DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Accounts Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Accounts Committee PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE TAKEN AT ALBANY ON MONDAY, 22 MARCH 2004 SESSION 1 Members Mr J.B. D’Orazio (Chairman) Mr M.G. House (Deputy Chairman) Mr J.L. Bradshaw Mr A.J. Dean Ms J.A. Radisich Public Accounts Session 1 - Monday, 22 March 2004 Page 1 Committee commenced at 9.37 am DRAGE, MR PETER Deputy President, Shire of Cranbrook, PO Box 38, Cranbrook, examined: BURGES, MR NICK Shire President, Shire of Cranbrook, RMB 456, Cranbrook, examined: STANLEY, MR GRAHAM PHILLIP Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Cranbrook, PO Box 21 Cranbrook, examined: STEWART, MR ROBERT JOHN Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Plantagenet, PO Box 48, Mt Barker, examined: LONG, MR DARREN JOHN Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Jerramungup, 4 Derrick St, Jerramungup, examined: GARNETT, MS GLENYSE DAWN Shire President, Shire of Jerramungup, Barbara Street, Bremer Bay, examined: DUNCAN, MR PETER ALEXANDER Manager, Planning and Development, Shire of Denmark, PO Box 183, Denmark, examined: FORBES, MR KEVIN Shire President, Shire of Plantagenet, PO Box 48, Mt Barker, examined: DURTANOVICH, MR PASCOE Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Denmark, PO Box 183, Denmark, examined: BARROW, MR JAMES KIMBERLEY Shire President, Shire of Denmark, 95 Scotsdale Road, Denmark, examined: Public Accounts Session 1 - Monday, 22 March 2004 Page 2 The CHAIRMAN: Welcome to the Public Accounts Committee hearings. The committee hearing is a proceeding of the Parliament and warrants the same respect that proceedings in the House itself demand. Even though you are not required to give evidence on oath, any deliberate misleading of the committee may be regarded as contempt of Parliament. Have you completed the “Details of Witness” form? The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: Do you understand the notes attached to it? The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: Did you receive and read an “Information for Witnesses” briefing sheet regarding giving evidence before the parliamentary committees? The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: Everything is being recorded and will be part of the transcript of these hearings, which will go into the Parliament in due course. The committee will obviously go through the whole process through the submission. Two of the councils have made written submissions, which we have received. Do those people wish to propose any amendment to the submission? The Witnesses: No. The CHAIRMAN: Is it your wish that the submission be incorporated as part of the transcript of evidence? Mr Long: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to make any additional statement to your submission? Mr Duncan: Not at this stage. The CHAIRMAN: As I said, we are looking at developer contributions for metropolitan and regional areas. Who would like to lead off first and tell us their position? It is good to see so many familiar faces. Local government has not changed too much! Mr Duncan: Not too much. I will talk briefly to my submission. It is fairly self-explanatory. I might read through some of the key areas of it. In most instances with new residential, special residential, or special subdivisions, the developer is required to construct all new infrastructure on the property as part of the condition of approval by the WA Planning Commission. Generally from council’s perspective that infrastructure consists of roads, drainage network, footpaths and so on. Obviously, government agencies require other infrastructure, such as power, water, sewerage system and telephone. In terms of council’s requirements as per my submission, I have detailed an extract of our schedule of fees and charges, which covers things like inspection fees, defects liabilities, headworks - The CHAIRMAN: Can we interrupt you on that? We were looking at that and were intrigued by how these things are paid - Mr A.J. DEAN: How can you afford to build in the Shire of Denmark, in other words? Mr Duncan: I think most developers are quite happy with paying those amounts. We have never had - Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: Is there an upper limit on the 3.5 per cent for inspection fees? Mr Duncan: No, that is the schedule fee. Public Accounts Session 1 - Monday, 22 March 2004 Page 3 The CHAIRMAN: If you had a million-dollar development, you are saying you want $35 000 to go and inspect it? Mr Duncan: That is correct. The CHAIRMAN: How come you need as much money to do one inspection as you do for 10, 20, 30 or 40? Mr Duncan: I think you will find that on the larger developments our engineers do a lot more work on-site doing inspections compared with a much smaller subdivision, which has a much lower fee. We have one going on at the moment where they have paid an inspection fee of around $30 000, and our engineer - and his deputy engineer - spend a lot of time on-site inspecting the roadworks. Because the site is on the side of the hill there is a potential for water problems and so forth. The CHAIRMAN: Surely, part of your engineer’s job, who is already paid by the ratepayers to do a job, is to do exactly that. To say you are going to hit them with a $35 000 fee on a million-dollar project seems astronomically high for just going and doing what he is supposed to be doing anyway. Mr Duncan: I guess so. It is based on a user-pays system. The engineer is paid a salary from the ratepayers for doing his job, which does not involve just inspecting this particular subdivision. Subdivisions create a large number of blocks. The developer factors into his costing the fees the council will charge. As I said, we have them set in our schedule of fees and charges so that he knows what they are before he starts. The developer who is doing this current development has done other large developments in Denmark and he has never had a problem with that. Mr Durtanovich: Peter has mentioned the contributions - the 3.5 per cent. Firstly, that is on roadworks only. Secondly, at the end of the day - this is recorded so I have to be careful what I say - some cowboys do some of the roadworks in these subdivisions, and after about 12 months - that is all we can get a defects liability period for - that road is then the responsibility of the Shire of Denmark. If it is not constructed properly, we have to pick up the tab after 12 months. The CHAIRMAN: That changes everything. Three and a half per cent of the road cost is different from 3.5 per cent of the development. That makes a helluva difference. Mr Durtanovich: There is no way we would permit a road to be built in our shire by somebody else without our engineer and supervisors etc making sure it is built correctly. To do that, they have to be there every day. If they are not there every day, I can show you examples of what has happened. The CHAIRMAN: We do not have an argument but we were trying to establish the basis of the 3.5 per cent. If it is not an inspection fee for a subdivision, it makes a helluva difference. Mr Durtanovich: It is for the road. The CHAIRMAN: If the lot costs $100 000, it costs $3 500 to inspect it. Mr M.G. HOUSE: Is that figure applicable to other shires? What is Plantagenet doing in that regard? Is that similar? Mr Stewart: That is one of the areas we are looking into at the moment; that is, how much should a council charge on a user-pays basis. A lot of our costs at the moment are zero. That is one of the areas we have to look at. Mr M.G. HOUSE: What about Jerramungup where you are doing Bremer Bay subdivisions? Mr Long: We levy a two per cent fee on roadworks costs. The CHAIRMAN: Is that like an inspection fee? Mr Long: That is correct, yes. Public Accounts Session 1 - Monday, 22 March 2004 Page 4 The CHAIRMAN: When you just said that the costs are zero, does that mean that you are not doing the work or that you are not charging? Mr Stewart: Meaning we are doing the work but we are not charging. Mr M.G. HOUSE: So you are absorbing it into your ratepayer costs? Mr Stewart: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: Is the defects liability guarantee a guarantee that they get back or is it something they still pay as well? Mr Durtanovich: It is something they get back after 12 months provided the road is satisfactory. As you would obviously be aware, depending on when the roads are built, you really need a winter, summer and possibly another winter - especially down around Denmark - before any road defects show up. In some instances we have, by negotiation with the developer, increased it to a two-year defects liability. Again, I think that is a percentage that they pay or they bond - they do not necessarily have to pay it. When the final inspection is done, if it is all satisfactory, they get a refund in full. The CHAIRMAN: Has the council done an actual costing of what the council/developer contribution is per lot on a subdivision? Have you done that exercise? Mr Duncan: No, we have not gone down to that detail. The CHAIRMAN: Are there things that you are providing for subdivisions that are not included as part of that cost? For example, with other submissions we received, in metropolitan cases things such as libraries and recreation facilities are factored into the direct developer contribution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Number of Total Fire Ban Declarations Per Fire Season
    NUMBER OF TOTAL FIRE BAN DECLARATIONS PER FIRE SEASON LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Christmas Island 2 1 0 0 1 0 City of Albany 2 1 2 3 10 1 City of Armadale 11 4 0 5 17 18 City of Bayswater 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Belmont 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Bunbury 7 1 0 2 5 7 City of Busselton 6 1 0 2 5 7 City of Canning 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Cockburn 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Fremantle 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Gosnells 11 4 0 5 17 18 City of Greater Geraldton 4 6 3 14 19 20 City of Joondalup 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Kalamunda 11 4 0 5 18 18 City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder 2 8 10 14 20 9 City of Karratha 1 1 2 7 10 2 City of Kwinana 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Mandurah 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Melville 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Nedlands 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Perth 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Rockingham 11 1 0 1 7 6 City of South Perth 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Stirling 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Subiaco 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Swan 11 4 0 5 18 22 City of Vincent 9 1 0 1 7 6 City of Wanneroo 10 1 0 1 8 10 Cocos (Keeling) Islands 2 1 0 0 1 0 Indian Ocean Territories 2 1 0 0 1 0 Shire of Ashburton 1 2 4 11 11 3 Shire of Augusta Margaret River 7 1 0 0 6 3 Shire of Beverley 3 2 1 2 15 14 Shire of Boddington 6 3 1 0 7 11 Shire of Boyup Brook 6 3 0 1 6 7 Shire of Bridgetown- 6 3 0 1 6 7 Greenbushes Shire of Brookton 4 3 1 0 8 15 Shire of Broome 1 0 2 0 9 0 DFES – TOTAL FIRE BANS DECLARED PER YEAR PER LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA Page 1 of 4 NUMBER OF TOTAL FIRE BAN DECLARATIONS PER FIRE SEASON LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Shire of Broomehill-Tambellup
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 Local Government Postal Elections Report
    APPENDICES 2003 Local Government Postal Elections Election Report Appendix 1 – Referendum, Poll and Plebiscite Results Results of referendums, polls and plebiscites are not binding, but do provide an indication of public opinion for the Council to consider when making decisions on issues. Town of Vincent A plebiscite was conducted for the Town of Vincent to decide the method of election of the mayor. Which method of filling the office of mayor do you prefer? Votes Elected by the Electors 5,632 Elected by the Council from amongst the Councillors 582 Total Valid Votes 6,214 Informal 24 Total Votes Received 6,238 The majority of electors voted to elect the office of mayor by the electors. 39 2003 Local Government Postal Elections Election Report Appendix 2 – Reasons for Rejection of Voter Packages Declaration not Declaration District Other Total signed Missing City of Albany 168 17 3 188 City of Armadale 150 33 0 183 Shire of Ashburton 15 9 0 24 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River 39 8 0 47 Town of Bassendean 82 25 3 110 City of Belmont 147 33 4 184 Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes 10 4 1 15 City of Bunbury 52 58 2 112 Shire of Busselton 89 27 2 118 Town of Cambridge 114 34 7 155 City of Canning 259 61 2 322 Shire of Capel 34 19 0 53 Shire of Carnarvon 26 7 4 37 Shire of Chittering 7 3 0 10 Town of Claremont 18 2 2 22 City of Cockburn 395 125 4 524 Shire of Collie 62 8 4 74 Town of Cottesloe 36 19 1 56 Shire of Cuballing 6 1 1 8 Shire of Dardanup 0 0 0 0 Shire of Denmark 36 9 1 46 Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup 32 0 0 32 Shire of East Pilbara 16
    [Show full text]
  • GSDC Bulletin 19
    ISSUE 19 Agencies sign for mutual help Agreement to strengthen GSDC, CRCs A regional meeting of the Board of the Great Southern Development Commission (GSDC) in Borden in May was the setting for a groundbreaking agreement between the Commission and the region’s community resource centres (CRCs). Gnowangerup CRC The Great Southern CRCs, formerly known Chairperson Jill Lesk as telecentres, signed a Memorandum signs the Memorandum of of Understanding with the GSDC setting Understanding, watched by guidelines for the organisations to support CRC regional coordinator each other’s work in the region. Megan Wright and GSDC Chairman Peter Rundle. Community Resource Network Director Debbie Rice said the signing was a momentous occasion. “The memorandum also commits the “It highlights the promotion of the GSDC to refer potential clients for CRC inside this issue: partnership between the GSDC and services to the relevant centre and to the CRCs in the provision of increased consider proposals supporting training and information and services to their local learning opportunities delivered through Borden perspective ..............................2 communities,” Ms Rice said. the centres,” Mr Manning said. Jerramungup joint effort ......................2 “We value the lead set by the GSDC in “In turn, the CRCs have committed to helping instigating this agreement, which shows the GSDC with community engagement at Development Commissions review ....3 a growing connection between the a local level, providing advice on emerging organisations. issues and opportunities and being a New Board member .............................3 shopfront for GSDC information. “Royalties for Regions funding for the CRCs Regional science on stage ..................4 and for projects under the GSDC is helping “This is a mutually beneficial arrangement to build partnerships to strengthen regional for our organisations and it will work to Photo competition ................................4 communities,” Ms Rice said.
    [Show full text]
  • (I) the Table Below Lists the Commercial Refund Point Operators and the Suburbs in Which They Operate
    Answer to (c) (i) The table below lists the commercial refund point operators and the suburbs in which they operate. Further information on the locations of refund points can be found on the Containers for Change website. NAMES LOCATION Ashley J Gabrielson & Deslie S Askew Mandurah Bottles & Cans (WA) Pty Ltd Esperance, Bertram, Byford, Bayswater, Picton, Forrestfield, Kwinana Beach Brophy, Travis Coolgardie, Kambalda West Brown, Carolyn Anne Northam, Wundowie, Pingelly, Beverley, Brookton C.P Lenaghan & P Lenaghan & T.J Parsons Collie, Harvey, Capel Cabelleau Pty Ltd Joondalup, Yanchep, Wanneroo Cash For Containers Rockingham Pty Ltd Rockingham, Shoalwater Chilcott, Sherryl Maree Wagin Collier Road Metal Recycling Pty Ltd Bayswater D.J Marshall & L.A Marshall Dalwallinu, Moora, Wongan Hills Del Park Roadhouse Pty Ltd North Dandalup, Karnup Down Under Recycling Pty Ltd Armadale Eco Exchange Pty Ltd Cervantes, Woodridge, Jurien Bay, Lancelin Flinton Pty Ltd Warburton Glass City (WA) Pty Ltd Padbury, Ocean Reef, Welshpool, Karawara, East Vic Park, Koondoola, Warwick, Illuka, Mindarie Guest, Pauline Ellen Bruce Rock, Kellerberrin, Merredin, Southern Cross, Westonia Hastie Waste Pty Ltd Bridgetown, Manjimup, Nannup, Pemberton Hutt Lagoon Pty Ltd Kalbarri Keeffe, Brenton Antony Willetton Kevin Timms Trust & Lindsus Unit Trust & Narrogin L.R Sims M & R Simpson Holdings Pty Ltd Hamilton Hill, O'Connor, Coogee North West Recycling Pty Ltd Karratha, Onslow, Pannawonica, Wickham Ocean View Nominees Pty Ltd Spencer Park, Albany Re.Turn It (WA CDS)
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Local Government Ordinary Elections Report
    2015 Local Government Ordinary Elections Election Report April 2016 W ESTERN AUSTRALIAN Electoral Commission Foreword At the October 2015 local government ordinary elections, the Western Australian Electoral Commission was contracted to manage the largest number of postal elections it had ever conducted. In addition to six in person elections, the Commission was asked to run 82 postal elections under the Local Government Act 1995. With voting in local government elections being non-compulsory in Western Australia, postal elections typically result in a higher participation rate by eligible electors than in person ballots, as they offer most electors greater convenience and accessibility. Making the Electoral Commissioner responsible for these elections also enables local government CEOs and staff to remain at arms-length from potentially contentious aspects of the electoral process. Since they were first trialled in 1995, the number of local governments adopting postal elections has progressively increased. The local governments deciding to conduct a postal election in 2015 comprised some 1,433,575 electors, which is about 98% of the State’s total number of eligible electors. At the close of nominations, 964 candidates had nominated for 419 vacancies resulting in 75 separate postal elections. The highest participation rate for postal elections, both for country and metropolitan local governments in 2015 was the Shire of Mt Marshall with 82.7% and the City of Perth with 37.8%, with an overall Statewide participation rate of 27.5%. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of all returning officers and Commission staff in the planning and conduct of the 2015 ordinary elections and each of the local governments for the assistance and cooperation provided by their staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Age Friendly Charter Lower Great Southern | 2019-2024 3 Foreword
    Age Friendly Charter LOWER GREAT SOUTHERN 2019 - 2024 2 Contents Foreword 4 Outdoor Spaces, Buildings and Design 18 Why a Charter? 5 Transport 19 Age Friendly Charter 7 Inclusion and Mutual Respect 20 About the Charter 8 Volunteering, Employment and Finance 21 WA Primary Health Alliance 8 Communication and Information 22 Background 8 End of Life 24 Key Partners and Community Engagement 8 Principles 9 Signing the Charter 25 Lower Great Southern Context 10 Acknowledgements and Thanks 25 Social Connection and Belonging 12 References 26 Health and Wellbeing 14 Charter Themes and Outcome Areas 28 Home and Community 16 Acknowledgment of People and Country WA Primary Health Alliance would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the country on which we work and live and recognise the continuing connection to land, waters and community. Age Friendly Charter Lower Great Southern | 2019-2024 3 Foreword We are pleased to partner with WA Primary WA Primary Health Alliance is delighted to partner Health Alliance to engage with the Lower Great with the City of Albany to shape, strengthen and Southern community members, service providers sustain a health system and broader community, and government in developing the very first which works for people to achieve better Age Friendly Charter for Albany, Denmark and healthcare, particularly for those at risk of poor Plantagenet. health outcomes. The Age Friendly Charter aims to provide a Ageing well is vital to the health and wellbeing of future road map that reflects the voice of our communities. As Mayor Wellington has confirmed, older community members. This is more than just this requires much more than access to quality another title for the Lower Great Southern, it is an healthcare; it also needs a strong commitment opportunity to look at our region with fresh eyes across the board to make our community a great and ask ourselves, “Is our region a good place to place for older people to live.
    [Show full text]
  • CMPAP Past Grant Recipients
    CMPAP past grant recipients Planning region Coastal land manager Project title 2019/20 grant recipients Pilbara Town of Port Hedland Port Hedland Townsite Coastal Reserves Management Plan Mid West City of Greater Geraldton City of Greater Geraldton Coastal Node Master Planning Wheatbelt Shire of Gingin Revision Lancelin – Strategic Town Plan Peel Shire of Waroona Preston Beach Foreshore Management Plan Great Southern City of Albany Emu Beach Foreshore Management Plan 2018/19 grant recipients Environmental and Cultural Heritage Investigations for Cable Beach Kimberley Shire of Broome Foreshore Adaptation Shire of Northampton Horrocks Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan Mid West Shire of Irwin Shire of Irwin Coastal Management Plan Mandurah Northern Beaches Coastal Hazard Risk Management City of Mandurah and Adaptation Plan Peel Shire of Murray Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Shire of Murray Plan 2017/18 grant recipients Denham Townsite Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Gascoyne Shire of Shark Bay Adaptation Plan South West City of Busselton City of Busselton Coastal Adaptation Strategy Emu Point to Middleton Beach Coastal Hazard Risk Management Great Southern City of Albany and Adaptation Plan 2016/17 grant recipients Mid West City of Greater Geraldton Geraldton Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan City of Busselton Busselton Coastal Management Program (2018-2028) South West Peron Naturaliste Involving Communities in Developing Coastal Risk Management Partnership Frameworks Shire of Jerramungup
    [Show full text]
  • South Coast Region Regional Management Plan
    SOUTH COAST REGION REGIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 1992 - 2002 MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 24 Department of Conservation and Land Management for the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority and the Lands and Forest Commission Western Australia PREFACE Regional management plans are prepared by the Department of Conservation and Land Management on behalf of the Lands and Forest Commission and the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority. These two bodies submit the plans for final approval and modification, if required, by the Minister for the Environment. Regional plans are to be prepared for each of the 10 regions administered by the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM). This plan for the South Coast Region covers all lands and waters in the Region vested under the CALM Act, together with wildlife responsibilities included in the Wildlife Conservation Act. In addition to the Regional Plan, more detailed management plans will be prepared for certain critical management issues, (the most serious of which is the spread of dieback disease in the Region); particular high value or high conflict areas, (such as some national parks); or for certain exploited or endangered species, (such as kangaroos and the Noisy Scrub-bird). These plans will provide more detailed information and guidance for management staff. The time frame for this Regional Plan is ten years, although review and restatement of some policies may be necessary during this period. Implementation will take place progressively over this period and there will be continuing opportunity for public comment. This management plan was submitted by the Department of Conservation and Land Management and adopted by the Lands and Forest Commission on 12 June 1991 and the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority on 19 July 1991 and approved by the Minister for the Environment on 23 December 1991.
    [Show full text]
  • Disability Services Advisory Committee
    Shire of Denmark DISABILITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL’S COMMITTEE ROOM, 953 SOUTH COAST HIGHWAY, DENMARK ON THURSDAY, 1 JUNE 2017. Contents Page No. DISCLAIMER 2 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 3 2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE 3 3. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PERSON PRESIDING 3 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 3 5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3 5.1 COMMITTEE MEETING – 21 SEPTEMBER 2016 3 6. REPORTS 4 6.1 PATHS & TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE 4 6.2 STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 5 6.3 DISABILITY ACCESS & INCLUSION PLAN (DAIP) REVIEW 5 6.4 BEACH WHEELCHAIR AT PEACEFUL BAY – DAIP ACTION 5 6.5 “WALK AROUND” – 1 DECEMBER 2016 6 6.6 INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY (IDOPWD) 2017 6 7. GENERAL BUSINESS 7 7.1 HORSLEY ROAD BRIDGE FOOTPATH 7 7.2 FOOTPATH AND PAVING NEAR VIDEO SHOP 7 7.3 ON/OFF RAMP – CNR KINGDON AND BRAZIER STREETS 7 7.4 ACCESS RAMP TO THE DENMARK PHARMACY 7 7.5 BARNETT STREET PARKING 7 7.6 POISON POINT DISABILITY FISHING PLATFORM 8 8. NEXT MEETING 8 9. CLOSURE 8 1 Disability Services Advisory Committee 1 June 2017 Council Committee Meeting 1 June 2017 DISCLAIMER These minutes and resolutions are subject to confirmation by the Committee and therefore prior to relying on them, one should refer to the subsequent meeting of the Committee with respect to their accuracy. No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the Shire of Denmark for any act, omission or statement or intimation occurring during Council/Committee meetings or during formal/informal conversations with staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Tabled Paper [I
    TABLED PAPER [I 2005/06 Grant Recipient Amount CITY OF STIRLING 1,109,680.28 SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL $617,461.21 CRC CARE PTY LTD $375,000.00 KEEP AUSTRALIA BEAUTIFUL COUNCIL (WA) $281,000.00 DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT $280,000.00 ITY OF MANDURAH $181,160.11 COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUST $176,438.65 CITY OF ROCKINGHAM $151,670.91 AMCOR RECYCLING AUSTRALASIA 50,000.00 SWAN TAFE $136,363.64 SHIRE OF MUNDARING $134,255.77 CITY OF MELVILLE $133,512.96 CITY OF ARMADALE $111,880.74 CITY OF GOSNE LS $108,786.08 CITY OF CANNING $108,253.50 SHIRE OF KALAMUNDA $101,973.36 CITY OF SWAN $98,684.85 CITY OF COCKBURN $91,644.69 CITY OF ALBANY $88,699.33 CITY OF BUNBURY $86,152.03 CITY OF SOUTH PERTH $79,466.24 SHIRE OF BUSSELTON $77,795.41 CITY OF JOONDALUP $73,109.66 SHIRE OF AUGUSTA -MARGARET RIVER $72,598.46 WATER AND RIVERS COMMISSION $70,000.00 UNIVERSITY OF WA $67,272.81 MOTOR TRADE ASSOC OF WA INC $64,048.30 SPARTEL PTY LTD $64,000.00 CRC FOR ASTHMA AND AIRWAYS $60,000.00 CITY OF BAYSWATER $50,654.72 CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY $50,181.00 WA PLANNING COMMISSION $50.000.00 GERALDTON GREENOUGH REGIONAL COUN $47,470.69 CITY OF NEDLANDS $44,955.87_ SHIRE OF HARVEY $44,291 10 CITY OF WANNEROO 1392527_ 22 I Il 2 Grant Recisien Amount SHIRE OF MURRAY $35,837.78 MURDOCH UNIVERSITY $35,629.83 TOWN OF KWINANA $35,475.52 PRINTING INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION $34,090.91 HOUSING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION $33,986.00 GERALDTON-GREENOUGH REGIONAL COUNCIL $32,844.67 CITY OF FREMANTLE $32,766.43 SHIRE OF MANJIMUP $32,646.00 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE $32,414.72 WA LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Class Exemption Under Section 7 of the Water Services Act 2012 : Small Local Government Water Services Providers Information and Issues for Consultation
    Proposed class exemption under section 7 of the Water Services Act 2012 : Small local government water services providers Information and issues for consultation The Department of Water is proposing to introduce a class exemption under the Water Services Act 2012 for small local governments who provide sewerage services and/or non-potable water services to fewer than 1000 connections. This consultation is to inform the public interest assessment of such an exemption. The exemption, if introduced, would be for an initial period of five years and reviewed at the end of that period. What is an exemption? In Western Australia, water services are regulated under the Water Services Act 2012 (the Act). A water service includes the provision of a sewerage service (collection, treatment and disposal), water supply, drainage service or irrigation servicer to another party via reticulated conduits and associated works. Under section 5 of the Act, anyone providing a water service is required to be licensed or exempted from licensing. Section 7 of the Act allows the Minister (currently the Minister for Water) to grant a licensing exemption, provided that the exemption is not considered to be contrary to the public interest. The Department of Water undertakes a public interest assessment on each exemption application. The assessment considers a range of criteria, including public health, environmental impacts and social welfare. Exemptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis or for a class of water service providers. A list of current licence exemptions can be viewed on the Department of Water’s website: http://www.water.wa.gov.au/urban-water/water-services/water-service-licensing-and- licence-exemptions What services are proposed for this class exemption? The proposed exemption would be limited to local government authorities who provide sewerage and/or non-potable water services to fewer than 1000 connected properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 8.2.3A
    Great Southern Regional Sport and Recreation Plan Dave Lanfear Consulting | Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries | January 23, 2018 VERSION 3 19 February 2019 - Attachment 8.2.3a Version Purpose / Changes Author Date number 1 Draft completed by consultant Dave Lanfear 23/01/2018 2 Edited by Copyeditor Adam Morris 07/02/2018 2nd draft reviewed by Project Reference Group 29/03/2018 (PRG) 3 Draft edited with PRG updates Chris Thompson 05/06/2018 Presented to GSRAG for receival 07/06/2018 2 Contents Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. The Great Southern Regional Sport and Recreation Plan ......................................................... 6 2. Strategic Influences ........................................................................................................................... 7 3. Demographic Influences ................................................................................................................. 12 4. Industry Trends and Benchmarking .............................................................................................. 16 5. Key Delivery Implications ............................................................................................................... 22 6. GSR Strategic Issues and Opportunities ..................................................................................... 32 7. Strategic Themes and Action Plan ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]