JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL€¦ · Mr Phil Rudd General Manager of, Goldenfields Water County Council,...

JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL

AGENDA AND BUSINESS PAPER

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

@ 4.30pm

in the Council Chambers

Our Vision:

“Junee will be a great place to live, with a healthy civic pride. That will come about because the amenity of the Shire – social, recreational, cultural, environmental and visual – is the best quality possible given our circumstances. There will be an increase in population because of this, with the increase made up of people who are net contributors to the community.

“Junee will be prosperous and existing services and businesses will have been preserved and grown. The Shire will have economic development strategies recognising the different circumstances of urban and rural areas.

“Junee will be a place where innovative, responsive leadership and management occurs in all facets of community life.

“It will be an independent Local Government area with a strong sense of identity.”

Our Mission:

The community and Junee Shire Council are to Make Tracks systematically and with determination towards the Shire Vision.”

Our Community Values:

Proud and welcoming – we are proud of our Shire and as a friendly community we encourage and support new residents and business owners.

Innovative and progressive – we welcome new ideas and we seek to make changes that will improve the lifestyle of our community.

Inclusive – we have a perspective broader than the Shire boundary; our regional focus means we are tuned to the opportunities available through co-operation and partnerships.

Leadership and wisdom – we listen and act; we are prepared to take tough decisions in the best interests of the future of our people, our place and our economy.

AGENDA

APOLOGIES

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES EXTRAORDINARY MEETING 28 JUNE 2016

MATTERS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

MAYORAL MINUTE

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 1. JOINT ORGANISATIONS – BACKGROUND PAPER TOWARDS A NEW MODEL FOR REGIONAL

COLLABORATION2. RURAL FIRE SERVICE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION3. 17 KITCHENER STREET, JUNEE – SUBDIVISION4. COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AND BANK BALANCES5. EASEMENTS FOR SEWERAGE AND STORMWATER PIPELINES

CORRESPONDENCE

COMMITTEE REPORTS

DELEGATES REPORTS Riverina Regional Library Advisory Committee

NOTICES OF MOTION NIL

LATE BUSINESS (MATTERS OF URGENCY) NIL

QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS WITH NOTICE

INFORMATION BOOKLET – TABLED FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCILLORS

GENERAL MANAGER’S CONFIDENTIAL REPORT – RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE OF A WHOLE MEETING 1. JUNEE RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTRE – HVAC UPGRADE PROJECT (CONTRACT

1/2016)

CLOSE

JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES EXTRAORDINARY MEETING

MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BELMORE STREET, JUNEE ON TUESDAY, 28 JUNE 2016.

CHAIRPERSON: __________________________________________________________ GENERAL MANAGER: _____________________________________________________ Page 1 of 16

The meeting opened at 4.30pm. PRESENT Councillors N Smith, M Austin, R Callow, A Clinton, P Halliburton, L Cummins, M Holmes, C Randall and J Ward. STAFF General Manager, Director Engineering Services, Director Community and Business, Director Finance and Administration and Executive Assistant. ADDRESS BY PHIL RUDD, GOLDENFIELDS WATER COUNTY COUNCIL Mr Phil Rudd, General Manager of Goldenfields Water County Council, addressed the Council regarding Goldenfields Water County Council’s activities and programs. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – ORDINARY MEETING 17 MAY 2016 02.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr J Ward seconded Cr C Randall that the minutes of the

Ordinary Meeting held on 17 May 2015, copies of which had been supplied to each Councillor, be confirmed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – ORDINARY MEETING 21 JUNE 2016 03.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr C Randall seconded Cr A Clinton that the minutes of the

Ordinary Meeting held on 21 June 2015, copies of which had been supplied to each Councillor, be confirmed.

BUSINESS ARISING Nil DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillors were invited to disclose any Declarations of Interest related to the items of business in the report. Cr Andrew Clinton declared a minor non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 as he is the sole shareholder and director of a company ACN 082 000 137 Pty Ltd (ABN 28 082 000 137) that owns Lot 12 DP1195603 which is a block of land that adjoins the western side of the freehold portion of the Junee Golf course. MAYORAL MINUTE Nil



GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT The General Manager presented a report which dealt with Items 1 to 9, and the following action was taken: 04.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr R Callow seconded Cr M Austin that the Council suspend

Standing Orders and bring Item 8 forward; the time being 4.50pm. 8[DCB] DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2015/19 – STORAGE SHED AND

HOBBY RAILWAY – 86-90 WARDLE STREET JUNEE 05.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr R Callow seconded Cr M Holmes that:

Recommendation 1 That pursuant to Section 80 and Section 80A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 2015/19 from Mr P N Neve for a New Storage Shed and Hobby Railway track of 610mm gauge with scaled locomotive engine use at Lot 2 Sec 10 DP 1554 known as 86-90 Wardle Street, Junee be approved subject to the following conditions: Prescribed Conditions of Consent

The following conditions are known as “Prescribed conditions” and are required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to be imposed as part of any development consent whether or not they are relevant to the development approved under this consent. Please do not hesitate to contact staff in Council’s Development and Environmental Department who will be happy to advise you as to whether or not the conditions are relevant to your consent.

1. All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of

the Building Code of Australia (as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made).

Reason: So that the development complies with the requirements imposed under Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

2. In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989

requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with part 6 of the Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.




3. Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

• In the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be

appointed: (i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and (ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of

the Act,

• In the case of work to be done by an owner-builder: (i) the name of the owner-builder, and (ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under

the Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

Reason: So that the development complies with the requirements imposed under Clause 98B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

4. A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building

work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

• showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

• showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work

and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

• stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work is being carried out and must be removed when the work has been completed. NOTE: This condition does not apply to building work that is carried out inside an existing building that does not affect the external walls of the building. Reason: So that the development complies with the requirements imposed under clause 98A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

5. Any development that involves an excavation that extends below the level of the

base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must, at the person’s own expense:

i. protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the

excavation, and



ii. where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

NOTE: The condition referred to in sub clause (1) does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying. Reason: So that the development complies with the requirements imposed under Clause 98E of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

ADVISORY NOTE

(a) Dial Before You Dig

Underground assets may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial Before You Dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial Before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial Before You Dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

(b) Telecommunications Act 1997 (Commonwealth)

Telstra (and its authorised contractors) are the only companies that are permitted to conduct works on Telstra’s network and assets. Any person interfering with a facility or installation owned by Telstra is committing an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and is liable for prosecution. Furthermore, damage to Telstra’s infrastructure may result in interruption to the provision of essential services and significant costs. If you are aware of any works or proposed works which may affect or impact on Telstra’s assets in any way, you are required to contact: Telstra’s Network Integrity Team by phoning 1800 810 443.

(c) If the development is likely to disturb or impact upon telecommunications

infrastructure, written confirmation from the service provider that they have agreed to the proposed works must be submitted to the Principal Certifying authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or any works commencing, whichever occurs first.

http://www.1100.com.au/



The arrangements and costs associated with any adjustment to telecommunications infrastructure shall be borne in full by the applicant/developer. Reason: To prevent the possible damage to telecommunications infrastructure.

Operational Conditions of Consent

1. The development must remain in private ownership and be operated as a hobby;

not operated for hire or reward, or provided on hire or lease; and members of the general public (excepting friends and relatives) must not have access.

Reason: So that the development does not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the surrounding residential uses.

2. Hours of Operation: The railway is to only operate at the following times:

• Monday to Friday - 9am to 5pm local time • Saturday - 9am to 1pm local time • Sunday & Public Holidays – None Reason: So that the development does not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the surrounding residential uses.

3. During operation the railway activity must not exceed 40 dBA LAeq, 15min at the

receivers R1 to R4 identified in the noise assessment prepared by Blackett Acoustics (Project Number BA151114, dated 10 May 2016).


4. If noise complaints are received, the applicant may be required by the Council to

undertake an on-site noise assessment to validate the assumptions in the noise assessment prepared by Blackett Acoustics (Project Number BA151114, dated 10 May 2016). Cost associated with noise assessment will be the applicant’s responsibility. If the assumptions cannot be validated the railway is to cease operating until noise mitigation is satisfactorily implemented.


5. Plan of Management: Prior to the commencement of operations, the applicant is

to provide a detailed Plan of Management for approval. The Plan of Management shall clearly indicate how the applicant intends to manage the operation, with specific detail to be provided on the following aspects:



i) Hours of Operation: This to include the proposed times and frequency which the proposed hobby railway will operate.

ii) Site access control: This to include means by which the public will be

restricted from access to the site during railway operations. iii) Noise and vibration, including how offensive noise and vibration will be

minimised so as to ensure that neighbouring residents are not detrimentally impacted as a result of the development.

Note: Offensive noise is defined within the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 as noise:

a. that, by reason of its level, nature, character or quality, or the time at

which it is made, or any other circumstances:

(i) is harmful to (or is likely to be harmful to) a person who is outside the premises from which it is emitted, or

(ii) interferes unreasonably with (or is likely to interfere unreasonably with) the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises from which it is emitted, or

b. that is of a level, nature, character or quality prescribed by the

regulations or that is made at a time, or in other circumstances, prescribed by the regulations.


6. Compliance with Consent: The Development being completed in accordance

with plans, specifications and Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council, except where varied by conditions of this consent.

Reason: To confirm the details of the application as submitted by the applicant and as approved by Council.

7. Soil Erosion Control: Run-off and erosion control measures shall be

incorporated into site management during construction and effectively maintained until the site has been stabilised. Care shall be taken to ensure that no nuisance is created to adjoining properties or public spaces by way of sediment run-off.

Reason: To ensure that adequate measures are in place to ensure that damage from sediment run-off to adjoining sites and waterways is minimised.



8. Cut and Fill: A Construction Certificate will be required for cut and fill exceeding 600mm. Reason: To ensure appropriate design and construction is achieved.

As required under Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the following is the record of voting for this planning matter. FOR: Cr M Austin, Cr R Callow, Cr M Holmes, Cr N Smith and Cr C Randall. AGAINST: Cr A Clinton, Cr L Cummins, Cr P Halliburton and Cr J Ward. 06.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr M Holmes seconded Cr R Callow that:

Recommendation 2: That the owner, Mr Peter Neve be advised of the decision of the Council on Development Application No. 2015/19.

As required under Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the following is the record of voting for this planning matter. FOR: Cr M Austin, Cr R Callow, Cr L Cummins, Cr P Halliburton, Cr M Holmes, Cr N Smith, Cr C Randall and Cr J Ward. AGAINST: Cr A Clinton.

07.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr R Callow seconded Cr M Austin that Standing Orders be

resumed the time being 5.30pm. 1[DFA] COMBINED DELIVERY PROGRAM OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016-2020 08.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr R Callow seconded Cr L Cummins that:

1. The Combined Delivery Program Operational Plan 2016-20, as presented, be adopted.

2. The Revenue Policy 2016-2017, as advertised, and after taking into consideration all submissions made to the Plan and any amendments listed in the above report to Council, be adopted;

3. Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation

1993 expenditure required to finance works, service and activities of the Council for the financial year 2016-2017 and as detailed in the Financial Estimates section of the Council’s Combined Delivery Program Operational Plan 2016-2020 be approved and voted accordingly;



4. Whereas public notice has been given by advertisement published in the Junee Southern Cross of the preparation of the Draft Combined Delivery Program Operational Plan 2016-2020 in relation to the Council’s activities for the 2016-2020 period and the Council’s Revenue Policy for the 2016-2017 financial year and whereas such Draft Combined Delivery Program Operational Plan 2016-2020 and Revenue Policy have been publicly exhibited for not less than 28 days and whereas Council has considered any matters concerning the Draft Combined Delivery Program Operational Plan 2016-2020 and Revenue Policy and whereas such Draft Combined Delivery Program Operational Plan 2016-2020 and Revenue Policy was amended as necessary, and adopted at a meeting held on 28 June 2016 and whereas the ordinary rates do not exceed in the aggregate the permitted increase the ordinary rates and the special rates and the charges detailed hereafter be and hereby are made for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016:

i) a FARMLAND rate of zero point three zero eight two three (0.30823) cents in

the dollar on the land value of all rateable land in the area which has been categorised by the Council as Farmland pursuant to Section 515 of the Local Government Act subject to a base amount of two hundred and ninety seven dollars and sixty cents ($297.60) in respect of each separate parcel with the base amount producing eleven point four one percent (11.41%) of the total amount of the rate levy of the Farmland rate category, and

ii) a RESIDENTIAL - TOWN rate of one point zero seven eight six four six (1.078646) cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land in the area which has been sub-categorised by the Council as Residential - Town pursuant to Section 516 and 529 of the Local Government Act 1993 subject to a base amount of two hundred and ninety seven dollars and sixty cents ($297.60) in respect of each separate parcel with the base amount producing thirty seven point zero seven percent (37.07%) of the total amount of the rate levy of the Residential - Town rate sub-category, and

iii) a RESIDENTIAL – RURAL & VILLAGE rate of zero point five zero five seven one

four (0.505714) cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land which has been sub-categorised by the Council as Residential – Rural & Village pursuant to Sections 516 and 529 of the Local Government Act, 1993 subject to a base amount of two hundred and ninety seven dollars and sixty cents ($297.60) in respect of each separate parcel with the base amount producing forty eight point eight two percent (48.82%) of the total amount of the rate levy of the Residential – Rural & Village rate sub-category, and

iv) a RESIDENTIAL – KINVARA rate of zero point four seven eight eight three five

(0.478835) cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land in the area which has been sub-categorised by the Council as Residential - Kinvara pursuant to Section 516 and 529 of the Local Government Act 1993 subject to a base amount of two hundred and ninety seven dollars and sixty cents ($297.60) in respect of each separate parcel with the base amount producing twenty nine



point one one percent (29.11%) of the total amount of the rate levy of the Residential - Kinvara rate sub-category, and

v) a BUSINESS – TOWN rate of three point three five nine five four two

(3.359542) cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land in the area which has been sub-categorised by the Council as Business – Town pursuant to Section 518 and 529 of the Local Government Act 1993 subject to a two hundred and ninety seven dollars and sixty cents ($297.60) in respect of each separate parcel with the base amount producing twelve point nine two percent (12.92%) of the total amount of the rate levy of the Business - Town rate sub-category, and

vi) a BUSINESS rate of one point eight four eight zero five five (1.848055) cents in

the dollar on the land value of all rateable land in the area which has been categorised by the Council as Business pursuant to Section 518 of the Local Government Act 1993 subject to a two hundred and ninety seven dollars and sixty cents ($297.60) in respect of each separate parcel with the base amount producing thirty two point two three percent (32.23%) of the total amount of the rate levy of the Business rate category, and

5. That pursuant to Section 558 of the Local Government Act, 1993 such lands belonging

to a public hospital, public benevolent institution or public charity and public reserves as are non-rateable to an ordinary rate pursuant to Section 556/557 of the said Act be similarly exempted from sewerage charges for the financial year 2016-2017;

6. That the schedule of fees and charges for 2016-2017 as outlined in the Draft

Combined Delivery Program Operational Plan 2016-2020 with the alterations as described in the report above be adopted;

7. That the General Manager cause preparation and service of rate notices for the

financial year 2016-2017. 8. The Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2016, as presented, be adopted.

Councillor P Halliburton voted against the motion. 2[DFA] DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL REMUNERATION FEES FOR

COUNCILLORS AND MAYORS 09.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr C Randall seconded Cr L Cummins that the Councillors’

fees be set at $8,540 with the additional Mayoral fee being set at $19,270 with the intention being that $3,665 of this Mayoral fee be paid to the Deputy Mayor to supplement this allowance.



3[AFM] COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AND BANK BALANCES 10.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr M Austin seconded Cr J Ward that:

1. The Monthly Investment Reports as at 31 May 2016 be received and noted. 2. The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

4[DES] ANNUAL SEWERAGE ACTION PLAN 11.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr A Clinton seconded Cr C Randall that the 2014-15

Annual Sewerage Business Action Plan and the proposed actions stemming from it, be noted. 5[DES] FIREWOOD COLLECTION 12.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr J Ward seconded Cr R Callow that the Protection of

Council Land and Roadside Vegetation and Habitat Policy and Collection of Firewood from Roadsides and Council Land Guidelines be adopted with the word “standing” added to the first dot point on page 3 of the Guidelines.

Councillor A Clinton voted against the motion. 6[DES] DRAFT PESTICIDE USE NOTIFICATION PLAN 13.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr J Ward seconded Cr P Halliburton that:

1. The Draft Pesticide Use Notification Plan be advertised pursuant to the requirements of the Pesticides Regulation 2009.

2. The General Manager be delegated the authority in the event that there are no

submissions or no submission that raises any material issue to proceed with final notification pursuant to the requirements of the Pesticides Regulation 2009.

7[DCB] DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2016/26 – 2 GOLF AVENUE, JUNEE 14.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr R Callow seconded Cr M Holmes that:

Recommendation 1: That pursuant to Section 80 and Section 80A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 2016/26 from Junee Golf Club Limited for the Primitive Camping Ground on Lots 2, 3 and 4, Sec 13 in DP 10922 known as 2 Golf Avenue JUNEE, be approved subject to the following conditions:



Prescribed Conditions of Consent

The following conditions are known as “Prescribed conditions” and are required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to be imposed as part of any development consent whether or not they are relevant to the development approved under this consent. Please do not hesitate to contact staff in Council’s Development and Environmental Department who will be happy to advise you as to whether or not the conditions are relevant to your consent.

1. All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of

the Building Code of Australia (as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made).


2. In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989

requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with part 6 of the Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.


3. Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989

must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

• In the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be

appointed: (i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and (ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of

the Act,

• In the case of work to be done by an owner-builder: (i) the name of the owner-builder, and (ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit

under the Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

Reason: So that the development complies with the requirements imposed under Clause 98B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.



4. A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

• showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal

certifying authority for the work, and • showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work

and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

• stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited. Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work is being carried out and must be removed when the work has been completed. NOTE: This condition does not apply to building work that is carried out inside an existing building that does not affect the external walls of the building. Reason: So that the development complies with the requirements imposed under clause 98A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

5. Any development that involves an excavation that extends below the level of the

base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must, at the person’s own expense:

i. protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the

excavation, and ii. where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such

damage.

NOTE: The condition referred to in sub clause (1) does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying. Reason: So that the development complies with the requirements imposed under Clause 98E of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

ADVISORY NOTE

(a) Dial Before You Dig

Underground assets may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial Before You Dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the

http://www.1100.com.au/



development upon contacting the Dial Before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial Before You Dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

(b) Telecommunications Act 1997 (Commonwealth)

Telstra (and its authorised contractors) are the only companies that are permitted to conduct works on Telstra’s network and assets. Any person interfering with a facility or installation owned by Telstra is committing an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and is liable for prosecution. Furthermore, damage to Telstra’s infrastructure may result in interruption to the provision of essential services and significant costs. If you are aware of any works or proposed works which may affect or impact on Telstra’s assets in any way, you are required to contact: Telstra’s Network Integrity Team by phoning 1800 810 443.

(c) If the development is likely to disturb or impact upon telecommunications

infrastructure, written confirmation from the service provider that they have agreed to the proposed works must be submitted to the Principal Certifying authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or any works commencing, whichever occurs first.

The arrangements and costs associated with any adjustment to telecommunications infrastructure shall be borne in full by the applicant/developer. Reason: To prevent the possible damage to telecommunications infrastructure. Operational Conditions of Consent

Operational Conditions of Consent

1. Compliance with Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan

Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 (the “Regulations”), specifically Clause 132 relating to Primitive Camping Grounds.

Reason: To ensure the development operates as a primitive camping ground.

2. The maximum number of caravans, campervans and tents on site at any one time

is 25.

Reason: To meet the requirements of the Regulations.



3. Maximum stay of five days.

Reason: To confirm the details of the application by the applicant and as approved by Council.

4. That a Management Plan be prepared and approved for the use of the site. The

Plan to include but not limited to noise control, emergency evacuation, waste control and litter.

Reason: To confirm the details of the application by the applicant and so that the development does not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood.

5. No camping within the area of natural overland flow and campers to be provided

with an emergency evacuation plan.

Reason: To mitigate risk in the event of localised flooding.

6. No open fires.

Reason: To mitigate risk of fire.

7. Compliance with Consent: The Development being completed in accordance with plans, specifications and Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council, except where varied by conditions of this consent.

Reason: To confirm the details of the application as submitted by the applicant and as approved by Council.

Recommendation 2: That the applicant, Junee Golf Club Limited, be advised of the decision of the Council on Development Application No. 2016/26.

As required under Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the following is the record of voting for this planning matter. FOR: Cr M Austin, Cr R Callow, Cr A Clinton, Cr L Cummins, Cr P Halliburton, Cr M Holmes, Cr N Smith, Cr C Randall and Cr J Ward. AGAINST: Nil

9[WSRM] DRAFT WORK HEALTH & SAFETY POLICY 15.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr P Halliburton seconded Cr J Ward that Junee Shire

Council adopt the policy titled ‘Work Health and Safety Policy’.



COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Junee Junction Recreation & Aquatic Centre Section 355 Committee 16.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr M Holmes seconded Cr C Randall that the minutes of the

Junee Junction Recreation & Aquatic Centre Section 355 Committee held on 22 June 2016, copies of which had been supplied to each Councillor, be confirmed and adopted.

DELEGATES’ REPORTS • Eastern Riverina Destination Management Organisation • Goldenfields Water County Council – Cr A Clinton • REROC Board Minutes – February 2016 • Junee Golf Club – Cr C Randall

NOTICE OF MOTION Nil QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Nil LATE BUSINESS Nil INFORMATION BOOKLET The information booklet was received and noted. 17.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr R Callow seconded Cr C Randall that Councillor L

Cummins be granted a leave of absence from the 19 July 2016 and the 16 August 2016 Ordinary Meetings.

18.06.16 At 6.45pm Council RESOLVED on the motion of Cr R Callow seconded Cr M Austin to go

into Closed Committee of the Whole under Section 10A (2(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 to consider personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors).

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT 1[GM] ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW – GENERAL MANAGER 19.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr A Clinton seconded Cr M Austin that Council note the

report tabled by the sub-committee relating to the 2015/2016 Performance Review of the General Manager.



REVERSION TO OPEN COUNCIL 20.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr A Clinton seconded Cr P Halliburton that Council move

out of committee and revert to an open meeting of the Council, the time being 6.58pm.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF CLOSED COMMITTEE 21.06.16 RESOLVED on the motion of Cr M Holmes seconded Cr R Callow that the resolutions of

the Confidential Committee be adopted. There being no further business, the meeting closed at 7.00pm.

JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL

GENERAL MANAGER’S

REPORT

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT TO THE ORDINARY MEETING OF JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL HELD ON 19 JULY 2016.

J:\Council Meetings\2016\ORDINARY MEETING 19 JULY 2016\GM's Ordinary Report to Council - 19 July 2016.doc Page 1

1[GM] JOINT ORGANISATIONS – BACKGROUND PAPER TOWARDS A NEW MODEL FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION

The State Government has released a discussion paper: “Background Paper Joint Organisations - Towards a New Model for Regional Collaboration (June 2016)”. The is the next phase in moving towards the establishment of Joint Organisations (JOs) across NSW. The commencement of JOs is now proposed for September 2017. Submissions to the background paper closed on the 15 July 2016. A draft submission was circulated to councillors for comment to enable Council’s submission to be lodged before the due date. This report is provided to formally endorse that submission. Background Junee Shire Council has been an active member of the pilot Riverina JO that has been operating for a little over a year. It was one of five pilot JOs that were created by the State Government to help inform and develop a statewide structure. The State Government has seen this process in a positive light indicating that the pilots had made significant progress in delivering benefits such as youth employment programs, better freight transport strategies, better ways of prioritising regional infrastructure and improved growth planning. The latest discussion paper provides an insight into what the final JO structure will be. It includes the following set of guiding principles, core and optional functions. Principles JOs should: • Have legal status. • Be enabled through the Local Government Act and recognised in other relevant laws. • Be owned by, and accountable to, member councils rather than be a ‘fourth tier’ of

government. • Not impose significant red tape, cost or risks and ensure benefits outweigh costs and risks. • Embed collaborative relationships between local government and the State Government, as

well as a wide range of other stakeholders and partners. • Have a consistent core model with flexible elements. • Protect entitlements for council staff through the Local Government (State) Award. • Enable significant projects and initiatives, and associated funding and assets, to be managed

regionally. • Ensure good governance. • Serve the best interests of the region and its communities. Core functions • Regional strategic planning and priority setting • Intergovernmental collaboration • Regional leadership and advocacy.



Optional functions • Optional functions will be enabled, but not defined, by the legislation. These may include

regional service delivery or capacity building activities. JOs should determine the best vehicle to undertake optional functions.

Councillor Smith, Councillor Cummins and the General Manager have participated in REROC meetings to discuss a regional response to the latest background paper. Councillor Cummins and the General Manager also attended a briefing session by the Office of Local Government on the matter. Junee Shire Council’s submission and the State Government’s background paper is attached for information. Generally Council can agree with or adapt to most of the proposals in the background paper. We disagree with some of the points made in the discussion paper, focusing on the following key points:

• Reinforcing the independent role of local government -The ability for promotion of local priority projects retaining a place within the broader system of government. The ability for advocacy at the local level through State Members and Agencies remaining a legitimate process and not being dismissed because a JO is in place.

• Avoid over complicating the JO structure -The ability for JOs to have flexibility in how they

conduct their non-core operational activity is critical to encourage continuous improvement and growth. Each region will have its own unique set of issues and aspirations and they are in the best position to identify and progress them. A legislative framework is not supported for non-core functions.

• Affirming JO membership accountability - Structurally it is important the JOs operate with

attendances from the highest levels of both Local Government and State Agencies. Some checks and balance should be applied that ensures that these leaders attend JO meetings. It would be disappointing if alternative delegated representation emerges as normal practice. Some accountability for attendance would reinforce the importance for JOs.

• Governance arrangements - A JO’s primary purpose is to enhance regional strategic

planning and priority setting, intergovernmental collaboration and regional leadership and advocacy. To overlay the governance arrangements and requirements of a multi-purpose council as defined within the Local Government Act and other practice notes and guidelines associated with the Office of Local Government is considered as an overreach given the major differences between operating JOs and councils.

This administration and compliance burden on JOs is a duplication of effort and would raise the cost of running JOs. It is also likely that the compliance work needed to support those governance requirements would direct a JO’s workload away from its core responsibilities in favour of administration and compliance tasks.

Recommendation: That Council endorse its submission to the State Government discussion paper: “Background Paper Joint Organisations - Towards a New Model for Regional Collaboration (June 2016)”.



2[GM] RURAL FIRE SERVICE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION The Council dealt with the Rural Fire Service Riverina Zone estimated annual contribution for 2016/17 at its Ordinary Meeting in March 2016. The gross estimate contribution was $179,622; there is also a reimbursement amount of $27,600 leaving an estimated net contribution of $152,022 for 2016/17. The NSW Rural Fire Service have formally advised each Rural Fire Service Zone of changes to the funding model for 2016/17. The Riverina Zone members were invited to an informal briefing session on the changes on the 6 August 2016. (See Riverina Zone letter attached) At the March Ordinary Meeting, the Council resolved:

1. The Council conduct a review of expenditure related to the Rural Fire Services to establish further savings in expenditure in providing that service.

2. That Council continue to lobby for a review of the Rural Fires Acts to provide

councils with a stronger influence in the determination of their financial contribution towards the Rural Fire Service.

Reasons for the Changes • Miss alignment of State Government budgets with Council budget cycles.

• Difficulty for councils to forecast probable contributions given the bid estimate occurs six

months later prior to the NSW Rural Fire Service allocation being declared. • Current 12 month bid and allocation process not conducive to the Integrated Planning and

Reporting requirements. • Peaks and troughs in Volunteer and State-wide Support (VASS) and council contributions

especially when large capital items such as fire fighting trucks and rural fire fighting sheds (stations) are provided in any one year.

New Allocation Model • The estimated allocation for a Rural Fire Zone or District will be based on a fixed

percentage of the overall State Rural Fire Fighting Fund. That percentage has been calculated taking an average of the last 20 year’s Zone or District annual expenditure.

• Calculating the allocation average over the past 20 years, the Riverina Zone’s annual

allocation amount has been 2.37% of the State Rural Fire Fighting Fund.

• In the Riverina Zone’s case, Urana Shire Council’s expenditure has been removed from this exercise as they now form part of the newly formed Federation Council.

• The Zone member’s (Wagga Wagga, Coolamon. Lockhart and Junee Councils)

contribution remains at 11.7% of the annual Zone’s allocation.

• The VASS reimbursement has been removed and will no longer apply.



• While the 2.37% is proposed to be a fixed percentage of the total State Rural Fire Fighting Fund, we can reasonably expect annual increases to that total. Taking the past five years average, the State Rural Fire Fighting Fund has risen annually by 3.72%.

• Councils will no longer have to sign off on estimate bids. • Allocation of fire fighting trucks and rural fire fighting sheds (stations) will be determined by

NSW Rural Fire Service. Hence removing local government’s ability to influence decisions relating to these items.

Financial Contribution 2016/17 Junee Shire Council will be financially impacted as a result of the changes. 2.37% of the State Rural Fire Fighting Fund for 2015/16 divided by councils 11.7% contribution equates to a total annual Zone contribution from councils of $872,379. The following table provides a further breakdown for each council’s contribution. Zone cost

breakdown 2015/16 base contribution

Assumed 3.72% annual increase

Estimate for 2016/17

Coolamon 19% 165,752 6,166 171,918

Junee 19% 165,752 6,166 171,918

Lockhart 18% 157,028 5,841 162,869

Wagga Wagga 44% 383,847 14,279 398,126

Zone 100% 872,379 32,452 904,831

For 2016/17, the Council’s net contribution was estimated at $152,022. As VASS reimbursements no longer apply, the financial impact for 2016/17 for Junee is approximately $20,000. ($171,918 - $152,022) Spare a thought for Lockhart Shire Council who’s original 2016/17 estimate did not include a replacement fire fighting truck and now because of the 20 year averaging effect will see their estimated contribution rise by around $90,000 in this financial year. Commentary The concerns regarding the unpredictability in budget timing for councils has been addressed. The control points councils were seeking on excessive increases to year on year expenditure have not been addressed. While the annual contribution amounts are being promoted as effectively smoothing out any spikes in future years, the Emergency Service Minister retains discretion to seek an increase or decrease to the State Rural Fire Fighting Fund. This may have unplanned impacts on council contributions in future years. Fire fighting truck allocation is now out of the Riverina Zone’s hands. Previously the Council has been afforded some control over its financial contributions by reaching agreement to defer large



capital items on occasion. That will no longer be the case. Council’s contributions towards Riverina Zone will continue to be 11.7%. With the asset replacement program now the domain of the NSW Rural Fire Service Headquarters, there are concerns that large capital equipment purchase costs will increase, with the counter ‘value for money proposition’ that rural councils advocate for being lost. While not wanting to add more detailed complexity to the information already provided, an overview of Riverina Zone total expenditure for the 2015/16 year is provided. (See Attachment). It highlights the following: • 30% local on-ground expenditure to service local volunteers, purchase and maintain trucks

and equipment.

• 20% towards Zone costs. Operational expenditure for the Zone office and staffing. • 50% component towards the costs of running the Rural Fire Service Headquarters in

Sydney and running State-wide programs known as the Volunteer and State-wide Support Fund (VASS).

Outstanding Issues that Remain Unresolved from a Council Perspective Councils have been subject to rising costs for the delivery of NSW Rural Fire Services for over a decade. There have been various attempts made via Ministerial channels and advocacy through Local Government NSW (LGNSW) to limit the financial exposure for councils. Councils have repeatedly requested that increases to council contributions should be tagged to rate pegging with any additional increases to be funded by the State Government. Whilst it is not Council’s patch to be critical of the NSW Rural Fire Service’s management practices, we have been reduced to doing so to help councils understand how the NSW Rural Fire Service expenditure is affecting our contribution levels. To underscore how this applies the following examples are provided: • The cost of supporting General Radio Network (GRN) is redistributed across the State yet

this radio network is only available in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan area. A fee of $210,000/annum is charged to the Riverina Zone even though the radio network is not available. Even if rural fire trucks attend major fires in Sydney, they apparently do not access or use this radio network.

• The service standard for replacing fire trucks is 25 years. Trucks with low kilometers on

the clock (30,000km in some cases) are exiting the fleet and being replaced with vehicles with capital costs in the order of $300,000 to $380,000.

• Plant utilisation is being compromised where fire trucks are sold at auction ahead of the

applicable service standard. A recent example of this occurred last year where a 19 year old Mitsubishi Canter 4x4 was sold for $18,500 with 7,563km on the clock. There was no local evidence to suggest that this vehicle was in poor condition.



• While council’s 11.7% contribution is applied to the purchase of fire trucks, when they are sold at auction all proceeds revert back to NSW Rural Fire Service headquarters regardless of a council’s equity (11.7%) in the plant that has been sold.

Options Council should consider continuing it’s objection to council contribution increases by writing to the Minister for Emergency Service, through our local State Member, indicating the new model to calculate councils contribution for 2016/17 will have a negative impact on Junee Shire Council’s adopted budget of approximately $20,000 and suggest the proposed changes be deferred until 2017/18 to provide sufficient time to allow for councils to adapt to the new model. Accept the new regime and adjust its forward financial planning to accommodate these proposed increases. REROC is actively taking on a regional advocacy role representing its members on this issue and Junee Shire Council will be part of that effort. Conclusion Offsetting all of the previous points is the importance of having a local network that can respond to local rural fires. In addition to the NSW Rural Fire Service firefighting fleet of 24 units in the Junee Shire Council, there are appropriately 60 smaller privately owned and managed firefighting units that attend local fires if required. While the Council certainly does not want to disenfranchise local volunteers of the Rural Fire Service who provide a vital service to our community: the issue raised in this report is in protest to unreasonable increases that are being imposed on councils. Local Government should not be used as a means to financially supporting statewide enlargement of the NSW Rural Fire Services. Local Government is being tasked with delivering additional services and regulatory controls within a restricted revenue base; while the NSW Rural Fire Service has difficulty in restraining increases to expenditure year on year. Regarding the new contribution model the council is bound by the Rural Fire Services Act to supply a contribution equivalent to 11.7% of the cost to deliver rural fire services to our council area. Council should continue to expose inequitable practices where the public purse is being stretched beyond the capacity for communities, like Junee’s, to pay for such services without having to consider reducing its own services to accommodate the largess of the NSW Rural Fire Service. Recommendations: 1. That Council write to the Minister of Emergency Services requesting the latest

contribution funding model be deferred until 2017/18. 2. That Council continue to lobby for a review of the Rural Fires Acts to provide

councils with a reduced or quarantined financial contribution model.

3. That Council representatives meet with Riverina Zone members to formulate a joint

approach towards establishing a preferred direction for the Riverina Zone agreement and Service Standards.



3[DCB] 17 KITCHENER STREET, JUNEE – SUBDIVISION The subdivision for 17 Kitchener Street, Junee to create an easement to drain sewage, is ready for release. To finalise this subdivision, the Deposited Plan Administration sheet is required to be signed under the Seal of Council. The subdivision involves the creation of one additional allotment to enable the sale of the single storey school house previously occupied by parish priests, school principals or teachers. Recommendation: That the seal of Council be affixed to the Deposited Plan Administration Sheet in relation to Subdivision Certificate No. 2016/23 being the plan of subdivision of Lot 4 in DP 563896.



4[FM] COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AND BANK BALANCES It is required under Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 to provide the Council with a written report monthly setting out details of all money that the Council has invested. On the following page of this business paper is a Monthly Investment Report as at 30 June 2016. Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer I, Bradley Pascoe, hereby certify that the investments listed in this report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council's Investment Policy. Recommendations: 1. That the Monthly Investment Reports as at 30 June 2016 be received and noted. 2. That the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report

adopted.



INVESTMENT REPORT AT 30 JUNE 2016

Financial Institution Date Invested

No. of

Days

Date Due

Interest Rate per

Annum

Performance Benchmark -

Bank bill swap

reference rate (pick

relevant rate eg. 30, 60, 90

days)

As % of Total

Invested

Amount of

Interest $

Amount Invested

$

NAB 6-Apr-16 90 5-Jul-16 3.01% 2.025% 17.85% 3,710.96 500,000.00 ME Bank 15-Jun-16 152 14-Nov-16 2.85% 2.110% 17.86% 5,934.25 500,000.00 AMP Bank 28-Mar-16 181 25-Sep-16 3.00% 2.160% 17.86% 7,438.36 500,000.00

Total Term Deposits 53.57% 17,083.56 1,500,000.00

CBA Business Online Saver 1.30% 46.43% 565.06 1,300,000.00 L.G.F.S Call 0.00% AMP Bank 2.55% 0.00% -

Total On-Call Funds 46.43% 565.06 1,300,000.00

Total Investments 100.00% 17,648.62 2,800,000.00

Cash at Bank - as per Bank Statement 86,412.84

TOTAL FUNDS 2,886,412.84



a) Application of Investment Funds

Restricted Funds Description Value Externally Restricted

Unspent Loans

$0.00

Sewerage Fund

$2,000,718.64

Domestic Waste Management $121,410.23

Unspent Grants

$70,652.57

Reserves Trust

$19,444.44

Section 94A Contributions

$0.00

Trust Fund

$31,966.55

$2,244,192.43

Internally Restricted

ELE Reserve

$205,000.00

Asset Replacement Reserve

$0.00

Gravel Pit Restoration

$26,847.97

Community Transport - Vehicle Replacement $131,760.26

Illabo Cenotaph Project $10,000.00 Laurie Daley Oval facilities $5,000.00

Bowen Monument Wantabadgery $8,000.00

Cooinda Court Sprinklers $5,000.00 GAP $0.00

Junee Historical Society - Sale of Old Museum Site $30,717.21

$422,325.44

Unrestricted Funds

$219,894.97

TOTAL FUNDS $2,886,412.84 * Externally & Internally Restricted Reserve figures are subject to final adjustment and external audit at 30 June each year. Figures shown above are estimates only.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ J:\Council Meetings\2016\ORDINARY MEETING 19 JULY 2016\GM's Ordinary Report to Council - 19 July 2016.doc Page 11

5[DES] EASEMENTS FOR SEWERAGE AND STORMWATER PIPELINES Background Councils, in their role as a local water utility and public authority, are responsible for a number of underground utility assets such as water, sewerage and stormwater. Junee Shire Council, as a general purpose council, has responsibility for the latter two. In managing these assets, from time to time, authorised personnel, including the Council’s own staff but also contractors, are required to inspect, maintain, renew, replace and repair these assets. And while in practice it is the case that as far as reasonably possible these assets are located on public land – roads, reserves, parks, lanes and footpaths – from time to time they must be constructed across private property. In the past this had been relatively easily dealt with under the provisions of the original Local Government Act of 1919 and the Public Works Act of 1912 and with these provisions easements were not considered necessary. Neither of these Acts continue in force today. As such, much of the Council’s underground assets are not appropriately protected, nor is easy and ready access protected or allowed for. Further, without an easement, the presence of a sewer or stormwater pipeline under the property is not readily identifiable; something critical in the process of selling land or building structures on that land. The Policy To address these historical transgressions in the protection of critical public infrastructure assets, a policy has been developed. The policy broadly requires three things to be done at the time of subdividing: • Requirement that as a part of any subdivision approval, the proponent will provide an

easement for any and all existing or proposed sewer or stormwater pipelines, access pits, collection pits, vents or any other associated infrastructure.

• Requirement that there be minimum widths of easements to ensure there is an appropriate area in which the Council’s assets can be safely accessed, operated, maintained and repaired.

• Requirement that there be a restriction on use on the property’s title.

Budget There are no budgetary implications for the Council as a result of the adoption of this policy. Risk There is considerable risk for both the Council and landowners in not addressing an absent easement at a time of opportunity – such as development of new land or the subdivision of a brownfield site. The risk to the Council manifests in two ways:



• Firstly, in times of need of access, it may be difficult or the process protracted. In

responding to defects, emergency repairs and so forth, time can be critical in preventing or mitigating the impact of such things as flooding and sewer chokes.

• Secondly, if a landowner is unaware of the presence of an underground pipeline, this could

lead to damage of the asset in the process of undertaking routine domestic activities (landscaping, tree planting, fencing etc) or the erection of structures over underground pipelines.

The latter is particularly problematic as it can accelerate or cause the failure of the pipeline and then increase the complexity, cost and risk of its replacement. For the landowner, the risk is that being unaware of the presence of an underground pipeline could lead to pecuniary impacts through a devaluing of property, costs incurred if a pipeline is damaged or higher than expected building costs when a pipeline is discovered. Connection with Integrated Planning and Reporting Key connections with the Community Strategic Plan “…Making Tracks 2025…” are identified in Table 1. Table 1 Connections with Community Strategic Plan Strategy Details of Strategy Connection 1.15 Provide and maintain efficient

sewerage systems and allow for required expansion.

Unfettered access and protection of sewer mains is critical in the efficient provision and operation of the sewer network.

2.15 Provide and maintain safe and serviceable public facilities and infrastructure including roads, footpaths and stormwater drains.

Unfettered access and protection of stormwater drains is critical in providing a safe and serviceable stormwater network.

2.17 Implement effective regulation and strategies, local policies and compliance programs to manage the impact of development and maximise public and environmental health and safety.

Both sewerage and stormwater presents as a risk to public health and environmental safety. This policy has been developed to ensure the impact of development on public infrastructure is minimised.

Conclusion The protections afforded public infrastructure on or under private property have been reduced since the repealing of the Local Government Act 1919 and the Public Works Act 1912. This has meant that access to operate, maintain and renew underground sewer and stormwater pipelines has been or has the potential to be restricted which leads to risks for both the Council and the landowner. Consistent with the strategies in the Council’s Community Strategic Plan “…Making Tracks 2025…”, staff have developed a policy which seeks to impose a requirement on any person subdividing land to ensure that any existing or proposed sewer mains or stormwater pipes are provided with an easement of minimum width for access and safety.



There are no budgetary implications for the Council as a result of developing this policy. Recommendation: That the Easements for Sewerage and Stormwater Pipelines Policy be adopted.

JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT TO GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

2016

Item No.

1[GM]

Subject

JOINT ORGANISATIONS – BACKGROUND PAPER TOWARDS A NEW MODEL FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION

I:\General Manager\GM 2016\JO Response.docx Page 1

1. What benefits can you see from a Regional Strategic Planning Agreementsigned jointly by the NSW Government and the Chair of the JO?

A planning agreement of this type is supported and will help clearly articulate the roles, responsibilities and expectations of voting and non-voting members in the JO.

CORE FUNCTIONS (Section 4)

Regional strategic planning and priority setting

2. Do you have any comments on the definition of regional strategicplanning and priority setting for JOs?

The definition is appropriate and broad enough to help ensure that there is flexibility in place to consider regional priorities.

However, the response to previous stakeholder feedback expressed on page 12 of the background paper has not adequately addressed the concerns around duplication of effort and multiple regional priorities being set in other areas such as land use planning or regional infrastructure projects. This is an unfortunate outcome that remains embedded in government processes, despite strong intentions to streamline them.

If the JO is responsible “for drawing their [the region’s] top regional priorities together” (p12), it doesn’t matter whether these priorities have graduated from Community Strategic Plans, State Agencies or are new projects, the list of regional priorities determined by the JO should receive priority status for funding before adhoc requests for funding emerge independently of the JO.

3. What guidance and tools will be helpful for JOs when preparing strategicpriorities and work plans?

While there is merit in not reinventing the wheel in terms of gathering up existing regional priorities, on this occasion it is perhaps prudent to do so. If there is a fresh start to intergovernmental collaboration and encouragement for JOs to act as the arbiter in setting regional priorities, then a framework that supports equitable outcome for a region can emerge.

Tool 1

A tool listing State budget projects/programs allocated within the JO for the four year budget projections. Categorising this work to align with potential positive regional outcomes, such as:

1. Infrastructure – Road, rail, airports2. Utility Services – Water, electricity, gas, telecommunication3. Health4. Education5. Economic Development


6. Tourism7. Other

Tool 2

Scenario sensitivity testing of population projection forecasts from third party demographic providers for projects that are aligned to regional priorities. Too often there has been an over reliance on population projections from the ABS and Planning NSW that has hindered regional progress. These projections have historically been proven to be incorrect when compared to actual final population figures. That said, it is acknowledged that in recent years the Department of Premier and Cabinet and new departments like Transport for NSW have made significant improvements in providing for regional infrastructure. Given that success, it is hoped that those more traditional State Agencies and Departments may take on a similar approach to contemporary practices when JOs are up and running.

Tool 3

Create a balanced scorecard methodology that helps assess and ensure that regional priorities within a JO provide for equitable development across the region.

Regional capital cities within a JO will naturally benefit from being large and having strong population growth. For regional sustainability sake it is important that other districts, towns and localities, are not disadvantaged as a result of inequitable distribution of projects, i.e. project that focus in on regional capital cities alone.

A regional city is unlikely to be disadvantaged if regional priority projects are dispersed equitably across the region. On the other hand if a slim majority of projects are focused on regional capital cities, it is more likely that rural regional areas will suffer from declining populations or economic and social disadvantage.

While this council has confidence in the State Government and our regional leaders, in these matters, there is the potential to build more regional capacity via the JOs. It is the Council’s belief that regional capacity will be a result of strong council membership. In this region the hub and spoke model is already working well:. there are pockets of regional significance across the region eg. regional airport in Wagga Wagga, Tumut VISY Paper Mill, Intermodal Transport Hub at Harefield, Correctional facility at Junee, Temora Aviation Museum and West Wyalong’s egg production capacity. These examples are relatively new comers to the region which is underpinned by a uniformly distributed agriculture sector.

The diversity and spread of economic activity across the region is a good example of regional capacity and the potential to leverage additional economic development to support and provide for equitable social prosperity across the region.


Intergovernmental collaboration

4. Do you have any comments on the definition of intergovernmentalcollaboration?

Strongly support the definition.

5. Are there any additional tools which would help supportintergovernmental collaboration?

• State Agencies moving towards an IP&R framework.

• State Agencies providing a list of their future programs. This will assist in JOssupporting the direction and services on behalf of the broader system ofgovernment. At least annually in advance, preferably two years if possible.

• State Agencies integrating their own annual report cards into a JO annual report.

Leadership and advocacy

6. Do you have any comments on the definition of leadership and advocacy?

Satisfied with definition.

7. Are there any additional tools which would help support leadership andadvocacy?

• The ability for local priority projects still has a place within the broader system ofgovernment. The ability for advocacy at the local level through State Members andAgencies should still remain a legitimate process and not be ignored or dismissedbecause a JO is in place. It would be helpful if through this consultation process theState Government acknowledged this principal to reassure local elected Councillorsthat their local concerns still have legitimacy and that the JO regional perspective willnot be used as a blunt instrument to hamper local project advocacy where it occursoutside of the JO framework.

• A JO Evaluation Framework - An annual state wide evaluation and feedbackframework that includes relevant Ministers, State Agencies and JO leaders thatscores the performance, leadership and advocacy resulting from JO implementation.


OPTIONAL FUNCTIONS (Section 5)

Building capacity and supporting councils

8. Do you have any comments on the definition of capacity building inrelation to optional functions?

• The State Government would like to see more collaborative work between State Agencies and local government - so would we. The Council is very much looking forward to the relationship improving between State Agencies and local government. We are fully supportive of joint involvement in a JO context, appreciating that the State Agencies do not have the necessary resources to allocate building those relationships with 112 local governments.

• The Minister for Local Government selected Riverina councils as a pilot JO; JuneeCouncil is a member of this JO. We are meeting monthly and already there aresigns of strong support from State Agencies who have leveraged off these newarrangements through a number of initiatives:

1. The adoption of a Charter to guide its operations.

2. A Statement of Regional Priorities that underpins the intergovernmentalcollaboration between State Agencies and the JO.

3. A Riverina JO action plan.

9. What optional functions do you think should be undertaken by JOs?

The current model is endorsed. The State Government, to their credit, have listened to councils and ROCs in regards to a preferred functional model for JOs.

JOs will have choices about how they undertake regionally defined functions. Most (89%) respondents strongly supported JOs being able to undertake optional, ‘regionally defined’ functions as resolved by member councils, particularly in rural areas.

The ability for JOs to have flexibility in how they conduct their non-core operational activity is critical to encourage continuous improvement and growth within a JO. Each region will have its own unique set of issues and aspirations and they are in best position to identify and progress them. A legislative framework is not supported.

10. What tools will be helpful to support JOs in building capacity andsupporting councils to undertake optional functions?

• Not so much a tool, rather a way to progress and reinforce the JO collaborativeprincipal would be to include within the JO annual report a Ministerial introductionor forward acknowledging the JO’s place within the broader system of governmentand highlighting collaborative and working relationships.


• In a similar context, members of the JO including non-voting members from StateAgencies acknowledge and sign their endorsement of the JO Annual report orforward plan.

• Structurally it is important the JOs operate with attendances from the highest levelsof both Local Government and from State Agencies/Department Regional Directors.Some checks and balance should be applied that ensures that these leaders attend JOmeetings. It would be disappointing if alternative delegated representation emergesas normal practice. Some accountability for attendance would reinforce theimportance for JOs.

A NEW ENTITY (Section 6)

11. How can sub committees and working groups be used to support the JOBoard, including in delivering optional functions?

Section 6 refers to proclamations declaring JO regions. Implicitly, this will dictate council membership to a particular JO. This council is strongly of the view that a LGA should have some control as to which JO it belongs to. In the pilot Riverina JO, the LGA of Greater Hume is a member and has expressed a strong view that it be retained in the final Riverina JO. This is supported by a 20 year membership with REROC and integrated partnership across the Riverina region. There is a sense that Greater Hume’s preferred position may not be endorsed in the final JO proclamation. This Council appreciates and values the contribution that Greater Hume has made to REROC and the pilot Riverina JO. The collective position of our members has consistently supported Greater Hume’s position that it be retained in our region and it again would like to emphasise that and hopes that the Government is willing to grant councils with some level of self-determination in respect of which JO will provide them and their region with the greatest advantage.

Sub-committees are standard practice in corporate and government structures. The background papers provide a model for sub-committee in figure 4 (p.24). JOs will be best placed to create or dissolve sub-committees as and when required. It is not necessary to legislate for such purposes. The legislation can remain silent on this topic and allow JOs to manage sub-committee in the normal course of their business activities.

This Council endorses the comments in the background paper that the structure of the JO entity should not be overly formal and should be a matter for member councils to determine.

We do not support any provision requiring staff to be employed within the Local Government (State) Award. The structures that would need to be developed for compliance with the Award for a JO’s scale and type of operation is simply over the top and will place restrictions on how JOs function and innovate. It is disappointing that employment matters related to the formation of JOs has been elevated in this process.


GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY (Section 7)

Representation and operation of the Board

12. Are there any other tools which will help support good governance?

• Governance tools should be led by member councils of the JO rather thanprescribed in legislation.

• A JO’s primary purpose is to enhance: regional strategic planning and priority setting,intergovernmental collaboration and regional leadership and advocacy. To overlaythe governance arrangements and requirements of a multi-purpose council asdefined within the Local Government Act and other practice notes and guidelinesassociated with the Office of Local Government is considered as an overreach giventhe major differences between operating a JO and a council.

This administration and compliance burden on a JO is a duplication of effort and would raise the cost of running the JO. It is also likely that the compliance work needed to support those governance requirements would direct a JO’s workload away from its core responsibilities in favour of administration and compliance tasks.

• There is no pragmatic or practical reason for example that a JO should be requiredto conduct its governance arrangements in the same way as a council does. Matterssuch as Internal Auditing committees or preparation of Financial Statements by anexternal auditor are specific matters related to councils. The background paper onJOs has not considered the impact on - or the need for - carrying forward councilgovernance arrangements into the JO framework.

• As JOs contain individual members from Local Governments and State Agencies whoalready exercise strong governance practices, isn’t it reasonable to assume that thesepeople will continue to conduct themselves professionally and respect governancearrangements without the additional compliance burden being required?

13. How should the governance tools be developed and who shouldparticipate in their development?

NA


Planning and reporting

14. What tools or guidance will be most helpful in supporting JOs to developstrategic priorities and work plans and annual performance reports?

Develop a Code of Practice for State Agencies and their Regional Directors that underpins their commitment to the JO and how those agencies will interact with the JO itself, inclusive of but not necessarily limited to:

• Attending JO board meetings• Data sharing.• Budget and resourcing allocations• In principle commitment for particular items contained in JO strategies and plans• Contributions towards JO Annual report

RESOURCING (Section 8)

Financial resourcing

15. What tools could support JOs to understand the costs and benefits tosupport resourcing decisions?

The JO model will be an ongoing expense for member councils. At the moment the Government is indicating:

“Based on the principle that JOs are owned by the voting member councils and support a core leadership and advocacy function, it is proposed that member councils fund the ongoing core functions of the JO with contributions based on a formula negotiated by each JO. “ (p.29)

The Council is of the view that the State Government receives a mutual benefit and is an equal partner in the JO process and therefore should make a contribution towards its continued operation.

It is noted that the feedback to the Emerging Directions paper was varied on this issue. The Government response is to permit JOs to apply for grants to generate income. Another model that would provide some financial certainty for JOs would be to allocate grant funding for JOs to access, in isolation to other third parties.

Staffing

16. What are your views on the use of a standard contract for JO ExecutiveOfficers?

We do not support using the standard contract for general managers for the JO executive officer. Those employment arrangements are best managed by the JO itself. The JOs

davisjTypewritten Text


themselves will have specific issues related to their region that they will want to attend to in terms of employing an executive office.

The use of a standard contract even with flexibility inclusions as mentioned in the background paper is more likely to hinder employment arrangements for such a position than support it. There doesn’t appear to be a strong enough nexus between the employment arrangements of general manager at a council and an executive office at a JO to warrant the duplication of a local government contact.

17. Are there any additional or alternate skills which would be desirable forExecutive Officers to have?

JOs are best placed to recognise the individual skills needed to perform the executive officer role relevant to their region.

REGIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR CORPORATIONS & OTHER JO-FORMED ENTITIES (Section 9)

18. Do you have any comments on the emerging direction for JO-formedentities shown in Table 2 or issues you would like to raise?

The content and suggestions in table 2 are generally supported.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (Section 10)

Boundaries

19. Do you have any comments about the JO boundary criteria?

The focus for JOs is on regional strategic planning and priority setting, intergovernmental collaboration and regional leadership and advocacy. These interactions are essentially built around

Date post:	14-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

JUNEE SHIRE COUNCIL€¦ · Mr Phil Rudd General Manager of, Goldenfields Water County Council,...

Documents