CITY OF ARMADALE

MINUTES

OF TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON MONDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY 2004, AT 7.02 PM.

PRESENT: Cr V L Clowes Hollins Chair Cr L Reynolds JP Cr F R Green Cr J Everts Cr A L Cominelli JP Cr J Knezevich Cr PJ Hart Deputy for Cr DL Hopper JP

APOLOGIES: Cr DL Hopper JP

OBSERVERS: Cr JH Munn JP CMC (7:00pm – 7:32pm)

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr WA Bruce Executive Director Technical Services Mr R G Davies Manager Technical Services Mr G Elsegood Manager Civil Works Mr M Hall Senior Projects Engineer Mr R Sutton Coordinator Waste Services Mr J Glassford Manager Property Services Mrs J Campion Coordinator Support Services Mr P Lanternier Manager Parks Miss J Munn Minutes Secretary

PUBLIC: 0 TECHNICAL SERVICES 2 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE

DISCLAIMER

The Disclaimer for protecting Councillors and staff from liability of information and advice given at Committee meetings was not read by the Chairman as no members of the public were in attendance.

DECLARATION OF MEMBER’S INTERESTS

Page 18 Cr Green Non financial interest-Eleventh Road / Rowley Road Intersection – Roundabout, Armadale

Page 25 Cr Reynolds Non financial interest-Armadale Urban Design Style Guide

DEPUTATION

Nil.

QUESTION TIME

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLVED

Minutes of the Technical Services Committee Meeting held on 27th January 2004, were confirmed.

MOVED Cr Reynolds

ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFORMATION BULLETIN – ISSUE NO. 4

The following items were included for information in the “Technical Services” section:

ƒ Outstanding Matters Report on Outstanding Matters – Technical Services Committee…………… T-1 ƒ Minutes of Advisory Committees Armadale Settlers Common – November 2003……………………………… T-2 Local Government Working Group Meeting – November 2003…………….. T-7 ƒ General Media Release “Major Downpayment on Australia’s Transport Future”…… T-11 Swan River Trust…………………………………………………………….. T-14 Wetland Watch……………………………………………………………….. T-16 Works Program………………………………………………………………. T-17

If any of the items listed above requires clarification or a report for a decision of Council, this item to be raised for discussion at this juncture. I N D E X

TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

23 FEBRUARY 2004

WASTE SERVICES TENDER NO. 36/03 COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL,...... 4 PROPOSAL FOR A JOINT PROMOTION WITH THE ARA AND ARMADALE SHOPPING CITY – REUSABLE CALICO SHOPPING BAGS...... 11

ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT FOOTPATHS IN FORREST ROAD ...... 13 HAWKSTONE ROAD – ROLEYSTONE, COMPENSATION BASIN ...... 14 ELEVENTH ROAD / ROWLEY ROAD INTERSECTION-ROUNDABOUT, BROOKDALE...... 18 ARMADALE URBAN DESIGN STYLE GUIDE ...... 21 **WARTON ROAD / RANFORD ROAD BLACKSPOT PROJECT...... 26

MISCELLANEOUS 2004 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING STATE CONFERENCE ...... 30

LATE ITEMS WORKS PROGRAMME REVISIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ARMADALE ROAD DUALLING BY CITY OF ARMADALE ON BEHALF OF MAIN ROADS WA...... 32

TECHNICAL SERVICES 4 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

TENDER NO. 36/03 COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL, TENDER NO. 37/03 PROCESSING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL

WARD ALL In Brief: ƒ Council called tenders for its recycling services. FILE REF: TEN/36/03 & ƒ Recommend: TEN/37/03 1. That Council accepts: DATE 17/2/04 (i) The Tender of Brambles Australia Limited entitled Alternative Offer in Tender REF BS No. 36/2003 at a cost of RESPONSIBLE MTS $0.91/service/fortnight; and MANAGER (ii) the Tender of Brambles Australia Limited entitled Alternative Offer 2 Part C in Tender No. 37/2003, at a cost of $13.50/tonne of recyclable material; Subject to the negotiation of the contract to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services to address operation and insurance matters. 2. That Council approve $100,000 being listed for consideration of inclusion in the draft 2004- 05 budget for transfer to the Waste Management Reserve Account to replace damaged and aged recycling bins.

Tabled Items Contract Document.

Officer Interest Declaration Nil.

Strategic Implications Corporate Services To achieve maximum community benefit from effective use of resources (staff, finances and information technology).

Legislation Implications Assessment of legislation indicates that the following regulations apply: Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 s3.57(11) (2) (f)

Council Policy/Local Law Implications Assessment of Policy / Local Law indicates that the following are applicable: Policy ENG 5 – Tendering and Purchasing

Budget/Financial Implications Allocated in the Waste Minimisation Budget M113

Consultation Nil.

Background The formation of the South East Metropolitan Regional Council (SEMRC) by the Cities of Armadale, Gosnells and South Perth enabled the members to examine the possibility of jointly calling tenders. TECHNICAL SERVICES 5 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

The collection and processing of recyclable material for the three member councils and the collection of domestic waste for South Perth was the first opportunity to test the market.

Armadale's contract for the kerbside collection and processing of recyclable material with Cleanaway (Brambles Australia Limited ) concluded on the 2nd May 2003. An interim contract was granted to Cleanaway (Brambles Australia Limited ) for the period 3rd May 2003 until 30th June 2004 to allow the SEMRC members time to complete current contracts and jointly call tenders for the kerbside collection and processing of recyclable material and, collection of domestic waste for the City of South Perth.

The formation of the Regional Council has influenced the tender process. Beside this, there were a number of other factors that have been taken into account when setting up the documents. They were:

• The original intention was to call tenders through the Regional Council however under the Establishment Agreement the tender period required was much longer than the time frame available to complete the tendering process.

• In 1993, when the previous tender was awarded, there was only one Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in WA, which had been operating for approximately 3 years. There are now 6 MRFs available to metropolitan councils. There has been significant market development and the competition to process recycled material is therefore much greater.

• Both Gosnells and Armadale intended to submit in-house bids for the collection of the recycled material.

• New separation/energy technologies are being developed and could be on the market in several years.

Two tenders were therefore called by each of the three member Councils relating to recycling, one for the collection and one for the material processing. A further tender was called for collection of domestic waste in South Perth. Tenderers for the collection were requested to give prices for servicing one, two and three Councils with various distances to the processing MRF or waste disposal site. Tenderers for the processing of recyclable material were requested to give prices for three, four and five year periods.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 6 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

EXISTING CONTRACT INFORMATION Table 1 : Existing Contract Information CONTRACTOR Cleanaway (Brambles Australia Limited ) CONTRACT TYPE Schedule of rates CONTRACT DURATION 13 months interim contract (10years prior) COMMENCEMENT DATE 3 May 2003 EXPIRY DATE 30 June 2004 EXTENSION PERMITTED None ANNUAL CONTRACT COST $665,000 RISE AND FALL Included

DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

The City of Armadale requires the services of a contractor/s capable of collecting and/or processing recyclable material collected fortnightly from the residents of Armadale.

NEW CONTRACT INFORMATION Table 2 : New Contract Information CONTRACT TYPE Schedule of rates CONTRACT DURATION 5 years COMMENCEMENT DATE 1st July 2004 EXPIRY DATE 30th June 2009 EXTENSION PERMITTED No RISE AND FALL Yes – CPI

SELECTION CRITERIA The selection criteria and weightings for the evaluation of the tender are as follows: ITEM No. DESCRIPTION WEIGHTING 1. Capability and Viability of Tenderer 10% 2. Experience of Tenderer 20% 3. Tender Proposal for Provision of Services 20% 4. Price 50% TOTAL 100%

TENDERS RECEIVED Three tenders for the collection of the recyclable material were received from City of Armadale, Brambles Australia Limited (Cleanaway) and Collex.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 7 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

Two tenders for the processing of recyclable materials were received from Cleanaway (Brambles Australia Limited ) and The Recycling Company of Western Australia.

Cleanaway (Brambles Australia Limited ) submitted alternative tenders for both tenders subject to winning the collection and processing contracts for all three Councils.

The Recycling Company of Western Australia submitted alternative tenders for the processing tender, offering various discounts, for winning the contract for all three Councils and the Councils accepting the cost of the residue disposal. Details of tenders received are as follows: Table 4a : Tenders Received Tender No. 36/03 Collection of recyclable material Tenderer ITEM COST ($/fortnight/resident)* Armadale alone All three councils Cleanaway $0.96 $0.94 Cleanaway (alternative)** $0.91 Collex $1.20 Armadale $0.83 *Based on the 0-20km zone distance to the disposal site **Price subject to all three councils delivering recyclables to Cleanaway (Brambles Australia Limited ) MRF

Table 4b: Tenders Received Tender no. 37/03 Processing of recyclable material Tenderer Processing Options $/tonne* Cleanaway tender Armadale only $30.00 Alternative 1 All three councils $15.00 Alternative 2 All three councils + collection $13.50 Recycling Company of Armadale only $30.75 WA tender Alternative 1 Armadale only + landfill costs $21.10 Alternative 2 All three councils $29.21 Alternative 3(a) Armadale only + 5 years $29.25 Alternative 3(b) Armadale only + landfill costs + 5 years $19.98

Alternative 3(c) All three councils + 5 years $27.45 Alternative 3(d) All three councils + landfill costs + 5 years $18.85

*Based on 5 year initial contract

TENDER EVALUATION Collection and processing of material are interdependent. The two tenders were therefore evaluated as a package. Tenders were matched to give the best possible outcome using TECHNICAL SERVICES 8 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

Council's current collection numbers, disposal tonnages and distances travelled to MRFs. One tenderer, Cleanaway, could offer a total package.

All tenderers have the appropriate experience and ability to carry out the work required. Non-financial differences in the evaluation were minor and of no significance. Price was therefore the major factor in determining the outcome.

A summary of the various scenarios are as follows:

Collection Scenario Estimated Contractor Cost/Year Council Areas Serviced Processing Collection Processing Contractor

1. Cleanaway Armadale only Armadale only Cleanaway, $639,380.08 Bayswater 2. Cleanaway Armadale only Armadale only RRRS, $637,738.44 Canningvale 3. Cleanaway Armadale + Armadale + Cleanaway, $539,560.88 Gosnells + Gosnells + Bayswater South Perth South Perth

4. Collex Armadale only Armadale + Cleanaway, $690,736.80 Gosnells + Bayswater South Perth

5. Armadale Armadale only Armadale only RRRS, $571,619.92 Canningvale 6. Armadale Armadale only Armadale only RRRS, $$558,387.22 Canningvale* 7. Armadale Armadale only Armadale only Cleanaway, $588,752.76 Bayswater 8. Armadale Armadale only Armadale + Cleanaway, $520,892.76 Gosnells + Bayswater South Perth

Current contract Armadale Armadale Cleanaway, $652,489.34 (Cleanaway) Bayswater * disposal of residue equivalent to 25% of total material

The most cost effective combination of tenders to the City of Armadale is, the City collecting its own recyclable material with all three Councils delivering their material to Cleanaway's MRF in Bayswater (Scenario 8). This is a saving of approx $18,500/year over the next most cost effective combination of tenders which was provided by Cleanaway, collecting and processing all three Councils' recyclable material (Scenario No. 3). The choice of contractor/s however needs to be made after considering the following:-. • The tenders, although let by the individual Councils, were prepared and advertised jointly under the umbrella of the SEMRC. Price benefits were sought for contractors to service all Councils. TECHNICAL SERVICES 9 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

• If the tender had been let by the SEMRC as originally proposed, Cleanaway’s offer would have been the most advantageous for the Regional Council. • The additional cost to Gosnells and South Perth would be approximately $20,000 and $18,500/year if Armadale was to provide its own collection service. • Cleanaway has offered to reduce the tendered collection rate to Armadale by $0.01/household/collection, an allowance for the extra distance traveled to the MRF from Armadale. This equates to approx $5,000/year. • If Armadale provides its own collection service an additional ‘half’ staff member would be required to cover the customer service component of the contract. Extra office space in the existing building is extremely difficult, even if it is only half a space. • If the tenders are awarded to external contractors, Armadale has a set price with minimum risk. The major risk is taken by the Contractor. Were Armadale to undertake the contract, the operating risk would be taken by the City with less capacity to underwrite its risk. • Disputes between the collector of recyclable material and the receiver would not occur. This problem has occurred at several facilities where different companies provide the collection and processing of the material. • Cleanaway has declared its intension to construct a MRF in the southern corridor if it wins the contract. They are considering Welshpool, Maddington and Kwinana as possible sites.

CONCLUSION

Tendering jointly with the members of SEMRC has reduced the cost of collecting and disposal of recyclable material to the City of Armadale by approximately $110,000 per year. This reduction would not have been achieved if Armadale had called tenders on its own. The perceived additional savings of $13,000 by collecting the material with Council trucks must be balanced against the commitment of Council to the SEMRC and the real additional costs of $38,000 that would be experienced by the partner Councils.

It is therefore recommended that the City accepts Cleanaway’s alternative Tender (Scenario 3) for both the Collection and Processing of Recyclable Material on the condition that both City of South Perth and City of Gosnells also accept Cleanaway’s tender.

Should either of the Councils fail to agree to Cleanaway’s proposal, Tenders will need to be reassessed and again presented to Council.

The expected reduction in the cost of recycling needs to be allocated to the replacement of the Recycling Bins, which currently have no money in the reserve for the replacement, because during the previous contract period, Council was paying for the initial purchase of bins to the value of approximately $1 million dollars, which is the equivalent to $100,000 per year. It is therefore recommended that this money be placed in the bin reserve for the 2004/05 budget.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 10 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

T8/02/04 RECOMMEND

1. That Council accepts:

(i) The Tender of Brambles Australia Limited entitled Alternative Offer in Tender No. 36/2003 at a cost of $0.91/service/fortnight; and

(ii) the Tender of Brambles Australia Limited entitled Alternative Offer 2 Part C in Tender No. 37/2003, at a cost of $13.50/tonne of recyclable material;

Subject to the negotiation of the contract to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services to address operation and insurance matters.

2. That Council approve $100,000 being listed for consideration of inclusion in the draft 2004-05 budget for transfer to the Waste Management Reserve Account to replace damaged and aged recycling bins.

MOVED Cr P Hart MOTION CARRIED (7/0) TECHNICAL SERVICES 11 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

PROPOSAL FOR A JOINT PROMOTION WITH THE ARA AND ARMADALE SHOPPING CITY – REUSABLE CALICO SHOPPING BAGS

WARD : ALL In Brief:-

FILE REF : PSC/38 • The City has been invited to participate in a “Sustainable Shopping Bag Promotion” with the ARA and Armadale DATE : 17/ 02/04 Shopping City. • Plastic bags are an environmental problem and the promotion REF : RST involves the provision of reusable calico shopping bags at the Shopping Centre to promote sustainability. RESPONSIBLE : CEO MANAGER • The initiative is at a cost of $4500 for each sponsor. • Recommend: That Council agree to participate in the Sustainable Shopping Bag Promotion, at a cost of $4500.

Strategic Implications Long Term Strategic Planning – “To achieve a better quality of living for the people of our City” “To enhance the qualities and benefits of our natural and built environment” “Promote Waste Minimisation”

Legislation Implications Nil.

Council Policy / Local Law Implications Nil.

Budget / Financial Implications The recommended contribution of $4,500 + GST towards the project cost can be accommodated within the 2003-04 Budget.

Consultation Armadale Redevelopment Authority

Background The City has been invited by the ARA to share in a joint promotion with the ARA and Armadale Shopping City.

The promotion involves the provision of reusable calico shopping bags at the Shopping Centre, in an effort to promote sustainability, recycling and waste minimisation.

Plastic shopping bags are regarded as an environmental problem with their prominence in the waste stream and impact on waterways, ocean and wildlife. The Australian population currently uses 6.9 billion plastic bags annually, however less than 3% of bags are recycled through shopping centre programs. Under an agreement between the Federal Government and the Australian Retailers Association, retailers have until December 2004 to reduce their consumption of lightweight single use plastic check out bags by 25%. This rises to 50% by December 2005. (Statistics from the PlanetArk website.)

TECHNICAL SERVICES 12 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Waste Services

COMMENT

The proposal submitted by the ARA is as follows:

• The three sponsors commit to this initiative at a cost to each of $4500 + GST • The ARA will manage the project • The bags will be printed on one side with the three logos, and on the other with the simple message “Sustainable Armadale”. • The bags will be launched at a function to be organised by the ARA, at a time and date to be agreed by the parties. • Each sponsor will receive about 3300 bags and be responsible for their distribution. • The sponsors agree to share the cost of an advertisement and coupon, to be published in both local newspapers to coincide with the launch, entitling the bearer to collect two bags from one of the sponsors. • The remaining bags to be given away at the sponsor’s direction (eg shopping centre promotions, special functions etc).

The City has made no allowance in the 2003/04 Budget for this purpose, although the initiative is directly in line with Strategic initiatives/objectives in the Strategic Plan.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the City take part in the proposed Sustainable Armadale Shopping Bag Promotion.

T9/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Council agree to participate in the Sustainable Shopping Bag Promotion, at a cost of $4500 to be expended against A/C 1583920 Promotion / Calendar.

MOVED Cr Cominelli MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

TECHNICAL SERVICES 13 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

FOOTPATHS IN FORREST ROAD

The matter of footpaths in Forrest Road be referred to the Technical Services Committee by Cr Munn. (Letter from a concerned resident was tabled in this regard). See attachment “A1” of the Agenda (see Summary of Attachments – Green page)

Cr Munn referred to footpath works recently completed in Forrest Road. The replacement path width is less than the width between the fence and the kerb. Cr Munn expressed concern that the appearance for the repaired area depended on the property owner or occupier’s maintenance. Cr Munn suggested that as the principal entry roads to the CBD that the replacement paths be full width.

T10/2/04 RECOMMEND

That an investigation of the alignment, construction and maintenance of replacement footpaths in the CBD and its principal approaches be undertaken and a report presented to Council on completion.

MOVED Cr Reynolds MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

Cr Munn left the meeting at 7.32pm. TECHNICAL SERVICES 14 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

HAWKSTONE ROAD – ROLEYSTONE, COMPENSATION BASIN

WARD ROLEYSTONE In Brief: ƒ To legalize the use of a compensation basin at 32 FILE REF: RDH/7 Hawkstone Road, Roleystone, constructed on private DATE 11/02/04 property in 1977 without an approved easement over the site. REF JG ƒ Recommend: RESPONSIBLE MTS ƒ That Council resolve that an agreement be put in MANAGER place between the Owner of 32 Hawkstone Road and the City to lease a section of land from the above property for the purpose of keeping the existing compensation basin for a cost of $240.00 per annum. ƒ That the cost for the legal agreement be paid for by the City of Armadale. ƒ That the lease is for a minimum of ten (10) years with annual CPI – index increase (not exceeding 5%) pa). ƒ That Council constructs a separate accessway of Hawkstone Road to the compensation basin and that the area be fenced in accordance with Water Corporation guidelines for artificial water bodies. ƒ That Council’s Solicitors prepare an Encumbrance agreement on the title.

Tabled Items Nil.

Officer Interest Declaration Nil.

Strategic Implications Physical Infrastructure, implement long term preventative maintenance and refurbishment programmes for the provision of infrastructure, e.g. environment, drainage and water management.

Legislation Implications Legal agreement between Owners of Lot 3 (No.32) Hawkstone Road and City of Armadale.

Council Policy/Local Law Implications Water sensitive Urban Stormwater Policy (No: 4.4.9).

Budget/Financial Implications Annual Lease fees (currently suggested amount of $240.00) need to be covered by Annual drainage maintenance.

Consultation ……………….. (owner 32 Hawkstone Road)

Background A recent complaint was received from the current owner of 32 Hawkstone Road, regarding the location of Council’s compensation basin for the subcatchment (Hawkstone Road and Grevillea Avenue).

TECHNICAL SERVICES 15 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

The above compensation basin was constructed prior to 1977 (no exact construction date available) following a request of the then Owners, for the purpose of controlling run off through their property, with Council giving a commitment to pay for the construction and to maintain the basin regularly. The property (32 Hawkstone Road, Lot 3) has since then changed owners (at least twice) but Council missed the opportunity to register the compensation basin on the title with an “Easement” for drainage purposes.

DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

The current owner, ..…………… , requests that an agreement between both parties be drawn up and the area (360m) located on the north eastern corner of No. 32 Hawkstone Road will be leased to Council for the purposes of Water retention and controlled run off at an annual fee of $240.00. (Refer to Location Map at the end of this report).

The owner mentioned during many discussions and site visits that he is not interested in selling a section of the property or having an Easement registered over it.

As mentioned above ……………. the owner requests an agreement to lease the area to Council for $20.00 per month or $240.00 per annum, as well as carrying out any necessary annual maintenance to avoid spillage or run off (creating more damage to his property and driveway) as well as establishing a direct access way of Hawkstone Road to the basin. Sufficient funding is available in the current drainage budget.

ANALYSIS

Following further site inspection by the Manager Engineering and Design and the Manager Civil Works it was decided that it would be difficult to construct a direct access way but was not beyond our technical capabilities.

The direct access way would make it easier to access the basin for regular maintenance with medium size machinery, without requesting the Owner permission to gain access through the property and make good any damage to the driveway, crossover and gardens.

OPTION

• Council still has the option to resume the land for the purpose of drainage / stormwater – retention but may have to take into consideration the legal cost on top of the purchase price. A total as high as $20,000 or $25,000 could be expected. • The second option as suggested by the Owner seems more acceptable to Council for a moderate annual fee of $240.00 plus the cost of having an agreement drawn up by Council’s legal advisers.

CONCLUSION

To organise controlled stormwater mitigation at the end of the Hawkstone Road, subcatchment, it is advisable to have an agreement in place that would give Council’s Technical Services Directorate better control over the basin and with this easier and more systematic maintenance of the Hawkstone compensation basin. TECHNICAL SERVICES 16 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

T11/2/04 RECOMMEND

ƒ That Council resolve that an agreement be put in place between the Owner of 32 Hawkstone Road and the City to lease a section of land from the above property for the purpose of keeping the existing compensation basin for a cost of $240.00 per annum.

ƒ That the cost for the legal agreement be paid for by the City of Armadale.

ƒ That the lease is for a minimum of ten (10) years with annual CPI – index increase (not exceeding 5%) pa).

ƒ That Council constructs a separate accessway of Hawkstone Road to the compensation basin and that the area be fenced in accordance with Water Corporation guidelines for artificial water bodies.

ƒ That Council has the right to negotiate a similar agreement, in the case the property be sold to a third party (a notification should therefore be put on to the Rates and property records).

MOVED Cr Hart MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

TECHNICAL SERVICES 17 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

HAWKSTONE ROAD – ROLEYSTONE, COMPENSATION BASIN – LOCATION MAP

N TECHNICAL SERVICES 18 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

In regard to this item Cr Green disclosed that he has a relative who owns property in that area. As a consequence, he advised that there may be a perception on the basis of his disclosed non-financial interest that his impartiality may be affected but declared he would set aside that association, consider the matter on its merits and vote accordingly.

ELEVENTH ROAD / ROWLEY ROAD INTERSECTION-ROUNDABOUT, BROOKDALE

WARD FORREST In Brief: ƒ To facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the FILE REF: ENG/23 Eleventh Road / Rowley Road intersection, there are DATE 11/02/04 portions of Land, known as Lot 112 Rowley Road, Lot 5 Rowley Road, and lot 3 Rowley Road, that REF IM/JG require transfer for road widening purposes RESPONSIBLE MTS (roundabout) MANAGER ƒ Recommend: ƒ That Council resolve to resume and dedicate the following areas: 32m2 from Lot 112 Rowley Road; 11m2 from Lot 3 Rowley Road; and 90m2 from Lot 3 Rowley Road, as shown on drawing No 03-25 for road widening purposes..

Tabled Items Nil.

Officer Interest Declaration Nil.

Strategic Implications Physical Infrastructure Develop an integrated transport system including safety aspects.

Legislation Implications General assessment of relevant legislation (eg Local Government Act) reveals that Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1007 applies to the dedication of the road.

Council Policy/Local Law Implications General assessment has not revealed any applicable Policies / Local Laws.

Budget/Financial Implications The dedication of the land for road widening has been included as part of the road construction in Council’s Budget of 2003/04.

Consultation Department of Land Information, Local Residents, Value General’s Office

Background The intersection of Rowley Road and Eleventh Road has been identified as a Black Spot Project (2003/2004). It is proposed to construct a Roundabout at the intersection, within the next few months.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 19 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

PROPOSAL

To facilitate the construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Rowley Road and Eleventh Road, it has become necessary to resume the following portions of land : • An area of 32m2 is required, from Lot 112, Rowley Road. This portion of land located on the northwest corner of the intersection, and requires transfer for road widening. • An area of 11m2 is required, from Lot 5, Rowley Road. This portion of land located on the northeast corner of the intersection, and requires transfer for road widening. • An area of 90m2 is required, from Lot 3, Rowley Road. This proportion of land located on the northwest corner of the intersection, and requires transfer for road widening.

Attached is plan No 03-25 illustrating the intersection and the portions of land required.

The Department of Land Information (DLI) have advised that prior to the land being resumed for road widening purposes, Council must provide a resolution for the dedication of the land in accordance with Section 56 of the Land Administration Act.

CONCLUSION

Council will dedicate portions of land from Lot 112, Lot 5 and Lot 3 Rowley Road, Brookdale, to facilitate the construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Rowley Road and Eleventh Road.

T12/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Council resolve to resume and dedicate the following areas: 32m2 from Lot 112 Rowley Road; 11m2 from Lot 5 Rowley Road; and 90m2 from Lot 3 Rowley Road, as shown on drawing No. 03-25 for road widening purposes.

MOVED Cr Reynolds MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

TECHNICAL SERVICES 20 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

ELEVENTH ROAD / ROWLEY ROAD INTERSECTION-ROUNDABOUT, BROOKDALE

DRAWING No. 03-25

TECHNICAL SERVICES 21 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

In regard to this item Cr Reynolds disclosed that he is a member on the Armadale Redevelopment Authority Board. As a consequence, he advised that there may be a perception on the basis of his disclosed non-financial interest that his impartiality may be affected but declared he would set aside that association, consider the matter on its merits and vote accordingly.

**ARMADALE URBAN DESIGN STYLE GUIDE

WARD Armadale In Brief: ƒ This report presents the proposed Armadale Urban FILE REF: ENG/43 Design Style Guide for the consideration of Council. DATE 23/2/04 ƒ Recommend: That Council: REF MDH 1. Acknowledge the need for the Armadale Urban RESPONSIBLE MTS Design Style Guide, but request that the Armadale MANAGER Redevelopment Authority reconsider the street furniture and pavement products presented in the Style Guide in terms of their appropriateness, durability and economic sustainability. 2. Recommit the Armadale Urban Design Style Guide to the Technical Services Committee Meeting on 22 March 2004, for consideration of final approval. 3. Having regard for the timeframes associated with the opening of the new Railway Station, Council requires the design drawings to be finalised as soon as possible and arrange the construction of the section of Commerce Avenue adjacent to the Railway Station forecourt generally in line with the Armadale Urban Design Style Guide, and for this section of Commerce Avenue to be used as a test sample for the further implementation of the Style Guide in the Commercial Zone. 4. a) Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, authorise the following expenditure: • Commerce Avenue $1,169,000 b) Amend the 2003-2004 Annual Budget as follows: Expenditure Account Number TBA Commerce Avenue Increased by $1,169,000 Revenue Account Number TBA ARA Funding Increased by $1,169,000, for the purpose of roadworks and streetscape works in Commerce Avenue

Tabled Items Armadale Urban Design Style Guide Samples of Street Furniture and Pavement Materials

Officer Interest Declaration Nil. TECHNICAL SERVICES 22 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

Strategic Implications Physical Infrastructure Enhance townscapes and parkland to complement our natural environment and bushland reserves

Legislation Implications Nil.

Council Policy/Local Law Implications Nil.

Budget/Financial Implications Funding for ongoing maintenance required as part of future Council Budgets.

Consultation Subject to City of Armadale comment, the Armadale Urban Design Style Guide has been approved by the Armadale Concept Plan Steering Committee. The Armadale Urban Design Style Guide has also been considered by the Armadale Redevelopment Authority.

BACKGROUND

This report presents the proposed Armadale Urban Design Style Guide (Style Guide). The Style Guide has been developed as part of the Armadale Redevelopment Scheme (implemented by the Armadale Redevelopment Authority) by Blackwell and Associates Pty Ltd (Landscape Architects, Urban Designers and Planners). The Style Guide proposes a new line of street furniture and urban design principles unique to Armadale and is intended to help the City develop its own special character based on its history.

A presentation on the detail and financial implications of the Style Guide will be made to the Technical Services Committee at its meeting on 23 February 2004. A copy of the Style Guide is also available for Councillor perusal from the Technical Services Directorate.

The Style Guide delineates three zones within the City including: the ‘Commercial Zone’ which incorporates high quality and characteristic urban elements to create a sense of place as a City and comprising of sections of Railway Road, Green Avenue, Commerce Avenue, Forrest Road and Jull Street; the ‘Central Zone’ which defines the outer limits of the city centre and reflects the distinctive urban elements of the ‘Commercial Zone’ while creating an interface with the surrounding areas, and comprising of the area bounded by South Western Highway, Armadale Road, Abbey Road, Forrest Road, Fifth Road, Green Avenue, Avonlee Road and Church Avenue; and the ‘Peripheral Zone’, comprising of all areas within the City that are outside the Armadale Central Zone.

The Style Guide is considered to focus primarily on the ‘Commercial’ and ‘Central’ Zones and therefore the Central Business District (CBD) is the primary consideration of this report.

DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

It is proposed by the Armadale Redevelopment Authority, that the implementation of the Style Guide will be commenced in the Commercial Precinct of Armadale with the redevelopment of Commerce Avenue, Armadale. The works would be staged over a three year period with the Armadale Redevelopment Authority having allocated $1,169,000 (2003/04), $1,303,000 (2004/05) and $869,000 (2005/06) toward the works. The Armadale TECHNICAL SERVICES 23 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

Redevelopment Authority has indicated that it is expected that City of Armadale would fund any shortfall in construction costs. A Council contribution to the works could be allocated from the Technical Services Directorate Budgeted strategic allocations ‘City Centre Roadworks’. Technical Services staff are currently preparing a detailed cost estimate for the construction works and associated maintenance costs. This, together with an estimate of any funding shortfall, will be provided as part of the Officer presentation at the Technical Services Committee Meeting on 23 February 2004.

The Armadale Redevelopment Authority has requested that the section of Commerce Avenue adjacent to the new Railway Station forecourt be completed to coincide with the opening of the new Railway Station scheduled for May 2004. It is considered that there is still sufficient time to achieve this, however, it would be necessary for Council to adopt the implementation of the Style Guide in this section of Commerce Avenue, at its Meeting on 2 March 2004. Council officers would then be able to complete the detailed design, and hopefully engage the necessary specialist contractors and complete construction in time to meet the May 2004 deadline. The section of Commerce Avenue adjacent to the Railway Station forecourt could be used as a test sample for the further implementation of the Style Guide throughout the Armadale Commercial Zone.

The design of the pedestrian crossing between the new Train Station and the north side of Commerce Avenue will also require the approval of Main Roads Western Australia.

COMMENT

The adoption of an appropriate Style Guide for street furniture and urban design in the CBD would increase streetscape consistency and visual amenity throughout the CBD. The selection of street furniture and pavement products that are appropriate, durable and cost effective is, however, imperative to the long term sustainability of high quality streetscapes in the City.

Further to this, there are a number of matters relating to the Armadale Urban Style Guide that should be considered. These matters will be discussed in detail during the presentation of the Style Guide to the Technical Services Committee, however, in general issues include:

• capital replacement costs including: • cost of proposed street lighting furniture (eg. consider more cost effective options) • increased cost of replacing ‘non standard’ pavement • operational costs including: • electricity supply costs associated with higher street/pedestrian lighting standards • street cleaning costs • appropriateness of pedestrian pavement products, including: - potential pedestrian trip hazards (eg. at paver joints) - slip resistance - visual issues associated with patching of service authority works using contradictory materials • appropriateness of road surfacing materials, including consideration of: • skid resistance and long-term performance of materials • discolouration under traffic • environmental issues associated with the use indigenous timbers (eg. Jarrah used in ‘Armadale’ themed furniture). • market competition issues associated with the naming of suppliers.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 24 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

It is estimated that, if the Style Guide is implemented in Commerce Avenue in accordance with the concept drawings provided by Blackwell and Associates Pty Ltd, maintenance costs for Commerce Avenue would increase by between $75,000 and $105,000 per year (costs include replacement of damaged street furniture, including lighting poles, bollards etc, vegetation maintenance and electricity supply to street and pedestrian lighting). The cost range provides for a degree of flexibility in the level of street and footpath cleaning that Council could adopt.

If the Style Guide is applied to the same standard as is proposed for Commerce Avenue in Commerce Avenue, Church Street, William Street, Fourth Road, Whitehead Way, the section of Prospect Road between Whitehead Way and Church Street, Jull Road and Orchard Avenue, it is estimated that the City’s total maintenance costs would increase by between $435,000 to $610,000 per year.

Should a streetscape standard similar to that implemented in Prospect Road be adopted for Commerce Avenue, it is expected that maintenance costs for Commerce Avenue would increase by between $30,000 and $60,000 per year. Should this standard be applied to the surrounding streets it is estimated that maintenance costs would increase by between $175,000 to $350,000 per year.

It is considered that these matters require further consideration prior to the Armadale Urban Style Guide being acceptable for adoption by Council.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that ‘in principle’ the Armadale Urban Design Style Guide provides an opportunity to improve the quality of streetscapes throughout the City of Armadale and in particular, the city centre. However, it is suggested that the Armadale Redevelopment Authority re-evaluate the appropriateness, durability and cost effectiveness of street furniture and pavement products presented in the Style Guide and consider items more inline with existing ‘higher standard infrastructure’ implemented in the City.

Committee discussed the Armadale Urban Style Guide and the following points were raised: • Newcastle Street as standard • Staged installation with upgrading for full development • Detailed negotiation with supplier to achieve bulk pricing • Maintenance of streetscape to be standard to match existing • More accurate description / convention of high profile areas • High quality finishes preferred but a cost / benefit assessment needed • Station to be used as test • Wood has concerns regarding vandalism and public safety • Existing high standard streetscape eg Prospect Road and mall must be suitably matched / blended in • In situ concrete paths not preferred unless of business case basis • Aesthetic and maintenance replacement costs are driven by the standard of furniture chosen • Banner poles are inappropriate, out of character and conflict with existing banner poles – which do not have banners • Need to be more consistent with existing styles in CBD • Fencing appears appropriate • Railing and bike racks / holders are not considered to be suitable TECHNICAL SERVICES 25 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

T13/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Council:

1. Acknowledge the need for the Armadale Urban Design Style Guide, and authorise the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director Technical Services to negotiate with the Armadale Redevelopment Authority to ensure that the elements in the Style Guide optimise appropriateness for use, durability and economic sustainability.

2. Having regard for the timeframes associated with the opening of the new Railway Station, acknowledges the need to undertake works in that section of Commerce Avenue adjacent to the Railway Station forecourt generally in line with the Armadale Urban Design Style Guide as negotiated, and for this section of Commerce Avenue to be used as a test sample for the further implementation of the Style Guide in the Commercial Zone.

3. a) Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, authorise the following expenditure: • Commerce Avenue $1,169,000

b) Amend the 2003-2004 Annual Budget as follows: Expenditure Account Number TBA Commerce Avenue Increased by $1,169,000 Revenue Account Number TBA ARA Funding Increased by $1,169,000

For the purpose of roadworks and streetscape works in Commerce Avenue.

**ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED

MOVED Cr Reynolds MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

Cr Knezevich left the room at 8:35pm and returned at 8:36pm. Cr Everts left the room at 9:00pm and returned at 9:04pm. TECHNICAL SERVICES 26 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

*WARTON ROAD / RANFORD ROAD BLACKSPOT PROJECT

WARD FORREST In Brief: ƒ Provides details of proposed “Black Spot” upgrading FILE REF: RDW/22 and of the Warton Road / Ranford Road intersection by RDR/4 City of Gosnells. DATE 19/02/04 ƒ Advises of contribution being sought from City of Armadale REF GD ƒ Proposes City of Gosnells to carry out work. RESPONSIBLE EDTS ƒ Recommend: MANAGER That Council: a) Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, authorise the following expenditure: • Warton Road / Ranford Road Intersection $44,426. b) Amend the 2003-2004 Annual Budget as follows: Expenditure Account number TBA Warton Road/ Ranford Road increased by $44,426. (Needs changing)

Tabled Items Design Plans

Officer Interest Declaration Nil.

Strategic Implications Physical Infrastructure Develop an integrated transport system including safety aspects.

Legislation Implications General assessment of relevant legislation (eg Local Government Act) has not revealed any restrictions. (Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995)

Council Policy/Local Law Implications General assessment has not revealed any applicable Policies / Local Laws.

Budget/Financial Implications 2003/04 Budget Nil 2004/05 proposes allocation of $44,426 towards works, with prefunding in 2003/04 via over allocation.

Programming / Timing Implications This issue needs urgent consideration to allow works to commence as soon as possible, because the conditions of availability of the Federal Black Spot Grant requires works to be substantially completed by 30th June 2004.

Consultation Nil.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 27 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

Background A request has been received from the City of Gosnells to make a contribution towards the funding required for the upgrading of the Warton Road / Ranford Road intersection.

This project was originally proposed to be carried out with Federal Black Spot funding and as such required no matching Local Government input. Subsequent assessment of the proposed scope of the works indicated that they should be extended, however, and this resulted in a significant increase in the estimated cost. As with some similar instances considered within the City Of Armadale, the City of Gosnells’ Technical Services staff has assessed the project and feel that a resubmission for future Black Spot Funding based on the higher anticipated level of cost would probably mean that the project would be unsuccessful. This is because the lower benefit cost-ratio would probably result in the project not achieving a high enough placing on the priority list.

With this in mind, and again in line with the philosophy adopted by this Council, Gosnells are hoping for the works to proceed with local authority funding providing the shortfall and with the grant being seen as a beneficial gain towards the funding of a necessary project.

Attached to this report is a copy of the City of Gosnells agenda which more clearly identifies the background situation to the above comments. See attachment “A3” of the Agenda (see Summary of Attachments – Green page). It should be noted, however that the intersection has experienced 67 crashes in the past five years, of which 21 have been serious. In addition, the rapid extension of residential developments in the area southwards along Ranford Road will inevitably put more pressure on the intersection. As a result of this the City of Gosnells proposal to take advantage of the available Black Spot Funds and carry out the intersection improvements as soon as possible are supported.

FUNDING FOR PROPOSED WORKS The City of Gosnells has requested Council to contribute $100,000 towards the works based on the following assessment:

TOTAL PROJECT COST $696,175 LESS BLACKSPOT FUNDING $275,000 TOTAL SHORTFALL $421,175

Based on the above calculations, Gosnells have requested that Council contribute $100,000 which is approximately one quarter of the shortfall figure of $105, 293. This is based on the fact that one quarter of the intersection (i.e. the south east corner) is within the City of Armadale.

Technical Services staff has assessed the above funding request, and it is apparent, however, that some of the costs included do not appear reasonable for this Council to accept. These are:

1. An over head allocation of $138,775. The City of Gosnells base overheads on a figure of 25% of the total estimated cost of each job. In addition to operational overheads, these costs also include in-house design and planning overheads.

The City of Armadale does not allocate in house design and planning overheads and as a result of this did not seek compensation in this regard when it recently made a similar request to the City of Gosnells for funding a portion of the short fall on the Warton Road / Nicholson Road intersection.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 28 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

More importantly, in this instance, the allocation of operational overheads to a job which is proposed to be carried out by a contract is not considered appropriate.

As a result of this, it is felt that a reasonable overhead of allocation to the project should be no more than $5,000 (i.e. the cost of supervision on site) plus external survey and design costs of $11,100.

2. The works include the resurfacing of the intersection, which is the responsibility of the City of Gosnells either as the sole local authority for the roads to the north and east, or under the boundary road maintenance agreements with the City of Armadale, for the roads to the south and west.

3. Spare material from the project is being used to top up / repair shoulders on Warton Road just to the east of the intersection, and this again is a maintenance responsibility of the City of Gosnells.

4. Some of the funding made available towards the project was from another Black Spot project linked with the above item. (i.e. shoulder repair) and therefore it is reasonable to also remove this portion of funding from the analysis.

In addition to the above proposed variations to the financial scope of the project, Council’s Civil Works department have assessed the scope of works and feels that they can carry them out at a lower cost than the best tender price achieved by the City of Gosnells.

That best price was $498,301.63 but Council’s Manager Civil Works has confirmed a revised figure of $443,000. The City of Gosnells has accepted this figure and has requested Council to carry out the works subject to finalisation of the funding scenario.

In light of these comments, a revised proposed funding scenario is as follows:

Cost Works $ 443,000.00 Cost Works Western Power $ 49,000.00 Supervision $ 5,000.00 Design/Survey $ 11,100.00 SUB TOTAL $ 508,100.00

Less Planing $ 15,625.55 Less Surfacing $ 45,780.25 Less Shouldering $ 8,989.60 SUB TOTAL $ 437,704.60 Less Grant $ 260,000.00 TOTAL $ 177,704.60

25% City Of Armadale Contribution $ 44,426.15

TECHNICAL SERVICES 29 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Engineering, Design and Development

CONCLUSION

Based on the above assessment, it appears reasonable for Council to make a contribution of $44,426 towards the proposed Warton Road / Ranford Road intersection.

Because it is not clear whether funds will become available on an “unders and overs” basis within the next 3 or 4 months, it is recommended that Council confirm its intention to include the works within the 2004-2005 programme in order that the project can commence as soon as possible.

Advice from the Executive Director Corporate Services has indicated, however, that because the works are to be carried out in this (2003-04) financial year then funds must be committed now.

This means that the funds must be approved as over-expenditure in 2003-04. This over expenditure will subsequently be offset via a reduced allocation to road works in the 2004-05 budget.

As previously stated, this issue needs urgent consideration to allow works to commence as soon as possible because the conditions of availability of the $275,000 Federal Black Spot Grant requires works to be substantially completed by 30th June 2004.

T14/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Council: a) Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, authorise the following expenditure: • Warton Road / Ranford Road Intersection $443,000.

b) Amend the 2003-2004 Annual Budget as follows: Expenditure Account number TBA Warton Road/ Ranford Road increased by $443,000 Revenue Account number TBA City of Gosnells funding increased by $398,574

**ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED

MOVED Cr Everts MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

TECHNICAL SERVICES 30 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Miscellaneous

2004 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING STATE CONFERENCE

WARD ALL In Brief: ƒ Outline of proceedings for 2004 Public Works FILE REF STF/27 Engineering State Conference. DATE 11 February 2004 ƒ Recommend: ƒ That no nomination be made for attendance at REF LEK the 2004 Public Works Engineering State RESPONSIBLE EDTS Conference. MANAGER

Tabled Items Nil.

Officer Interest Declaration Nil.

Strategic Implications Corporate Services To create a workplace where staff are innovative, confident and continue to learn.

Legislation Implications General assessment of relevant legislation (eg Local Government Act) has not revealed any restrictions.

Council Policy/Local Law Implications Assessment of Policy/Local Law indicates that the following are applicable: 1.2.5 – Conferences, Seminars and Training.

Budget/Financial Implications Conferences Members - General Ledger Account Number 1508520. The cost to attend the Conference is $800.00 for a full-time registration.

Consultation Chief Executive Officer, Chair of the Technical Services Committee and Technical Services Engineering Staff.

Background Council Policy requires that Council Members who wish to attend the Conference need to nominate at the Technical Services Committee for approval at the Ordinary Meeting of Council (to be held on 2nd March 2004). Therefore, any Councillor who is not a member of the Technical Services Committee but wishes to attend will need to advise the Chair of their request.

Due to the time constraints involved, Councillors wishing to attend all or part of this Conference are required to be nominated on the night of the February Technical Services Committee Meeting to enable registrations to be processed.

The Executive Director Technical Services, who is on the State Executive Committee of the IPWEA, and the Manager Technical Services, who is also active within the IPWEA are intending to attend the Conference on both days. The Chief Executive Officer and selected Engineering Staff will be attending various sessions and will be sharing registrations.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 31 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Miscellaneous

COMMENT

The State Conference is held annually by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia and is an ideal opportunity to increase knowledge and awareness of trends in public works and to broaden network contacts for the attending Members and/or Councillors.

The 2004 Public Works Engineering State Conference will be held at the Sheraton Perth Hotel on the 4 and 5 March 2004.

Technical Programme Topics

The topics covered by the Conference include the following:

• Session 1 Plenary Session – Adding Value – At what cost? • Session 2A Road Management • Session 2B Sustainability • Session 3A Traffic Management for Works on Roads • Session 3B Efficient Buildings • Session 4 Plenary Session • Session 5A Waste – Of What Value? • Session 5B Road Pavements • Session 6A Stormwater/Groundwater – Our Future • Session 6B Adding Value to Infrastructure Provision • Session 7 Projects Adding Value to Our Built Environment

The Conference outline is at Attachment “A2” of the Agenda (see Summary of Attachments – Green Page).

T15/02/04 RECOMMEND

That no nomination be made for attendance at the 2004 Public Works Engineering State Conference.

MOVED Cr Green MOTION CARRIED (7/0) TECHNICAL SERVICES 32 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Late Item

WORKS PROGRAMME REVISIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ARMADALE ROAD DUALLING BY CITY OF ARMADALE ON BEHALF OF MAIN ROADS WA.

WARD All In Brief: ƒ City of Armadale has been instructed to construct a

ENG/1 second carriageway on Armadale Road. DATE 23/02/2004 ƒ Provision adjustments to the works programme needs to be confirmed. REF WAB ƒ Potential funding contributions to bring forward dual RESPONSIBLE EDTS use path works of benefit to City of Armadale’s MANAGER communities. ƒ Recommend: That Council 1. Confirms the deferment of the following list of projects to enable the City of Armadale to carry out works to dual Armadale Road between the Tonkin Highway tie in and Allen Road Forrestdale. Redtail Lane $83,800 Orana Way $160,000 Churchmans Brook Road $120,000 Glebe Road $89,500 Mustang Road $158,000 Hookway Crescent $191,100 2. Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, authorize the following expenditure: Private Works – Armadale Road dual carriageway works - $710,000 3. Amend its 2003-04 Annual Budget as follows:- Expenditure Account Number TBA – Private Works Armadale Road Dual Carriageway increased by $710,000 Revenue Account Number TBA – Private Works Main Roads WA increased by $710,000 4. Agrees to consider funding dual use path works between Seville Drive and Allen Road to facilitate the construction of a dual carriageway on Armadale Road between the existing dual carriage way wet of Wungong Road and Allen Road provided the works are completed in 2004. 5. Agrees to consider provision of sufficient land held in fee simple, provided the works are completed in 2004

Tabled Items Nil.

Officer Interest Declaration Nil.

Strategic Implications Physical Infrastructure Develop an integrated transport system incl. safety aspects.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 33 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Late Item

Legislation Implications Full assessment of all relevant legislation indicates no restriction.

Council Policy/Local Law Implications Full assessment of all Policies/Local Laws indicates that none are applicable.

Budget/Financial Implications A proposed delay approximately $800,000 worth of works from the 2003/2004 programme until 2004/2005 to accommodate the City of Armadale undertaking the dualling of Armadale Road between the Tonkin Highway and Forrest Road.

Consultation Main Roads Western Australia

BACKGROUND

At its Ordinary Meeting on 1st September 2003, Council resolved (T88/08/03) as follows;

1. That Council approve the following list of projects to be provisionally deferred from the 2003/2004 Roadworks programme until the 2004/2005 programme, in order to accommodate the inclusion of works on Armadale Road for MRWA:

Redtail Lane...... $83,800 Orana Way...... $160,000 Churchmans Brook Road...... $120,000 Glebe Road...... $89,500 Mustang Road ...... $158,000 Hookway Crescent ...... $191,100

2. That Council note that the construction of Waterwheel Road will be undertaken by the subdivision developers, not by Council crews.

COMMENT

Main Roads WA has accepted the City of Armadale’s design and estimate of $710,000 including path works of $63,000 to dual Armadale Road between the Tonkin Highway tie in, past the Forrest Road intersection to Allen Road to ensure safe operations of these two intersections. The work discharges a component of the replacement work arising from the Deed of Agreement with Main Roads WA, with regards to the Corfield Street funding transfer by the City of Armadale.

Resolution T88/08/03 provisionally deferred the list of projects until the Armadale Road works program was determined.

The confirmation of this deferment is now required, to accommodate both the Armadale Road works as well as the Warton Road/Ranford Road works.

In addition negotiations between the City of Armadale, Armadale Redevelopment Authority and Main Roads WA regarding the scope of works, funding responsibilities and construction agency are continuing for the eastern section between existing dual carriageway and Tonkin TECHNICAL SERVICES 34 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Late Item

Highway. Main Roads WA is not necessarily required to provide a dual use path way on Armadale Road and the City, using Roads to Recovery Funds and grant funds, built the section of path between Railway Avenue and Seville Drive. In order to bring forward the path between Seville Drive and Forrest Road Council would consider funding these works at its expense. The continuation of the Roads to Recovery program provides funding capacity and such use of the funds conforms with the City of Armadale’s approach of using these funds for significant road projects of strategic importance. Advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is that grant funding is, at best, unlikely.

The funding available to Main Roads WA is that the cost of land acquisition has not been included in their estimate. The City of Armadale owns the land shown on Plan shown at the end of this item, in fee simple. In order to facilitate the dualling of Armadale Road in 2004, Council could provide the land at no cost, provided the value of the land (still to be finalised) is included in any agreed cost sharing arrangement. Were the proposal to dual Armadale Road this year not to proceed, then Council should require the State Government, through Main Roads WA, to pay the valuation price-as indeed the State Government has required the City of Armadale to acquire fee simple land from the Education Department and the Water Corporation for Champion Drive.

The dual use path is of particular benefit to the City of Armadale communities and which may justify use of the City’s funds on State Government infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

Projects provisionally deferred to accommodate Armadale Road dualling works between Tonkin Highway and Allen Road, Forrestdale should now be confirmed, to enable the City of Armadale to carry out these works on behalf of Main Roads WA as part discharge of the Deed of Agreement relating to Corfield Street.

In order to facilitate the dualling of Armadale Road, Council may determine to contribute to adjacent path infrastructure, using Roads to Recovery funds as well as contribute fee simple land, provided that Armadale Road is dualled between the existing dual carriage way immediately east of Wungong Road and Allen Road in Forrestdale with all the works to be completed in 2004.

T16/2/04 RECOMMEND

That Council

1. Confirms the deferment of the following list of projects to the 2004/05 financial year, to enable the City of Armadale to carry out works to dual Armadale Road between the Tonkin Highway tie in and Allen Road Forrestdale.

Redtail Lane ...... $83,800 Orana Way ...... $160,000 Churchmans Brook Road...... $120,000 Glebe Road ...... $89,500 Mustang Road ...... $158,000 Hookway Crescent ...... $191,100

TECHNICAL SERVICES 35 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE – Late Item

Amended at 2. Pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Ordinary Meeting of authorize the following expenditure: Council on 2 Private Works – Armadale Road dual carriageway works - $710,000 March 2004 3. Amend its 2003-04 Annual Budget as follows:- Expenditure Account Number TBA – Private Works Armadale Road Dual Carriageway increased by $710,000 Revenue Account Number TBA – Private Works Main Roads WA increased by $710,000

4. Agrees to contribute at an appropriate time funding for the dual use path works between Seville Drive and Allen Road to facilitate the construction of a dual carriageway on Armadale Road between the existing dual carriage way west of Wungong River and Allen Road provided the works are completed in 2004.

5. Agrees to consider provision of sufficient land held in fee simple, provided the works are completed in 2004.

MOVED Cr Green MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

R Tame left the meeting at 9.58pm. TECHNICAL SERVICES 36 23 FEBRUARY 2004 COMMITTEE

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

Cr Hart 1. Yellow line marking in Roleystone is excellent, a noticeable difference can bee seen. 2. Thanks to the officers involved in the Slab Gully presentation at Roleystone.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORTS

Nil.

MEETING CLOSED 10.10 PM.

TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUMMARY OF “A” ATTACHMENTS

23 FEBRUARY 2004

Attachment Subject Page No. A-1 Letter from Resident – Footpaths Forrest Road 32

A-2 2004 Public Works Engineering State Conference 33 City of Gosnells Report, Ordinary Council Meeting A-3 35 10th February 2004

TECHNICAL SERVICES 38 ATTACHMENT ‘A-1’ COMMITTEE

TECHNICAL SERVICES 39 ATTACHMENT ‘A-2’ COMMITTEE

TECHNICAL SERVICES 40 ATTACHMENT ‘A-2’ COMMITTEE TECHNICAL SERVICES 41 ATTACHMENT ‘A-3’ COMMITTEE

REPORT TO CITY OF GOSNELLS ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING ON 10/2/04

12.4.1 TENDER 39/2003 – INTERSECTION UPGRADE MODIFICATIONS, RANFORD AND WARTON ROAD, CANNING VALE RAN.4 and WAR.5 (OP) OP2.1a File: 12.4.1A Concept Plan Appendix :

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to award Tender 39/2003 – Intersection Upgrade Modifications, Ranford and Warton Roads, Canning Vale.

BACKGROUND

Tender 39/2003 which involves traffic signal modifications and reconstruction to the Ranford Road and Warton Road intersection, was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on 14 January 2004.

DISCUSSION

Due to the signal modification component and the current workload of City of Gosnells Operations Team in Spencer Road, Nicholson Road and Kelvin Road, the project was put out to tender.

Tenders were called on 14 January 2004 in which interested parties were invited to submit their completed tender documentation before 2:00pm Wednesday the 28 January 2004, at which time the tender was closed. Four tenders were received prior to the cut-off date and are listed below:

Price Company Name Address (excluding GST) Pavement Technology Ltd 1 Catalano Road, Canning Vale $498,301.63 Emoleum Maintenance 3/75 Kurnall Road, Welshpool $508,015.45 Brierty Contractors 38 Mandarin Road, Maddington $525,718.00 Mako Civil Pty Ltd 106 Maddington Road, Maddington $672,942.40

Council officers undertook the assessment of the companies and the prices tendered. TECHNICAL SERVICES 42 ATTACHMENT ‘A-3’ COMMITTEE

Tenders were assessed using the Weighted Price Method shown as follows:

and Price Total Score Table Contract Weighted Weighting to perform Evaluation Experience and Ability Methodology 15% 15% 70% 100% Pavement Technology 15% 15% 70% 100% Ltd Emoleum Maintenance 15% 15% 68.5% 98.5% Brierty Contractors 15% 15% 66.5% 96.5% Mako Civil Pty Ltd 15% 15% 52% 82%

Three of the four tenders were close to each other in price, however, the lowest tender was still approximately $100,000 above the estimated cost.

Due to the similarity between the ability of the tenderers and that all of the tenderers fully addressed the selection criteria, the main factor separating tenderers was price, with the lowest tender of $498,301.63 being received from Pavement Technology Ltd.

It should be noted that Western Power works totaling $ 49,000 were not included as part of the tender brief and is therefore an additional cost to the project as a whole.

As part of the 2002-2003 National Black Spot Program, the City of Gosnells successfully applied for funding to improve the intersection of Ranford Road and Warton Road in Canning Vale, by modifying the traffic signals and resurfacing with non-skid asphalt. This intersection is positioned at number fourteen in the City of Gosnells Intersection Crash Ranking, in regards to casualty crashes, and the predominant crash types are indirect right angle and rear ends. There have been 67 crashes at the intersection in the past five years, with 21 of these being serious crashes.

The existing intersection layout consists of two through lanes with a right and left turn lane on both approaches of Ranford Road and two through lanes with no right or left turn lanes in Warton Road. There are no provisions for any dedicated right-turn movements in regard to the signal phases, and motorists wishing to turn right on any approach have to filter through the green phase.

The proposed treatment for this intersection, which was submitted to the National Black Spot program, was for right-turn arrows to be installed on both Ranford Road approaches, as right-turn lanes were already provided and for Warton Road to remain the same with a filter through on green phase. This was always meant to be an interim measure, as both Ranford Road and Warton Road were to be widened in the future, as dictated by future traffic volumes. TECHNICAL SERVICES 43 ATTACHMENT ‘A-3’ COMMITTEE

Warton Road and Ranford Road intersection, in its ultimate layout, will consist of three through lanes with one right and one left turn lane on both approaches of Ranford Road and two through lanes with one left and one right turn lane in Warton Road south approach and similar in Warton Road north approach, but with two right turn lanes. A copy of the concept plan for the ultimate layout is shown in Appendix 12.4.1A.

A SIDRA analysis undertaken by Consultants was discussed between Main Roads Western Australia and Council staff, to determine the most appropriate intersection layout to achieve the best Level Of Service for this interim stage. Main Roads Western Australia recommendation was that right-turn pockets were to be constructed on both approaches of Warton Road, which would require considerable road widening and reconstruction. This directive was outside the original scope for this project, as submitted to the National Black Spot Program and thus there were insufficient funds available on this project to proceed with Main Roads Western Australia’s request.

The original funding from the 2002/2003 National Black Spot Program was $135,000. With the change in scope of works, a redesign of the intersection was estimated to cost $400,000 for the whole project and a formal request was made to Main Roads Western Australia to provide the additional funding required for this project to proceed. Correspondence was received from Main Roads Western Australia stating that an additional $95,000 was all that was available and that the City of Gosnells were to source the additional funding required if the project was to proceed.

It should be noted that National Black Spot projects are fully funded and requires no further contributions from Council.

Initiatives were put in place to provide the additional funding, including amalgamating a State Black Spot project for installing shoulders and applying anti- skid treatment in Warton Road between Ranford Road and Furley Road, into this project, which provided an additional $45,000.

No further National or State Black Spot funding is available and therefore if the project is to proceed, then additional funding needs to be sourced. Given the crash history and high road safety value, it is recommended that the project proceed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Total Black Spot funding provided for this project is $275,000. In addition to the tender price of $498,301.63 is Western Power works of $49,000, survey and design costs of $10,100 and overhead costs of 15% ($83,610). Therefore total project cost is $641,012 and an additional $366,012 of funding is required.

The current capital works programme has been analysed to determine any possible funds to assist in the project’s funding. Suitable funds have been identified within the current capital works programme and it is planned to source the required $366,012 from the following Capital works projects. TECHNICAL SERVICES 44 ATTACHMENT ‘A-3’ COMMITTEE

General Ledger / Account Description Surplus funds Job Number Job 80044 Kelvin Road $230,000 Job 82053 Safety Improved Crossings $11,902 Job 86000 Drainage Problems $34,110 City of Armadale – Contribution $90,000 TOTAL $366,012

Kelvin Road is a Town Planning Scheme 15 project which is currently funded by municipal funding. It is proposed to transfer $230,000 from the TPS 15 scheme to “free” municipal funds for this project. As the intersection is 25% within the City of Armadale, a contribution of $90,000 is being sought for the additional costs above the Black Spot funding available.

There is $34,110 worth of drainage upgrade works in the intersection upgrade and as such that amount is proposed from the Drainage Problem Account. Pedestrian crossing facilities are provided at the revised signals and therefore $11,902 is proposed to contribute to the works.

With the identified surplus money and the remaining budgeted grant money already available, the total project cost of $641,012 can be successfully funded from existing budgeted funds.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approve budget variations to allow for the Ranford Road and Warton Road intersection upgrade modifications, as follows:

Increase Job80050.100.1 – Ranford/Warton – Intersection $366,012 Modification

Decrease Job 80044.100.1 – Kelvin Road $230,000 Decrease Job 82053.100.1 – Safety Improved Crossings $11,902 Decrease Job 86000.100.1 – Various Drainage Problems $34,110 Armadale Contribution (80050.5005.53) $90,000

TECHNICAL SERVICES 45 ATTACHMENT ‘A-3’ COMMITTEE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council award Tender No 39/2003 – Intersection Upgrade Modifications, Ranford and Warton Roads, Canning Vale to Pavement Technology Ltd, 1 Catalano Road, Canning Vale, at a contract value of $498,301.63 excluding GST.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approve that $230,000 from TPS 15 be transferred to the Kelvin Road Job No 80044.

Increase Job 80044.100.1 – Kelvin Road $230,000

Decrease Account No 9.93.943 (80044.5008.49) – $230,000 TPS Reserve – TPS 15

Foreshadowed Motion

During debate Cr J Brown foreshadowed that she would move the following motion:

“That Council not make any decision in relation to Tender 39/2003 – Intersection Upgrade Modifications, Ranford and Warton Road, Canning Vale and refer item 12.4.1 “Tender 39/2003 – Intersection Upgrade Modifications, Ranford And Warton Road, Canning Vale” of the 10 February 2004 Ordinary Council Meeting back to enable staff more time to accurately assess the costings for the project prior to a decision of Council.” if the motions under debate were defeated, providing the following written reason:

“That following further advice from staff after compilation of the agenda, the three (3) staff recommendations be foreshadowed.”

Cr P Wainwright Seconded the proposed motion.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put the staff recommendations, which read:

8.17pm - The Director Regulatory Services left the meeting.

TECHNICAL SERVICES 46 ATTACHMENT ‘A-3’ COMMITTEE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approve budget variations to allow for the Ranford Road and Warton Road intersection upgrade modifications, as follows:

Increase Job80050.100.1 – Ranford/Warton – Intersection $366,012 Modification

Decrease Job 80044.100.1 – Kelvin Road $230,000 Decrease Job 82053.100.1 – Safety Improved Crossings $11,902 Decrease Job 86000.100.1 – Various Drainage Problems $34,110 Armadale Contribution (80050.5005.53) $90,000

LOST 0/11 FOR: Nil.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Croft, Cr R Hoffman, Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr S Moss, Cr O Searle, Cr C Matison, Cr J Brown, Cr D Griffiths and Cr PM Morris.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council award Tender No 39/2003 – Intersection Upgrade Modifications, Ranford and Warton Roads, Canning Vale to Pavement Technology Ltd, 1 Catalano Road, Canning Vale, at a contract value of $498,301.63 excluding GST. LOST 0/11 FOR: Nil.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Croft, Cr R Hoffman, Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr S Moss, Cr O Searle, Cr C Matison, Cr J Brown, Cr D Griffiths and Cr PM Morris.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approve that $230,000 from TPS 15 be transferred to the Kelvin Road Job No 80044.

Increase Job 80044.100.1 – Kelvin Road $230,000

Decrease Account No 9.93.943 (80044.5008.49) – $230,000 TPS Reserve – TPS 15

LOST 0/11 FOR: Nil.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Croft, Cr R Hoffman, Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr S Moss, Cr O Searle, Cr C Matison, Cr J Brown, Cr D Griffiths and Cr PM Morris. TECHNICAL SERVICES 47 ATTACHMENT ‘A-3’ COMMITTEE As the staff recommendations were lost, the Mayor then put Cr Brown’s foreshadowed motion, which reads:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

1 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Wainwright

“That Council not make any decision in relation to Tender 39/2003 – Intersection Upgrade Modifications, Ranford and Warton Road, Canning Vale and refer item 12.4.1 “Tender 39/2003 – Intersection Upgrade Modifications, Ranford And Warton Road, Canning Vale” of the 10 February 2004 Ordinary Council Meeting back to enable staff more time to accurately assess the costings for the project prior to a decision of Council.” CARRIED 11/0 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Croft, Cr R Hoffman, Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr S Moss, Cr O Searle, Cr C Matison, Cr J Brown, Cr D Griffiths and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.