891 50,400 1,811,474 391,061 401,214 792,276 1,019,198
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 235 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017
Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments C00613 Purchase IT Equipment IT - - - - 12,200 - 12,200 (12,200) C00672 Digital Local Government Program IT 82,715 - - 82,715 15,197 15,197 67,518 C00686 Records Management System Upgrade IT 6,488 - - 6,488 - - - 6,488 C01601 Civic Centre Card Security System IT 12,000 - - 12,000 12,512 - 12,512 (512) C01602 Financial Systems Replacement IT 316,122 - - 316,122 7,293 205,703 212,996 103,126 C01625 Epathway Booking System IT ------C01626 Networking Switching Phone System IT 36,000 - - 36,000 33,164 - 33,164 2,836 C03070 Desktop PC Replacement IT - 252,000 - 252,000 1,377 22,100 23,477 228,523 453,325 252,000 - - 705,325 81,742 227,803 309,545 395,780
C01622 Investigation into Water Bores Bruny Isl Other 8,000 - - 8,000 1,218 1,945 3,163 4,837 C03076 Dennes Point Land Acquisition Land - - 900 - 900 (900) C03077 Maddocks Road land acquisition Land - - - - - 8,000 - - - 8,000 2,118 1,945 4,063 3,937
C90003 Design/survey for future works Design - 50,000 - 50,000 - - - 50,000 C01629 Future Capital Works Design - - - - 44,871 - 44,871 (44,871) C03063 Parish Lane - Reconstruction & Sealing Design - - - - 2,018 - 2,018 (2,018) C03065 Beach Rd - Church St to Roslyn Ave Footpath Widen Design - - - - 6,001 - 6,001 (6,001) C03066 Talone Avenue - Reconstruction Design - - - - 3,144 - 3,144 (3,144) - 50,000 - - 50,000 56,034 - 56,034 (6,034)
C02317 Adventure Bay Foreshore Path Reserves 2,920 - - 2,920 2,120 - 2,120 800 C02334 Blackmans Bay Skate Park Upgrade Reserves - - - - 1,276 1,276 (1,276) C02335 Cottage Rd To Kingston Wetlands walking Reserves 10,000 - - 10,000 4,363 - 4,363 5,637 C02342 Kingston Beach Swing Set Reserves 5,553 - - 5,553 7,686 7,686 (2,133) C03008 Lightwood Park - New soccer Training Ground Reserves - 312,000 - 312,000 84,069 167,865 251,934 60,066 C03073 Blackmans Bay Playground Development Reserves - - 23,307 57,783 81,090 (81,090) C03075 KSC Water Connection Upgrades Reserves 98,000 98,000 1,300 98,000 99,300 (1,300) 18,473 312,000 - 98,000 428,473 124,121 323,648 447,769 (19,296)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 236 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017 Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments C00294 North West Bay Bridge Upgrade Bridges 66,640 - - 66,640 77,650 - 77,650 (11,010) C01089 Summerleas Rd/Leslie Rd Junction Squaring Roads - - - - 13,485 - 13,485 (13,485) C01082 Dru Point Seawall & Road Widening Roads 1,161,493 - - 1,161,493 1,091,019 92,192 1,183,211 (21,718) C01142 Beach Rd Margate Rehab Roads - - - - 7,806 - 7,806 (7,806) C01153 Kingston Beach Master Plan - Stage 5 Roads - - - - 70,700 70,700 (70,700) C01158 Powell Rd - Footpath/Drainage Improvement Roads 1,208,278 - - 1,208,278 312,632 5,861 318,493 889,785 C01163 Pelverata Rd/Sandfly Rd Junction reseal Roads - - - - - 1,468 1,468 (1,468) C01171 Tingira Road Safety Improvements Roads 23,963 - - 23,963 1,146 6,582 7,728 16,235 C01173 Kunama Drive Upgrade vic19-49 Roads 459,303 - - 459,303 381,291 26,914 408,206 51,097 C01174 Old Station Upgrade Ch0-418 Roads 177,000 - - 177,000 152,422 152,422 24,578 C01177 Beach Road Margate Upgrade vic Roads - - - - 618 - 618 (618) C01183 Beach Road Upgrade vic Motel Roads - - - - 523 - 523 (523) C01185 Hutchins Street Reseal vic48-72 Roads - - 151 - 151 (151) C01187 Roslyn Avenue RAB Reseal vic 93 Roads - - 652 - 652 (652) C01190 Kiama Place Reseal vic12-18 Roads - - 113 - 113 (113) C01191 Kiama Place Reseal vic1-11 Roads - - 151 - 151 (151) C01192 Tingira Road Reseal vic2-30 Roads - - 170 - 170 (170) C01193 Burwood Road Reseal vic1-21 Roads - - 151 - 151 (151) C01196 Summerleas Road Reseal vic208-260 Roads - - 264 - 264 (264) C02101 Tinderbox Road-gravel resheeting Roads - - - - 2,631 - 2,631 (2,631) C02106 Kingston Bch Foreshore Esp 30-32 Roads 702,815 - - 702,815 435,377 240,938 676,316 26,499 C02108 Summerleas Rd - 354 Onwards Roads 100,000 - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 C02109 Whitewater Creek Walkway Bridge Replacem Roads 10,686 - - 10,686 344 9,860 10,204 482 C02110 Channel Hwy vic Oakleigh Ave Roads 22,000 - - 22,000 23,800 - 23,800 (1,800) C02112 Summerleas Rd Protect Embank Roads 7,897 - - 7,897 3,925 3,925 3,972 C02113 Pavement Protection Roads - - - - 4,693 - 4,693 (4,693) C03010 Kelvedon Avenue Turning Facility Roads - 45,000 55,462 100,462 11,527 78,500 90,027 10,435 C03011 Redwood Road to Willow Avenue Lane Upgrade Roads - 15,000 - 15,000 8,329 79 8,408 6,592 C03012 Tinderbox Beach and Reserve Upgrade Roads - 250,000 - 250,000 3,374 - 3,374 246,626 C03013 Pearl Place to Opal Drive Footpath Upgrade Roads - 20,000 - 20,000 - - - 20,000 C03014 Oxleys Road Sealing-Channel Hwy to Groombridge Rd Roads - 540,000 - 540,000 45,756 4,882 50,639 489,361 C03015 Morris Avenue Rehabilitation Roads - 350,000 - 350,000 13,797 - 13,797 336,203 C01176 Blanche Avenue Reconstruction Roads 6,969 - - 6,969 8,589 - 8,589 (1,620) C03016 Blanche Avenue Reconstruction Roads - 260,000 - 260,000 2,898 162,825 165,723 94,277 C03017 Palmers Road Junction Safety Improvements Roads - 30,000 - 30,000 3,949 - 3,949 26,051 C03018 Mountain Road Rehabilitation Roads - 350,000 - 350,000 30,090 862 30,952 319,048 C03019 Brightwater Road renewal and stormwater Roads - 495,000 (463,000) 32,000 1,964 - 1,964 30,036 C03020 Great Bay Boatramp Upgrade and Improvements Bridges - 40,000 - 40,000 2,169 - 2,169 37,831 C01143 Pelverata Rd Upgrade Roads 3,064 - - 3,064 27,233 6,493 33,725 (30,661) C03021 Pelverata Road Upgrade Roads - 250,000 - 250,000 16,694 816 17,510 232,490 C03048 Lighthouse Rd Upgrade - Blackspot Grant Roads - - 200,000 - 200,000 35,486 17,354 52,840 147,160 C03062 Kingston Beach - Beach Rd to Victoria St Foreshore Roads - - - - 552 - 552 (552) C03064 John Street Kingston - Reconstruction Roads - - - - 26,008 - 26,008 (26,008)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 237 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017
Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments C03074 Resurfacing Beach Road, Margate Roads - - 615,000 615,000 50,000 50,000 565,000 C90004 Geotechnical investigation for future works Other - 50,000 - 50,000 - - - 50,000 C90005 Works necessitated by development - Roads Other - 50,000 (6,350) 43,650 - - - 43,650 C03079 Tanina News footpath extension Roads - - 6,350 6,350 - - - 6,350 C90006 Access ramps Roads - 10,000 - 10,000 - - - 10,000
C90002 2017/18 Resheeting Program Roads - 844,000 (844,000) - - - - - C03043 Killora Rd Resheeting Roads - - 102,000 102,000 82,070 12,397 94,466 7,534 C03044 Cemetery Road Bruny Resheeting Roads - - 109,000 109,000 1,372 5,412 6,784 102,216 C03045 Old Station Road Resheeting Roads - - 210,000 210,000 188,231 - 188,231 21,769 C03059 Risby Road Resheeting - 20 to 2490 Roads 149,000 149,000 93,313 36,230 129,543 19,457 C03060 McKenzies Road Resheeting - 27 to 2011 Roads - - 120,000 120,000 27,679 2,445 30,124 89,876 C03061 Krauses Road Resheeting - 10 to 2570 Roads - - 154,000 154,000 13,386 2,983 16,369 137,631
C90001 2017/18 Resealing Program Roads - 1,150,000 (1,150,000) - - - - - C01186 Coolamon Road Reseal Ch0-100 Roads - - - - 113 - 113 (113) C03046 Nierinna Road Resealing Roads - - 244,000 244,000 98,111 138,025 236,136 7,864 C03049 Roslyn Avenue Resealing - 1573 to 1805 Roads 54,000 54,000 56,680 6,010 62,690 (8,690) C03050 Summerleas Rd Resealing - 1071 to 1451 Roads 105,000 105,000 90,069 2,767 92,836 12,164 C03051 Redwood Road Resealing - 6 to 510 Roads - - 167,000 167,000 171,557 3,280 174,837 (7,837) C03052 Maddock Street Resealing - 1 to 10 Roads 4,000 4,000 - - - 4,000 C03053 Hiern Street Resealing - 0 to 567 Roads - - 141,000 141,000 126,882 3,686 130,568 10,432 C03054 Nansen Court Resealing - 0 to 138 Roads 35,000 35,000 30,748 30,748 4,252 C03055 Maranoa Road Resealing - Heavy Patching Roads 9,000 9,000 949 - 949 8,051 C03056 Denison Street Resealing - Heavy Patching Roads 20,000 20,000 - - - 20,000 C03057 Browns Road Resealing - Heavy Patching Roads ------C03058 Opal Drive Resealing - 16 to 22 Roads 20,000 20,000 - - - 20,000 C03080 Frost St, Snug - Heavy Patching Roads 65,000 65,000 64,190 - 64,190 810 C03081 Charlton St, Snug - Heavy Patching Roads 36,000 36,000 - - - 36,000
3,950,108 4,749,000 200,000 (42,538) 8,856,570 3,915,476 868,861 4,784,337 4,072,233
C00693 Barretta Site Office Solid Waste - - - - 60 - 60 (60) C01604 BWTS Tip Shop Extension Solid Waste 27,277 - - 27,277 5,789 - 5,789 21,488 C01609 Barretta Landfill Gas Extraction Ext Solid Waste 218,049 - - 218,049 318 17,000 17,318 200,731 C01610 BWTS Re-Use Shop Fencing Solid Waste 77,426 - - 77,426 - - - 77,426 C01619 KWS Security Camera Upgrade Solid Waste - - - - 2,185 - 2,185 (2,185) C01620 KWS Green Waste Area Roadworks Solid Waste 8,000 - - 8,000 3,936 2,874 6,810 1,190 330,752 - - - 330,752 12,288 19,874 32,162 298,590
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 238 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017 Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments
C00509 Coffee Creek WSUD Treatment Stormwater - - - - 132 - 132 (132) C00540 Coningham Stormwater Pgrm-Stage 2 Stormwater - - - - 2,786 - 2,786 (2,786) C00560 Denehey/Hackford Drainage Upgrade Stormwater - - - - 226 - 226 (226) C00561 Kingston Beach Flood Study Stormwater 7,945 - - 7,945 - 9,615 9,615 (1,670) C00580 4 Tanina Mews SW Design Stormwater 30,155 - - 30,155 - - - 30,155 C00584 Beach Rd Middleton SW Upgrade Stormwater 55,540 - - 55,540 92,336 3,770 96,106 (40,566) C00586 Pearsall Ave SW Upgrade Stormwater - - - - 66 - 66 (66) C00587 Taronga Rd SW Upgrade St 2 Stormwater 54,666 - - 54,666 31,095 18,413 49,508 5,158 C00589 Illawarra Rd SW Upgrade St 2 Stormwater 510,000 - - 510,000 6,102 19,696 25,798 484,202 C00590 Flood Gauge Stormwater 64,360 - - 64,360 6,266 58,100 64,366 (6) C00593 Tinderbox Reserve Master Plan S1 Stormwater 39,150 - - 39,150 500 7,660 8,160 30,990 C00595 Blackmans Bay MDS Stormwater - - - - 376 - 376 (376) C00597 Kingston Beach MDS Stormwater - - - - 1,846 - 1,846 (1,846) C00598 Snug Flood Study Stormwater 28,216 - - 28,216 36,960 5,000 41,960 (13,744) C01382 Margate Esplanade Coastal Erosion Stormwater - - - - 493 - 493 (493) C01500 Adventure Bay Flood Study Stormwater 10,000 - - 10,000 24 - 24 9,976 C02102 Margate Espl Rd Stabilisation Stormwater 291,818 - - 291,818 11,363 6,001 17,364 274,454 C02103 Nebraska Rd Stabilisation Stormwater - - - - 1,043 - 1,043 (1,043) C03022 Coffee Creek Channel Stabilisation - Stage 2 Stormwater - 101,600 - 101,600 3,812 - 3,812 97,788 C03023 Tyndall Beach Erosion Stabilisation Stormwater - 111,000 - 111,000 1,134 - 1,134 109,866 C03024 Blowhole Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 57,000 - 57,000 8,748 - 8,748 48,252 C03025 Aberys Road (Vic 7) Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 28,000 - 28,000 4,473 - 4,473 23,527 C03026 Algona Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 289,000 - 289,000 7,282 - 7,282 281,719 C03027 Andersons Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 36,000 - 36,000 23,579 400 23,979 12,021 C03028 Moodys Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 32,000 - 32,000 33,126 - 33,126 (1,126) C03029 Besters & Clarks Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 50,000 - 50,000 31,652 - 31,652 18,348 C03030 Channel Highway (vic HN 4515) Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 24,000 - 24,000 12,138 2,130 14,269 9,731 C03031 Hopfields Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 7,800 - 7,800 410 - 410 7,390 C03032 23 Combes Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 15,000 - 15,000 7,499 2,807 10,306 4,694 C03033 Kaoota Road Drainage Upgrade Stormwater - 65,000 - 65,000 47,356 3,345 50,702 14,298 C03034 Pelverata Road (vic HN240) Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 33,000 - 33,000 6,715 17,201 23,915 9,085 C03035 Kingston Village Dam Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 41,000 - 41,000 1,438 - 1,438 39,562 C03036 Frosts/Van Morey Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 34,000 - 34,000 1,613 - 1,613 32,387 C03037 Whitewater Creek Stabilisation Stormwater - 109,000 - 109,000 3,778 - 3,778 105,222 C03038 School Creek Inlet Works Stormwater - 41,000 - 41,000 869 - 869 40,131 C03039 Chandlers Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 15,000 - 15,000 1,349 - 1,349 13,651 C03040 Nebraska Road Stabilisation Stormwater - 408,000 - 408,000 3,362 - 3,362 404,638 C03041 Drysdale Creek Channel Stabilisation Stormwater - 66,000 - 66,000 794 - 794 65,206 C03042 Culvert Improvements Adventure Bay Road Stormwater - 48,000 - 48,000 533 - 533 47,467 C90008 Stormwater Master Drainage Scheme Development Stormwater - 80,000 - 80,000 - - - 80,000 C90007 Works necessitated by development - Stormwater Stormwater - 50,000 (28,000) 22,000 - - - 22,000 C03078 Dallas Ave Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - - 28,000 28,000 7,306 7,306 20,694 ______
Agenda No. 2 Page 239 22 January 2018
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 31/12/2017
Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments ------1,091,850 1,741,400 - - 2,833,250 400,578 154,139 554,717 2,278,533
B00000 Capital Balancing Account Other (105,862) (105,862) (105,862) On costs on capital project 374,758 374,758 374,758
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 6,812,941 18,181,908 297,891 - - 25,292,740 5,324,722 2,206,663 7,519,822 17,772,918
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 240 22 January 2018
AUTHOR : DANIEL SMEE – MANAGER GOVERNANCE & PROPERTY SERVICES FILE NO : 12.119 DATE : 3 JANUARY 2018
GOVERNANCE AND PROPERTY SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2017
Governance:
Two meetings of the Bruny Island Advisory Committee (BIAC) were held in this quarter (12 October and 14 December).
Fee Exemptions Policy developed and approved by Council.
Delegated Authority Policy updated.
Report prepared canvassing issues in relation to the development of a policy for the sale of Council land.
Delegations arranged in accordance with Council’s Delegated Authority Policy.
Various event and reserve permits issued in accordance with Council’s By-Laws.
Information provided to the Integrity Commission, Local Government Division and LGAT in relation to Council Policies.
Property Management:
Land sale finalised with TasWater for land adjacent to the Blackmans Bay Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Valuations obtained for land parcels associated with land acquisition in Maddocks Road.
Negotiations with landowner in relation to transfer or foreshore land in Nebraska Road and requirement for licence agreements over boatsheds.
Preparation of an inspection schedule for leased/licenced buildings.
Discussion paper prepared in regard to the future use of the Bruny Island Airstrip.
Referrals assessed for a range of development applications involving Council owned land or adjacent to Council owned land.
Tenancy agreement prepared for Blackmans Bay Childrens Services to enable occupation of the Family Day Care premises post transfer of service to 22 December 2017.
Right of Way for 12 Sports Road finalised as per Council resolution.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 241 22 January 2018
Recreational Planning:
Consultant appointed to finalise Kingborough Public Open Space Strategy.
Meetings held with stakeholders to plan for the JLT AFL Pre-season match to be held at the Twin Ovals on 24 February 2018.
Draft concept prepared for the development of an additional turf wicket sportsground in Kingborough as per Council’s resolution.
Development of a Master Plan for the Dru Point Reserve progressed by consultants.
Meetings held with Kingborough Lions United Football Club regarding the development of a new sportsground an lighting at Lightwood Park.
Lightwood Park Soccer Hub Feasibility study progressed by consultants.
Tracks and Trails audit undertaken, with data obtained to be cross-checked with Council tracks publications for amendments and modifications.
Investigation underway for shared use trial of Alum Cliffs track in 2018, quotes obtained for initial upgrade work prior to a trial.
Grant application submitted to the Department of State Growth’s Cycle Tourism Fund for the final section of the Snug to Margate Cycleway.
On-going negotiations with Friends of North Bruny regarding signage for the Dennes Point Heritage Trail.
Meetings held with head tenants regarding renewal of the Twin Ovals Pavilion tenancy agreement.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 242 22 January 2018
Building Maintenance:
66 service requests actioned.
Quarterly hall and playground inspections completed.
The Margate Hall floor was repaired and the entire floor sanded and re-sealed.
Building plans were prepared for the extension to the Kingston Beach Oval gymnasium.
Meetings held with members of the Lunawanna Hall Management Committee in relation to the replacement of the public toilet facility at the hall.
Quotes obtained for replacement of floor coverings in Twin Ovals Pavilion.
Crown Land consent obtained for the lodgement of a development application for the construction of a new toilet block at Coningham Beach at the following location:
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 243 22 January 2018
Sportsgrounds and Turf Maintenance:
Construction of new ground at Lightwood Park underway.
All ovals maintained and line-marked for summer sports.
Replacment of cricket nets at Woodbridge Oval completed.
Quotes obtained for installation of drainage systems in Margate and Snug Ovals.
Twin Ovals Cricket Ground prepared for Australian U/19 Cricket Carnival held in December.
Insurance claim and police report lodged following vandalism to wicket covers at the Twin Ovals (see below):
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 244 22 January 2018
Emergency Management:
The Kingborough Community Resilience Working Group was established with two meetings held to date.
The Recovery Coordinator completed a walk-through of the Kingborough Sports Centre with SES staff to determine most appropriate set up for Evacuation Centre.
The Emergency Management Coordinator and Recovery Coordinator met with a representative of Mumford’s Pride regarding an offer for university student volunteers to assist in any emergency or recovery situation.
The Emergency Management Coordinator attended the Local Government Professionals ‘Resilience in the Face of Adversity’ conference, the Southern Regional Emergency Management Committee Meeting and a Desktop Planning Exercise with Tas Police and Tas Fire services.
The emergency supplies trailer has been fitted out with shelves and equipment and re- located to the Sports Centre.
An application for the Natural Disaster Resilience Grants Program (NDRGP) to provide funds to purchase and install a generator at the Sports Centre was prepared.
Compliance:
Signs stencilled on footpaths at Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay to provide advice in relation to dog restrictions in accordance with Council’s Dog Management Policy.
The implications of the Dog Control Amendment Act 2017, which came into effect on 20 December 2017, are being assessed.
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 245 22 January 2018
Key statistics for the reporting period are as follows:
Animals Dog on Beach/Reserve 9 Exceeding two dogs on property 3 Dog at Large 42 Dog Attack - person 6 Dog Attack - animal 10 Dog Found 67 Dog Lost 37 Dog Defecating 0 Nuisance Complaint - Informal 23 Nuisance Complaint - Formal 2 Animal on Road (other than dog) 1 Animal General Request for action 23 Rooster Complaint 6 Unregistered Dogs 3 Inspection of application to keep several dogs 6 Renewal Inspection for keeping of several dogs 0 Annual/Quarterly Dog Inspection (Dangerous/Restricted/Guard) 0 Withdrawal Applications - Animal 2 Micro-chipping 29
Total 269
Enforcement Open Air Burning 12 By-Law Exemption Section 18(2) Health & Environmental 6 By Law Enforcement - Includes Illegal Signs 0 General Request for Action 18 Vehicles 0 Fire Hazard in Residential Areas 32 Fire Hazard in Rural Areas 29 Proactive Fire Hazard Request 1 Inspection for Skip Bin Applications 5 Parking Patrols 21 Withdrawal Applications - Parking 0 Withdrawal Applications - By-law 71
Total 280
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 246 22 January 2018
After Hours Call Outs Emergency (dog found/danger) 27 Non Emergency (lost/at large) 13
Applications Kennel Licence Applications 3 Skip Bin Applications 0
Impounded Dogs Dogs returned to owner 34 Dogs Taken to RSPCA 1 Dogs Euthanised 0
Infringements Issued Parking 646 Dog Control Act 47 Council By-Laws 6 EMPCA 0
Figure 1 – Parking Infringements Issued per Month
350
2014/2015 300 2015/2016 250 2016/2017 200 2017/2018 150
100
50
0
Jan
Jun
Oct
Apr
Feb
July
Dec
Nov
Mar
May Sept August
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 247 22 January 2018
Figure 2 – Animal Infringements Issued per Month
70
60
2014/2015 50 2015/2016 40 2016/2017 30 2017/2018 20
10
0
Jan
Jun
Oct
Apr
Feb
July
Dec
Nov
Mar
May Sept
August
Figure 3 – Number of Dogs Impounded per Month
18
16
14 2014
12 2015
10 2016
2017 8
6
4
2
0
July
May
June
April
March
August
January
October
February
December November September
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 248 22 January 2018
CONFIRMATION OF ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH IN CLOSED SESSION
MOVED SECONDED
That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 the following items are to be dealt with in Closed Session.
Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Matter Regulations 2015 Reference
Applications for Leave of Absence 15(2)(h)
Tender Assessment - AB1616 Margate Esplanade Coastal 15(2)(d) Stabilisation
Court Cases for the Period October to December 2017 15(2)(i)
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
CLOSED SESSION
MOVED SECONDED
That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 that Council move into Closed Session.
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 249 22 January 2018
In accordance with the Kingborough Council Meetings Audio Recording Guidelines Policy, recording of the open session of the meeting will now cease.
Open Session of Council adjourned at
OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 250 22 January 2018
OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES
Open Session of Council resumed at
MOVED SECONDED
The Closed Session of Council having met and dealt with its business resolves to report that it has determined the following:
Subject Decisions/Documents Applications for Leave of Absence
Tender Assessment - AB1616 Margate Esplanade Coastal Stabilisation
Court Cases for the Period October to December 2017
Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Dr Bury Cr Winter Cr Chatterton Cr Wriedt Cr Fox
CLOSURE
There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at
...... (Confirmed) (Date)
______
Agenda No. 2 Page 251 22 January 2018