City-Of-Subiaco-Local-Government-Reform-Submission-September-2009.Pdf

Contents

PART A

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Proposal One...... 2 1.2 Proposal Two...... 2 1.3 Proposal Three ...... 3 1.4 Proposal Four ...... 4 2.0 CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBOURING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ...... 6 2.1 Proposal One...... 6 2.2 Proposal Two...... 6 2.3 Proposal Three ...... 6 2.4 Proposal Four ...... 8 3.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...... 9 3.1 Public Consultation – Proposal One ...... 9 3.2 Public Consultation – Proposal Two ...... 9 3.3 Public Consultation – Proposal Three ...... 9 3.4 Public Consultation – Proposal Four ...... 12 4.0 FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE CITY OF SUBIACO ...... 13 4.1 Proposal One...... 13 4.1.1 Non-current Assets ...... 13 4.1.2 Employee Costs ...... 13 4.1.3 Contractors and Consultants ...... 13 4.1.4 Grants ...... 13 4.1.5 Rates ...... 13 4.1.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure ...... 13 4.1.7 Conclusion ...... 13 4.2 Proposal Two...... 13 4.2.1 Non-current Assets ...... 13 4.2.2 Employee Costs ...... 13 4.2.3 Contractors and Consultants ...... 14 4.2.4 Grants ...... 14 4.2.5 Rates ...... 14 4.2.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure ...... 14 4.2.7 Conclusion ...... 14 4.3 Proposal Three ...... 14 4.3.1 Non-current Assets ...... 14 4.3.2 Employee Costs ...... 15 4.3.3 Contractors and Consultants ...... 15 4.3.4 Grants ...... 15 4.3.5 Rates ...... 15 4.3.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure ...... 15 4.3.7 Conclusion ...... 16 4.4 Proposal Four ...... 16 4.4.1 Non-current Assets ...... 16 4.4.2 Employee Costs ...... 16 4.4.3 Contractors and Consultants ...... 17 4.4.4 Grants ...... 17 4.4.5 Rates ...... 17 4.4.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure ...... 18 4.4.7 Conclusion ...... 18 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSALS ...... 19 5.1 Proposal One...... 19 5.1.1 Community of Interests ...... 19 5.1.2 Physical and Topographic Features ...... 19 5.1.3 Demographic Trends ...... 19 5.1.4 Economic Factors ...... 19 5.1.5 History of the Area ...... 19 5.1.6 Transport and Communication ...... 19 5.1.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments ...... 19 5.1.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services ...... 20 5.1.9 Conclusion ...... 20 5.2 Proposal Two...... 20 5.2.1 Community of Interests ...... 20 5.2.2 Physical and Topographic Features ...... 20 5.2.3 Demographic Trends ...... 20 5.2.4 Economic Factors ...... 20 5.2.5 History of the Area ...... 20 5.2.6 Transport and Communication ...... 20 5.2.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments ...... 21 5.2.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services ...... 21 5.2.9 Conclusion ...... 21 5.3 Proposal Three ...... 21 5.3.1 Community of Interests ...... 21 5.3.2 Physical and Topographic Features ...... 22 5.3.3 Demographic Trends ...... 22 5.3.4 Economic Factors ...... 22 5.3.5 History of the Area ...... 23 5.3.6 Transport and Communication ...... 23 5.3.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments ...... 24 5.3.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services ...... 25 5.3.9 Conclusion ...... 25 5.4 Proposal Four ...... 26 5.4.1 Community of Interests ...... 26 5.4.2 Physical and Topographic Features ...... 27 5.4.3 Demographic Trends ...... 27 5.4.4 Economic Factors ...... 27 5.4.5 History of the Area ...... 27 5.4.6 Transport and Communication ...... 27 5.4.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments ...... 28 5.4.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services ...... 28 5.4.9 Conclusion ...... 29 1.0 NUMBER & RATIO OF COUNCILLORS TO ELECTORS ...... 30 1.1 Review of Numbers of Councillors ...... 30 1.2 Proposed Representation ...... 32 1.3 Demographic Trends ...... 32 2.0 WARDS ...... 33 2.1 Consistency with Representation between Wards ...... 33 2.2 Community of Interest ...... 33 3.0 CONCLUSION ...... 33 1.0 EXISTING REGIONAL GROUPINGS ...... 34 1.1 Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of Councils ...... 34 1.2 Western Metropolitan Regional Council ...... 34 1.3 Central Metropolitan Zone of WALGA ...... 34 2.0 PREFERRED REGIONAL GROUPING ...... 34 3.0 CONCLUSION ...... 35 1.0 BOUNDARY PROPOSALS ONE AND TWO ...... 36 2.0 BOUNDARY PROPOSALS THREE AND FOUR ...... 36

PART A – BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Subiaco has been assessed by the State Government’s Local Government Reform Steering Committee as a Category One local government i.e.

...the evidence indicates that there is existing organisational and financial capacity to meet future and community needs. Local governments should still consider reform opportunities which enhance service provision to local and regional communities.

In order to enhance service provision to local and regional communities, the City of Subiaco has identified a number of reform opportunities and is proposing four boundary adjustments with three neighbouring local governments. These boundary adjustments are shown on the map at Appendix 1.

Proposal One is intended to enhance service provision to a local community. Proposals Two, Three and Four are intended to enhance service provision to regional communities.

The proposals seek the transfer of parts of the Town of Cambridge, the City of Perth and the City of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco.

Proposal One: Transfer those parts of the Town of Cambridge bounded by:- • Salvado Road, Hart Lane and Jersey Street to the City of Subiaco, and • from the Selby Street and Hay Street intersection, east along Hay Street to the eastern boundary of 673 Hay St then south along that boundary, then west along the southern boundaries of 673-679 Hay Street, then south along the eastern boundary of 681 Hay Street and the eastern boundary of 20 Dakin Street, then west along Dakin Street to its intersection with Northmore Street, then south along Northmore Street to the southern boundary of 51 Northmore Street, then west along the southern boundary of 51 Northmore Street and 89 Selby Street to its intersection with Selby Street then north to the starting point.

Proposal Two: Transfer that part of the City of Perth bounded by Park Avenue, Crawley Avenue, the Swan River foreshore, the southernmost boundary of the City of Perth, the westernmost boundary of the City of Perth along Winthrop Avenue and Thomas Street to its intersection with Bagot Road, then generally east to the westernmost boundary of Kings Park, then south west and south along that boundary to the Park Avenue boundary of Kings Park.

Proposal Three: Transfer that part of the City of Nedlands bounded by Aberdare Road, Hospital Avenue, Monash Avenue, Hampden Road, Broadway, the Swan River foreshore, the northern boundary of Birdwood Park, Bruce Street, Edward Street, Webster Street, Stirling Highway and Smyth Road (incorporating those private properties abutting both sides of the latter five thoroughfares) to its intersection with Aberdare Road.

Proposal Four: Transfer that part of the locality of Karrakatta currently within the City of Nedlands that is north of the Perth-Fremantle railway line and that part of the locality of Shenton Park currently within the City of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco.

1.1 Proposal One Data from the Town of Cambridge shows that there are 65 electors in the area affected by Proposal One. The proposal area encompasses approximately 5 hectares and contains 49 residential properties.

There are a number of landmarks in close proximity to the proposal area including Henderson Park, site of the old City of Perth plant nursery, Matthews Netball Centre and car park, Mabel Talbot Park, Cliff Sadlier Park and Jolimont Primary School.

The City provides the following claims in support of the proposal:

• There is a strong community of interest between the affected area and the City of Subiaco. The residents in the area utilise the Subiaco retail and commercial areas, the Lords recreational facility, Mabel Talbot Park, the Cliff Sadlier Park and the Jolimont Primary School;

• The topography of the proposal area is more consistent with the neighbouring residential and park areas located in the City of Subiaco rather than with the surrounding areas;

• There are greater economies of scale to be obtained with the City of Subiaco servicing these residential properties rather than the Town of Cambridge.

1.2 Proposal Two Data from the City of Perth shows that there are 59 electors in the area affected by Proposal Two. Collectively, they reside in the university colleges of St George’s College, St Thomas More College and Currie Hall.

The proposal area consists of approximately 30 hectares of land near the intersection of Mounts Bay Road and Hackett Drive.

The land contains several significant buildings including part of Winthrop Hall and all of Hackett Hall, Dolphin Theatre, St George’s College, St Thomas More College and Currie Hall. With the exception of these buildings (and minor adjoining recreation and music buildings and facilities) all other campus buildings and facilities on the Crawley campus of the University of Western Australia (UWA) fall within the boundaries of the City of Subiaco.

UWA land is generally non-rateable.

The City of Perth rate bill for St George’s College and St Thomas More College was approximately $9,000 in 2009/10.

The City of Subiaco provides the following claims in support of the proposal:

• There is a strong community of interest between the affected area and the much larger area containing the majority of university buildings and facilities located within the City of Subiaco;

• The proposal supports the UWA’s 2008 ‘UniverCity’ Strategic Asset Review and the “arc of knowledge” (see Appendix 2);

• The UWA has expressed its support for reducing the number of local governments it has to deal with for administrative and planning purposes;

• The existing boundary alignment follows no recognisable built or natural feature, and

• The City of Perth agrees that the existing boundary makes little sense.

1.3 Proposal Three Using data from the City of Nedlands 2007 electoral roll, it is estimated that there are upwards of 2,525 electors in the area affected by Proposal Three. The proposal area encompasses approximately 216 hectares and contains 1,618 rateable properties.

There are a number of landmarks within the proposal area, including the City of Nedlands Administration Office & Council Chambers, the City of Nedlands Library, Drabble House, Nedlands Primary School, Charles Court Reserve, part of the Edward Bruce Foreshore, the Nedlands campus of the UWA, the QE2 Medical Centre, Hollywood Private Hospital, Hollywood Aged Care Village, Hollywood Primary School and Highview Park.

The City provides the following claims in support of the proposal:

• There is a strong community of interest between the University of the Western Australia and the QE2 Medical Centre based on research and education.

• There is a strong community of interest between the Nedlands campus of the UWA and other university buildings and facilities located within the City of Subiaco on the Crawley campus.

• The proposal supports the UWA’s 2008 ‘UniverCity’ Strategic Asset Review and the “arc of knowledge” (see Appendix 2); • The UWA has expressed its support for reducing the number of local governments it has to deal with for administrative and planning purposes;

• There is a strong community of interest between the proposal area and the City of Subiaco. Local residents utilise the Broadway Fair Shopping Centre, Hampden Road shopping facilities, the facilities at the UWA and the river foreshore, which extends to Matilda Bay;

• There is an historical anomaly in the district boundary between the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco, which is based on an old tram route. The boundary is no longer relevant and the district boundary should be amended to remove this anomaly;

• As a boundary road, the development and maintenance of the Hampden Road and Broadway is currently hindered by differing local government priorities, maintenance regimes and community expectations.

• The proposed Smyth Road boundary at its intersection with Stirling Highway lends itself as a landmark identifier of the City of Subiaco as a regional town centre and the UWA and the QE2 Medical Centre as specialised strategic centres as identified by the Draft State Planning Policy – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (see Appendix 3)

• The City of Subiaco has a track record of successfully dealing with complex planning issues, increases in residential density and management of the river foreshore. The City provides effective and efficient local government services to its community as

evidenced by its Category One status and is particularly well placed to deal with inner city urban renewal and development pressures.

• Local government infrastructure within the proposal area has been allowed to deteriorate over several decades. The City of Subiaco has a stronger capacity to upgrade the infrastructure over a shorter period of time.

1.4 Proposal Four Using data from the City of Nedlands 2007 electoral roll, there are 60 electors in the area affected by Proposal Four. Over 90% of these electors reside within the institutional care facilities of Florence Hummerston Village and the Quadriplegic Centre.

The proposal area encompasses approximately 237 hectares and contains 23 rateable properties.

There are a number of landmarks within the proposal area, including the UWA’s Research Park, Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant, JFR McGeough Resource Recovery Facility, Florence Hummerston Village, Quadriplegic Centre, Royal Perth Hospital Shenton Park Campus and the Karrakatta Army Base.

The City provides the following claims in support of the proposal:

• There is a strong community of interest between the UWA’s landholdings and facilities in Shenton Park and other university buildings and facilities located on the UWA’s Crawley campus.

• The proposal supports the UWA’s 2008 ‘UniverCity’ Strategic Asset Review and the “arc of knowledge” (see Appendix 2);

• The UWA has expressed its support for reducing the number of local governments it has to deal with for administrative and planning purposes;

• There is a strong community of interest between the proposal area and the City of Subiaco. The Subiaco post code of 6008 has the largest cohort of students at Shenton College State Government High School. The City played an instrumental role in establishing the JFR McGeough Resource Recovery Facility and is the single largest contributor to its continued operation;

• There is an historical anomaly in the district boundary between the City of Nedlands and the Town of Cambridge which is based on the grant of endowment land by the State Government to the UWA in 1904. The boundary is no longer relevant. The residential area known as the Hackett Estate forms part of the locality of Floreat and should be incorporated into the Town of Cambridge;

• Lemnos Street, Stubbs Terrace, Selby Street and Underwood Avenue are major traffic and commerce generators for the City of Subiaco, the freeway and, to a lesser extent, the Perth CBD. The City supports the internalisation of these roads within its boundaries so that as an inner city local government, the City is better placed to manage increased traffic flows;

• The proposed boundaries are clearly defined by existing roads and the Perth - Fremantle railway line;

• The proposed Brockway Road boundary at its intersection with Underwood Avenue lends itself as a potential landmark identifier of Subiaco and Shenton Park as regional town centres and the UWA and the QE2 Medical Centre as a specialised strategic centre under the Draft State Planning Policy – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (see Appendix 3);

• The City of Subiaco has a track record of successfully dealing with complex planning issues, increases in residential density, management of the natural environment and the provision of effective and efficient local government services to its community as evidenced by its Category One status. It is well placed to deal with inner city expansion and development pressures.

2.0 CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBOURING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS The Mayors and CEOs of Subiaco, Claremont, Cambridge and Nedlands have met both collectively and individually.

None have expressed or reflected any significant community support for the amalgamation of the six Western Suburbs local governments as a whole i.e. the amalgamation of Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Peppermint Grove, Claremont, Nedlands and Subiaco. As a consequence, this submission does not contemplate wholesale amalgamation.

2.1 Proposal One The Mayors and CEOs of the City of Subiaco and Town of Cambridge have met and they all support the inclusion of the Jersey Street, Hay Street and Dakin Street residential properties within the City of Subiaco.

Town of Cambridge representatives did not support the annexation of the lands that comprise Henderson Park, the site of the old City of Perth plant nursery, Matthews Netball Centre and the adjoining car park to the City of Subiaco. This land is earmarked for significant redevelopment by the Town of Cambridge under the Pat Goodridge Precinct Master Plan (see Appendix 4).

The Town of Cambridge has also expressed its wish to retain within its boundaries the Halesworth Road residential properties so that it can better manage any adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Pat Goodridge Precinct Master Plan.

The City of Subiaco understands and supports the Town of Cambridge’s position.

2.2 Proposal Two The Lord Mayor of the City of Perth, the Mayor of Subiaco and the CEOs of both local governments have met and both local governments support the realignment of local government boundaries so that the UWA’s Crawley campus is contained within a single local government area.

At the meeting, City of Perth representatives made clear their view that the inclusion of the university campus within its boundaries would confer greater status on the City of Perth as a capital city local government and would facilitate stronger relationships with the university.

City of Subiaco representatives advised that the City of Subiaco did not support the inclusion of the UWA within the City of Perth’s boundaries and that previous referendum on similar proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by the Subiaco community.

City of Subiaco representatives also made clear their view that the form of development typified by the office developments of West Perth was not desired by the City of Subiaco; that the City of Subiaco was an outstanding “mainstreet” community and that the existing Thomas Street boundary between the two local governments made for a good western boundary to the City of Perth.

Other than the UWA claim, the City of Perth made no other claim on the City of Subiaco.

2.3 Proposal Three

City of Nedlands Representatives of the City of Nedlands have indicated their desire to expand the boundaries of an amalgamated Claremont/Nedlands local government into the City of Subiaco to include all of that part of the City of Subiaco south of Aberdare Road.

The City of Subiaco does not support the City of Nedlands proposal because of a belief that the City of Nedlands has failed to adequately manage development, traffic and parking pressures in the eastern half of the Nedlands locality. This is evidenced by two recent, but unsuccessful, petitions from Nedlands residents to the Local Government Advisory Board seeking the annexation of areas within the locality of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco.

As stated previously, the City of Subiaco has a track record of successfully dealing with complex planning issues, increases in residential density, management of the natural environment and the provision of effective and efficient local government services to its community. The City of Subiaco’s recent collaborative efforts with the UWA are detailed at Appendix 5 and demonstrate the City of Subiaco’s efforts in working with, rather than against, the UWA.

The simple amalgamation of Claremont and Nedlands provides little comfort to the City of Subiaco by way of ensuring a new approach to the management of inner city development pressures associated with the expansion of UWA/QE2. Elements of the existing City of Nedlands community may well continue to hold sway in preserving existing residential densities within a potentially enlarged and disparate local government at the expense of needed sustainable development.

The current local government structural reform process offers the City of Subiaco an opportunity to internalise the development pressures associated with the proposed Shenton Park regional centre and the proposed QE2/UWA strategic regional centre.

The City of Subiaco and the UWA are both committed to responsible and sustainable change that is sensitive to the built fabric of the community.

Town of Claremont The Town of Claremont has yet to declare its position in relation to the incorporation of the UWA/QE2 precinct into a merged Nedlands/Claremont local government.

2.4 Proposal Four

Town of Cambridge The City of Subiaco supports the Town of Cambridge proposal to incorporate the Hackett Estate north of Underwood Avenue into the Town of Cambridge.

The Town of Cambridge has also expressed a desire to rationalise local government boundaries in the vicinity of the UWA Sports Park and Mt Claremont west of Brockway Road. It has also expressed its desire to expand southwards beyond Underwood Avenue to Lemnos Street within the locality of Shenton Park on the grounds that the town’s works depot is located on Lemnos Street and the existence of a historical connection between UWA Endowment Lands, Hackett Estate and the UWA Sports Park.

While the City of Subiaco supports the former proposal, it does not support the latter proposal as it would; • bisect the proposed Shenton Park regional centre, • destabilise the orderly development of the UWA’s proposed “arc of knowledge”, and • diminish the further development of the City of Subiaco’s community of interest with Shenton Park.

Town of Claremont Like the City of Subiaco, the Town of Claremont supports the Town of Cambridge proposal to incorporate the Hackett Estate residential subdivision north of Underwood Avenue into the Town of Cambridge. It also supports the rationalisation of local government boundaries in the vicinity of the UWA Sports Park and Mt Claremont west of Brockway Road.

Claremont also supports the annexation of Swanbourne west of West Coast Highway to either Cottesloe or a merger of predominantly coastal local governments.

The City of Subiaco supports the above proposal as it will allow a new Claremont/Nedlands local government to focus on its core business as an emerging regional centre with a significant river foreshore. It is felt that coastal management issues to the west and inner city development pressures to the east are best left to other local governments.

As previously noted, Cambridge has expressed its desire to expand southwards beyond Underwood Avenue to Lemnos Street within the locality of Shenton Park.

The City of Subiaco does not support the proposal as it would; • bisect the proposed Shenton Park regional centre, • potentially destabilise the orderly development of the UWA’s “arc of knowledge”, and • diminish the further development of the City of Subiaco’s community of interest with Shenton Park.

The Town of Claremont has been advised of the City of Subiaco’s desire to incorporate the whole of Shenton Park (and the Karrakatta Army Base) into the City of Subiaco but has yet to declare its formal position in relation to Shenton Park and Karrakatta.

City of Nedlands It is understood that the City of Nedlands wants to expand rather than contract the boundaries of a merged Claremont/Nedlands local government.

It does not appear to have given any consideration as to the resultant viability of surrounding local governments should such an expansion take place and the inherent political tensions of a significantly expanded local government in the Western Suburbs.

3.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

3.1 Public Consultation – Proposal One The City of Subiaco has not undertaken any public consultation on Proposal One as it is considered to be of a minor nature.

3.2 Public Consultation – Proposal Two The City of Subiaco has not undertaken any public consultation on Proposal Two as it is considered to be of a minor nature.

3.3 Public Consultation – Proposal Three The City of Subiaco has not undertaken any public consultation on Proposal Three as it is dependent on the merger of Nedlands and Claremont. Until these two local governments confirm their willingness to merge and the Minister approves the proposal, the City of Subiaco believes it would be premature to conduct any public consultation on Proposal Three.

However public consultation was undertaken by the Local Government Advisory Board in 2007 on the transfer of two areas of land contained within the broader area that is defined by Proposal Three. A map of these two areas appears at Appendix 6.

It can be reasonably expected that the public arguments for and against Proposal Three are likely to echo similar sentiments to those expressed in 2007.

The principal reasons advanced by the public in supporting the 2007 proposals are summarised below:

• Residents and ratepayers are unhappy with how the City of Nedlands managed the development of the Nedlands Park Hotel site, which has lead to further concerns regarding the City of Nedlands’ capacity to manage future planning and development issues; • There is a perception that the City of Nedlands is not providing a sufficient number of parking bays for the level of usage of the foreshore area and the Nedlands Park Hotel, and this is placing pressure on residential side streets; • A common view is that the City of Nedlands is not maintaining the Swan River foreshore effectively, especially the river wall; • The City of Subiaco is perceived as more competent in its handling of development and planning issues, and that it is also able to provide more effective services than the City of Nedlands; • Residents and ratepayers were dissatisfied with the City of Nedlands as they perceived that it is not doing enough to calm traffic in the area; • Residents and ratepayers are dissatisfied with the City of Nedlands over its car parking policy in the area, particularly the commercial area on Hampton Road and the QE2 Medical Centre; • The current boundary between the two local governments is illogical as it follows an old tram route that is no longer relevant to the topography of the area; • There is a perception that the City of Nedlands treats the Hollywood Ward as the ‘poor relation’, and that the affected area has more in common with Shenton Park in the City of Subiaco; and • The City of Nedlands is perceived as not being able to deal with the planning pressures arising from the future development of the QE2 Medical Centre.

The principal reasons for opposing the 2007 proposals are summarised below:

• The dissatisfaction with the way the City of Nedlands managed the Nedlands Park Hotel development is not considered a sufficient reason for a boundary change. Rather the Council should be changed courtesy of the election process; • The City of Nedlands is a local government highly dependent on residential rates for income and losing the area would have a negative impact on the local government’s viability; • The City of Subiaco has higher rates, paid parking and higher housing density, which is not favoured by residents and ratepayers of the City of Nedlands. • The dissatisfaction with the way the City of Nedlands managed traffic issues is not a justifiable reason for a district boundary change, rather the Council should be changed courtesy of the election process; • The City of Nedlands is a local government highly dependent on residential rates for income and the transfer of the area would have a negative impact on the local government’s economic viability; • The new boundary, if implemented, would be illogical as the boundary would circumvent the City of Nedlands’ administration offices; • The traffic issues were intrinsic to the area and could not be alleviated by any local government; • The City of Subiaco has its own deficiencies in dealing with its own issues and the addition of the proposal area will put pressure on its existing capacity and resources.

The Board also met with the affected local governments to provide them with the opportunity to discuss and put forward their views on the two proposals.

The City of Nedlands advised in a written submission to the Board that it was opposed to both proposals because:

• The angst in the community regarding the Nedlands Park Hotel development was not justified, as the redevelopment was in response to community concerns over anti- social behaviour. The City of Nedlands also claimed that a number of issues surrounding the development were outside its control; • The City will be providing off-site parking for the proposal area to alleviate pressures on local streets and residents; • The Swan River and Broadway, which forms the current district boundary is a clear and logical boundary and the proposed change does not follow any clear topographic feature; • The existing boundary between the City of Subiaco and the City of Nedlands reflects the history between the two municipalities and the proposal would see a significant part of Nedlands removed from the City; • The City has invested significant financial capital in the proposal area and the loss of this investment dollar and the rate income would have a negative impact on the viability of the local government; and • A change in district boundaries would impinge on a number of important service delivery programs and the provision of infrastructure. Examples given to support this claim are the maintenance of the river wall, provision of underground power, the collection of rubbish and maintaining local roads. • Traffic problems are exacerbated by the geography of the area and efforts to calm traffic in one street merely forces this traffic into adjoining streets. The City of Nedlands also stated that they had undertaken extensive community consultation on how to calm the area and differing opinions on this issue has caused delays in resolving the issue;

• The City of Nedlands maintains that it has a lot of experience in dealing with large development projects such as the redevelopment of Swanbourne Beach, the redevelopment of the Swanbourne Hospital complex and the redevelopment of the Hollywood and Swanbourne High Schools. It rejects community concerns that the City could not deal with the expansion and development of the QE2 Medical Centre; • The City of Nedlands indicated that they had invested a lot of financial capital in the proposal area and that the loss of this investment dollar and the rate income would have a negative impact on the viability of the local government; • A change in the district boundary would have a negative impact on some projects being conducted by the Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of Councils (WESROC). The examples provided include the planned sharing of depot facilities between the City of Nedlands and the Towns of Claremont and Cottesloe and the construction of the Karrakatta Underpass, which is a cooperative project between the City of Nedlands, the Public Transport Authority, the Town of Claremont and the City of Subiaco; and • The proposed boundary is illogical and not in the interests of local government as it would circumvent the administration centre of the City and isolate it from the rest of its district.

The City of Subiaco advised in a written submission to the Board that it was opposed to both proposals because:

• The City favours local government cooperation in delivering effective and efficient services and infrastructure, which is demonstrated by its involvement in WESROC; • The City does not want to jeopardise its current good relationship with the City of Nedlands by supporting the boundary change proposals; • The areas affected by the proposals would require significant expenditure to bring assets and infrastructure up to a similar standard to that in the rest of the City. The City does not believe that the areas will generate enough revenue to cover the expenses associated with the area and funds would have to be reallocated from other areas to finance the asset renewal, which it considers to be unfair to existing City of Subiaco ratepayers; • Both Cities have different processes for financing underground power. The City of Nedlands is charging individual residents, whereas the City of Subiaco is using its rate base to provide underground power. It is the City of Subiaco’s belief that if either area was transferred to the City of Subiaco it would generate inequities between established areas of Subiaco and the newly affiliated areas; and • There is marked difference between the two cities in relation to the types of services that are delivered to the communities and that having to implement its services to the affected areas would mean that rates would have to be increased in the new areas, without immediate improvements in service delivery. The City of Subiaco is concerned that this will draw criticism from residents and ratepayers in the proposal area.

The Board’s findings were as follows:

• The Board notes that the majority of total respondents in the public consultation opposed Proposal One, but that the majority of the respondents who reside in the proposal area support the district boundary change; • The major reason for supporting the proposal was the dissatisfaction with the City of Nedlands over the development of the Nedlands Park Hotel; • The main reason for opposing the proposal was the dissatisfaction with the City of Nedlands over the development of the Nedlands Park Hotel, and this is not considered a valid justification for a district boundary change;

• The main reason for supporting Proposal Two was due to dissatisfaction with the City of Nedlands, as they are perceived as not doing enough to calm traffic in the area; • The dissatisfaction with the way the City of Nedlands managed traffic issues in the area is not a justifiable reason for a district boundary change; and • Both the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco opposed the proposals.

3.4 Public Consultation – Proposal Four The City of Subiaco has not undertaken any public consultation on Proposal Four as it is dependent on the merger of Nedlands and Claremont. Until these two local governments confirm their willingness to merge and the Minister supports the proposal, the City of Subiaco believes it would be premature to conduct any public consultation on Proposal Four. VERNMENTS

4.0 FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE CITY OF SUBIACO

4.1 Proposal One

4.1.1 Non-current Assets If approved, the City of Subiaco would incur additional expenditure to maintain all the non- current assets affected by the proposal. The expenditure may vary depending on what the City spends each year in maintaining these non-current assets.

Proposal One will result in the transfer of 1.2 km of road assets.

4.1.2 Employee Costs The proposal, if approved, would not adversely impact on the City of Subiaco’s capacity to deliver services.

4.1.3 Contractors and Consultants The extension of existing services into the proposed new area will not require additional staff or plant and equipment.

4.1.4 Grants The City of Subiaco would receive a minor increase in general purpose funding as a consequence of the addition of an estimated 100 people to the City’s total population. The additional 1.2 km of roads will also result in a minor increase in road funding.

4.1.5 Rates The City of Subiaco will generate additional rates income from Proposal One with the addition of 49 residential properties to its dwelling stock. Had the properties been rated by the City of Subiaco in 2009/10 the rate income would have been $58,760. The loss of rate revenue for the Town of Cambridge would have been a corresponding $68,120.

4.1.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure The City of Subiaco would receive a net increase in its operating revenue if the Proposal One is approved. Expenditure costs would be confined to the maintenance and upgrade of roads and associated drainage infrastructure.

4.1.7 Conclusion The financial impact of the possible transfer of the area affected by Proposal One from the Town of Cambridge to the City of Subiaco is unlikely to incur significant net expenditure costs.

4.2 Proposal Two

4.2.1 Non-current Assets If approved, the City of Subiaco would incur additional expenditure to maintain all the non- current assets affected by the proposal. The expenditure may vary depending on what the City spends each year in maintaining these non-current assets.

Proposal Two will result in the transfer of 1.0 km of new road assets. The western half of Winthrop Avenue and Thomas Street are already incorporated into the City’s road inventory. The incorporation of the eastern half will add a further 3.4 km of road length.

4.2.2 Employee Costs The proposal, if approved, would not impact on the City of Subiaco’s capacity to deliver services.

4.2.3 Contractors and Consultants The extension of existing services into the proposed new area will not require additional staff nor plant and equipment.

4.2.4 Grants The City of Subiaco would receive a minor increase in general purpose funding as a consequence of the addition of 59 people to the City’s total population. The additional 4.4 km of road will result in a minor increase in road funding.

4.2.5 Rates The City of Subiaco will not generate additional rates from Proposal Two for so long as the UWA land is used for its intended purpose. St George’s College and St Thomas More College were liable for $9,000 in rates to the City of Perth in 2009/10 and it would be anticipated that the same quantum of rates would be payable to the city of Subiaco.

4.2.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure The City of Subiaco would not receive a net increase in its operating revenue if the Proposal Two is approved. Any capital expenditure on non-current assets is likely to be negligible.

4.2.7 Conclusion The financial impact of the possible transfer of the area affected by Proposal Two from the City of Perth to the City of Subiaco is likely to be negligible.

4.3 Proposal Three

4.3.1 Non-current Assets If the proposal were approved the City would acquire all the non-current assets affected by the proposal and would incur additional expenditure to maintain these assets. The expenditure may vary depending on what the City spends each year in maintaining these non-current assets.

Proposal Three will result in the transfer of the following assets:

• City of Nedlands Administration Office • City of Nedlands Library • Drabble House • Nedlands campus of the UWA • Car park to the west of Broadway • Rugby Club premises • Charles Court Reserve, reticulation, toilets and improvements • Hollywood After School Activity Centre • Hollywood Bowling Club Pavilion • Verdun Street – Hockey Club premises • Winthrop Region Guides Hall – 121 Monash Avenue • Hollywood Tennis Club

The City of Subiaco contends that the condition of the above assets is not of the standard maintained by the City of Subiaco and there will be a significant financial commitment to bring these assets to an acceptable standard. There will also be an ongoing commitment to maintain them and plan for future replacements.

The City of Subiaco also contends that significant expenditure will be needed on the assets identified below to bring them up to a standard comparable with the condition of other infrastructure assets held by the City of Subiaco.

• River wall on Edward Bruce foreshore $1 million • Streets $2 million • Footpaths $1.6 million • Underground Power $4 million • Public toilets and halls $1 million • Parks and reserves $3 million $12.6 million

The freehold sale of surplus City of Nedlands land would generate capital funds that could be applied to the upgrade of these assets.

The City of Subiaco meets the full cost of underground power and does not impose a separate charge on its ratepayers, as does the City of Nedlands. The Hollywood area does not have underground power. If the area affected by Proposal Three were to be transferred to the City of Subiaco, the ratepayers affected by the proposal may expect underground power to be extended on the same basis as the other areas of the City of Subiaco.

This has potential financial implications in that the ratepayers of Subiaco may end up subsidising the cost of underground power for ratepayers in the Hollywood area.

4.3.2 Employee Costs The proposal, if approved would impact on the City of Subiaco’s capacity to deliver services. The proposal is most likely to impact on planning and operational staff.

There will also be an impact on resources and costs associated with parking control and ranger services. It is difficult to quantify the impact on resources without a detailed assessment of services and costs.

4.3.3 Contractors and Consultants Waste and recycling services provided by each City differs markedly. The City of Subiaco provides a broader range of services at a lower charge to its ratepayers compared to the City of Nedlands. The extension of existing services into the proposed new area will require additional staff, and possibly plant and equipment. The City of Subiaco delivers most of its services using its own staff, whereas the City of Nedlands delivers a number of comparable services using external contractors.

4.3.4 Grants The City of Subiaco would receive additional general purpose grants to accommodate the increase in population of 3,800 and additional road grants for the additional 23.1 km of roads if Proposal Three is approved.

If the proposal was implemented already, the City of Subiaco would have received additional general purpose grant funding of $53,000 and additional road funding of $27,000 for the 2009/10 financial year.

4.3.5 Rates The City of Subiaco would generate additional rates from the properties included in Proposal Three if it is approved. Using the estimated valuations applicable to the City of Nedlands and applying the current rate in the dollar used by the City of Subiaco, the City of Subiaco would have received $2.97m in rate income for the 2009/10 financial year.

4.3.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure

The City of Subiaco would receive a net increase in its operating revenue if the two proposals were approved. However the City of Subiaco indicated is likely to incur significant capital expenditure on non-current assets affected by Proposal Three in order to bring these assets up to the present standard and condition of other non-current assets held by the City of Subiaco. These costs may be offset by the disposal of surplus City of Nedlands freehold land.

4.3.7 Conclusion The financial impacts of the possible transfer of the area affected by Proposal Three from the City of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco are:

• Several million dollars worth of non-current assets will be transferred from the City of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco. The City of Subiaco has indicated that in order to bring all the non-current assets affected by the proposal up to an acceptable standard and it will need to incur expenditure in the order of $12.6 million.

• If Proposal Three is approved, the City of Subiaco will receive rates of approximately $2.97million per annum. However, the increase in population would place an extra burden on existing services and staff especially in the planning and operational areas of the City of Subiaco. The City of Subiaco delivers most of its services using its own staff, whereas the City of Nedlands delivers most of these services using outside contractors.

• Except in the long term, the current rate effort will not be sufficient to offset the additional capital and operating expenditure that the City of Subiaco will need to incur if capital improvements are undertaken. Existing ratepayers of the City of Subiaco will need to subsidise the additional capital and operating expenditure if Proposal Three were to proceed.

• Hollywood does not have underground power and the ratepayers affected by the proposal may expect underground power. This creates an inequity in that existing ratepayers may be asked to subsidise the cost of new underground power.

4.4 Proposal Four

4.4.1 Non-current Assets Proposal Four will result in the transfer of 4.8 km of roads and road reserve assets.

The City of Subiaco contends that the condition of the road assets are not of the standard maintained by the City of Subiaco and there will be a financial commitment of approximately $100,000 to bring the road assets up to an acceptable standard. There will also be an ongoing commitment to maintain the road assets.

4.4.2 Employee Costs The proposal, if approved, would not impact on the City of Subiaco’s capacity to deliver services in the short term.

At some time in the future, as the area is developed, it would impact on the City of Subiaco’s capacity to deliver services. At that time the proposal is most likely to impact on planning and operational staff.

4.4.3 Contractors and Consultants The extension of existing services into the proposed new area in the future will require additional staff, and possibly plant and equipment.

4.4.4 Grants The City of Subiaco would initially receive a minor increase in general purpose funding as a consequence of the addition of 60 people to the City’s total population. Additional road funding would amount to approximately $5,400 for the 2009/10 financial year.

4.4.5 Rates The City of Subiaco would generate additional rates from the properties included in Proposal Three if it is approved. Using the estimated valuations applicable to the City of Nedlands and applying the current rate in the dollar used by the City of Subiaco, the City of Subiaco would have received $86,500 in rate income for the 2009/10 financial year.

4.4.6 Effect on Operating Revenue and Expenditure The City of Subiaco would receive a net increase in its operating revenue if the proposals were approved. However the City of Subiaco is likely to incur significant capital expenditure on road assets in order to bring these assets up to the present standard and condition of other road assets held by the City of Subiaco.

4.4.7 Conclusion The financial impacts of the possible transfer of the area affected by Proposal Four from the City of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco are:

• Less than a million dollars worth of road assets will be transferred from the City of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco. The City of Subiaco believes that in order to bring all the road assets affected by the proposal up to an acceptable standard and it will need to incur expenditure in the order of $100,000.

• If Proposal Four is approved, the City of Subiaco will receive rates of approximately $86,500 per annum. A future increase in population would place an extra burden on existing services and staff especially in the planning and operational areas of the City of Subiaco. The City of Subiaco delivers most of its services using its own staff.

• Except in the medium term, the current rate effort will not be sufficient to offset the additional capital and operating expenditure that the City of Subiaco will need to incur if capital improvements are undertaken. Existing ratepayers of the City of Subiaco will need to subsidise the additional capital and operating expenditure if Proposal Four were to proceed.

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSALS

5.1 Proposal One

5.1.1 Community of Interests The City contends that the proposal area has a stronger community of interest with the City of Subiaco than with the Town of Cambridge. This community of interest emanates from residents and ratepayers in the affected area utilising the Subiaco retail and commercial areas, the Lords recreation facility, Mabel Talbot Park, the Cliff Sadlier Park and the Jolimont Primary School.

5.1.2 Physical and Topographic Features The City considers that a local government’s external boundary should be clearly identifiable and should extend along clear and logical physical and topographic features. The proposed northern and western boundaries of Hay Street and Selby Street for Proposal One represent a natural prolongation and intersection of existing City of Subiaco boundaries.

5.1.3 Demographic Trends Given the relatively small size of the population within the proposal area, the City does not believe that there are significant demographic trends that impact on the assessment of the proposal.

5.1.4 Economic Factors The City does not consider that there are any significant economic factors that affect the assessment of this proposal. The area is used entirely for residential purposes.

5.1.5 History of the Area The City does not consider that there are any prevailing circumstances whereby historical factors impact on the assessment of the proposal.

5.1.6 Transport and Communication The proposal area has two main arterial roads, Selby Street running north/south and Hay Street/Underwood Avenue running east/west. The area is reasonably well serviced with walk and cycle ways and there is no evidence of any traffic flow problems. The City does not consider this to be a significant factor in the assessment of this proposal.

5.1.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments The viability of the affected local governments has been covered in the financial analysis section of this report. In summary the financial analysis found that the financial impact of the possible transfer of the area affected by Proposal One from the Town of Cambridge to the City of Subiaco is likely to be negligible.

The possible transfer of the area would result in a loss of $$68,120 in rate income for the Town of Cambridge. This loss in rate income would be offset by reduced operating expenditures

5.1.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services Local governments are responsible for delivering a wide range of services such as town planning and rubbish collection. They are also responsible for the provision and maintenance of local facilities, such as sporting grounds, gardens and parks.

The close proximity of the City of Subiaco’s works depot to the proposal area (under 1km) means that there are greater economies of scale that can be obtained in servicing the proposal area by the City of Subiaco relative to the Town of Cambridge.

5.1.9 Conclusion The City’s conclusion on the assessment of Proposal One against the Local Government Advisory Board’s guiding principles are summarised below:

• The proposal area has a stronger community of interest with the City of Subiaco than with the Town of Cambridge. This community of interest emanates from residents and ratepayers in the affected area utilising Subiaco facilities; • The proposed northern and western boundaries represent the natural prolongation and intersection of existing City of Subiaco boundaries. • The financial viability of the Town of Cambridge would be marginally affected by a loss of rate income, which may require the Town to increase its rates or decrease its expenditure; • The close proximity of the City of Subiaco’s depot to the proposal area means that there are economies of scale to be obtained.

5.2 Proposal Two

5.2.1 Community of Interests There is a strong community of interest between the affected area and the much larger UWA area containing the majority of university buildings and facilities.

The City of Perth agrees that the existing boundary makes little sense.

5.2.2 Physical and Topographic Features The existing boundary alignment follows no recognisable built or natural feature.

The proposed boundary follows park and river boundaries. Existing land uses on either side of the roads are unlikely to be adversely affected by the new boundary.

5.2.3 Demographic Trends The City does not believe that there are significant demographic trends that impact on the assessment of the proposal.

5.2.4 Economic Factors The City does not consider that there are any significant economic factors that affect the assessment of this proposal.

5.2.5 History of the Area The City does not consider that there are any prevailing circumstances whereby historical factors impact on the assessment of the proposal.

5.2.6 Transport and Communication The City does not consider this to be a significant factor in the assessment of this proposal. Stirling Highway is maintained by the State government. Hackett Drive is already maintained

20 by the City of Subiaco for 90% of its length. Winthrop Avenue and Thomas Street are maintained for 50% of their lengths.

5.2.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments The proposal would not have a negative impact on the viability of the City of Subiaco and is supported by the City.

5.2.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services The UWA has expressed its support for reducing the number of local governments it has to deal with for administrative and planning purposes. The City agrees with the UWA and supports the proposal.

5.2.9 Conclusion The City’s conclusion on the assessment of Proposal Two against the Local Government Advisory Board’s guiding principles are summarised below:

• There is a strong self-evident community of interest which will advance the UWA’s broader community of interest in the area; • The financial viability of the City of Subiaco would not be adversely affected by the take up of university college land, Park Avenue, Crawley Avenue, Hackett Drive, the balance of Winthrop Avenue and Thomas Street, adjoining street furniture and lighting and the street furniture and lighting on Stirling Highway; and • The district boundary as submitted in Proposal Two is consistent with the guiding principles applying to physical and topographic features.

5.3 Proposal Three

5.3.1 Community of Interests The City contends that the proposal area has a stronger community of interest with the City of Subiaco than with the City of Nedlands. This community of interest emanates from residents and ratepayers in the affected area utilising the Broadway Fair Shopping Centre, the facilities at the UWA and the river foreshore that extends to Matilda Bay, all of which are located within the City of Subiaco.

The Draft State Planning Policy – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (see Appendix 3) identifies the western suburbs as having two regional town centres that form spheres of influence for regional communities of interest in the Claremont and Subiaco shopping districts. Proposal Three reinforces these regional communities of interest.

The City of Subiaco is better placed as a gateway to the proposal area to deal with development pressures associated with the expansion of university and medical facilities as strategic specialised centres.

The impact of these centres on existing residential areas both within the existing Subiaco local government area and the Nedlands and Hollywood localities needs to be carefully managed.

The current district boundary, which divides Hampden Road and Broadway between the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco, does not facilitate communities of interest. The proposed western boundary of Proposal Three (Smyth Road and Bruce Street) will encourage a stronger community of interest centred on Hampden Road and Broadway and the existing commercial strip along Stirling Highway.

The 2007 public consultation process revealed that residents and ratepayers in the area north of Stirling Highway believe a distinct and separate community of interest exists when it

21 is compared to the rest of the City of Nedlands, and more specifically to the Dalkeith area. This sense of a separate community of interest within the City of Nedlands is closely tied to its history. The City has no definable town centre and is divided by major barriers, such as Stirling Highway and the railway line. These barriers have caused the development of a number of facilities in close proximity that help to define a sense of community of interests.

Proposal Three will foster a stronger community of interest that looks east to the Crawley campus of UWA and the Hampden Road and Broadway activity centres. To the north the QE2 Medical Centre, Shenton Park and Subiaco form integral parts of the UWA’s “arc of knowledge”.

There is a strong community of interest between the Nedlands campus of the UWA and other university buildings and facilities located within the City of Subiaco.

There is a strong community of interest between the University of the Western Australia and the QE2 Medical Centre based on research and education.

The UWA has expressed its support for reducing the number of local governments it has to deal with for administrative and planning purposes.

5.3.2 Physical and Topographic Features The City considers that a local government’s external boundary should be clearly identifiable and should extend along clear and logical physical and topographic features.

The proposed western boundary of Smyth Road makes use of the Karrakatta Cemetery reserve boundary. Smyth Road’s intersection with Stirling Highway also acts a visual clue to the university precinct as Winthrop Hall comes into sight.

The City believes the boundary should be extended to include all residential properties immediately on the western side of Smyth Road, Webster Street and Bruce Street and the southern side of Edward Street so that economies of scale can be obtained from a single local government servicing both sides of the road. The current boundary between the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco is an historic anomaly, which extends the City of Subiaco southward to the river along Hospital Avenue and Hampden Road. The City contends that it is time for this boundary anomaly, which follows an old tram route, to be amended as it is no longer relevant and does not reflect the physical and topographic features of the area.

In 2007 the Local Government Advisory Board recognised that the current boundary does not present a clear and logical district boundary, as required in the guiding principles.

Proposal Three avoids a district boundary that extends along Stirling Highway with same potential problems that currently attend the Broadway/Hampden Road district boundary.

5.3.3 Demographic Trends Work undertaken by the Local Government Advisory Board in 2007 found that the profiles of the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco are very similar. The City does not believe that there are significant demographic trends that impact on the assessment of the proposal.

5.3.4 Economic Factors The proposal area affects more than a 150 commercial properties that are concentrated on Stirling Highway, Hampden Road, Broadway and The Avenue, although there is some commercial activity located at the intersection of Bruce Street and Viewway. Non-rateable properties surround the QE2 Medical Centre and Hollywood Private Hospital on Monash Avenue.

In 2007 a number of submissions to the Local Government Advisory Board contended that the economic development of the commercial centre located on Hampden Road was hampered by it being divided between the two local governments. The fact that the two local governments have different planning requirements is an example of an impediment to development.

While both local governments have a close working relationship that does not significantly impede the economic development of the proposal area, the relationship is sometimes tested at the political level.

The proposed boundary change would simplify matters and create an operating environment that would enhance the economic development and maintenance of the area.

5.3.5 History of the Area The Claremont Road Board was named the Nedlands Road District in 1932, which was classified into a municipal district in 1956 and declared as the City of Nedlands in 1959. The municipality created its ward system in 1956, when it declared that the district would be split into four wards to be known as Coastal, Dalkeith, Melvista and Hollywood. The City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco have since altered their district boundary on a number of occasions. Notably, a portion of the land housing the QE2 Medical Centre was transferred from the City of Subiaco to the City of Nedlands in 1979.

The suburb of Hollywood was named in the 1920’s by a housing developer who was struggling to sell residential properties in the area and decided that a recognisable name would improve sales. The suburb of Hollywood no longer exists, but the area has developed a distinct historical character and community of interest. This distinct character is reflected in the area’s community institutions such as the primary school, churches and the bowling club.

The section of the existing boundary that runs along Hospital Avenue and Hampden Road is known as the Nedlands Corridor, and it extends the City of Subiaco southward towards the Swan River. The Nedlands Corridor was created as the district boundary in 1907 when the City of Subiaco agreed to finance the development of a tram service for the area. The Claremont Road Board agreed to the boundary as it could not afford to finance the tram development. The district boundary is an historical anomaly that has remained even though the tram service was decommissioned in the 1950’s.

The Local Government Advisory Board has recognised that the Hollywood area in particular has developed its own distinct community of interest and that the current boundary is less than ideal.

Proposal Three gives the Hollywood and Broadway precincts a stronger community of interest that is more self-sufficient and better aligned to the localities of Dalkeith and Claremont.

5.3.6 Transport and Communication Lemnos Street, Stubbs Terrace, Selby Street and Underwood Avenue are major traffic and commerce generators for the City of Subiaco, the freeway and to a lesser extent, the Perth CBD. The City supports the internalisation of these roads within its boundaries so that as an inner city local government, the City is better placed to manage increased traffic flows.

The proposal area is likely to be subject to substantial traffic and parking pressures given the developments planned for the area.

The City of Subiaco has a long history in parking and traffic management issues associated with large public institutions. There is little to suggest that public transport will, of its own

23 accord, solve existing and emergent traffic management and parking problems. It is the City’s view that the issues associated with development in these areas will have a significant impact on surrounding residents. Residents will be better served if the problems and their solutions are internalised within one local government area i.e. the City of Subiaco.

The proposed Brockway Road boundary at its intersection with Underwood Avenue lends itself as a potential landmark identifier of Subiaco and Shenton Park as regional town centres and the UWA and the QE2 Medical Centre as a specialised strategic centre under the Draft State Planning Policy – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (see Appendix 3).

The City contends that traffic and parking pressures is a significant factor in the assessment of this proposal.

5.3.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments The viability of the City of Subiaco has been covered in the financial analysis section (Part 4) of this report. In summary the financial analysis found that:

• Several million dollars worth of non-currents assets will be transferred from the City of Nedlands to the City of Subiaco. The City of Subiaco has indicated that in order to bring all the non-current assets affected by the proposal up to an acceptable standard and it will need to incur expenditure in the order of $12.6 million.

• If Proposal Three is approved, the City of Subiaco will receive rates of approximately $2.97m per annum. However, the increase in population would place an extra burden on existing services and staff especially in the planning and operational areas of the City of Subiaco. The City of Subiaco delivers most of its services using its own staff, whereas the City of Nedlands delivers most of these services using outside contractors.

The viability of the City of Subiaco under Proposal Three depends largely on the timing of capital improvements to the proposal area. It is unlikely that the City of Subiaco will jeopardise the City’s current Category One status through poorly-timed capital expenditure decisions in the proposal area.

Equally, it is difficult not to see the lot of those residents and ratepayers within the proposal area being improved with the passage of time.

However the viability of a merged Claremont/Nedlands local government has not been examined in this submission based on the approval of Proposal Three. The City of Subiaco believes that this work should be undertaken by others based on agreed boundaries of an amalgamated Claremont and Nedlands.

5.3.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services Local governments are responsible for delivering a wide range of services such as town planning and rubbish collection. They are also responsible for the provision and maintenance of local facilities, such as sporting grounds, gardens and parks.

During the Local Government Advisory Board’s 2007 public hearings, residents and ratepayers expressed dissatisfaction with the City of Nedlands regarding its ability to deliver a number of local government services.

The City of Subiaco, in its submission to the Board, raised concerns about its capacity to deliver services and provide community facilities in the proposal area, which would meet the expectations of residents and ratepayers. The City indicated that the transfer of the proposal area would impact on its ability to deliver ranger services, animal management, building control, environmental health, community development and services, waste and rubbish collection, road infrastructure and footpaths.

The City is also concerned about the cost of maintaining the river foreshore and other transferred assets as well as the provision of underground power to the Hollywood locality. It does not have the necessary resources to meet the immediate expectations of ratepayers and residents in the proposal area.

However in the context of broader local government structural reform, an argument can be made for Category One local governments (such as Cambridge, Claremont and Subiaco) absorbing the less desirable aspects of a Category Two local government such as Nedlands.

While the City of Subiaco may initially be disadvantaged by Proposal Three and the need to restructure and reorganise, in the long term the residents and ratepayers will be better served by Category One local governments.

Provided the proposed change does not significantly impact on the capacity of a City to deliver the services and provide facilities required by the community and the City retains its Category One status, the boundary amendment is justified and in the best interest of the whole community and the City.

5.3.9 Conclusion The City’s conclusion on the assessment of Proposal Three against the guiding principles is summarised below:

• The current district boundary, which divides Hampden Road and Broadway between the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco, does not facilitate communities of interest. The proposed new western boundary will foster a stronger community of interest that looks east to the Crawley campus of UWA and the Hampden Road and Broadway activity centres. To the north the QE2 Medical Centre, Shenton Park and Subiaco form integral parts of the UWA’s proposed “arc of knowledge”. • The current local government boundary does not present a clear and logical district boundary as required in the guiding principles. Proposal Three avoids a district boundary that extends along Stirling Highway. • The City does not believe that there are significant demographic trends that impact on the assessment of the proposal. • If approved, the proposal would simplify matters and create an operating environment that would enhance the economic development and maintenance of the area.

• The proposal gives the Hollywood and Broadway precincts a stronger community of interest that is more self-sufficient and less aligned to the localities of Dalkeith and Claremont. • The City contends that traffic and parking pressures associated with the UWA and the QE2 Medical Centre are a significant factor in the assessment of this proposal. • The financial viability of the City of Subiaco under the proposal depends largely on the timing of capital improvements to the proposal area. • Provided the proposed change does not significantly impact on the capacity of a City to deliver the services and provide facilities required by the community and the City retains its category One status, the boundary amendment is justified and in the best interest of the whole community and the City.

5.4 Proposal Four

5.4.1 Community of Interests The City contends that the proposal area has a stronger community of interest with the City of Subiaco than with the City of Nedlands. This community of interest manifests itself in a number of ways.

There is a strong community of interest generated by the UWA’s landholdings and facilities in Shenton Park and other university buildings and facilities located on the UWA’s Crawley campus within the City of Subiaco.

The Draft State Planning Policy – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (see Appendix 3) identifies Shenton Park as a regional specialised centre and the UWA/QE2 precinct as a strategic specialised centre. Proposal Four reinforces these regional communities of interest and underscores the community of interest identified in the UWA’s 2008 ‘UniverCity’ Strategic Asset Review (see Appendix 2).

The City of Subiaco is better placed as a gateway to the proposal area to deal with development pressures associated with the expansion of university and other regional facilities.

Another community of interest can be found in the area covered by the Subiaco postcode of 6008 which has the largest cohort of students (241) at Shenton College High School. 25% of the City’s high school aged population attends Shenton College compared with 10% for Nedlands and Claremont combined.

The City played an instrumental role in establishing the JFR McGeough Resource Recovery Facility and, as a member of the Western Metropolitan Regional Council (WMRC), the City is the single largest contributor to its continued operation. While the Town of Claremont is a member of the WMRC, the City of Nedlands is not. The current district boundary, which divides Shenton Park between the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco, does not facilitate existing communities of interest. The proposed western boundary of Proposal Four (Brockway Road and Quintilian Road) will encourage a stronger community of interest centred on the locality’s development as a regional specialised centre.

Proposal Four will foster a stronger community of interest that looks east to Subiaco and south to the Crawley campus of UWA and the QE2 Medical Centre.

The UWA has expressed its support for reducing the number of local governments it has to deal with for administrative and planning purposes.

5.4.2 Physical and Topographic Features The City considers that a local government’s external boundary should be clearly identifiable and should extend along clear and logical physical and topographic features.

The City believes the new boundary between the City of Subiaco and the Town of Cambridge should be the boundary between the Shenton Park and Floreat localities i.e. Underwood Avenue.

There is an historical anomaly in the existing district boundary between the City of Nedlands and the Town of Cambridge which is based on the grant of endowment land by the State Government to the UWA in 1904. The boundary is no longer relevant. The residential area known as the Hackett Estate north of Underwood Avenue forms part of the locality of Floreat and should be incorporated into the Town of Cambridge.

The proposed boundaries of Underwood Avenue, Brockway Road, Quintilian Road and the Perth-Fremantle railway line are highly legible.

The intersection of Brockway Road and Underwood Avenue lends itself as a potential landmark identifier of Subiaco and Shenton Park as regional town centres under the Draft State Planning Policy – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (see Appendix 3).

Proposal Four provides a district boundary that minimises the potential for conflict between neighbouring local governments with competing development and maintenance philosophies.

5.4.3 Demographic Trends The City does not believe that there are significant demographic trends that impact on the assessment of the proposal.

5.4.4 Economic Factors The City does not believe that there are significant economic factors that impact on the assessment of the proposal.

The proposed boundary change would simplify matters and create an operating environment that would enhance the economic development and maintenance of the area.

5.4.5 History of the Area The City does not consider that there are any prevailing circumstances whereby historical factors impact on the assessment of the proposal.

5.4.6 Transport and Communication Lemnos Street, Stubbs Terrace, Selby Street and Underwood Avenue are major traffic and commerce generators for the City of Subiaco, the Kwinana and Mitchell freeways and to a lesser extent, the Perth CBD. The City supports the internalisation of these roads within its boundaries so that as an inner city local government, the City is better placed to manage increased traffic flows.

Parking and traffic management issues in the proposal area will increase with the development of UWA landholdings. The development plans of UWA rely on increasing the efficiency of public transport systems in the area, including bus transport and the possible development of a light rail system.

The City of Subiaco has a long history in parking and traffic management issues associated with large public institutions. There is little to suggest that public transport will, of its own accord, solve existing and emergent traffic management and parking problems. It is the

City’s view that the issues associated with development in these areas will have a significant impact on Subiaco residents. Residents will be better served if the problems and their solutions are internalised within one local government area i.e. the City of Subiaco.

The City contends that potential traffic and parking pressures is a significant factor in the assessment of this proposal.

5.4.7 Matters Affecting the Viability of Local Governments The viability of the City of Subiaco has been covered in the financial analysis section (Part 4) of this report. In summary the financial analysis found that:

The viability of the City of Subiaco under Proposal Four depends largely on the timing of capital improvements to the proposal area. It is unlikely that the City of Subiaco will jeopardise the City’s current Category One status through poorly-timed capital expenditure decisions in the proposal area.

Equally, it is difficult not to see the lot of existing and new residents and ratepayers within the proposal area being improved with the passage of time.

However the viability of a merged Claremont/Nedlands local government has not been examined in this submission based on the approval of Proposal Four. The City of Subiaco believes that this work should be undertaken by others based on agreed boundaries of an amalgamated Claremont and Nedlands.

5.4.8 The Effective Delivery of Local Government Services Local governments are responsible for delivering a wide range of services such as town planning and rubbish collection. They are also responsible for the provision and maintenance of local facilities, such as sporting grounds, gardens and parks.

The City of Subiaco has concerns about its capacity to deliver services and provide community facilities in the proposal area. The transfer of the proposal area would impact on its ability to deliver ranger services, animal management, building control, environmental health, community development and services, waste and rubbish collection, road infrastructure and footpaths.

While the City of Subiaco may initially be disadvantaged by Proposal Four and the need to restructure and reorganise, in the long term all residents and ratepayers will be better served by Category One local governments.

5.4.9 Conclusion The City’s conclusion on the assessment of Proposal Four against the guiding principles is summarised below:

• The City contends that the proposal area has a stronger community of interest with the City of Subiaco than with the City of Nedlands. This community of interest manifests itself in a number of ways. • The current district boundary, which divides Shenton Park between the City of Nedlands and the City of Subiaco, does not facilitate existing communities of interest. The proposed western boundary of Proposal Four (Brockway Road and Quintilian Road) will encourage a stronger community of interest centred on the locality’s development as a regional specialised centre that looks east to Subiaco and south to the Crawley campus of UWA and the QE2 Medical Centre. • The current local government boundary does not present a clear and logical district boundary as required in the guiding principles. The City believes the boundary between the City of Subiaco and the Town of Cambridge should be the northern boundary of the Shenton Park locality i.e. Underwood Avenue. • The intersection of Brockway Road and Underwood Avenue lends itself as a potential landmark identifier of Subiaco and Shenton Park as regional town centres. • The City does not believe that there are significant demographic trends that impact on the assessment of the proposal. • If approved, the proposal would simplify matters and create an operating environment that would enhance the economic development and maintenance of the area. • Lemnos Street, Stubbs Terrace, Selby Street and Underwood Avenue are major traffic and commerce generators for the City of Subiaco. The City supports the internalisation of these roads within its boundaries so that as an inner-city local government, the City is better placed to manage increased traffic flows. • The financial viability of the City of Subiaco under the proposal depends largely on the timing of capital improvements to the proposal area. • Provided the proposed change does not significantly impact on the capacity of a City to deliver the services and provide facilities required by the community and the City retains its category One status, the boundary amendment is justified and in the best interest of the whole community and the City.

PART B - REPRESENTATION

1.0 NUMBER & RATIO OF COUNCILLORS TO ELECTORS In correspondence to the City of Subiaco dated 17 July 2009 the Local Government Reform Steering Committee has “... noted that the City has a high elected member to elector ratio of 1:883”.

1.1 Review of Numbers of Councillors The City of Subiaco last visited elected member representation in May 2009 when the Council was informed of the following:

The City of Subiaco’s twelve councillors for 11,361 elected members, results in an average councillor to elector ratio of 1 to 947 electors. The following table indicates that electors of the city are over-represented when compared with other metropolitan local governments. While Subiaco is a dynamic local authority with significant and complex development and associated issues to be dealt with, the same could be said for several other metropolitan local governments with much less representation than the city.

A comparison with other Area No. Of No. Of Electors Ratio metropolitan councils is (sq km) Wards Councillors included in the following table: Local Government Town of Cottesloe 4 4 10 5076 1:508 Town of East Fremantle 3 4 8 4822 1:603 Town of Claremont 5 3 9 6394 1:710 Town of Mosman Park 4 2 6 5543 1:924 City of Subiaco 7 4 12 11361 1:947 Town of Bassendean 11 3 9 9770 1:1086 City of Nedlands 21 4 12 14266 1:1189 City of Perth 9 1 8 10514 1:1314 City of Fremantle 19 6 12 18826 1:1569 City of Belmont 40 4 11 20832 1:1894 City of South Perth 20 6 12 25359 1:2113 Town of Cambridge 22 2 8 17065 1:2133 Town of Victoria Park 18 2 8 18566 1:2321 Town of Vincent 11 2 8 19366 1:2421 City of Bayswater 33 4 11 39566 1:3597 City of Melville 53 6 12 67169 1:5597 City of Joondalup 99 6 12 102515 1:8543 City of Stirling 100 7 14 125692 1:8978

The advantages of a reduction in the number of elected members may include the following:

• The decision making process may be more effective and efficient if the number of elected members is reduced. It is more timely to ascertain the views of a fewer number of people and decision making may be easier. There is also more scope for team spirit and cooperation amongst a smaller number of people. • The cost of maintaining elected members is likely to be reduced. Saving of $7,000pa per councillor in meeting attendance fees and $2,000pa in rental charges and maintenance of equipment would result. Further savings would occur with catering, refreshments and other members’ expenses. The allocation of $264,710 in corporate overheads for a thirteen-member council would also reduce significantly if the council was reduced to nine members. • The increase in the ratio of councillors to electors is not significant and would still indicate over-representation compared to many other metropolitan local governments (compare the following table with the table above):

Number of Number of Councillor: % Ratio Ward Electors Councillors Elector Ratio Deviation North 2747 2 1 : 1374 + 3.3% East 2804 2 1 : 1402 + 1.3% Central 3049 2 1 : 1525 - 7.3% South 2761 2 1 : 1380 + 2.8% Total 11361 8 1 : 1420

• Consultation with the community can be achieved through a variety of means in addition to individuals and groups contacting their local elected member. • Fewer elected members are more readily identifiable to the community. • Fewer positions on council may lead to greater interest in elections with contested elections and those elected obtaining greater level of support from the community. • There is a statewide trend for reductions in the number of elected members and many local governments have found that fewer elected members works well (Cambridge, Vincent, Victoria Park). • A reduction in numbers, in line with the Minister’s proposal for councils to have between six and nine members may assist the city to remain independent and not amalgamate. If it can be shown that the city is economically sustainable, it could argue successfully that it has taken serious action to implement structural reform by reducing councillor numbers.

The disadvantages of a reduction in the number of elected members may include the following:

• A smaller number of elected members may result in an increased workload and may lessen effectiveness. A demanding role may discourage others from nominating for council. • There is the potential for dominance in the council by a particular interest group (although this is somewhat reduced by first-past-the-post voting). • A reduction in the number of elected members may limit the diversity of interests around the council table. • Opportunities for community participation in council’s affairs may be reduced if there are fewer elected members for the community to contact.

• An increase in the ratio of councillors to electors may place too many demands on elected members.

At its April 2009 meeting the Council resolved to retain 12 councillors and to review councillor numbers after the 2009 elections. Reasons advanced for retaining the present level of members were those enumerated above i.e.

• A smaller number of elected members may result in an increased workload and may lessen effectiveness. A demanding role may discourage others from nominating for council. • There is the potential for dominance in the council by a particular interest group. • A reduction in the number of elected members may limit the diversity of interests around the council table. • Opportunities for community participation in council’s affairs may be reduced if there are fewer elected members for the community to contact. • An increase in the ratio of councillors to electors may place too many demands on elected members.

1.2 Proposed Representation If all of the boundary change proposals are implemented then the number of electors on the City’s electoral roll will increase by 24% from 11,361 electors to 14,070 electors.

The City believes that the diversity and complexity of issues that the City faces demands twelve councillors.

Twelve councillors would mean that the ratio of elected members to electors would decrease from 1:947 to 1:1,173.

1.3 Demographic Trends The demographics of the City of Subiaco, City of Nedlands and the Town of Cambridge are similar. The City does not see demographic factors as potentially impacting on the levels of representation.

2.0 WARDS

2.1 Consistency with Representation between Wards The City of Subiaco has no fixed view on consistency with representation between wards other than to acknowledge that it has always ensured parity of representation between wards.

If the boundary adjustment proposals are approved, then four wards with three elected members each or three wards with four members each are but two models that would be the subject of further investigation.

2.2 Community of Interest The current ward boundaries of the City of Subiaco reflect historic communities of interest.

If the boundary adjustment proposals are approved, then the City would review ward boundaries to reflect an enlarged community of interest in the south.

3.0 CONCLUSION The City’s conclusion in relation to councillor numbers and representation is summarised below.

• In the absence of any compelling argument to the contrary, the community is best served by higher councillor to elector ratios. • Any increase in elector numbers following boundary changes can be largely accommodated within the existing ward structure and existing communities of interest.

PART C – REGIONAL GROUPING

1.0 EXISTING REGIONAL GROUPINGS The City of Subiaco is a member of the Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of Councils (WESROC) group of local governments, the Western Metropolitan Regional Council (WMRC) regional local government and the Central Metropolitan Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA).

1.1 Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of Councils The WESROC consists of the six local governments of Subiaco, Nedlands, Claremont, Peppermint Grove, Cottesloe and Mosman Park. For the past year and a half the Town of Cambridge has exercised observer membership of the group.

The WESROC group exists to facilitate regional cooperation and ad-hoc resource sharing amongst its member local governments.

The WESROC Board (mayors and president) and CEO’s meet on a monthly basis.

1.2 Western Metropolitan Regional Council The WMRC consists of the five local governments of Subiaco, Claremont, Peppermint Grove, Cottesloe and Mosman Park.

The WMRC group exists to facilitate regional cooperation and resource sharing amongst its member local governments as it relates to waste management.

The WMRC Board (councillors) and technical officers meet on a monthly basis.

1.3 Central Metropolitan Zone of WALGA The Central Metropolitan Zone consists of the nine local governments of Subiaco, Cambridge, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Nedlands, Peppermint Grove, Perth, Subiaco and Vincent.

The zone exists to facilitate the business of the WALGA. Its operations are supported by WALGA.

The zone meets on a bi-monthly basis.

2.0 PREFERRED REGIONAL GROUPING The WESROC group of local governments is the City’s preferred regional grouping of local governments.

This group of local governments has an historic community of interest which is largely defined by the age of the municipalities, topographic and demographic features.

Over the past year, WESROC has undertaken two reviews of its current and potential operations.

The most recent review by Anne Banks-McAllister Consulting entitled A Model for Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing in the Western Suburbs (see Appendix 7) made a number of recommendations that the City of Subiaco has formally endorsed.

These recommendations are intended to address:

• decision-making roles of the Executive and Board of WESROC • meeting processes • resources for leading regional activities • resources for implementing project outcomes • leadership for regional initiatives • cooperation and commitment to regional cooperation and resource sharing • accountability and transparency • decision-making processes • strategic focus • image and communications • achieving some quick wins • measurable outcomes and benefits especially through resource sharing • longer term options for regional cooperation and resource sharing

Pages 18, 19 and 20 of the review make particular reference to the South Australian Regional Subsidiary Model as a model for regional cooperation.

It is the City’s view that the regulatory and compliance provisions that apply to formal regional organisations of local government in Western Australia are too onerous and have stifled increased regional cooperation.

The City supports a review of the legislative environment surrounding regional organisations of local governments in Western Australia.

3.0 CONCLUSION The City’s conclusion in relation to a preferred regional grouping of Councils is summarised below:

• The WESROC group of local governments is the City’s preferred regional grouping of local governments. • The regulatory and compliance provisions that apply to formal regional organisations should be reviewed and amended to facilitate increased regional cooperation and resource sharing.

PART D – TRANSITION TIMELINE

1.0 BOUNDARY PROPOSALS ONE AND TWO Proposal One (part of Jolimont involving the Town of Cambridge) and Proposal Two (part of Crawley involving the City of Perth) require relatively minor boundary adjustments and can be implemented without reference to Proposals Three and Four.

No significant additional resources are required by the City of Subiaco in order to provide works and services to the proposal areas.

For administrative convenience, it is proposed that the boundary changes take effect as of the financial year commencing 1 July 2010.

2.0 BOUNDARY PROPOSALS THREE AND FOUR Proposal Three (part of Nedlands involving the City of Nedlands) and Proposal Four (part of Shenton Park and part of Karrakatta involving the City of Nedlands and the Town of Cambridge) require significant boundary adjustments.

As the boundary adjustments are dependent on an amalgamation of the local governments of Nedlands and Claremont, the City of Subiaco is unable to provide a firm transition timeline.

If the Minister approves a proposal to amalgamate the local governments of Nedlands and Claremont, then boundary adjustments could be effected ahead of any approved amalgamation.

Given the number of electors from within the Nedlands locality that would be affected by Proposal Three, ward boundaries will inevitably need to redrawn if part of the Nedlands locality is to be transferred to the City of Subiaco. The earliest ‘natural’ opportunity to implement new ward boundaries is October 2011 while noting that Proposal Four could be implemented sooner given the relatively low numbers of electors involved.

The abolition of two or more local governments to form a new local government and the concurrent annexation of land to other local governments may be difficult and potentially disruptive given the existing legislative provisions of the Local Government Act 1995.

It is the City of Subiaco’s view that a formal inquiry should be undertaken by the Local Government Advisory Board to ascertain;

1. the sustainability of an amalgamated Nedlands and Claremont - both with and without the City of Subiaco’s proposed boundary adjustments with the City of Nedlands, and 2. the least disruptive method of implementing any necessary reform.

A Model for Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing in the Western Suburbs Accelerating regional cooperation and resource sharing

Developed in the context of Local Government Structural Reform in Western Australia, this report provides a way forward for local governments participating in the Western Suburbs Regional Group of Councils (WESROC) to formalise current ad hoc regional cooperation and resource sharing. Recommendations focus on governance, structure, process and strategic requirements necessary to ensure the effectiveness of WESROC.

Anne Banks‐McAllister Consulting 6/5/2009

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Contents Executive Summary ...... 3 Background ...... 4 Context of Report ...... 6 Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing in Western Australia ...... 9 South Australian Regional Subsidiary Model ...... 18 Consultation ...... 20 Recommendations ...... 22 Appendix A – Sample Charter ...... 27 Appendix B ‐ SA Local Government Act ‐ Regional Subsidiaries...... 45

Appendix C – Recommendations Action Plan ...... 49 Appendix D - Consultations ...... 52

Page | 2

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Executive Summary

A review of reports and decisions previously made by WESROC indicates a commitment to improving the current regional cooperation and resource sharing in the Western Suburbs by implementing more formal structures and processes. However, the current structural reform program potentially impacts significantly on the future configuration of local governments and in doing so, provides new scenarios which may affect regional cooperation and resource sharing opportunities.

It should be noted that any changes resulting from the structural reform program are not expected to be implemented until late 2011 which provides a window for implementing changes to WESROC which can be beneficial irrespective of structural reform outcomes.

This report therefore builds on the WESROC commissioned Dollery Report by further examining governance, structural, process and strategic issues that are currently hindering efficient and effective WESROC regional cooperation and resource sharing. The report also considers other thinking in Western Australia about new models of regionalisation and provides some recommendations for longer term options.

This assessment of WESROC has indicated the following:

• A desire to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of regional cooperation and resource sharing in the Western Suburbs • A desire to address systems and processes around the Governance (Board) and Administration (CEOs) of WESROC • An expectation to quickly progress Dollery’s recommendations • A desire to fast track the establishment of a secretariat • A preparedness to consider, in the longer term, the possible merging of WESROC and the WMRC with waste services being only one optional service delivered by a Regional Council • A preparedness to examine alternative regional models not currently available under WA Local Government legislation, with a view to lobby for legislative change

Recommendations have been developed as a result of discussions with WESROC stakeholders, a literature review and consultations with other Western Australian regional bodies. Recommendations are intended to address:

• meeting processes • resources for coordinating regional activities • resources for implementing project outcomes • leadership for regional initiatives

Page | 3

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

• accountability and transparency • decision-making processes • strategic focus • image and communications • achieving some quick wins • measurable outcomes and benefits especially through resource sharing • longer term options for regional cooperation and resource sharing

The immediate establishment of a Regional WESROC Secretariat, with a brief to implement recommended priorities, is the catalyst for gaining effectiveness and efficiency gains for WESROC.

Background

In December 2008 the WESROC Board of Management received and considered the commissioned report “Reform Options for the Western Suburbs of Perth – Rising to the Challenge” (the Dollery Report) prepared by Professor Brian Dollery and Dr Andrew Johnson (New England Education and Research Proprietary Limited).

The purpose of the Dollery Report was twofold:

1. To provide a thorough analysis of the WESROC group of councils against the background of structural reform in Australian local government, including an assessment of the effectiveness of forced amalgamation programs, alternative models of local government to compulsory council mergers and shared service arrangements. The Report also had to consider the problem of financial sustainability in Australian local government, deal with the sources of financial sustainability and differentiate between financial sustainability and broader concepts of community sustainability. 2. To provide an independent assessment of the WESROC organisation and its member councils (as well as the Town of Cambridge) and make recommendations for enhancing the role of WESROC.

The Board resolved:

1. That the WESROC Board endorses the Dollery Report as a planning document for the next three years; 2. (a) A duty statement and position description for a full time position of Executive Manager for WESROC be prepared and distributed for comment to all the WESROC Board members;

(b) Following the agreement of a duty statement and position description a meeting of the WESROC Board be held in January to

Page | 4

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

initiate steps to recruit the Executive Manager WESROC and the position be initially funded from the 2008/09 WESROC budget.

3. That the WESROC Board requests a selection panel, comprising of the WESROC Board members assisted by the Chief Executive Officers be established to recruit the Executive Manager WESROC. 4. That the WESROC Board requests the appointed Executive Manager WESROC to prepare an operational plan for 2009/10. 5. That the WESROC Board request member local governments of WESROC to commit to the funding of dedicated staff resources for WESROC for the 2009/10, 2010/2011 and 2011/12 financial years. 6. That the WESROC Board commence meeting on a monthly basis in the 2009 year. 7. A full review of the operations and functions of WESROC be undertaken.

In January 2009 the WESROC Board of Management met to further consider the appointment of a WESROC Executive Manager and determined that further research was required. It resolved:

That the WESROC CEO’s conduct research into consultants, who are able and available to prepare and implement the formalisation of WESROC as an organisation, and bring a recommendation to the February meeting of the WESROC Board. The Consultant must:

• Have relevant experience in the formation of Regional Organisations of Council (ROC); • Be able to plan the development and implementation of the ROC; • Do a presentation, on the ROC, to Council and the community if required; • Identify the roles and responsibilities of an Executive Officer for the ROC; • Indicted their estimated costs for the project as a whole.

At its 4th February 2009 meeting, the WESROC Board of Management resolved to appoint Anne Banks-McAllister to undertake the proposal to create a formalised regional structure to support resource sharing activities in the Western Suburbs. This appointment was, however, put on hold as a result of the Minister for Local Government’s announcement on 6th February to take steps to implement local government reform strategies.

A Special Meeting of the WESROC Board of Management was convened on 18th February 2009 to consider the impact of the Minister’s announcement. The Board resolved:

1. That the Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of Councils endorse in principle the Dollery Report as a foundation planning document for WESROC and that the report be forwarded to be considered and endorsed by each member Council.

Page | 5

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

2. That the appointment of Anne Banks-McAllister as per the previous resolution of WESROC to review the recommendations of the Dollery Report and taking account of the Minister’s Guidelines, prepare a proposal for WESROC and member Councils to consider submitting to the Minister in response to his Local Government Restructuring [of] Council[s].

At its March meeting, the Board of Management considered the Structural Reform Guidelines for Local Government within the context of its previous resolutions. It was further resolved that:

WESROC, through its Executive Committee engage and work with a suitably qualified independent team or teams of consultants to undertake and complete by April 2009 an assessment for comparison purposed the likely costs and benefits of:

1. An amalgamation of the WESROC Councils; 2. An amalgamation of Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove councils together with an amalgamation of Claremont and Nedlands Council while Subiaco remains independent; 3. A fast tracked (say 2 to 3 years) maximisation of Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing amongst WESROC Councils.

As a result of this resolution, Anne Banks-McAllister was requested to project manage the consultancy for undertaking the cost benefit feasibility study, as well as preparing recommendations for fast tracking regional cooperation and resource sharing (resolution 3).

In summary, Anne Banks-McAllister was contracted to identify a regional structure and resource sharing model to support the cooperative and resource sharing activities of the local government authorities in the region, including the Town of Cambridge. In achieving this, it was important to acknowledge WESROC’s desire to appoint a WESROC Executive Officer and the need to consider options, including legal and governance issues, with recommendations and costs for a preferred model.

In producing this report, the following methodology was adopted:

1. Literature review of key documents 2. Consultations with stakeholders 3. Assessment of the current effectiveness of WESROC 4. Development of governance, structural, process and strategic actions for WESROC to improve regional cooperation and resource sharing

Context of Report

Page | 6

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

It is essential to consider the context in which this report is being prepared due to major structural changes impacting local government across Australia, and particularly in Western Australia at the present time. This context will provide a framework for WESROC deliberations in both the immediate and longer term. In providing this context, it is recognised that the WESROC Board of Management considered an in-depth overview of the Dollery Report, regional governance models, and other structural reform initiatives at its meeting in December 2008, therefore a detailed analysis of these models will not be covered again in this report.

The publication in September 2008 of the WA Local Government Association’s (WALGA) “The Journey: Sustainability into the Future – Shaping the Future of Local Government in Western Australia” marked a collective industry move to respond to pressures for structural reform. The guiding vision for the development of the publication was that:

“Local Government will implement and maintain a governance model that integrates effective service delivery with appropriate political representation.”

This report, known as ‘The Plan for Reform’, was the culmination of a research and consultation process which, amongst other things, highlighted the benefits of regional service delivery. While the process considered a range of regional models operating under other States’ legislation, it unfortunately provided little guidance on a specific regional governance structure for Western Australian local government. What the report did recommend was:

• That WALGA advocates and seeks initial funding of $30m to develop a series of pilot Regional Shared Services examples and to progress strategies to further develop the concept of regional processes and platforms for the Local Government sector. • That WALGA explores methods by which various shared services examples emerging in other States can be shared with the Local Government sector in WA. • That the Local Government Act 1995 be reviewed with the objective of amending unnecessary impediments and existing sources of inflexibility for regional Local Government structures.

The Dollery Report was commissioned by WESROC as a proactive strategy in the face of imminent structural reform. The report considered a range of structural reform initiatives across Australia, including amalgamations, and examined cooperative regional models occurring in other States. Dollery and Johnson concluded that WESROC currently operates in an ad hoc manner and recommended to strengthen the existing cooperation and resource sharing by developing an effective Voluntary Regional Group of Councils (VROC). A total of seventeen recommendations were proposed including the establishment of a dedicated Secretariat and Chief Executive Officer. In making this recommendation, the report

Page | 7

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR references the Riverina East Regional Organisation of Councils (REROC), whose success Dollery says is directly related to the operation of its Secretariat. He says that, “the Secretariat not only provided the resources necessary to ensure REROC operated in an efficient manner; it was also able to consider and capture opportunities for REROC as they presented themselves, as a well as drive REROC in a vigorous way”. Key features of REROC are:

1. A dedicated secretariat 2. Flexible approach to service delivery 3. Recording and promoting cost saving initiatives

Other recommendations for WESROC included:

2. Given the pivotal role of the CEO, special care is taken in appointing a suitable person.

3. WESROC should not only record the activities undertaken by also seek to place a value on the cost savings and non-pecuniary benefits that these activities produced to their respective communities.

4. WESROC councils seek to benchmark their current activities to demonstrate existing performance and to provide a comparison of performance post-reform.

5. In developing its reform strategy WESROC should continue with its flexible approach to service delivery and consider the REROC approach to its services going forward.

6. WESROC member councils consider implementing a ‘Quick Wins’ approach where savings can be generated from existing activities with minimal change to member organisations to demonstrate commitment to the reform process.

7. Any structural and operational reforms proposed by WESROC should be supported by a strong business case and careful planning to ensure its success.

8. WESROC councils should consider the benefits of moving to a common suite of IT across the six member councils to enhance opportunities for greater cooperation in service delivery in other areas and the interchange of staff between councils.

9 WESROC should not underestimate the resources required to implement change. Trying to ‘save money’ by undertaking the process ín-house’ can lead to the stretching of resources and greater costs in the long run.

10. WESROC review those services previously identified as being able to be provided on a regional basis, determine if they are still relevant, subject to enough support, and then seek to prepare business cases to justify any change in service delivery.

11. WESROC councils use the Brynes (2005) survey as the basis of determining possible structural and operational changes to current services that could be implemented to improve their performance.

12. Enhance the role of WESROC as a vehicle to facilitate structural and operational change in the western Perth region rather than WMRC.

13. WESROC councils prepare business cases to determine the feasibility of providing specialised corporate support services across WESROC. In particular, consideration should be given to providing the following services across the councils:

Page | 8

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

• Human Resource Management • Asset Management • Risk Management • Information Technology Services • GIS Services

14. WESROC investigate the possibility of combining ‘back office’ transactional processing (i.e. rates, debtors, creditors, payroll, etc) services of member councils into a single service delivery area.

15. WESROC seeks to put in place measures and structures that will address the specifically defined objectives contained in the WALGA Report, particularly in its Sustainability Checklist.

16. WESROC continues to hold State and Federal governments accountable for their role in achieving long-term sustainability in local government in Western Australia.

17. WESROC make determined efforts to secure funds for ROCs and local government reform generally from State and Federal governments.

Despite this comprehensive range of recommendations, Dollery does not provide detailed recommendations relating to the current governance, structure, process or strategic arrangements currently in place that may be hampering the effective operation of WESROC.

When considering the WESROC resolution in March 2009 to fast track the maximisation of Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing amongst WESROC Councils, it is useful to consider those projects that the Dollery report identified as opportunities for ‘Quick Wins’ which at the time had almost unanimous support from all councils. These included:

• Ranger Services • Regional Call Centre • IT Services • Human Resource Management • Regional Relief Staff • GIS services • Sharing specialised equipment • Records Management

Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing in Western Australia

When considering models for regional cooperation, it is important to recognise that current Western Australian legislation allows for only two approaches:

Page | 9

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

1. Regional Councils 2. Voluntary Regional Groups of Councils (VROCs)

Regional Councils

At present there are eight regional councils operating in Western Australia, including the Western Metropolitan Regional Council (WMRC). These are summarised as:

Name Members Activities Eastern Metropolitan Bassendean • Waste management Regional Council Bayswater • Environmental management (EMRC) Belmont • Regional development Kalamunda • Risk management Mundaring Swan Mid West Regional Carnamah • Regional cooperation – Council (MWRC) Coorow feasibility studies and Mingenew integrated planning and Mullewa infrastructure e.g. IT Morawa • Moving to establish regional Perenjori service delivery e.g. rates, Three Springs property and debt collection Mindarie Regional Wanneroo • Waste management Council (MRC) Joondalup Stirling Cambridge Vincent Victoria Park Perth Pilbara Regional Council Ashburton • Obtain funding (PRC) East Pilbara • Facilitate resource sharing Roebourne • Undertake, manage and Pt. Hedland facilitate services. South Metropolitan Melville, • Waste management Regional Council Cockburn (SMRC) East Fremantle Fremantle Kwinana Rockingham Canning- withdrawn South East Metropolitan Armadale • Waste management Council (SEMC) South Perth Gosnells Tamala Park Cambridge • Creating an urban Perth development of 165 hectares Victoria Park north of Mindarie Regional Vincent Council. Joondalup Wanneroo

Page | 10

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Stirling Western Metropolitan Subiaco • Brockway Waste Transfer Regional Council Claremont Station (WMRC) Cottesloe • Green waste Recycling Peppermint Grove Mosman Park

Regional Councils can be established under Section 3.61 – 3.68 of the Local Government Act. The Western Metropolitan Regional Council was established under this section of the Act and operates under an Establishment Agreement (Constitution) approved by the Minister. As independent incorporated bodies, Regional Councils have the same abilities as a single Local Government Authority, including overheads and compliance requirements. This means that Regional Councils can manage their own funds, employ staff, conduct tenders, make decisions without reference to member Councils, buy and sell assets, and sell services.

The main concerns about Regional Councils include:

Limited accountability to member councils or community Additional layer of government and bureaucracy Ability to operate in a way that can conflict with single local governments Additional overheads and compliance as required of a local government Expensive for member councils to fund if there is no strong income stream

The Department of Local Government currently believes that the establishment of a Regional Council under the WA Local Government Act can be made more attractive by compliance exemptions by the Minister.

Discussions were also held with the East Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC) and the Pilbara Regional Council.

The Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC) was established in 1983 to undertake waste management and disposal services. The City of Bayswater owned and operated the Red Hill site until five Councils (Bayswater, Bassendean, Swan Belmont and Mundaring) agreed to establish a Regional Council to take over the operation of waste management. The Shire of Kalamunda subsequently joined.

Prior to the establishment of EMRC, regional cooperation was facilitated through the Eastern Metropolitan Local Authorities Group (EMLAG) which focused on tourism, economic development and youth strategies. EMLAG folded into EMRC in around 1998 which now undertakes a range of activities apart from waste management. With a staff of approximately 70 people, EMRC delivers:

• Waste management • Environmental services

Page | 11

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

• Regional development • Risk management • Resource recovery • Corporate services/Governance

There is also a current initiative to consider the collection of rubbish and shared services on behalf of member councils.

Operating under an Establishment Agreement (Constitution) approved by the Minister, EMRC is governed by a Council which consists of two councillors and a third deputy from each member council. As required by the Act, the Chair is rotated every year; however it is elected by the representatives. The Establishment Agreement clarifies funding arrangements, details continuing services, and identifies possible future services. EMRC will consider any proposal that a member council proposes that could be done by the regional organisation.

The Council of EMRC is supported by a CEO Advisory Committee which has Terms of Reference which allow it to review anything related to the operations of the organisation including governance and the Establishment Agreement. There is a standing invitation for the Chair of the CEO Advisory Committee to attend Council meetings and speak to items. The Council can refer items to the CEO Advisory Committee and likewise, the CEO Advisory Committee can refer items to the Council. The EMRC also has a Technical Advisory Committee.

Funding of the EMRC is based on population and most income is derived from each member councils’ gate fees to the Red Hill tip site. There is also equity share in assets based on population. Gate fees from member councils are approximately $8 million per year with approximately $14 million from commercial operations and an additional $1 million from grants.

Discussions with the Acting Chief Executive Officer highlighted the following issues:

• It is important to be careful how the EMRC is marketed so as not to compete with member councils. • It is important that the EMRC is careful about the services it chooses to deliver to prevent competition with member councils. • The EMRC doesn’t have problems with decision-making as the Council is an entity in its own right and there is clarity about its purpose and activities. • Member councils are often not kept sufficiently up-to-date about the activities of the EMRC despite a summary of reports and decisions being provided to each Council. • More needs to be done to develop and maintain relationships with member councils. • A regional council requires its own administration and income to support it.

Page | 12

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

• Compliance under the Act is a very significant resource requirement and should be recognised as an overhead. • A Regional Council needs a CEO Advisory Committee as it needs the support of its CEOs. CEOs can be very influential and must support the Council as a whole, plus their own council representative. • The term ‘Regional Council’ can be a problem as the Federal Government often thinks regional means country. This can cause problems with eligibility for Federal grants. • A positive opportunity for regional councils is the sharing of assets e.g. depots and recreation facilities.

A meeting was held with the Executive Officer of the Pilbara Regional Council (PRC). The PRC was established under the Local Government Act in 2000 and the Board has two councillors from each participating council. A Chief Executive Officer from one of the member councils supports the PRC on an annual rotating basis. With the appointment of a Regional Executive Officer, the CEO now sponsors the PRC, while the Executive Officer facilitates and manages the operations of the regional council. The CEO has some control over staff from other councils regarding specific projects.

To date the focus of the PRC has been:

• Advocacy • Lobbying • Managing reviews and studies e.g. asset management, waste management • Advising about best practice

Discussions with the Regional Executive Officer highlighted to following issues:

• In August 2006 there was a critical decision to retain the PRC, however with a limited project management and secretariat function only. There is a current review of the future direction of the PRC in regard to governance and strategy as it seems to exist on projects only. • The PRC employs the Executive Officer and a part-time administration officer, although office facilities are not provided. This can cause some problems with access to facilities and reliability of technology. • Compliance is an onerous requirement under the Act, despite the ability to be exempted from some compliance requirements. • A Regional Council needs to be clear about what it wants to do, where it is going and the process for each Council around decision-making • To be successful, a Regional Council requires clearly defined areas of operation or an anchor such as waste management such as the EMRC • Equity amongst councils can be an issue, particularly in relation to funding • It is essential that the Regional Council has a high priority with each member council

Page | 13

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Voluntary Regional Group of Councils (VROCs)

At present there are several voluntary groups of Councils (VROCs) in Western Australia, apart from WESROC. These include:

Name Members Comments South West Group Cockburn Focus on regional development, (SWG) Melville in particular economic Fremantle development Rockingham East Fremantle Objectives: Kwinana • Regional governance – a stakeholder in decision making • Facilitate economic development • Socio-economic development • Management of the natural and built environment • Coordination of municipal services

Has established the South West Development Foundation Inc. as a project facilitation entity for SWG and an incorporated body for securing grants. Manages a regional industry web portal. Employs a full-time Director.

Page | 14

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Bunbury Wellington Bunbury Regional resource sharing Regional Group of Donnybrook/Balingup and regional cooperation. Councils Collie Administration carried out by Capel Dardanup at no cost all funds Dardanup held in trust by them. Harvey Operate under a Memorandum of Understanding (1999). Currently looking at Alliance Model. Warren Blackwood Boyup Brook Aims to highlight and progress Strategic Alliance Bridgetown- issues that have a regional (WBSA) Greenbushes impact. Manjimup Provides a voice for the region. Nannup Receives support from South West Development Commission. Develops networks and stakeholder relationships. Promotes the region. Employs a part-time Executive Officer. South East Avon Beverley Regional studies and Regional Group of Brookton cooperation. Desire to create Councils (SEAVROC) Cunderdin separate entity for resource Quairading sharing and service delivery. York North Eastern Koorda Focuses on regional strategic Wheatbelt Mt. Marshall planning and resource sharing. Organisation of Nungarin Works in partnership with other Councils (NEWroc) Trayning organisations such as the Avon Westonia Catchment Council. Wyalkatchem

A VROC cannot operate as a separately constituted body and as such is a representative organisation with no formal delegated decision-making authority. Furthermore it has no capacity to employ staff, sell or buy assets, conduct tenders, sell services or manage its own funds. VROCs rely on member Council’s to provide financial and management functions on behalf of the group.

Most VROCs concentrate their efforts on advocacy, sharing knowledge and resources, coordinating shared services and resource sharing projects, and undertaking cooperative regional projects such as policy development, planning and feasibility studies.

Increasingly VROC’s are establishing independent secretariats (Executive Officer/CEO and administrative support) to resource the organisation. These are

Page | 15

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

either employed (by one Council on behalf of the group) or a consultant is contracted to provide the service for a period of time (usually part-time).

The main concerns about VROCs include:

Cumbersome decision-making due to the need to refer decisions back to member councils Lack of shared regional approach and tension with local priorities Administrative impost on member councils Lack of financial independence Inability to provide services, employ staff, hold assets, etc

Discussions were held with the South East Avon Regional Group of Councils (SEAVROC) which operates as a VROC but is keen to form a new entity to facilitate regional service delivery on behalf of member councils. These separate discussions involved the CEO of a member council and the SEAVROC Executive Officer.

While currently operating as a VROC, SEAVROC is keen to create a central entity to sell/provide services to its member local governments, and potentially other local governments. SEAVROC is considered an interim solution and significant research on alternative options has been undertaken with the support of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and the WA Local Government Association (WALGA).

SEAVROC has considered operating as a regional council while waiting for legislative change for a different model not currently available in Western Australia, however with the current structural reform program it has been decided to progress the VROC approach in the short term.

In August 2007, Mr. John Gilfellon prepared a report titled “Providing Local Governments with the Ability to Maximise the Benefits from Resource Sharing: Options Paper on Variations to the Current Legislative Requirements on Regional Local Governments for Submission to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development”. The purpose of the report was to look at options for SEAVROC in establishing a legal entity by which it could undertake greater resource sharing initiatives without increasing administrative overheads and while retaining individual autonomy.

The Gilfellon report investigated a number of regional governance models across Australia, covering much of the same content as the Dollery report. Gilfellon also undertook a detailed examination of possible exemptions under the WA Local Government Act for Regional Councils and determined that despite many possible exemptions or non applicable sections, the establishment of a Regional Council under current legislation poses too great a compliance and administrative burden.

The report recommends that SEAVROC requests the Minister for Local Government to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to include the provision of the South

Page | 16

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Australian Local Government Act 1999 relating to the formation of regional subsidiaries.

Mr Neil Douglas of McLeods Barristers & Solicitors was contracted by the South East Avon Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils (SEAVROC) in association with the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) to undertake a feasibility study of regional collaborative models. Similarly to the Dollery Report and the Gilfellon Report, he examined benefits for and against a range of models.

In his conclusion, Mr Douglas stressed the need for any model to have a clear understanding of:

• The broad objectives of the regional body • The preferred composition, structure and procedures of the regional body • The functions and activities that are proposed to be undertaken by the regional body, including the level of its independence and autonomy

He says that clarity about the administrative and regulatory functions that a regional body wishes to undertake is essential for determining the most effective regional model and what, if any, legislative changes are required.

In his review of a range of models, Douglas believes that the South Australian regional subsidiary model ‘warrants serious consideration ’due to its flexibility, its use of individual charters as the primary regulatory source, and the relatively light compliance and regulatory burdens that apply’. ‘

As a result of the outcomes of the Gilfellon and Douglas reports, SEAVROC has resolved to continue to operate as a VROC while lobbying for legislative change to provide for a regional subsidiary that provides an independent, flexible and low cost entity for regional service delivery.

In the interim, SEAVROC has contracted an Executive Officer and administrative support for 25 hours per week for approximately $90 per hour average (16 hours EO support and 9 hours administrative support). The Department of Local Government and Regional Development has provided a grant for two years to fund the regional secretariat which is managed by the Town of York. At present different member councils manage the funds for individual projects although the Executive Officer is responsible for financial monitoring and reporting.

SEAVROC operates under a Memorandum of Understanding and has a Strategic Plan and supporting project plans. These are adopted separately by each member council and once approved SEAVROC has the mandate for implementation. Each council has a standing item in briefing forums for consideration of minutes and progress reports. The Chief Executive Officers attend the Board meeting, and only meet in an ad hoc manner separately.

Page | 17

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

During the consultations with SEAVROC, the following issues were identified:

• The overhead costs of a regional council can be too onerous and impact negatively on efficiency and effectiveness • It is important that a suitable Executive Officer is recruited including the title of the position and required skills, especially project management, change management, facilitation and strategic planning • It is sometimes difficult to get all participants to think regionally and strategically • It is essential that the Chairman is able to lead effectively and bring participants along • Communication and a shared understanding is essential • It is useful to focus on regulatory services for shared service approach – planning, environment health and building services • It should also consider joint works, natural resource management and engineering services

South Australian Regional Subsidiary Model

While Dollery evaluated several models for regional cooperation (ad hoc, regional organisations, area-integration or joint board, virtual, agency and amalgamated) he did not consider the Regional Subsidiary Model available under the South Australian Local Government Act 1999. Both Douglas and Gilfellon have reviewed this model and recommend it as an option for Western Australia, subject to legislative change.

Due to the interest in this model in Western Australia it is useful to provide more detail here about its structure and operation. However, it must be pointed out that this model is not currently available in Western Australia but could be something that WESROC further considers advocating for.

According to Douglas, the benefits of the regional subsidiary model are:

1. Regulatory and compliance burdens are light, especially compared to those imposed on local governments in Western Australia. 2. Much of the regulation is left to individual charters. This means that charters do not require legislative intervention and regional subsidiaries can be flexible in their approaches depending on their needs. 3. There is a focus on reporting and accountability by the regional subsidiary to its constituent councils, rather than to the Department or the Minister. 4. The entity is subject to the joint direction and control of its constituent members.

Page | 18

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

5. The entity is enabled by a Charter to deal with the proceedings as a Board of Management, rather than the general proceedings required of a council under the Act.

Douglas concludes by noting that WA local government legislation needs to be changed to enable regional subsidiaries, which he doesn’t believe can be achieved by amendments to the regulations of the Act.

Under the South Australian legislation (Appendix A), two or more councils may establish a regional subsidiary –

(a) To provide a specified service or services to carry out a specified activity or activities; (b) To perform a function of the councils under this or another Act

The establishment of a regional subsidy is subject to Ministerial approval but does not remove any powers from a constituent council. Under Schedule 2 of the Act a regional subsidiary:

• Is a body corporate • Has the name assigned to it by its Charter (Constitution) • Has the powers, functions and duties specified in its charter • Holds its property on behalf of the constituent councils

The Southern and Hills Local Government Association (S&HLGA) was established in 2003 and consists of six regional local government associations in non-metropolitan South Australia and was constituted under the Regional Subsidiary provisions of the Act. The constituent councils are the Adelaide Hills Council, Alexandrina Council, the Barossa Council, Kangaroo Island Council, District Council of Mt. Barker, Rural City of Murray Bridge, City of Victor Harbour and the District Council of Yankalilla. The Association’s Charter aims to:

1. Provide leadership and advocacy on regional issues 2. Encourage and promote the interests of an autonomous and democratic system of Local Government 3. Plan at a regional level when determining the needs of communities 4. Promote cooperation to achieve efficient and effective delivery of services which meet the needs of communities 5. Support and develop financial and economic well being of the community which is sustainable

Collectively the eight councils have a population of 140, 668 (2003).

S&HLGA is governed by an Executive Committee which meets bi-monthly and delegates are generally the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of each Council. Meetings are rotated between councils and provide a regional forum for speakers on topical issues. The Association has the following technical working

Page | 19

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

parties/committees, members drawn from the technical staff of each constituent council:

• Roads Working Party • Natural Resource Management Committee • CEO’s Forum (informal, bi-monthly on alternate months to the Executive Committee

Under the Association’s Charter, subscriptions are paid by constituent councils on an equal amount. The Association engages the services of an Executive Officer under a contract services agreement.

The Association has a Strategic Plan and Business Plan which focuses on the following objectives:

1. To achieve a high level of cooperation between member councils within the region 2. To promote the Southern & Hills Local Government Association 3. To be an advocate on regional issues for member councils 4. To support sustainable regional economic development 5. To improve transport infrastructure 6. To access funds as a region

The Murray and Mallee Local Government Association was also established as a regional subsidiary under the provisions of the SA Local Government Act 1999. The Association is comprised of eight local government authorities (Berri Barmera, Coorong, Karoonda East Murray, Loxton Waikerie, Mid Murray, Murray Bridge, Renmark Paringa and Southern Mallee). A copy of the Association’s Charter is attached as an example at Appendix B.

Consultation

Meetings have been held with all Mayors and Chief Executive Officers in the Western Suburbs, including the Town of Cambridge. There is overall agreement that WESROC could function better, and despite the positive comments about WESROC’s achievements in the Dollery report and a standing decision to implement his recommendations, there is an overall perception that other factors could be weakening the overall effectiveness of WESROC. These include:

• The administration of WESROC is somewhat inefficient due to the lack of a dedicated secretariat. Issues at times include late agendas, agendas with an operational focus, and little input into agendas by the Board. • Everyone recognises that WESROC is a significant administrative imposition on Chief Executive Officers whose priority is their own local government. • Studies get undertaken but implementation at times does not occur – certainly not consistently across the region.

Page | 20

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Decision-making can be slow due to the need, or perceived need, to consult with each member local government. There is some difficulty with the Town of Cambridge participating in decision- making without being a member of WESROC.

Despite these issues, there were positive comments about the future of WESROC:

There is general support for continued regional cooperation and resource sharing, despite current structural reform initiatives. Current structural reform in Western Australia should not delay improved regional cooperation and resource sharing. There is a strong desire that WESROC takes a more strategic regional approach. There is some appetite to consider merging WESROC and WMRC, although there is nervousness about the cost, additional level of government, independence, and lack of accountability back to member councils of a Regional Council. At present the City of Nedlands would strongly resist re- joining the WMRC. It is acknowledged that other models not currently possible under current legislation could be pursued, in particular the South Australian Alliance model as proposed by both Douglas and Gilfellon There is a desire to pursue shared services, either through a regional body, or by individual local governments on behalf of the region. There have been suggestions that individual local governments could become ‘Centres of Excellence’ providing services to other members. It was suggested that Centres of Excellence should be separately located to avoid any perception about influence of a hosting council. There are synergies between the concept of ‘Centres of Excellence’ and the Alliance Model as proposed by Dollery. There is a strong desire for a secretariat to support WESROC. This secretariat would provide regional management leadership and drive projects. This was supported by SEAVROC which stressed the importance of a strong and appropriately skilled Chief Executive Officer/Executive Officer, especially in project management, change management and ability to represent the Region. SEAVROC also stressed the importance of performance management of the Executive Officer. There is a desire for WESROC to manage its own funds. There is some expectation that savings from resource sharing should fund the secretariat. Flexibility and the ability to opt in, or opt out, of projects should continue. There needs to be a better decision-making process so that decisions and actions are not impeded due to reference back to member councils. There was consensus about the need to keep member councils better informed about WESROC activities. It is positive that the Town of Cambridge is participating, project by project, in WESROC initiatives.

Overall most people felt that the ultimate success of WESROC will depend on parties working collaboratively, with a strong commitment to long term cooperation and planning, for effective regional outcomes.

Page | 21

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Recommendations

It is recommended that WESROC develops a more effective model for regional cooperation and resource sharing by implementing recommendations of the Dollery Report, but more specifically by adopting actions for WESROC that address governance, structural, process and strategy issues (refer Appendix D).

These recommendations are intended to address:

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS

1. Contract a WESROC Secretariat for 3 days per week for an initial period of two years inclusive of a Regional Executive Officer (19 hours per week) and administrative support (5 hours per week) at an average cost of $92 per hour.

2. Allocate a budget of $120,000 per year for two years to fund all costs associated with the secretariat using the current funding model to determine the contribution from each local government authority which includes the costs for the hosting local government authority.

3. Approach the Town of Cambridge to make a financial contribution to the cost of the Regional Secretariat.

4. Approach the Department of Local Government for two year funding for the WESROC secretariat with a view that savings from resource sharing will eventually fund the secretariat.

5. Determine a local government authority to manage the contract for the Regional Secretariat and provide financial management and reporting services to the Regional Executive Officer.

Page | 22

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

6. Determine an overhead payable to the hosting local government authority, funded from the Secretariat budget, for the cost of administering the Regional Secretariat.

7. Review the current WESROC Terms of Reference and develop a Memorandum of Understanding with legal advice provided by McLeods Solicitors and Barristers (Neil Douglas). Include the following governance, structural, process and strategic changes in the Memorandum of Understanding:

• WESROC Board Board of WESROC to meet every two months with a Chairman to be elected by the Board every 12 months. Member Councils to select their own representative on WESROC, who is not necessarily the Mayor.

Selection and Performance Criteria to be developed for the position of Chairman and Board Member.

The WESROC Executive Officer to attend the Board meetings and coordinate administrative support. A standing invitation would be extended to the Chairman of the CEO Advisory Group, however all CEOs would not attend these meetings. The Chairmen of Technical Advisory Groups may be invited to attend the Board in respect to specific agenda items if deemed necessary.

The Board would be responsible for achieving the outcomes of the Strategic Plan and Annual Business Plan and regularly monitor progress. A particular focus will be the Marketing and Communication Plan to ensure effective WESROC profile, regional advocacy and stakeholder management.

The Board, via the Chairman, will be responsible for the contracting and performance of the Regional Executive Officer

• WESROC Executive Establish a Chief Executive Officers Advisory Group which is chaired by an annually elected WESROC Chief Executive Officer. The Regional Executive Officer would also be a member of this group. The Advisory Group can refer strategic items to the Board and receive requests for information or action from the Board. This group would also monitor progress on projects, prepare the annual budget, allocate project resources, review financial management reports and review/approve project plans for items identified in the Strategic Plan, etc. This group would meet monthly.

The requirement to participate actively in regional cooperation and resource sharing will be incorporated into each CEO’s job description with links to performance outcomes.

Page | 23

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

• Technical Advisory Groups Establish relevant Technical Advisory Groups (environmental, infrastructure, social planning, etc). These would be chaired by the WESROC Executive Officer who would coordinate activity and report to the Board via the CEO Advisory Group. Terms of reference should be developed for approval by the Board and each project would have a project plan against which progress is reported.

• Decision-making Develop decision-making procedures for all WESROC forums and integrate into the Memorandum of Understanding.

• Strategic Priorities and Activities Identify WESROC purpose, priorities and key activities and include in a Memorandum of Understanding. Ensure existing flexibility and opt in/opt out options are available for member Councils.

SHORT TERM

Upon appointment of the Regional Secretariat undertake the following actions within six months:

1. Develop a twelve month Performance Plan for the Regional Executive Officer based on the achievement of short and medium term recommendations.

2. Review the Strategic Plan and 2009/10 Budget with a view to reduce the number of projects and focus on short term gains for the region. Resource sharing priorities should initially address:

• Resolving shared depot arrangements • Implementing regional GIS services • Implementing regional technical design services

Develop performance indicators against the Strategic Plan and Annual Business Plan and reporting regime.

Develop template Service Level Agreement for resource sharing projects.

3. Develop a WESROC 2009/10 Business Plan including Project Plans and Budget for approval by each member local government authority. Funds for implementation of projects, including overhead costs, should also be included in the Project Plans and Budget. Once approved, further decision-making is not required by member councils unless new strategic or political issues arise.

4. Establish a financial management policy and process for WESROC. This would require one local government to volunteer to hold all monies and

Page | 24

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

provide financial management reporting services to the WESROC Executive Officer. It would be essential that all financial expenditure is authorised by WESROC Board via minutes of Board meetings to ensure transparency and accountability. Policy should include authorisations for expenditure.

5. Develop an effective reporting mechanism for each member local government authority on the activities and progress of WESROC.

6. Review and implement changes to the process and structure of WESROC agendas, minutes and meetings

7. Review and implement changes to WESROC internal communications.

8. Develop a 2010/11 WESROC Business Plan with particular emphasis on resource sharing projects for endorsement by each Council prior to 2010/11.

MEDIUM TERM

Following the implementation of short term actions (within first 6 months), undertake the following actions with a view to have them completed during the 2010/11 financial year:

1. Develop a Marketing and Communications Plan and incorporate into the Strategic Plan and annual Business Plan. The Marketing and Communication Plan should include:

• Stakeholder Management Plan • WESROC website • WESROC Branding • Advocacy Strategy • WESROC Promotion

3. Develop a process for recording cost savings achieved from projects.

4. Develop and implement a Board Effectiveness evaluation process.

5. Investigate the establishment of Centres of Excellence for resource sharing services.

6. Review effectiveness of WESROC Secretariat.

7. Implement a Project Management System including project initiation, project planning, project implementation and project review)

LONGER TERM

Following the implementation of medium term actions (June 2010), undertake the following:

Page | 25

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

1. Benchmark WESROC activities and outcomes with other cooperative regional organisations.

2. Further investigate other regional models (e.g. Subsidiary model in SA and Regional Council with exemptions in WA) as a possible longer-term option for WESROC following the outcomes of the Structural Reform process.

3. Work cooperatively with other regional bodies in lobbying to Government and industry bodies for legislative changes needed to facilitate effective regional models for regional cooperation and resource sharing.

Page | 26

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Appendix A – Sample Charter

Page | 27

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

MURRAY AND MALLEE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION CHARTER FOR A REGIONAL SUBSIDIARY Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1999. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Name The name of the subsidiary is the Murray and Mallee Local Government Association (referred to as “the Subsidiary” in this Charter). 1.2 Definitions In this Charter:- 1.2.1 “absolute majority” means a majority of the whole number of the Board members of the Constituent Councils as the case may be; 1.2.2 “Act” means the Local Government Act 1999 and all relevant Regulations made thereunder; 1.2.3 “Board” means the Board of Management established under Clause 4; 1.2.4 “Board member” means a person who has been appointed to the Board by a Constituent Council in accordance with Clause 4.2.1; 1.2.5 “Chairperson” means a person elected as Chairperson of the Board pursuant to Clause 4.4.1 and includes a person authorised by this Charter to act in place of the Chairperson; 1.2.6 “Constituent Council” means those Councils named in Clause 1.3; 1.2.7 “Council” means a Council constituted under the Local Government Act, 1999; 1.2.8 “deliberative vote” means a vote cast by each member of the Board (including the Chairperson) for the purpose of deciding a matter under deliberation; 1.2.9 “elected member” means a Mayor, Chairman or Councillor of a Council who has been elected pursuant to the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 and the Local Government Act 1999; 1.2.10 “financial year” means a year beginning on 1 July in each year and ending on 30 June of the following year; 1.2.11 “meeting” includes an ordinary meeting and a special meeting of the Board; 1.2.12 “Minister” means the Minister for the time being responsible for the administration of the Local Government Act 1999; 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 3 -

Page | 28

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

1.2.13 “Regional Local Government Association” means a grouping of Councils which share a common geographic region and which have formed a body recognised under a law of the State of South Australia; and 1.2.14 “special resolution” means a resolution passed by a two thirds majority of all Board members entitled to vote on the issue. 1.3 Establishment The Subsidiary is a regional subsidiary established pursuant to Section 43 of the Act by the following Councils: 1.3.1 The Berri Barmera Council, 1.3.2 The Coorong District Council, 1.3.3 The District Council of Karoonda East Murray, 1.3.4 District Council of Loxton Waikerie, 1.3.5 The Mid Murray Council, 1.3.6 The Rural City of Murray Bridge, 1.3.7 The Renmark Paringa Council, and 1.3.8 The Southern Mallee District Council. 1.4 Local Government Act 1999 This Charter must be read in conjunction with Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act. The Subsidiary shall conduct its affairs in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Act except as modified by this Charter in a manner permitted by Schedule 2. 1.5 Objects and Purposes The Subsidiary is established to: 1.5.1 as the Subsidiary is a Regional Association of Councils under Part 4 of the Constitution of the Local Government Association of South Australia, to work with that Association in achieving its aims and objectives; 1.5.2 associate, collaborate and work in conjunction with other local government bodies for the advancement of any common interest; 1.5.3 undertake coordinating, advocacy and representational roles for its Constituent Councils at a regional level; 1.5.4 facilitate and coordinate activities of local government at a regional level related to community and economic development with the object of achieving continual improvement for the benefit of the communities of its Constituent Councils; 1.5.5 develop, encourage, promote, foster and maintain consultation and cooperation with other levels of government, private enterprise and the community; 1.5.6 strengthen the representation and status of local government when dealing with other levels of government, private enterprise and the community; 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 4 -

Page | 29

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

1.5.7 develop further cooperation between its constituent Councils for the benefit of the communities of the region; 1.5.8 develop and manage policies which guide the conduct of programs and projects in the region with the objective of securing the best outcomes for the communities of the region; and 1.5.9 undertake projects that benefit the region and its communities. 1.6 Powers Functions and Duties The powers, functions and duties of the Subsidiary are to be exercised in the performance of the Subsidiary’s objects and purposes. The Subsidiary shall have those powers, functions and duties delegated to it by the Constituent Councils from time to time which include but are not limited to: 1.6.1 becoming a member of or cooperating or contracting with any other association or organisation, whether within or outside of the area of the Constituent Councils, which shares similar objects and purposes to those of the Subsidiary; 1.6.2 entering into contracts or arrangements with any Government agency or authority that are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and the exercise of the powers of the Subsidiary; 1.6.3 entering into contracts with any person or body for the acquisition or supply of goods and services; 1.6.4 appointing, employing, remunerating, removing or suspending officers, managers, employees and agents subject to Clause 6; 1.6.5 raising revenue by: 1.6.5.1 charging the Constituent Councils fees incurred by the Subsidiary in undertaking and carrying out the Subsidiary’s objects and purposes; 1.6.5.2 arrangement with sponsor organisations; 1.6.5.3 arrangement or contract with any other person or body; and 1.6.5.4 any other means not inconsistent with the objects of the Subsidiary; 1.6.6 printing and publishing any newspapers, periodicals, books, leaflets, or other like writing; 1.6.7 appointing such committees as it deems necessary and to define the duties of such committees provided that the acts of any such committee shall be submitted before execution or discharge thereof for the approval of the Subsidiary and appointing persons to such a committee which may consist partly of persons who are not representatives of Constituent Councils; 1.6.8 delegating any of the Subsidiary’s powers, functions and duties to persons or committees and altering or revoking such delegations; 1.6.9 co-opting to any duly appointed committee, any elected representatives, any officer of a Constituent Council, or any other appropriate person as deemed desirable for the efficient function of that committee; 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 5 -

Page | 30

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

1.6.10 subject to Clause 8.9, acquiring, holding, dealing with and disposing of any real or personal property of the Subsidiary; 1.6.11 opening and operating bank accounts; 1.6.12 investing monies in any security in which trust moneys may, by Act of Parliament, be invested or in any other manner approved by the Constituent Councils; 1.6.13 borrowing money; 1.6.14 giving security for the discharge of liabilities of the Subsidiary; and 1.6.15 doing all other things that are necessary or convenient for or incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and purposes, and the exercise, performance or discharge of the powers, functions and duties of the Subsidiary. 2. STRUCTURE OF THE SUBSIDIARY 2.1 The Subsidiary is a body corporate and, subject to the Act, is governed by its Charter. Its Board has responsibility for the management of the business and other affairs of the Subsidiary ensuring that the Subsidiary acts in accordance with this Charter, with any relevant State legislation and with any conditions attached to grants received from the Commonwealth or South Australian Government or other parties. 2.2 All meetings of the Subsidiary shall be meetings of the Board. 2.3 The Board will be entitled to make decisions in accordance with the powers and functions of the Subsidiary established in this Charter. 3. MEMBERSHIP 3.1 Initial Constituent Councils All those Councils which are Constituent Councils upon establishment of the Subsidiary under this Charter (as set out in Clause 1.3) are known as the initial Constituent Councils. 3.2 New Members Subject to the provisions of the Act, including but not limited to Ministerial approval, this Charter may be amended by a resolution of the Constituent Councils to provide for the admission of a new Constituent Council or Councils, with or without conditions of membership, such conditions to be determined by the Board. 3.3 Withdrawal 3.3.1 A Constituent Council may not withdraw from the Subsidiary except with the approval of the Minister and subject to the Act and this Charter. 3.3.2 A Constituent Council which intends to withdraw from the Subsidiary shall give to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary written notice of such intention, specifying the date of intended withdrawal. The notice shall be a minimum of three months. 3.3.3 The withdrawal of the Constituent Council does not extinguish the liability of that Constituent Council to make payment of its budgeted 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 6 -

Page | 31

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

contribution for the financial year in which it gives notices and any other amounts outstanding. 3.4 Equity Shares 3.4.1 Upon establishment of the Subsidiary, each initial Constituent Council will have an equity share in the Subsidiary as set out in the table contained in Schedule 1 to this Charter. 3.4.2 The only time that the equity share of the Constituent Councils in the Subsidiary will vary is where a new Constituent Council is admitted to or an existing Constituent Council withdraws from the Subsidiary in accordance with this Charter. 3.5 Funding 3.5.1 Each Constituent Council shall be liable to contribute funds to the Subsidiary each financial year in accordance with the amount specified in the budget adopted under Clause 7.4 and in proportion to its equity share. 3.5.2 Such funds will be due and payable within one month of the date that the budget is adopted. 3.5.3 If Constituent Council status is granted to a Council after the first day of July in any year the Subsidiary may, with the approval of the Constituent Councils, amend its budget to provide for the contribution of funds by that Council, provided that the funds to be contributed shall not exceed the equity share of that Council and shall be calculated on a pro-rata basis according to the number of full months remaining in the financial year. 4. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT The Board shall have the responsibility to manage the business and other affairs of the Subsidiary ensuring that the Subsidiary acts in accordance with this Charter. 4.1 Functions of the Board 4.1.1 The formulation of strategic plans and strategies aimed at improving the activities of the Subsidiary. 4.1.2 To provide professional input and policy direction to the Subsidiary. 4.1.3 Monitoring, overseeing and evaluating the performance of the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary. 4.1.4 Ensuring that ethical behaviour and integrity is established and maintained by the Subsidiary and its Board Members in all activities undertaken by the Subsidiary. 4.1.5 Subject to Clause 4.6.11 ensuring that the activities of the Subsidiary are undertaken in an open and transparent manner. 4.1.6 The preparation and development of Business Plans to be considered in consultation with the Constituent Councils. 4.1.7 Exercising the care, diligence and skill required by the Act and in any event such that a prudent person of business would exercise in managing the affairs of other persons. 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 7 -

Page | 32

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

4.2 Membership of the Board 4.2.1 Subject to Clause 4.2.2, the Board shall consist of two (2) persons from each Constituent Council appointed by the Constituent Council. 4.2.2 Each Constituent Council shall, following every periodic Local Government election, appoint, in writing to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary, those persons to act as Board members, of whom one shall be an elected member of the Constituent Council and one may be the Chief Executive Officer or such other officer of the Constituent Council. 4.2.3 Subject to Clause 4.2.4, a Board member shall be appointed for a term not exceeding the term that the Board member continues as an elected member or officer of the Constituent Council or until the conclusion of the next periodic Local Government Election following their appointment, whichever term is the lesser, at which time they shall be eligible to be reappointed by the Constituent Council. 4.2.4 Notwithstanding Clause 4.2.3, the Constituent Council may appoint either or both of its Board members for a lesser period by nominating the period in the written appointment provided to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary. In such circumstances, any continuation of appointment following the expiry of the initial period nominated shall be in writing addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary. 4.2.5 Each Board member shall be entitled to one vote. 4.2.6 Notwithstanding Clause 4.2.1, each Constituent Council may appoint two persons, at least one of whom must be an elected member, to act as deputy where either or both Board members of that Constituent Council will not be present at a meeting of the Board. 4.2.7 Division 2, Part 4, Chapter 5 of the Local Government Act (Register of Interests) will not apply to this Subsidiary. 4.3 Termination of Membership of the Board 4.3.1 Notwithstanding Clause 4.2.3, the appointment of a Board member shall terminate upon any of the grounds set out at Clause 20(3) of Schedule 2 to the Act arising, or otherwise: 4.3.1.1 if the Board member has been appointed under Clause 4.2: (a) upon the Council who appointed him/her ceasing to be a Constituent Council; or (b) if the Board member is an elected member of a Constituent Council upon ceasing to be an elected member; or (c) if the Board member is an officer of a Constituent Council, upon ceasing to be employed by the Council which employed him/her; 4.3.1.2 in respect of any Board appointment, upon the happening of any other event through which the Board member would become ineligible to remain as a member of the Board. 4.3.2 The Board may, by special resolution, make a recommendation to the Constituent Council which appointed a Board member under Clause 4.2 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 8 -

Page | 33

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

requesting the Constituent Council to terminate the appointment of that Board member for: 4.3.2.1 any behaviour of the Board member which in the opinion of the Board amounts to impropriety; 4.3.2.2 serious neglect of duty in attending to his/her responsibilities as a Board member; 4.3.2.3 breach of fiduciary duties to the Subsidiary or the Constituent Council(s); 4.3.2.4 breach of the duty of confidentiality to the Subsidiary and the Constituent Council(s); 4.3.2.5 breach of the conflict of interest provisions; or 4.3.2.6 any other behaviour which may discredit the Subsidiary or the Constituent Councils. 4.3.3 Notwithstanding any other Clause of this Charter, a Board member may be removed from office as a Board member by special resolution of the Board prior to the expiration of a term of appointment. 4.3.4 If any vacancy occurs in the membership of the Board it must be filled in the same manner as the original appointment under Clause 4.2. The person appointed to the Board to fill a vacancy will be appointed for the balance of the term of the original appointment and at the expiry of that term shall be eligible for re- appointment. 4.4 Chairperson of the Board 4.4.1 The Chairperson of the Board shall be appointed by the Board from amongst its members and shall hold office for a term of one year, unless he/she resigns or is removed from office pursuant to a resolution of the Board or until he/she is no longer eligible to act as a Board member. 4.4.2 There shall also be a Deputy Chairperson of the Board appointed by the Board from amongst its members and shall hold office for a term of one year unless he/she resigns or is removed from office pursuant to a resolution of the Board or until he/she is no longer eligible to act as a Board member. 4.4.3 The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson shall be eligible for re-appointment upon their term of office expiring. 4.4.4 The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson elected in a year immediately preceding the year in which a periodic Local Government election is to be held shall hold office until the conclusion of the next ordinary meeting that is held immediately following the conclusion of the periodic election, at which meeting both the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Board shall be elected in accordance with Clause 4.4.1. 4.4.5 If the Chairperson either resigns or is no longer eligible to act as a Board member prior to the expiry of his/her term as Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson shall act in that office. In the event of the Deputy Chairperson refusing or being unable to act, the Board shall elect from amongst their own number a new Chairperson who shall hold office until the conclusion of the original term. 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 9 -

Page | 34

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

4.5 Powers of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson 4.5.1 The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board. 4.5.2 In the event that the Chairperson is absent from a meeting, the Deputy Chairperson shall preside at that meeting, and in the event that both the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are absent from the meeting, the Board shall appoint a member from amongst them who shall preside at that meeting or until the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson is present. 4.6 Meetings of the Board 4.6.1 The Board may determine procedures in addition to but not inconsistent with those specified in this Charter to apply at or in relation to its meetings. 4.6.2 The Board shall meet: 4.6.2.1 for ordinary meetings at such times and places as may be fixed by the Board from time to time provided that there will be not less than four ordinary meetings each financial year; and 4.6.2.2 for special meetings if demanded in writing by the Chairperson or by both Board members appointed by any three (3) Constituent Councils. 4.6.3 An ordinary meeting of the Board will constitute an ordinary meeting of the Subsidiary. The Board shall administer the business of an ordinary meeting. 4.6.4 For the purposes of this sub-clause, the contemporary linking together by telephone, audio-visual or other instantaneous means (“telecommunications meeting”) of a number of the Board members, provided that at least a quorum is present, is deemed to constitute a meeting of the Board. Each of the Board members taking part in a telecommunications meeting must at all times during the telecommunications meeting be able to hear and be heard by each of the other Board members present. At the commencement of the meeting each Board member must announce his/her presence to all other Board members taking part in the meeting. A Board member must not leave a telecommunications meeting by disconnecting his/her telephone, audio-visual or other communication equipment, unless that Board member has previously notified the Chairperson of the meeting. 4.6.5 Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, notice of ordinary meetings will be forwarded by the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary to the Board members and the Chief Executive Officers of the Constituent and Affiliate Councils at least 28 days prior to the date of the meeting, either by post to the Council’s address or by post to any other location, or via any other means of giving notice (eg. facsimile or email) as nominated by the Board member in writing addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary. 4.6.6 Notice of special meetings will be sent by the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary to the Board members and the Chief Executive Officers of the Constituent and Affiliate Councils at least three (3) days prior to the date of the meeting in the manner provided for at Clause 4.6.5. 4.6.7 Notice of a meeting for the purpose of making a recommendation to wind up the Subsidiary shall be sent to the Board members and the 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 10 -

Page | 35

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Chief Executive Officers of the Constituent Councils at least eight (8) weeks before the date of the meeting in the manner provided for at Clause 4.6.5. 4.6.8 A majority of the Board members present at a meeting of the Board may adjourn the meeting from time to time and from place to place. 4.6.9 Subject to Clause 4.6.11, all meetings of the Board will be conducted in a place open to the public. 4.6.10 All Board members must keep confidential all documents and any information provided to them on a confidential basis for their consideration prior to a meeting of the Board. 4.6.11 The Board may order that the public be excluded from attendance at any meeting in order to enable the Board to consider in confidence any information or matter listed in Section 90(3) of the Act (after taking into account any relevant consideration under that subsection). The exercise of this power does not exclude Board members and any other person permitted by the Board to remain in the room. 4.6.12 Where an order is made under Clause 4.6.11, a note must be made in the minutes of the making of the order and of the grounds on which it was made. 4.6.13 Where the Board has considered any information or a matter in confidence under Clause 4.6.11 it may subsequently resolve to keep minutes and/or any other documents considered during that part of the meeting confidential in accordance with Section 91 of the Act. 4.6.14 The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary must cause minutes to be kept of the proceedings at every meeting of the Board and ensure that the minutes are presented to the next ordinary meeting of the Board for confirmation and adoption. 4.6.15 Where the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary is excluded from attendance at a meeting of the Board pursuant to Clause 4.6.11, the person presiding at the meeting shall cause the minutes to be kept. 4.6.16 The Board may invite any person to attend at a meeting of the Board to act in an advisory capacity. 4.7 Quorum 4.7.1 The quorum for an ordinary meeting of the Board is a majority of the number of Board members in office, being a number ascertained by dividing the total number of Board members for the time being in office by two (2), ignoring any fraction, and adding one (1). No business will be transacted at a meeting of the Board unless a quorum is present. 4.7.2 The quorum for a meeting of the Board other than an ordinary meeting shall be the number of Board members appointed by the Board to attend that meeting divided by two (2), ignoring any fraction, and adding one (1). No business shall be transacted at such a meeting unless a quorum is present. 4.8 Voting 4.8.1 Questions arising for decision at meetings of the Board will be decided by a simple majority of eligible votes on the basis of one (1) vote per 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 11 -

Page | 36

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Board member present at the meeting. The Chairperson shall not, in the event of equality of votes, have a second or casting vote. In the event of equality of votes the matter will lapse. 4.8.2 Subject to a conflict of interest, each Board member validly present at a meeting must vote on a question arising for a decision at the meeting. Failure by any Board member to vote in situations other than where a conflict of interest arises will be deemed to be a negative vote in relation to the question for decision. 4.8.3 Subject to any express contrary provision in this Charter, the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 33 of 2000 Parts 1, 2 and 4, will apply to all meetings of the Board. Procedures not specifically addressed by those Regulations or by this Charter will be as determined by the Board. 5. DISQUALIFICATION 5.1 A Council which fails to make payment of any amount due to the Subsidiary within six months from the date upon which the amount becomes due and payable shall, subject to Ministerial approval, cease to be a Constituent Council or, as the case may be, an Affiliate Council. 5.2 The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary will give notice in writing to the Council that its status as a Constituent Council or, as the case may be, an Affiliate Council, has been terminated. Termination will not be effective until approved by the Minister. 6. EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBSIDIARY 6.1 The Board must appoint a Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary to manage the business of the Subsidiary on terms agreed between the Chief Executive Officer and the Board. The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary may be a natural person or a body corporate approved by the Board. 6.2 The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary shall cause records to be kept of the business and financial affairs of the Subsidiary in accordance with this Charter, in addition to other duties provided for by this Charter and those specified in the terms and conditions of appointment. 6.3 In the absence of the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary for any period exceeding four weeks a suitable person to act in the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary must be appointed by the Board 6.4 The Board shall delegate responsibility for the day to day management of the Subsidiary to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary, who will ensure that sound business and human resource management practices are applied in the efficient and effective management of the operations of the Subsidiary. 6.5 The functions of the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary shall be specified in the terms and conditions of appointment and shall include but are not limited to: 6.5.1 appointing, managing, suspending and dismissing employees of the Subsidiary; 6.5.2 determining the conditions of employment of employees of the Subsidiary within the budgetary constraints set by the Board; 6.5.3 attending at all meetings of the Board unless excluded by resolution of the Board; 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 12 -

Page | 37

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

6.5.4 ensuring that the decisions of the Board are implemented in a timely and efficient manner; 6.5.5 providing information to assist the Board to assess the Subsidiary’s performance against its Strategic and Business Plans; 6.5.6 providing advice and reports to the Board on the exercise and performance of its powers and functions under this Charter or any Act; 6.5.7 ensuring that the Subsidiary is at all times complying with Schedule 2 to the Act; 6.5.8 ensuring that the Subsidiary’s annual report in accordance with Clause 28 to Schedule 2 to the Act is distributed to the Constituent Councils in time to be incorporated in their annual reports; 6.5.9 co-ordinating and initiating proposals for consideration of the Board including but not limited to continuing improvement of the operations of the Subsidiary; 6.5.10 ensuring that the assets and resources of the Subsidiary are properly managed and maintained; 6.5.11 exercising, performing or discharging other powers, functions or duties conferred on the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary by or under the Act or any other Act, and performing other functions lawfully directed by the Board; and 6.5.12 inviting any person to attend at a meeting to act in an advisory capacity. 6.6 The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary shall provide a report on his/her activities to the Board at every ordinary meeting. 7. MANAGEMENT 7.1 Financial Management 7.1.1 The Subsidiary shall keep proper books of accounts in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999. 7.1.2 The Subsidiary must reconsider its budget at least three times in each Financial Year at intervals of not less than three months between 30 September and 31 May (inclusive) in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999. 7.1.3 The Subsidiary’s books of account must be available for inspection by any Board member or authorised representative of any Constituent Council at any reasonable time on request. 7.1.4 The Subsidiary must establish and maintain a bank account at a bank and with such bank facilities to be determined by the Board. 7.1.5 The Subsidiary shall appoint no less than two Board members, the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson as authorised operators of the bank accounts. A minimum of two authorised operators must be required to deal with the bank account at any one time. 7.1.6 All cheques must be signed by two persons authorised by resolution of the Board. 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 13 -

Page | 38

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

7.1.7 Any payments made by electronic funds transfer must be made in accordance with procedures which have received the prior approval of the Auditor. The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary must act prudently in the handling of all financial transactions for the Subsidiary and must provide quarterly financial and corporate reports to the Board and, if requested, the Constituent Councils. 7.2 Audit 7.2.1 The Board shall appoint an auditor in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999. 7.2.2 The Auditor shall hold office until the appointment is rescinded by a resolution of the Board at an ordinary meeting. 7.2.3 The Auditor will have the same powers and responsibilities as set out in the Act in relation to a Council. 7.2.4 The audit of financial statements of the Subsidiary, together with the accompanying report from the Auditor, shall be submitted to both the Board and the Constituent Councils. 7.2.5 The books of account and financial statements shall be audited at least once per year. 7.2.6 The Subsidiary is not required to establish an audit committee, unless the Board resolves otherwise. 7.3 Business Plan 7.3.1 The Subsidiary shall prepare a Business Plan every three (3) years consequent upon Clause 7.3.2. 7.3.2 The initial Business Plan must be prepared within six months of establishment of the Subsidiary. 7.3.3 The Business Plan must: 7.3.3.1 link the core activities of the Subsidiary to strategic, operational and organisational requirements with supporting financial projections setting out the estimates of revenue and expenditure as necessary for the period; 7.3.3.2 include the performance targets of the Subsidiary; and 7.3.3.3 include those measures to be employed to monitor and assess performance and achievement of targets; 7.3.4 The Board shall: 7.3.4.1 compare the Business Plan against performance targets at least twice every Financial Year; 7.3.4.2 review the contents of the Business Plan annually; and 7.3.4.3 undertake reasonable consultation with the Constituent Councils prior to adopting or amending the Business Plan. 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 14 -

Page | 39

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

7.4 Annual Program and Budget 7.4.1 Before 31 October in each Financial Year in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999 a proposed annual program and budget detailing the estimated revenues and costs for the forthcoming Financial Year shall be submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary to the Board. 7.4.2 The proposed annual program and the budget must be referred the to Constituent Councils at the same time as the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary submits them to the Board members. 7.4.3 A Constituent Council may comment in writing to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary on the annual program and the budget at least three (3) business days before the meeting at which they will be considered by the Board or, alternatively, may comment through its Board members at the meeting of the Board. 7.4.4 The Board must provide a copy of the adopted budget to the Chief Executive Officer of each Constituent Council within five (5) business days after the adoption. 7.4.5 Reports summarising the financial position and performance of the Subsidiary against the annual budget shall be prepared and presented to the Board every three (3) calendar months and copies provided to the Constituent Councils within five (5) days of the Board meeting to which they have been presented. 7.5 Reporting 7.5.1 The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary shall ensure the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal Member of each Constituent Council shall receive a copy of the minutes from each Board meeting for distribution to the elected members of the Constituent Councils. 7.5.2 The Board must submit to the Constituent Councils by 31 October in each Financial Year a report in accordance with Clause 28 to Schedule 2 of the Act on the work and operations of the Subsidiary detailing achievement of the aims and objectives of its Business Plan and incorporating the audited Financial Statements of the Subsidiary and any other information or reports required by the Constituent Councils. 7.5.3 The Board shall present financial statements in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999 to the Constituent Councils at the end of each Financial Year. 8. MISCELLANEOUS 8.1 Insurance and Superannuation requirements 8.1.1 The Subsidiary shall register with the Local Government Mutual Liability Scheme and comply with the Rules of that Scheme. 8.1.2 If the Subsidiary employs any person it shall register with the Local Government Superannuation Scheme and the Local Government Workers Compensation Scheme and comply with the Rules of those Schemes. 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 15 -

Page | 40

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

8.2 Winding Up 8.2.1 The Subsidiary may be wound up by the Minister acting upon a unanimous resolution of the Constituent Councils or by the Minister in accordance with Clause 33(1)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Act. 8.2.2 In the event of a winding up of the Subsidiary, any surplus assets after fulfilment of the Subsidiary’s liabilities shall be returned to Constituent Councils in proportion to the equity shares of the Constituent Councils prior to the resolution to wind up being passed. 8.2.3 If there are insufficient funds to fulfil all of the Subsidiary’s liabilities on winding up, a levy shall be imposed on all Constituent Councils in proportion to the equity share of the Constituent Councils in the financial year prior to the resolution to wind up being passed. 8.3 Non-Derogation and Direction by Constituent Councils 8.3.1 The establishment of the Subsidiary does not derogate from the power of any of the Constituent Councils to act independently in relation to a matter within the jurisdiction of the Subsidiary. 8.3.2 Provided that the Constituent Councils have all first agreed unanimously as to the action to be taken, the Constituent Councils may direct and control the Subsidiary. 8.3.3 For the purpose of Clause 8.3.1, any decision of the Constituent Councils under Clause 8.3.2 and/or direction given or control exercised by the Constituent Councils must be given in writing to the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary. 8.4 Alteration and Review of Charter 8.4.1 This Charter will be reviewed by the Constituent Councils acting in concurrence at least once in every three (3) years. 8.4.2 This Charter may be amended by a resolution passed by each of the Constituent Councils. 8.4.3 The Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary must ensure that the amended Charter is published in the Gazette and a copy of the amended Charter is provided to the Minister and to all the Constituent Councils. 8.5 Disputes between Constituent Councils 8.5.1 The Constituent Councils agree to work together in good faith to resolve any matter requiring their direction or resolution. 8.5.2 Where the Constituent Councils are unable to resolve a matter within sixty (60) days of the matter being presented to them, the matter will be referred by the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary to the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia for arbitration by its President (or his/her nominee). 8.5.3 Notwithstanding Clause 8.5.2 of this Charter the Constituent Councils agree to be bound by the decision of the appointed arbitrator (except in relation to any decision relating to the acquisition or disposal of any real property) and will endeavour to work together in good faith in the implementation of that decision. 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 16 -

Page | 41

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

8.5.4 The costs of arbitration shall be borne equally by the Constituent Councils involved in the arbitration. 8.6 Committees 8.6.1 The Board may establish a committee of Board members for the purposes of: 8.6.1.1 enquiring into and reporting to the Board on any matter within the Subsidiary’s functions and powers and as detailed in the terms of reference given by the Board to the committee; 8.6.1.2 exercising, performing or discharging delegated powers, functions or duties. 8.6.2 A member of the committee established under Clause 8.6.1 of this Charter holds office at the pleasure of the Board. 8.6.3 The Board may establish advisory committees consisting of or including persons who are not Board members for enquiring into and reporting to the Board on any matter within the Subsidiary’s functions and powers and as detailed in the terms of reference which must be given by the Board to the advisory committee. 8.6.4 The Chairperson of the Board is an ex-officio member of any committee or advisory committee established by the Board. 8.7 Common Seal 8.7.1 The Subsidiary shall have a common seal upon which its corporate name shall appear in legible characters. 8.7.2 The common seal shall not be used without the express authorisation of a resolution of the Board and every use of the common seal shall be recorded in the minute book of the Subsidiary. 8.7.3 The affixing of the common seal shall be witnessed by the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson and the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary or such other person as the Board may appoint for the purpose. 8.7.4 The common seal shall be kept in the custody of the Chief Executive Officer of the Subsidiary or such other person as the Board may from time to time decide. 8.8 Standing Orders or Rules 8.8.1 Subject to Clause 21 of Schedule 2 of the Act and to the direction of the Constituent Councils, the Board may pass, alter or rescind standing orders, policies or rules for the due management and regulation of meetings of the Subsidiary. 8.8.2 Standing orders, policies or rules made pursuant to this Clause 8.8 shall be entered in a record which will be kept for the information of the Board members and may be printed and/or circulated at the discretion of the Board. 8.8.3 The standing orders, policies and rules in existence shall remain in operation for a period of one (1) year, at which time they shall be 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 17 -

Page | 42

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

reviewed by the Board and confirmed, varied or discontinued by resolution of the Board. 8.9 Property of the Subsidiary 8.9.1 All property held by the Subsidiary is held for and on behalf of the Constituent Councils in accordance with their respective equity shares. 8.9.2 No person may sell, encumber or otherwise deal with any property of the Subsidiary except in accordance with this Charter and with the prior written approval of the Constituent Councils. 8.10 Circumstances not provided for 8.10.1 If any circumstance arises on which this Charter is silent, incapable of taking effect or being implemented according to its strict provisions, the Chairperson may decide the action to be taken to ensure achievement of the objects of the Subsidiary and its effective administration. 8.10.2 The Chairperson shall report any such decision at the next general meeting. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 258580\KEOFinal Draft proposed Charter November 2006.doc - 18 -

Page | 43

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

SCHEDULE 1

EQUITY SHARES Constituent Council Equity Share

Berri Barmera Council 15.4%

Coorong District Council 10.2%

District Council of Karoonda East Murray 5.4%

District Council of Loxton Waikerie 16.3%

Mid Murray Council 12.2%

Rural City of Murray Bridge 20.4%

Renmark Paringa Council 13.7%

Southern Mallee District Council 6.4%

Page | 44

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

Appendix B – SA Local Government Act – Regional Subsidiaries

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 SECT 3.61

3.61 . Establishing a regional local government

(1) Two or more local governments (referred to in this Division as the participants ) may, with the Minister’s approval, establish a regional local government to do things, for the participants, for any purpose for which a local government can do things under this Act or any other Act.

(2) An application for the Minister’s approval is to be —

(a) in a form approved for that purpose by the Minister; and

(b) accompanied by a copy of an agreement between the participants to establish the regional local government (referred to in this Division as the establishment agreement ).

(3) The participants are to supply the Minister any further information about the application that the Minister asks for.

(4) If the Minister approves the application the Minister is to declare, by notice in the Gazette , that the regional local government is established —

(a) on the date;

(b) under the name; and

set out in the notice.

3.62 . Constitution and purpose of a regional local government

(1) A regional local government —

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal; and

(b) is to have as its governing body a council established under the establishment agreement and consisting of members of the councils of the participants.

(2) The purpose for which a regional local government is established (referred to in this Division as the regional purpose ) is as set out in the establishment agreement.

3.63 . Dissolution or partial dissolution of a regional local government

(1) A regional local government is to be wound up —

(a) at the direction of the Minister; or

Page | 45

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

(b) in accordance with the establishment agreement.

(2) A participant may, in accordance with the establishment agreement, withdraw from the regional local government and cease to be a participant.

3.64 . What the establishment agreement is to contain

The following matters are to be set out or provided for in the establishment agreement for a regional local government —

(a) the name of the regional local government;

(b) a description of the region for which the regional local government is established;

(c) the number of offices of member on the council of the regional local government and, in respect of each participant, the number of members to be appointed by that participant;

(d) the appointment and tenure of members of the council of the regional local government;

(e) the election or appointment of a chairman and deputy chairman of the regional local government from amongst members of its council and the term of office of a chairman and deputy chairman, which is not to exceed 2 years;

(f) the purpose for which the regional local government is established;

(g) a means of determining the financial contributions of the participants to the funds of the regional local government;

(h) procedures for the winding up of the regional local government or for the withdrawal of a participant from the regional local government;

(i) procedures for the division of assets and liabilities between the participants in the event of the regional local government being wound up or a participant withdrawing from the regional local government;

(j) a means of resolving disputes between participants as to matters relating to the regional local government; and

(k) any other prescribed matter.

[Section 3.64 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 28.]

3.65 . Amendment of establishment agreement

(1) The participants may amend the establishment agreement for a regional local government by agreement made with the Minister’s approval, and a reference in this Division

Page | 46

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR to the establishment agreement includes a reference to the establishment agreement as so amended.

(2) The establishment agreement can be amended under subsection (1) to include another local government as a further participant if that local government is a party to the amending agreement.

(3) Section 3.61(2) and (3) apply, with any necessary modifications, to an agreement amending the establishment agreement.

3.66 . Application of enabling Acts to a regional local government

(1) Except as otherwise stated in this section, this Act and any other Act under which anything can be done for the regional purpose apply in relation to a regional local government as if —

(a) the participants’ districts together made up a single district; and

(b) the regional local government were the local government established for that district.

(2) A regional local government can only do things for the regional purpose, and the application of this Act or any other Act under subsection (1) is limited accordingly.

(3) The following provisions of this Act do not apply in relation to a regional local government —

(a) Part 2 (other than sections 2.7, 2.26, 2.29 and 2.32(e) and Division 7);

(b) Part 4;

(d) Part 6, Division 6; and

(e) any provision prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

(4) Part 6, Division 5, Subdivision 3 does not apply in relation to a regional local government unless the establishment agreement provides that it does.

(5) The provisions that do apply in relation to a regional local government apply to it subject to any prescribed modifications and any other necessary modifications.

[Section 3.66 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 29.]

3.67 . Inconsistency between regional and other local laws

To the extent that a local law made by a regional local government is inconsistent with a local law made by a local government, the local law made by the regional local government prevails.

Page | 47

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHAR

3.68 . Other arrangements not affected

Nothing in this Division prevents local governments from making arrangements under which —

(a) a local government performs a function for another local government; or

(b) local governments perform a function jointly.

Page | 48

Appendix C - WESROC Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing Category Recommendations Priority Responsibility GOVERNANCE Develop 12 month performance plan for Regional Executive Officer Immediate Chairman Develop performance indicators for the Strategic Plan, Annual Business Short EO Plan and reporting regime Review current Terms of Reference and develop MOU Immediate EO Review WESROC purpose, priorities and key activities and include in MOU Short EO Develop selection criteria and performance criteria for Chairman and Board Short Chairman Develop decision-making procedures Short EO Develop and implement Board Effectiveness evaluation process Medium EO STRUCTURAL Re-structure WESROC Board to meet every 2 months with annually Short EO elected Chairman. Member representatives to be selected by each Council and need not be the Mayor. Regional Executive Officer to attend (non voting) and coordinate administrative support. Standing invitation to Chairman of CEO Advisory Group Board Chairman to be responsible for secretariat contract management Short Chairman and monitoring performance outcomes Establish a CEO Advisory Group with annual elected Chairman. Regional Short EO EO to attend. Establish appropriate time limited ad hoc Technical Advisory Groups Short EO

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHARING IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS

PROCESS Contract WESROC Secretariat for 3 days per week including Executive Immediate Chairman Officer and administrative support Allocate a budget of $120,000 per year for two years to fund Secretariat Immediate CEOs Approach the Department of Local Government for two year funding for the Immediate EO WESROC Secretariat Determine a local government authority to manage the contract for the Immediate CEOs Secretariat and provide financial management and reporting services to WESROC Determine an overhead payable to the hosting local government authority Immediate CEOs for the Secretariat Include requirement to actively participate in WESROC in every CEO’s job Short CEOs description Develop WESROC 2009/10 Business Plan including Project Plans and Short EO/CEOs Budget. Establish a financial management policy and process for WESROC Short EO Develop an effective reporting mechanism for each member local Short EO government authority on the activities and progress of WESROC Review and implement changes to the process and structure of WESROC Short EO agendas, minutes and meetings Review and implement changes to WESROC internal communications Short EO Develop a process for recording cost savings achieved from projects Short EO Develop template Service Level Agreement for resource sharing projects Short EO Implement a Project Management System Medium EO STRATEGIC Review the Strategic Plan and 2009/10 Budget with a view to reduce the Short EO number of projects and re-focus on short term gains for the region through resource sharing projects – shared depots, regional GIS and technical design services Develop a 2010/11 WESROC Business Plan for endorsement by each Short EO

Page | 50

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHARING IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS

Council with particular focus on resource sharing projects Develop a Marketing and Communications Plan Medium EO Further investigate other regional models especially the SA Regional Long EO Subsidiary Model Work cooperatively with other regional bodies to lobby for legislative Long EO changes for more effective regional models Benchmark WESROC activities and outcomes with other Regional Long EO organisations

Page | 51

June 5, 2009 A MODEL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHARING IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS

Appendix D – Consultations

Mayor of City of Subiaco, Heather Henderson Mayor of City of Nedlands, Sheryl Froese Deputy Mayor of Claremont, Paul Kelly Mayor Town of Cottesloe, Kevin Morgan President Shire of Peppermint Grove, Brian Kavanagh Mayor Town of Mosman Park, Ron Norris Mayor Town of Cambridge, Simon Withers CEO City of Subiaco, Stephen Tindale CEO City of Nedlands, Graham Foster CEO Town of Claremont, Arthur Kyron CEO Town of Cottesloe, Carl Askew CEO Shire of Peppermint Grove, Graeme Simpson CEO Town of Cambridge, Jason Buckley Department of Local Government, Caroline Tuthill, Acting Manager of Policy Department of Local Government, Jenni Law, Manager Support and Development Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council, Peter Schneider, Acting CEO Pilbara Regional Council, Adrian Ellson, Executive Officer Shire of Brookton, Gary Clark, CEO South East Avon Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils, Dominic Carbone, Executive Officer

Page | 52