ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL AGENDA€¦ · ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL AGENDA 14 SEPTEMBER 2011 5...

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

AGENDA

14 SEPTEMBER 2011

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL AGENDA 14 SEPTEMBER 2011

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY .............................................................................. 2

2 DECLARATION OF OPENING ............................................................................................... 2

3 ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................... 2

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ....................... 2

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ...................................................................................................... 2

6 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...................................................................... 3

7 PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS ......................................................... 3

8 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................ 3

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING – AS

CIRCULATED ............................................................................................................................ 3

10 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) ................................... 4

11 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND OFFICERS .................................................................. 6

11.1 REPORTS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ........................................................................ 6 11.2 REPORTS OF CORPORATE SERVICES ...................................................................................... 7

CS020 CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARTER ............ 7 CS021 SELF FUNDING LOAN – GERALDTON HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ............... 10 CS026 CONFIDENTIAL ITEM – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PERFORMANCE

REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 14 11.3 REPORTS OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES .......................................................................... 15

SC010 ELLENDALE ROAD REALIGNMENT .............................................................. 15 SC011 FINAL ADOPTION OF LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 5 AMENDMENT

NO. 4 (KARLOO DEVELOPMENT ZONE) ...................................................... 18 SC012 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE GRANT APPLICATIONS ................... 26 SC013 FORMER RAIL CORRIDOR BLUFF POINT TO NARNGULU / WALKAWAY -

PROPOSED PERMANENT HERITAGE REGISTRATION ............................... 34 11.4 REPORTS OF CREATIVE COMMUNITIES ................................................................................ 38

CC008 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION .. 38 CC009 2011 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS FOR LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES ............. 43 CC010 ART GALLERY MASTERPLAN ......................................................................... 49 CC011 MULLEWA COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER BUDGET REVIEW ................ 53 CC012 PUBLIC PARKING IN PARKING STATION 6 ................................................. 58 CC013 POLLINATORS INC .......................................................................................... 63 CC015 HMAS SYDNEY II MEMORIAL COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES ................... 76

11.5 REPORTS OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... 81 CI001 HMAS SYDNEY II – FIFTH ELEMENT – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUEST

FROM ROTARY CLUB OF GERALDTON ....................................................... 81 CI002 EADON-CLARKE SPORTING COMPLEX TENDER RECOMMENDATION

FOR CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF WHOLE OF WORKS ......... 85 CI003 EASTERN BREAKWATER PROJECT ............................................................... 89

11.6 REPORTS OF COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES ............................................................................ 94 CE013 FUNDING ALLOCATION AND PURCHASE OF MULTI-VIEW X-RAY

SECURITY SCREENING SYSTEM FOR PASSENGER HAND LUGGAGE. .... 94 CE014 LEASE AGREEMENT BREARLEY TERMINAL - QANTASLINK ..................... 99


2

CE015 ADOPTION IN PRINCIPAL OF THE GERALDTON AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

TO ENABLE PUBLIC RELEASE AND ADVERTISING FOR STAKEHOLDER

AND PUBLIC COMMENT. ............................................................................. 104 11.7 REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED ................................................................................................. 109

12 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN

GIVEN ...................................................................................................................................... 110

13 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ............ 110

14 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY PRESIDING MEMBER OR BY DECISION OF

THE MEETING ...................................................................................................................... 110

15 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................................... 110

APPENDIX 1 – ATTACHMENTS AND REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED ................................... 111

ANNEX 1 - CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2007 112


2

CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2011 AT 1.30PM

MULLEWA DISTRICT OFFICE, MULLEWA

A G E N D A DISCLAIMER: The Chairman advises that the purpose of this Council Meeting is to discuss and, where possible, make resolutions about items appearing on the agenda. Whilst Council has the power to resolve such items and may in fact, appear to have done so at the meeting, no person should rely on or act on the basis of such decision or on any advice or information provided by a Member or Officer, or on the content of any discussion occurring, during the course of the meeting. Persons should be aware that the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (Section 5.25(e)) and Council’s Standing Orders Local Laws establish procedures for revocation or rescission of a Council decision. No person should rely on the decisions made by Council until formal advice of the Council decision is received by that person. The City of Greater Geraldton expressly disclaims liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of relying on or acting on the basis of any resolution of Council, or any advice or information provided by a Member or Officer, or the content of any discussion occurring, during the course of the Council meeting.

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and pay respect to the Elders and to knowledge embedded forever within the Aboriginal Custodianship of Country.

2 DECLARATION OF OPENING 3 ATTENDANCE

Present: Officers: Others: Members of Public: Members of Press: Apologies: Leave of Absence:

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Questions provided in writing prior to the meeting or at the meeting will receive a formal response.


3

6 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Existing Approved Leave

September

Nil.

7 PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS

8 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING – as circulated RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council of the City of Greater Geraldton held on 10 August 2011 as previously circulated, be adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings.


4

10 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

DATE (2011) FUNCTION REPRESENTATIVE

10th August CEO Performance Review Meeting CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I

Carpenter, Commissioner N McIlwaine, Commissioner B Thomas, Commissioner N Messina

10th August Ordinary Meeting of Council CEO & Commissioners

10th August Australia Day Planning Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter,

Commissioner N Messina

11th August Meet with Qantas CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I

Carpenter

12th August Launch of the Midwest Spotlight Project CEO Tony Brun

12th August Sister City Committee Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter,

Commissioner N McIlwaine

15th August Meeting with the CEO/President of Activ

Industries CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I Carpenter

15th August Designing our City Forum - Final presentation CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I

Carpenter

15th August FORC Meeting Commissioner N McIlwaine

16th August Training – AICD Governance for Performance CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner N

McIlwaine, Commissioner I Carpenter

16th August Pollinators Presentation CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I

Carpenter

17th August MWAC Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter

17th August Eadon Clarke Sporting Complex Presentation Commissioner N McIlwaine

17th August Roadwise Committee Meeting Commissioner N McIlwaine

18th August Welcome Function and Presentation for the

Mayor of Kosai Japan CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I Carpenter

18th August BER St Lawrence Commissioner I Carpenter

19th August Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter,

Commissioner B Thomas

22nd

August Geraldton & Mid West - Energy & Infrastructure Workshop

CEO Tony Brun & Commissioners

22nd

August Alliance Gov Group Dinner CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner Ian Carpenter

23rd

August Phillip Gardiner MLC Commissioner Ian Carpenter

23rd

August Midwest Eco/Mining Summit Dinner Commissioner Ian Carpenter

24th August Breakfast Meeting OPR Commissioner Ian Carpenter

24th August Mid West Economic and Resources Summit CEO Tony Brun,

24th August Greater Geraldton Reconciliation Committee

Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter, Commissioner B Thomas

25th August Meeting with Hon W R Marmion - Minister for

Environment & Water CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I Carpenter

25th August Opening of BB Training Commissioner Ian Carpenter

26th August Citizenship Ceremony Commissioner I Carpenter

26th August Shadow Treasurer, Michelle Roberts MLA CEO Tony Brun & Commissioners

26th August Grants Commission Meeting Commissioner Ian Carpenter

28th August Opening Mullewa Wildflower Show Commissioner I Carpenter,

Commissioner B Thomas, Commissioner N Messina

29th August Crime Prevention August Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter

29th August Ordinary Elections Information Session –

Mullewa CEO Tony Brun

29th August Rates Prize Door Commissioner Ian Carpenter

30th August Opening of 3 BER Projects - Senator Louise

Pratt CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner Ian Carpenter


5

30th August Senator Louise Pratt CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I

Carpenter

30th August Councillor Information Night Commissioners

31st August Update on WARCA to The Hon Minister Castrilli CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner I

Carpenter

31st August ABAF Awards 2011 in Western Australia CEO Tony Brun

1st September HMAS Sydney II 70th Anniversary Working

Group Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter

2nd

September GBSC 10 Year function Commissioner N McIlwaine

2nd

September Launch of Youth Coordinating Network Commissioner I Carpenter

3rd

September Official Opening Geraldton hockey Stadium Commissioner N McIlwaine

6th September Met D.G of DLG Re: LGRIC Commissioner I Carpenter

6th September Premiers Award presentation CEO Tony Brun

6th September Mullewa Resource Centre & Tourist committee

meeting Commissioner B Thomas

7th September Met NBN Co Tony Gibbs CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner Ian

Carpenter

7th September Australia Day Committee Meeting Commissioner I Carpenter

8th September CLGF regional groupings workshops for 2011 CEO Tony Brun & Commissioners

9th September Integrated Strategic Plan - Workshop with CAM

Management Solutions CEO Tony Brun & Commissioners

9th September Hon Murray Criddle - Geraldton Regional Art

Gallery - Opening night of a Stunning Exhibition 7pm

CEO Tony Brun Commissioners

9th September Big Sky Launch Commissioner I Carpenter

10th September Ita Buttrose - Tour of Town Commissioner I Carpenter

13th September Sunshine Festival Meeting Commissioner Ian Carpenter

14th September Cross lands presentation CEO, Execs and commissioners

14th September Ordinary Meeting of Council CEO, Execs & Commissioners

15th September Regular Meeting Matt Benson CEO Tony Brun, Commissioner Ian

Carpenter


6

11 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND OFFICERS

11.1 Reports of the Chief Executive Officer

Nil.


7

11.2 Reports of Corporate Services

CS020 CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARTER

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12024 AUTHOR: J Rolston, Manager Customer Relations EXECUTIVE: C Wood, Director Corporate Services DATE OF REPORT: 2 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: GR/2/0001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes

SUMMARY: The Customer Service Charter for the City of Greater Geraldton is provided to Commissioners for adoption.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The Customer Service Charter has been developed to provide to the public and staff a clear expression of the customer service standards that can be expected from the City of Greater Geraldton. The Charter is an overarching document and forms part of the development of the customer service strategy for the City of Greater Geraldton taking into consideration both former entities of the City of Geraldton-Greenough and the Shire of Mullewa. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Not applicable. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The attached charter is the preferred direction for the new entity and will be applied as part of good governance of the City of Greater Geraldton. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial or budget implications. Staff training that may be required and communication of the strategy (including printing) within the City of Greater Geraldton and to the public has already been included in current budget estimates.


8

STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 4: Leading the Opportunities. Outcome 4.1 Leadership in organisation and the community Outcome 4.2 Constituent centric organisation Strategy 4.1.3 Implement business and governance frameworks Strategy 4.2.1 Ensure the effective delivery of services (externally

customer focussed) Strategy 4.2.2 Ensure the efficient delivery of services (internally

operational focussed) Regional Outcomes: There are no regional outcomes. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic issues. Social: There are no social issues. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural, heritage or indigenous impacts. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Customer Service Charters exist in many other local, state and commonwealth government authorities. A charter is an accepted part of good governance and good business practice. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report.


9

Option 2: That Council of Commissioners by Simple Majority, pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. ENDORSE the Customer Service Charter with the following changes: a. to be determined by Council; and

2. MAKE the determination based on the following reason: a. to be determined by Commissioners.

Option 3: That the Council of Commissioners by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOT ENDORSE the Customer Service Charter; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. to be determined by the Commissioners. CONCLUSION: This Customer Service Charter provides a commitment by the City of Greater Geraldton to provide quality customer service at all times and clarity to staff of the expected standards of engagement with the customers. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That the Council of Commissioners by Simple Majority, pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995, RESOLVES to ADOPT the Customer Service Charter of the City of Greater Geraldton.


10

CS021 SELF FUNDING LOAN – GERALDTON HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12039 AUTHOR: Kim Chua, Manager Financial Services EXECUTIVE: C Wood, Director of Corporate Services DATE OF REPORT: 6 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: FM/7/0001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Geraldton Hockey Association ATTACHMENTS: Yes (confidential)

SUMMARY: The Geraldton Hockey Association (GHA) has applied for a self funding loan of $250,000 to meet a shortfall in the funding of the construction of its club room in Eighth Street incorporating change rooms, toilets, kitchen, office space and function room to provide basic amenities for players and spectators. This project is a Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CRSFF) funded initiative that is a three way partnership involving the City of Greater Geraldton, Department of Sport & Recreation and Geraldton Hockey Association.

The construction work commenced earlier in the year and has been completed at an estimated total cost of around $900,000 that takes into account “in kind” contributions. The total project cash component cost is reported as $817,956 that has been funded as follows:

$232,577 City of Greater Geraldton contribution;

$145,000 Department of Sport & Recreation contribution via CRSFF; and

$190,379 Geraldton Hockey Association.

Based on level of contribution that has currently been provided, a shortfall of $250,000 exists to fully fund the completed project. PROPONENT: Geraldton Hockey Association BACKGROUND: The initial project budget in March 2009 on acceptance of CRSFF was $690,000 (includes “in kind”) with the following contribution breakdown:

$230,000 City of Greater Geraldton

$145,000 Department of Sport and Recreation

$230,000 (includes “in kind”) Geraldton Hockey Association

$85,000 to be sourced by Geraldton Hockey Association from other funding streams (Lotterywest).

The shortfall is a result of the overall cost of the project increasing by $210,000 from initial estimates and the Hockey Association being unable to fully secure additional cash funding for the project’s original shortfall as a result of the Department of Sport and Recreation not fully funding their normal


11

1/3 share due to the Department decision to not fund the function room of the development. GHA was incorporated (Certificate of Incorporation A8221819) on 18 July 1985. It has more than 600 paying members and its audited accounts for the year ended 30 September 2010 showed a total income of $346,725 and a total expenditure of $286,771 with a net profit of $59,954. Its balance sheet showed a net equity of $722,827 and its current ratio is a positive 238.5% with a cash and cash equivalent at year end of $102,027. GHA’s external accountants also supplied the City with a three year cash flow projection. GHA already has a self-funding loan from the City of $250,000 which was approved by Council in April 2009 (Agenda Reference 09/06388). The current balance outstanding as at 10 September is $216,478.36 and is due to mature on 10 September 2019. GHA has had three previous self-funding loans that have operated concurrently and provides historical evidence along with cash flow projections on their ability to service this level of commitment. Loan 80 $125,000 granted in 1999 and discharged 2009 Loan 208 $250,000 granted in 1998 and discharged 2008 Loan 209 $100,000 granted in 1998 and discharged 2008 All the previous loan accounts report no payment defaults which provides for a sound credit history. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: No community consultation was undertaken. COUNCILLOR/OFFICER CONSULTATION: No councillor/officer consultation was undertaken STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Sections 6.20 and 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City’s self-funding loan debentures for community and sporting groups lists the objective, scope and criteria that applicants must adhere to when requesting financial support through borrowing arrangements. This application for a $250,000 loan complies with the requirements of the criteria apart from item 1 (b) of the policy which requests the applicants to nominate guarantors to the loan. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The additional $250,000 loan will have no major impact on the City’s debt service ratio which at 30 June 2011 is approximately 5.24%.


12

STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for Lifestyle

Outcome 1.2: Infrastructure which provides a foundation for the community’s needs.

Strategy 1.2.3: Develop and manage a social infrastructure that develops in line with population increase.

Regional Outcomes: Improved facilities will enable the Association to promote hockey and host more regional as well as state tournaments. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The improved facilities will enable the club to attract more players, regional tournaments and visitors. Social: GHA has made a significant contribution to the social infrastructure of the region. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage issues. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: GHA has had three previous self funding loans. Loan 80 $125,000 granted in 1999 and discharged 2009 Loan 208 $250,000 granted in 1998 and discharged 2008 Loan 209 $100,000 granted in 1998 and discharged 2008 All the loan accounts had been conducted satisfactorily. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Absolute majority is required. OPTIONS:


13

Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to 6.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. NOT APPROVE a self-supporting loan of $250,000 for the GHA 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. to be determined by council

Option 3: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to 6.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. APPROVE a self-supporting loan of an alternative amount for the GHA 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. to be determined by Council. CONCLUSION: With improved members’ and community amenities that meet current and future needs, this project will retain existing members and attract new members and spectators. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to 6.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. APPROVE a self-supporting loan of $250,000 for the GHA; and 2. ADVERTISE for a period of one month the intention to borrow the

funds prior to drawdown in accordance with Section.


14

CS026 CONFIDENTIAL ITEM – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PERFORMANCE REVIEW

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12663 AUTHOR: C Wood Director Corporate Services EXECUTIVE: C Wood Director Corporate Services DATE OF REPORT: 8 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: GO/6/0002 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Nil. ATTACHMENTS: Yes

Confidential Item, which has been circulated to the Commissioners separately.


15

11.3 Reports of Sustainable Communities

SC010 ELLENDALE ROAD REALIGNMENT

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-11776 AUTHOR: S Schewtschenko, Planning Officer EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director Sustainable

Communities DATE OF REPORT: 1 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: P140004 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x2)

SUMMARY: The realignment of 4 sections of Ellendale Road are now complete and the City is required, under the Land Administration Act 1997 to formally close, amalgamate and dedicate the relevant portions of the reserve so that the road can be officially created. PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The 4 sections are located along a 1.8km section of Ellendale Road. A plan illustrating the land requirements has been included as Attachment No. SC010A. The road realignment proposal was granted subdivision approval by WA Planning Commission (WAPC) on 11 September 2009. HTD Surveyors & Planners have prepared the survey Deposited Plans and Peter Groom Settlements are in the process of securing new Certificates of Title for the affected land parcels. The Department of Regional Development and Lands – Lands Division has advised that the required Crown Documents can not be finalised until such time as the City has provided a resolution under the Land Administration Act 1997 to close, amalgamate and dedicate the relevant portions of the reserve. The dedications are to be as per the Deposited Plan 63451 included as Attachment No. SC010B. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The proposal was referred to Australia Post, Water Authority of WA, Alinta Gas, Western Power, Telstra, Main Roads WA and FESA. As a result of the consultation, five submissions were received all with no objections to the proposal. Copies of the submissions are available to Commissioners upon request.


16

COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Section 58 of the of the Land Administration Act 1997 (as amended), provides for the closure and dedication of land for roads. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no further financial and budget implications. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for Lifestyle Outcome 1.2: Infrastructure which provides a foundation for the

community’s needs. Strategy 1.2.2: Develop a functional network of roads, paths and

drainage. Regional Outcomes: There are no regional outcomes. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic issues. Social: There are no social issues. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural & heritage issues. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Council, at its meeting held on 28 January 2009, resolved to take land from Lots 486, 3051 and 3556 Ellendale Road for public work (road widening); and support the accompanying disposal of unrequired Crown Land into Lots 486, 487 and 3051 Ellendale Road.


17

DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 58 of the Land Administration 1997 RESOLVES to:

1. NOT PROCEED with the closure, amalgamation and dedication of portions of Ellendale Road; and

2. MAKES the determination on the grounds that: a. to be determined by Council.

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority RESOLVES to DEFER the matter. CONCLUSION: The matter of a formal Council resolution for closure, amalgamation and dedication of road reserve is an administrative requirement under the Land Administration Act 1997. Option 2 is not supported as the subdivision of the road reserve has been approved and the construction works are now completed. Option 3 is not supported as it is considered that sufficient information has been provided in order to determine the matter. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997, RESOLVES to:

1. REQUEST the Minister for Lands to close and dispose of the relevant sections of Ellendale Road Reserve as shown on Deposited Plan 63451.


18

SC011 FINAL ADOPTION OF LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 5 AMENDMENT NO. 4 (KARLOO DEVELOPMENT ZONE)

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-11876 AUTHOR: K Elder, Strategic Planning Officer EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director Sustainable

Communities DATE OF REPORT: 05 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: LP/15/0004 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Cardno ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x2)

SUMMARY: The advertising period has concluded for Scheme Amendment No. 4 which seeks to rezone Lots 11, 262, 316-319 (inclusive), Karloo from ‘Rural’ and ‘Residential RSP’ to ‘Development’ zone. This report recommends final approval of the Amendment and that it be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for final endorsement.

PROPONENT: The proponent is Cardno on behalf of the Department of Housing. BACKGROUND: The DOH has sought to rezone their 124ha landholding to ‘Development’ zone to ensure consistency with their other properties to the north and to allow for future residential development of the site. An indicative overall concept plan has been prepared to show how the subject allotments could be developed and to demonstrate how this future development could tie back into the broader locality. Discussions have occurred between the City, DOH, Cardno and the landowner to the south. The discussions have included the possibility of integrated structure planning by both landholders at a later date which can proactively resolve other land use issues particularly regarding access and connection into, and surrounding, the area. The subject area is situated to the south and east of the John Willcock Senior High School site and is located north and south of the eastern portion of the Southern Transport Corridor (STC). The area is characterised by vacant land with a reasonable amount of remanent vegetation on site. Lot 262, the north-south land parcel, includes the proposed Verita Road alignment. It is proposed that the entire site is to be zoned ‘Development’ zone upfront to ensure that no anomaly occurs between the zoning and future alignment. The scheme amendment document is included as Attachment SC011A.


19

Locality Plan:

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The Amendment was publicly advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Planning & Development Act 2005. The advertising period commenced on 11 July 2011 and concluded on 02 September 2011 (which included an extension of 14 days requested by the Public Transport Authority) and involved the following:

1. Any landowners within a 100m radius were written to and provided with an excerpt of the amendment document;

2. A public notice appeared in the Geraldton Guardian on Monday 11 July 2011;

3. The amendment was publicly displayed at the Civic Centre; and 4. The amendment was referred to the following agencies:

Department of Agriculture and Food

Department of Education and Training

Department of Environment and Conservation

Department of Indigenous Affairs

Department of Planning

Department of Regional Development and Lands

Department of Water

Main Roads WA

Subject Land


20

Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Mid West Development Commission

Public Transport Authority

Telstra

Water Corporation

WA Gas Networks

Western Power

WestNet Rail

Yamatji Land and Sea Council Submissions: As a result of the advertising, a total of 8 submissions were received (3 with no objection, 4 indifferent, 1 in support). Only 3 main issues were raised during the advertising period and these are summarised below: Noise and Vibration: Brookfield Rail (formerly WestNet Rail) (Submission 7) and the Public Transport Authority (Submission 8) both oppose any residential development which abuts any section of the STC or which is separated by insufficient noise buffer due to issues associated with noise and vibration of rail activities. Both requested that the City give serious consideration to noise buffers and noise mitigation measures given the expected future growth of rail traffic and proposed duplication of the railway line within the STC. Connections to the Southern Transport Corridor: Brookfield Rail (Submission 7) and the Public Transport Authority (Submission 8) also raised concerns over the indicative connections and crossings into the STC alignment. It was suggested that any crossing with the STC must be grade separated and this needs to be co-ordinated between MRWA and the PTA. Illegal Access to Railway Corridor: Brookfield Rail (Submission 7) and the Public Transport Authority (Submission 8) also expressed concerns with the control of illegal access to the railway corridor which is significant as it is now, without any more urban development close by. The ultimate development of the land will increase development presence on the land which will provide increased passive surveillance. The actual design of the development could also incorporate Designing Out Crime principles which could aid in illegal access issues. A ‘Schedule of Submissions’ is included as Attachment No. SC011B and copies of the actual submissions are available to Council upon request.


21

COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: The Amendment was previously considered by Council at the meeting held on 22 March 2011 when the rezoning was initiated. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The subject property is currently zoned ‘Residential RSP’ and ‘Rural’. The primary intent behind the amendment is to allow the area to be developed for residential uses. The proposed ‘Development’ zone will require the subject land to be progressively developed for residential purposes and for commercial and other uses normally associated with residential development in accordance with an endorsed structure plan as per clause 5.17 of Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (Greenough). It is during the process of structure planning that residential densities will be chosen and a broad subdivision design will be undertaken. This process will also address the future strategic road connections and other issues such as; noise and vibration concerns, remnant vegetation and biodiversity conservation and aboriginal heritage. Part 5 of the Planning & Development Act 2005 provides for the amendment of a Local Planning Scheme. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial and budget implications. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for Lifestyle. Outcome 1.1: A sustainable, built urban and rural environment. Strategy 1.1.2: Effective delivery of statutory planning and building

regulations. Regional Outcomes: Geraldton Region Plan (1999) and Greater Geraldton Structure Plan Update 2011: This plan seeks to provide a framework for the future management, protection and coordination of regional planning in the region. The Region Plan incorporates a structure plan for the Greater Geraldton area. The subject land is identified as ‘urban’ and ‘future urban’ on the structure plan. Local Planning Strategy (2008): The purpose of this document is to identify the likely land uses that will be established and indicate the preferred location for these land uses. The subject land is identified as ‘urban’ and ‘rural’.


22

Narngulu Industrial Area Strategic Land Use Directions (2010): This study reviews the current strategic planning framework for the Narngulu industrial area and to provide direction for future planning and development. The subject land is identified as ‘urban’ and ‘future industry and service commercial’ on the strategic land use directions plan. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The amendment will potentially facilitate the development of around 124 ha of land for residential and associated commercial purposes. Social: The intent of the development is to provide low to medium, density residential development with a focus on affordable housing. Environmental: The subject lots contain an array of vegetation and the applicant has completed an environmental survey which includes reference to the Geraldton Regional Flora and Vegetation Survey (GRFVS). The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) advised on 15 June 2011 that the Amendment should not be assessed under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act however made the following comments and recommendations, which will be incorporated into the structure planning stage of the development. Vegetation and Flora The remnant vegetation in the subject area is regionally significant, as it is one of the large remaining intact areas of Acacia/Banksia association in the Geraldton region. The vegetation survey prepared by Ecoscape (2008) identifies 52 hectares of vegetation within the site being in ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ condition. Given the highly cleared nature of the GRVFS area, vegetation of ‘good’ or better quality is considered worthy of retention. The EPA notes that the concept plan proposes to retain some areas of remnant vegetation which includes plant communities 8 and 13. The EPA advises that further refinement of these areas should occur during structure planning to ensure that the potential impacts to these communities area avoided wherever possible. It should be noted that the long term viability of the areas for reservation would be enhanced by considering:

Creation of large compact reserves rather than reserves with high boundary to area rations; and

Connection to the existing vegetation outside of the amendment area, to maintain ecological linkages.


23

Noise and Vibration The EPA notes that the subject area of Amendment 4 is within proximity of surrounding land uses which would potentially affect the amenity of future residents. These surrounding land uses include the Southern Transport Corridor. Further investigation of potential impacts of road and rail noise on the proposed residential area should be undertaken. The EPA expects that the extent of the risk of the noise impact will be determined in accordance with Western Australian Planning Commission’s State Planning Policy 5.4: Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning. Cultural & Heritage: According to the Department of Indigenous Affairs Inquiry System an Indigenous Heritage Site was identified as being located within the subject area. Prior to any disturbance of the site, consultation will be undertaken with the local indigenous community group and a Section 18 application will be lodged with the Minister. The scheme amendment was also forwarded to the Department of Indigenous Affairs during the public advertising period however no comment was received. However the EPA’s advice noted that an Indigenous Heritage site was identified as being located within the study area. The EPA’s objective in relation to Aboriginal and cultural heritage is to ensure that changes to the biological and physical environment resulting from the proposal do not adversely affect cultural associations with the area. The concept plan provided by the City indicates that this significant site will be retained as a Community Facility surrounded by Public Open Space. The EPA supports the protection of the Heritage Site and advises the responsible authority to be aware of their responsibilities pursuant to section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 should any development of the site be proposed. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Council at its meeting held on 23 June 2009 gave final approval to Amendment No. 52 to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (Geraldton). This amendment rezoned a large portion of land to the north of the current site to ‘Residential Development’ zone. The Minister for Planning granted final approval to the amendment on 29 December 2009. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority required.


24

OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning & Development Act 2005, RESOLVES to:

1. REFUSE to adopt for final approval an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (Greenough) which proposes to rezone Lots 11, 262, 316-319 (inclusive) Karloo, from ‘Rural’ and ‘Residential RSP’ to ‘Development’ zone; and

2. MAKES the determination on the grounds that the amendment would create an undesirable precedent and compromise the orderly and proper planning of the locality.

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority RESOLVES to DEFER the matter. CONCLUSION: The strategic intent for the site has already been demonstrated through numerous strategic documents including the Greater Geraldton Structure Plan Update 2011. The proposed ‘Development’ zone will create the bases for the long term establishment of affordable residential development as a continuation of the existing residential areas in Karloo, Rangeway, Mount Tarcoola, and Wandina. The requirement for a Structure Plan to be endorsed prior to further development within the broader area will assist in addressing any issues via a holistic approach, particularly in regards to; future road alignments and access through and into the site, noise and vibration concerns and remnant vegetation and biodiversity conservation. Option 2 is not supported as the amendment is generally consistent with the regional planning direction and local planning policy framework as it applies to the area. There is considered sufficient information for Council to determine the matter and therefore Option 3 is not supported. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority, pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning & Development Act 2005, RESOLVES to:

1. DETERMINE the submissions as outlined in the ‘Schedule of Submissions’;

2. ADOPT for final approval an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 5 (Greenough) which proposes to rezone Lots 11, 262, 316-319 (inclusive) Karloo, from ‘Rural’ and ‘Residential RSP’ to ‘Development’ zone; and


25

3. SEEK final approval of the Scheme Amendment from the Minister for Planning.


26

SC012 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE GRANT APPLICATIONS

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12120 AUTHOR: P Melling, Director of Sustainable

Communities EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director of Sustainable

Communities DATE OF REPORT: 01 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: EM/9/0004 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: No

SUMMARY: The City has been approached by three different consortiums to be part of grant applications through the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC). The successful consortium(s) are likely to be announced in December 2011. The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the CRC applications and seek its endorsement to remain as a consortium member.

PROPONENT: The proponent is The City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: As background, the “Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) program is an Australian Government Initiative administered by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. The CRC program supports end-user driven research collaborations to address major challenges facing Australia. CRCs pursue solutions to these challenges that are innovative, of high impact and capable of being effectively deployed by the end-users”. Applications for the 2011 funding round are to be lodged by 1 July 2011. The City was approached by three consortium(s) seeking the City’s participation in a bid. The separate bid proposals cover three distinct areas, all of which are directly relevant to the work the City is undertaking in its various programs and the Plan For The Future:

The CRC for Low Carbon Living

CRC for Water Sensitive Cities

Designing Better Cities and Regional Centres CRC

The City has initially agreed to participate in all three bids above, but to date, has not made a firm commitment on its level of involvement, apart from a potential $10,000 contribution for the Water Sensitive Cities, but this is on the basis of a project that the City is already involved with involving a consortium of stakeholders across Australia on a Cities as Water Supply Catchments research program. This $20 million program would feed directly into the CRC bid.

Given below are details on each funding bid:


27

The CRC for Low Carbon Living This project bid is being coordinated through the University of New South Wales, Curtin University, Swinburne, the University of South Australia and involves via Curtin, the Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute. The Low Carbon Living project proposes three interlinked research programs and the CRC’s particular focus will be at the intersections of those programs. For example in the Technologies program, a range of innovative building products will be developed. This will be assisted by the Places program, which will examine how new products can be fitted into developments to ensure low carbon outcomes, and add the data to carbon assessment models. The People program will, as one part of its focus, conduct deliberative processes to trial products and help with their design and application.

In relation to the Places program this will integrate with the People program in a number of ways. A primary focus is on the development of software design tools that enable planners, designers and end-users to calculate power, water, waste and emission levels resulting from different urban design characteristics (such as building density, street illumination, or transport modes) and various combinations of these. The People program will in turn involve the community in design processes using these tools, and ensure that the design tools are transparent and accessible. The People program, led by Professor Peter Newman from Curtin University, will work with a number of Local Government Areas (LGAs) across Australia, selected on the basis of their Councils’ commitment to the project. In WA, the program is looking to involve a regional council, a city council and a suburban council in order to demonstrate how communities can ensure low carbon living. The City is also working with CUSP on the potential to undertake work in some of the areas identified within the CRC bid if the bid was not successful. The full details of this option are still being developed and would require a funding commitment for this to develop. At this time work is underway on the development of a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties to further progress this option should the bid not be successful. Water Sensitive Cities CRC This project bid was submitted by Monash to establish a CRC for Water Sensitive Cities on behalf of a consortium of 70 stakeholders from Australia and overseas, including the City of Greater Geraldton. The CRC for Water Sensitive Cities aims to provide global leadership in the design and development of water sensitive cities that are attractive, liveable, eco-friendly and resilient places in which to live, work and invest. The research under the CRC is organised within four programs: Society, Water Sensitive Urbanism, Future Technologies and Adoption Pathways. The CRC will be building on the success of the existing ‘Cities as Water Supply Catchments’ Research Program, which was established in 2009. The CRC


28

has the support of all 29 investors and stakeholders from this research program (including the City) and the research outcomes and resources from the program will be incorporated directly into the proposed CRC. The City of Greater Geraldton has taken active steps towards its vision of becoming a Water Sensitive City through the development of our Draft Towards a Water Sensitive City: Greater Geraldton Water Planning and Management Strategy. Participation in both the ‘Cities as Water Supply Catchments’ Research Program and the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities is fundamental to the realisation of our vision. Designing Better Cities and Regional Centres CRC The Design for Cities Cooperative Research Centre is a proposed $70 Million collaborative initiative between leading universities, government agencies and industry partners. Its purpose is to enable Australia to build smarter, more resilient competitive cities and regional centres by developing a body of knowledge, methods, tools and services around: giving purpose to cities in the future and how people will engage with these cities; growing regional centres through design to achieve social and economic influence on par with today’s successful cities; creating bottom-up resilience that is fostered within cities and will connect with top-down initiatives. Each of the CRC bids require a City financial contribution and these could vary from $10,000 up to $90,000 per annum for 5-7 years depending on the level of interaction the City as with the particular program and what they would deliver for the City’s involvement. Depending on the bid, the maximum contribution could have the City as a demonstration site or case study that actually takes on a project that the City would have had to fund itself. The CRC research projects are big ticket items and range up to $100 million spread over up to 7 years. It can be seen that if at least one of the bids were to be successful the City would be able to leverage in on a very significant research project. Even with the lower contribution levels they also allow the City access to the research being undertaken, participation in the process and skills enhancement for the staff involved on what could be cutting edge research. There is intense competition for funding in a CRC funding round and the projects cover the whole sphere of research opportunities from health, built form through to agricultural research. There were 26 bids for CRC funds made and using last year as a guide there were also 26 bids, but only 4 were successful. On 06 September 2011 the City was advised that all 3 bids had been included in the final 10 shortlist. The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the City’s initial participation in the CRC bids, enlist its support, with a view to providing a further report if one of the bids were to be successful. The further report would provide Council with the range of funding options offered for full involvement with the particular project.


29

The CRC research projects build on the work that the City is already progressing in the following areas:

University of W.A. (through Professor Richard Weller’s Urban Design/ Landscape Architecture streams and Professor Carolyn Oldham’s Environmental Engineering streams), urban design, architecture and water sensitive design initiatives;

University of W.A (through the Professor Matthew Tonts Geography Faculty) for WA Regional Cities Alliance program(previously approved by Council);

Curtin University (through Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute) with 2029 Project Deliberative Democracy Process/Sustainability Initiatives, and (Garry Middle), student planning projects, regional planning;

Geraldton University Centre (with Meredith Wills) journalism project, various Planning & Engineering initiatives; and

Combined University Centre for Rural Health on Social and Demographic studies, and Indigenous Community Engagement.

All of these projects are providing the City both with very useful research information and also building capacity in the organisation to gain better outcomes for our community. If a CRC bid is successful the research project will not commence until July 01 2012 therefore, there will need to be budget consideration given to the allocation in the 2012 / 2013 budget process. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Nil at this time, but if a CRC bid were to be successful there will be opportunity for a range of community interactions. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Nil at this time, depending on any of the bids being successful, potentially there could be statutory implications for some City processes. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil at this time, but research arising out of a successful bid could require either policy changes or new policies. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: At this time the only budget implication relates to a $10,000 contribution via the City’s Environmental Health & Sustainability Water Smart Program account no. 10505056. It is proposed in this report to allocate $50,000 towards one of the CRC projects should it be successful through the funding round noting that this would require allocations over at least 3 -5 year period.


30

It is noted that expending these funds is considered to be exempt from the normal tender provisions within the Local Government Act Section 3.57 and Local Government Functions and General Regulations Section 1, Parts (e) and (f):-

(e) the local government has good reason to believe that, because of the unique nature of the goods or services required or for any other reason, it is unlikely that there is more than one potential supplier; (f) the goods or services are to be supplied by or obtained through the government of the State or the Commonwealth or any of its agencies, or by a local government or a regional local government.

With the above clauses in the regulations and the projects identified it can be seen that due to the research focus that they meet these sections due to:

1 by nature these works involved processes and techniques which are not commercially available, tested or invented and as such a traditional procurement process would not yield any outcomes;

2 the process involves a collaborative funding basis in that the university or research provider will in all cases be providing matching funding and/or access to research grant funds that otherwise would not be possible in a traditional procurement process;

3 the process for CRC funding follows a competitive bid process that is in accordance with federal processes; and

4 University institutions, although funded through the Commonwealth, are enacted under WA state legislation making them State Government entities.

STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for Lifestyle

Outcome 1.1: A sustainable, built urban and rural environment

Strategy 1.1.1:

Strategy 1.1.3:

Develop and implement a strategic planning framework. Facilitate increased levels of cycling, walking and public transport.

Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for Lifestyle

Outcome 1.3: An environmentally sustainable city.

Strategy 1.3.2:

Strategy 1.3.3:

Develop and implement climate change mitigation and adaptation principles and practices. Protect and conserve biodiversity by enhancing all natural environments.

Maintain and enhance the environmental health of


31

Strategy 1.3.4: the community.

Regional Outcomes: Through a successful Cooperative Research Centre grant it is possible that new regional outcomes could achieve that result in new economic, employment and lifestyle opportunities. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Potential with a successful Cooperative Research Centre grant for new regional economic initiatives to be stimulated/initiated. Social: Potential with a successful Cooperative Research Centre grant for new social initiatives to be stimulated/initiated. Environmental: Each of the Cooperative Research Centre bids identify potential areas where environmental outcomes and initiatives could result out of the research project. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural and heritage issues. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority to pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. WITHDRAW the City’s support for the lodged Cooperative Research Centre bids; and

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reasons: a. to be determined by Council.


32

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER consideration of the lodged Cooperative Research Centre bids; and

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reasons: a. to be determined by Council.

CONCLUSION: The opportunities that each bid offers, all have unique characteristics that enable the City to be in the forefront of new initiatives and innovation. Given the national resources that each bid contain and the potential for City projects to also be case studies well position the City to achieve a number of outcomes and strategies in its key result areas contained within The Plan for the Future. If Council supports the executive recommendation, a further report will be submitted should any of the bids be successful. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: PART A: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. LIST for consideration in the 2012 / 2013 budget funds up to $50,000 for the Cooperative Research Centre grant initiatives:

a. the CRC for Low Carbon Living; b. CRC for Water Sensitive Cities; c. Designing Better Cities and Regional Centres CRC; and

2. DELEGATES authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a formal Agreement with a suitable party as per Part A, 1 (above) should one of the Cooperative Research Centre bids progress to maximise the benefits that the City would obtain by being part of the consortium.

PART B: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. CONTINUE to progress and where available extend the initiatives

currently taking place in partnership, within the existing approved budget allocation with the following institutions and programs:

a. University of Western Australia for the WA Regional Cities Alliance partnership and further research on built and landscape form concept and design planning;

b. Curtin University for deliberative democracy and engagement processes;


33

c. Geraldton Universities Centre various partnerships in relation to projects such as the journalism course, engineering and planning courses; and

d. Combined University Centre for Rural Health for demographic, social and indigenous housing research.


34

SC013 FORMER RAIL CORRIDOR BLUFF POINT TO NARNGULU / WALKAWAY - PROPOSED PERMANENT HERITAGE REGISTRATION

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12126 AUTHOR: P Melling, Director of Sustainable

Communities EXECUTIVE: P Melling, Director of Sustainable

Communities DATE OF REPORT: 06 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: LP/9/0053 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Heritage Council of Western Australia ATTACHMENTS: Yes

SUMMARY: A report to update Council on the status of the former railway corridor from Bluff Point to Narngulu/ Walkaway, consideration of the issues and a recommendation that Council support the permanent registration of the corridor on the State Heritage Register.

PROPONENT: Heritage Council of Western Australia. BACKGROUND: In June 2006 the former Shire of Greenough and former City of Geraldton both considered reports on the proposed permanent State Heritage registration of the former rail corridor between Bluff Point and Narngulu and the existing rail line between Narngulu and Walkaway. Both former Councils resolved not to support the permanent registration until a number of issues had been addressed, an amalgam of those issues are listed below:

There have been a number of long term projects that have been developed that will require modification/deletion of some of the corridor/rail infrastructure to facilitate redevelopment and/or a safer road network on the former rail corridor between Bluff point and Narngulu. These include removal of the rail crossings, intersections works, redevelopment/ subdivision, future road construction, (these aspects will be expanded on in the submission). Sterilisation of land parcels will also be of concern if the disused rail corridor is maintained.

Concern at potential costs and liabilities if remnant track/formation are included into public open space areas/or left in roadways.

Impact on the proposed Stage Two Geraldton Southern Transport Corridor.

The need to maintain unfettered use of the existing rail corridor between Narngulu and Walkaway to ensure that this is important infrastructure link is not constrained by the listing especially if upgrading works etc are undertaken to maintain this link.


35

Over the intervening period most of the issues have been addressed or there has been a re-evaluation in line with current and proposed planning for the area along which the corridor traverses. Issues include:

The removal of rail at the various former level crossings has now occurred in most instances and the Heritage Council has sanctioned their removal.

The Narngulu to Walkaway operating section of the railway has been removed from the listing, stage two of the Southern Transport Corridor has been constructed and appropriate interpretation of the corridor has been undertaken.

Planning has also advanced for the Wonthella Greenway proposal, (a shared path proposal from Utakarra to Bluff Point) and the main issue to resolve is land tenure with the PTA, the listing does not directly change anything in this regard.

Chapman Road to North West Coastal Highway portion will be ceded and interpreted by the proponent of a subdivision to the north of the rail corridor.

There is still scope to work some elements of the corridor into adjoining subdivision/development proposals (as long as the integrity of the corridor remains).

Wonthella Progress Association is keen to be involved with any interpretation/pathway concept and have been keen advocates for the community use aspects of the corridor.

Advice is that the Public Transport Authority (PTA) has supported the permanent registration.

It is understood that several businesses along Flores Road in Webberton have expressed interest to the Public Transport Authority in acquiring portions of the rail corridor to amalgamate with their existing lots. The piecemeal disposal of portions of the rail corridor is not supported at this time as any disposal of sections of the corridor, (if this is an option being considered by the PTA), needs to be coordinated with future planning in the area to ensure that the corridor is not compromised, both in its linkages but also in achieving good “Designing Out Crime” outcomes. The corridor’s future use needs to be considered as a whole and agreed positions reached on the best outcomes. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Heritage listing on the State Register has its own consultation processes administered by the Office of Heritage. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Discussions have taken place with Councillors on various elements of both the corridor and surrounding land uses over a number of years.


36

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Heritage of Western Australia Act (1990), City of Greater Geraldton Town Planning Schemes No.3 and No.5. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Nil at this time, although construction of a pathway network in the future will incur construction/maintenance costs. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for Lifestyle.

Outcome 1.1: A sustainable, built urban and rural environment.

Strategy 1.1.3: Facilitate increased level of cycling, walking and public transport.

Regional Outcomes: The creation of the Wonthella Greenway proposal would provide vital links into/for the City’s pathway network and would link a number of suburbs to the ocean, sports and recreation facilities and employment areas. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic issues. Social: There are no social issues. Environmental: Potential to create a ‘green” corridor linking the coastal reserves with other reserve areas such as Flores Road/ Eighth Street. Cultural & Heritage: Potential to create an interpretation/ heritage trail that documents the heritage and social aspects of the railway line and the surrounding community. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority.


37

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. OBJECT to the permanent registration of the former rail corridor between Bluff Point and Narngulu and advises the Heritage Council of Western Australia accordingly; and

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason: a. to be determined by Council

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER its consideration of the permanent registration of the former rail corridor between Bluff Point and Narngulu and advises the Heritage Council of Western Australia accordingly; and

2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason: a. to be determined by Council.

CONCLUSION: By supporting the permanent registration of the former rail corridor between Bluff Point and Narngulu, Council will highlight the importance of the corridor in its future planning. Its registration status will also firm up the opportunities to work with the agencies concerned to finalise the ultimate configuration of the corridor and its use. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. SUPPORT the permanent registration of the former rail corridor between Bluff Point and Narngulu; and

2. ADVISES the Heritage Council of Western Australia accordingly.


38

11.4 Reports of Creative Communities

CC008 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12085 AUTHOR: R McCracken, Arts, Culture and Heritage

Officer EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director, Creative Communities DATE OF REPORT: 31 August 2011 FILE REFERENCE: LP/3/0002 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Heritage Advisory Committee ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x2 Confidential)

SUMMARY: On 24 May 2011, Council approved the formation of a Heritage Advisory Committee which would be comprised of representatives from a broad range of professional and community heritage based organisations. Three independent community representatives are required to complete the committee. The original Council Resolution included two community representative, however, post amalgamation with Mullewa, it is considered appropriate to extent this to three representatives. Following an advertisement which sought expressions of interest for this role, seven nominations have been received. Further, two other community organisations, being the Community Group of Greenough and the Birdwood Military Museum are seeking representation. This report seeks a Council resolution to amend the membership of the Heritage Advisory Committee. PROPONENT: The proponent is the Heritage Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND: The City of Geraldton-Greenough at the meeting held on 24 May 2010 adopted a Heritage Policy which included provision for a wide ranging Heritage Advisory Committee comprising representatives from Councillors, from our three community run Museums, the Geraldton Greenough historical Society, heritage professionals from the National Trust, the WA Museum Geraldton, the Heritage Council’s Regional Heritage Advisor, an aboriginal heritage representative and relevant Council staff. Included were positions for two Community Representatives.


39

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED CR BYLUND, SECONDED CR SEWELL That Council by Absolute Majority, pursuant to s5.8 of the Local Government Act [as amended] , RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT the Heritage Policy. 2. ESTABLISH a Heritage Advisory Committee, in accordance the

‘Heritage Policy’ comprising of: a. 2 x Councillors; b. 1 x representative from each community museum, with no

individual to represent more than one museum; c. 2 x Community Representative; d. 1 x Midwest Heritage Advisor [ex-officio]; e. 1 x Aboriginal Heritage Representative [ex-officio]; f. 1 x Manager, WA Museum Geraldton [ex-officio]; g. 1 x National Trust Representative [ex-officio]; h. City of Geraldton-Greenough staff as required [they would be

ex-officio]; and i. 1 x member from Geraldton Greenough Historical Society.

3. APPOINT Cr Martin and Cr Bylund as Council representatives on the Heritage Advisory Committee and

4. ESTABLISH the Terms of Reference for the Heritage Advisory Committee to be to:

a. oversee the Heritage Policy; b. report to Council on relating to the Heritage Policy; and c. advise Council on Heritage Matters.

Separately an email request from the Community Group of Greenough seeking representation on the Heritage Advisory Committee has been received. The Community Group of Greenough is involved in mediation with Geraldton Greenough Historical Society regarding the future management of the Greenough Pioneer Museum. This mediation is being facilitated by the City of Greater Geraldton. An editorial article appeared in the Talking About Greater Geraldton page in the Midwest Times on Thursday, 21 July 2011 seeking Expressions of Interest from Community Members wishing to serve on the Committee. A closing date of Friday 5 August was given. As of 5 August 2011, seven nominations for three positions have been received. One nomination has subsequently been withdrawn. No nominations were received from Mullewa residents although Commissioner Barbara Thomas is one of two Commissioners on the Committee. The information provided by the six nominees is attached. The full Committee list, not including Community Representatives is: Commissioners: Ian Carpenter Barbara Thomas Community representatives: Determined by Council Resolution – subject of this agenda item.


40

Museum Representatives: Lighthouse Keepers Cottage - Shirley Valle Greenough Pioneer Museum - Patricia Powell Walkaway Museum - Jo Logue Mid West Heritage Advisor – ex-officio Manager WA Museum Geraldton- ex-officio National Trust of Australia (WA) – ex-officio Aboriginal Heritage – ex-officio Geraldton-Greenough Historical Society – ex-officio CGG Staff Manager, Arts Culture and Heritage – ex-officio City Librarian – ex-officio Planning Officer – ex-officio Project Officer – ex-officio At the inaugural Heritage Advisory Committee meeting held on 19 August, 2011 a further request was made for the Committee to also accept representation from the Birdwood Military Museum. Resolution from the Heritage Advisory Committee: that Council be requested to include a representative from the Birdwood Military Museum. Moved; Rita Stinson, seconded by Patricia Powell, and carried. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The Heritage Advisory Committee were consulted at their inaugural meeting on 19 August COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Commissioner Ian Carpenter, Commissioner Barbara Thomas STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This item pertains to the Heritage Policy adopted by Council and seeks to fill the three vacancies for Community Representatives. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial or budget implications. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area: Opportunities for Creativity. Outcome 2.2: A City that attracts creative people through nurturing

creative industries.


41

Strategy 2.2.1: Develop, promote and market our unique arts, cultural and heritage qualities.

Regional Outcomes: There are no regional outcomes. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Heritage tourism is an economic growth area in the region which will be enhanced by effective Heritage Policies. Social: Social heritage is important to community cohesion. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: This agenda item determines the Community Representatives on the Heritage Advisory committee. An active Heritage Advisory Committee will ensure a strategic and collaborative approach thus enhancing the management and developments in the heritage area. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Council Item CC229 of 24 May 2011 required Council to make a decision regarding Community Representation on the Community Grants Committee. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS; Simple majority required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DECLINE all applicants; 2. READVERTISE for Expressions of Interest; and 3. MAKES the determination on the following reason:

a. to be determined by Council.


42

Option 3: That Council by a Absolute Majority under Section 5.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. APPOINT three nominees , and to the Heritage Advisory Committee;

2. READVERTISE for a representative from Mullewa; 3. DECLINE the nomination from the Community Group of Greenough; 4. DECLINE the nomination from Birdwood Military Museum; and 5. DETERMINE the appointments to apply until the local government

elections in October 2013.

CONCLUSION: Following a request for Expressions of Interest for three positions of Community Representative on the Heritage Advisory Committee, seven people have nominated. Please see attached Expressions of Interest from prospective community representatives. All seven are known to be active to varying degrees in local heritage activities. A Council resolution is sought to choose three representatives for the Heritage Advisory Committee. Further, Council needs to consider nominations from the Community Group of Greenough and from Birdwood Military Museum. These positions would be in addition to the other Community Groups represented on the Committee, which would bring the total membership of the Heritage Advisory Committee to nineteen. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 5.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. APPOINT three nominees , and to the Heritage Advisory Committee;

2. ACCEPT the nomination from the Community Group of Geraldton to the Heritage Advisory Committee;

3. ACCEPT the nomination from the Birdwood Military Museum to the Heritage Advisory Committee; and

4. DETERMINE the appointments to apply until the local government elections in October 2013.


43

CC009 2011 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS FOR LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12087 AUTHOR: A Selvey, Director Creative Communities EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director Creative Communities DATE OF REPORT: 30 August 2011 FILE REFERENCE: ER/3/0003 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x5) SUMMARY: This report seeks to inform Council of the City’s successful submission to the 2011 International Awards for Liveable Communities (LivCom) and seeks a Council resolution regarding an appropriate delegation from the City to the finals in Songpa, South Korea in October. The LivCom Awards are internationally recognised as one of the most prestigious awards and shortlisting is an remarkable achievement. PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The City submitted an entry in the 2011 International Awards for Liveable Communities (LivCom) in June 2011. ‘The LivCom Awards were launched in 1997 and are endorsed by the United Nations Environment Programme, (UNEP), with which it shares a Memorandum of Understanding. The LivCom Awards is the World’s only Awards Competition focussing on International Best Practice regarding the management of the local environment. The objective of LivCom is to develop and share International Best Practice, with the further objective of improving the quality of life of individual citizens through the creation of ‘liveable communities’. (extract from LivCom website). The City entered Category B (population 20,001 – 75,000) of the Whole City section for which the submission addressed the following criteria:

1. Enhancement of the Natural and Built Landscapes; 2. Arts, Culture and Heritage; 3. Environmental Best Practices; 4. Community Participation and Empowerment; 5. Healthy Lifestyle; and 6. Strategic Planning.

The City’s submission is attached. The City of Greater Geraldton has been short listed for this category amongst the following Cities:


44

Anping District, Taiwan, Republic of China;

Chrudim, Czech Republic;

Dalongdong, Tapei, Republic of China;

Danyang-gun, Korea;

Hadong Gun, Korea;

Hagi City, Japan;

Houbi District, Taiwan, Republic of China;

Jihlava, Czech Republic;

Kladno, Czech Republic;

Mandurah, Australia;

Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm, Germany;

Seocheon County, Korea;

Tabor, Czech Republic;

Utena, Lithuania; and

Xinqiao Town, Jiangyin City, PR China.

As a result of being selected on the shortlist, the City has been invited to participate in the finals held in Songpa, South Korea from the 27 October to 31 October. This includes the opportunity for delegates to attend on behalf of the City of Greater Geraldton and hold an exhibition stand at the event. Up to four delegates can attend and are not required to pay a delegate registration fee. In addition to the 16 cities represented in Category B, the awards will attract delegations from around the world in the other four categories – in addition to the large resident population of Korea, making representation at this event an invaluable marketing opportunity. The judging panel provided valuable feedback on the City’s submission to assist in developing the final presentation. Please see judges report attached. The presentation has a limit of 35 minutes and may include multimedia. At the conclusion of the presentation the judging panel will be able to question the presenters. The City of Mandurah has also been selected as a finalist in the same category (Geraldton and Mandurah are the only Australian finalists in this category). The City of Mandurah CEO has contacted the City to invite Geraldton to work collaboratively to promote both regions and to engage with trade officials and civic leaders whilst in South Korea. The City of Mandurah has been a previously selected as a finalist in the LivCom Awards (2006) and finished third in its category. Based on this previous experience, Mr Newman, CEO of the City of Mandurah has expressed a strong view that success at the LivCom Awards provides excellent opportunities for promoting the City, creating new trade, industry and business opportunities. The City of Mandurah has advised they are planning to send a five-strong delegation to represent Mandurah. The minutes of the City of Mandurah Special Council Meeting are attached. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The City’s submission and subsequent shortlisting has been widely publicised in the local and national media.


45

COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Council was provided with a Briefing Note and media release about the Awards and shortlisting on 15 August 2011. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The cost of sending a delegation will be approximately $6000 per person, including a return economy class airfare, accommodation and meals. The delegate registration fee is waived for four representatives from cities that have been shortlisted. Additional funds for promotional media and marketing materials will also be required. There is no allocation for this in the 2011/12 budget, therefore an additional budget allocation is sought from Council as part of this agenda item. As the expenditure for this proposed initiative is new funding, the financial impact would be to increase the City’s net operating deficit by a further $30,000 (adopted budget net operating deficit $565,015). STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 4: Leading the Opportunities. Outcome 4.1: Leadership in the organisation and the community. Strategy 4.1.4: Establish and enhance Geraldton’s regional, national and

international profile.

Regional Outcomes: Success in the LivCom Awards may be referred to in applications for National and International funding. Ability to showcase the City’s Best Practice on an international stage and influence accepted International Best Practice. Opportunity to meet with delegates from communities from other countries and cultures that are facing similar challenges to those faced by the City that could lead to the formation of partnerships to exchange information and experiences, and the arranging of exchange technical visits on an ongoing basis. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Success in the Awards may be used to promote tourism and Inward Capital Investment.


46

National and international publicity is enhanced. Articles have already appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age (see attached) providing invaluable positive media coverage for the City. Social: Civic pride will be enhanced by being recognised alongside the leading communities in the world. Environmental: An opportunity to join an international network of communities from over 50 countries with similar environmentally based objectives. Cultural & Heritage: An opportunity to join an international network of communities from over 50 countries with similar culturally based objectives. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Absolute Majority for Option 1 and 2 Part A. Simple majority for Option 1 and 2 Part B and Option 3. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: PART A That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to

1. ALLOCATE funds in the 2011/12 budget to cover costs of $30,000 being the cost of the visit by the City delegation to the 2011 LivCom Awards Finals in Songpa, South Korea and develop appropriate and updated media, marketing and promotional materials.

PART B That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOMINATE the following as the City Elected Members in the

delegation to the LivCom finals in South Korea: a. ________________________________; and

b. _________________________________.


47

2. EXTEND a formal invitation to local members of Parliament,

representatives from the Mid West Development Commission, Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Geraldton Port Authority and Regional Development Australia to join the delegation at their own expense;

3. WRITE to the Premier, Hon. Colin Barnett and appropriate State Government Ministers to seek their assistance in seconding State Government representatives to join the City delegation; and

4. ENDORSES partnering with City of Mandurah to jointly market our areas as part of the delegation;

5. FORMALLY recognise Isabelle Perks, of St Francis Xavier Primary School, for the use of her artwork in the winning bid.

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DECLINE to send a delegation to the 2001 LivCom Awards Finals in

Songpa, South Korea; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:


CONCLUSION: Representation at the finals of the LivCom Awards provides the City with an excellent opportunity to showcase Geraldton and the region to an international audience and greatly enhance the City’s international profile. The City of Mandurah was a finalist in the awards in 2006 and has advised that participation in the finals offers excellent potential for creating new trade, industry, investment and business opportunities. The exhibition would also provide an opportunity to showcase Geraldton and the region as a highly desirable place to live and as a tourism destination . Given the excellent potential for Return on Investment, option 3 is not supported.

EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: PART A That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to

1. ALLOCATE funds in the 2011/12 budget to a. COVER costs of $30,000 being the cost of the visit by the City

delegation to the 2011 LivCom Awards Finals in Songpa, South Korea and develop appropriate and updated media, marketing and promotional materials.

PART B That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 5.20 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:


48

1. AUTHORISE the Mayor of the City of Greater Geraldton, as elected following the 15th October 2011 election (or a nominated proxy) as the City representative in the delegation to the LivCom finals in South Korea;

2. EXTEND a formal invitation to local members of Parliament, representatives from the Mid West Development Commission, Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Geraldton Port Authority and Regional Development Australia to join the delegation at their own expense;

3. WRITE to the Premier, Hon. Colin Barnett and appropriate State Government Ministers to seek their assistance in seconding State Government representatives to join the City delegation; and

4. ENDORSES partnering with City of Mandurah to jointly market our areas as part of the delegation; and

5. FORMALLY recognise Isabelle Perks, of St Francis Xavier Primary School, for the use of her artwork in the winning bid.


49

CC010 ART GALLERY MASTERPLAN

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12559 AUTHOR: A Selvey, Director Creative Communities EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director Creative Communities DATE OF REPORT: Day Month 2010 FILE REFERENCE: RC/3/0006 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

SUMMARY: This report provides Council with the formal request to accept the Schematic Masterplan report for the Geraldton Regional Art Gallery and to invite public comment. PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The building housing the Geraldton Regional Art Gallery has a long history. Opened in 1907 as the Town Hall it housed the Shire administration until 1963. From 1963 until 1983 it was used for public functions. In 1984, after a public campaign to save the building, it was opened as the Art Gallery. There have been series of works to the building, such as the installation of the lift and internal partitioning to create work and storage spaces. However, further critical works, such as replacing the aging air-conditioning system, need to be carried out. In looking at replacing the air-conditioning it became apparent that the roof would also need to be replaced. Given the heritage significance of the building and of the important role it plays in housing the Regional Art Gallery, a long term plan for the site seemed appropriate. The City therefore applied for and received Mid West Regional Grants Scheme funding for a Masterplan for the site. Philip Griffiths Architects was commissioned to undertake a Schematic Masterplan in July 2010 for the Geraldton Regional Art Gallery building and its immediate surrounds being mindful of the building’s various heritage listings. The intent of the Masterplan is to provide guidance to conserve and upgrade the building fabric, collection space, public & staff facilities, to maintain its “A Classification”, to improve landscaping, to increase public use and to demonstrate a commitment to sustainable and environmental design (see attached for full Schematic Masterplan Report). COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The project was initiated in 2010 with representation from the City of Greater Geraldton and Art Gallery of WA. The Art Gallery Management Committee, which includes community representatives, has also been kept informed of the Master Plan development.


50

Community representatives include:

Jo Bunker, Community Representative & Chairperson Art Gallery Management Committee;

Tunya Brown, Community Representative Art Gallery Management Committee; and

Fionna Sturgeon, Community Representative Art Gallery Management Committee.

COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Former City of Geraldton-Greenough Councillor Gary Martin, as the City’s representative on the Art Gallery Management Committee, was involved and informed in the progress of the Masterplan. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are minimal advertising costs associated with the Executive Recommendation. Any costs arising from potential capital works resulting from the Masterplan would be included as part of the City’s budget process. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 2: Opportunities of Lifestyle. Outcome 1.2: Infrastructure which provides a foundation for the

community’s needs. Strategy 1.2.3: Develop and manage social infrastructure that

develops in line with population increases. Regional Outcomes: The Geraldton Regional Art Gallery is one of only two State Registered Regional A Class facilities in Western Australia. New initiatives include the establishment of the Mid West Art Prize providing opportunity to showcase the diversity present within the arts community here in the Mid West and across WA. An upgrade of facilities will enhance the Art Prize via the improvement of interior spaces and hardware. These improvements will also allow the Gallery to access exhibitions of a National standing – such as from the National Gallery of Australia. The current poor state of the facility has meant the cancellation of exhibitions from National sources thus denying the region access to works of diversity and high calibre. The Gallery is co-funded by the Art Gallery of WA. These funds are for regional access to the Arts. Continuation of such funding is, in part, reliant


51

upon the maintenance of facilities to an “A Class” standard. Current climate control does not meet this A Classification. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Improved facilities will allow for the overall raising of exhibition design and presentation. This will assist in the attraction of sponsors as well as increasing public use, including the hiring of the space for commercial presentations and corporate functions. Improved ability to showcase artists work from around the mid west thereby increasing opportunity to sell art. Social: Greater access to exhibitions of the highest standards currently available. Establishment of value adding programs such as workshops for children, marginalised youth, Indigenous people and women at risk. Maintenance of new initiatives including the Mid West Art Prize and the showcasing of Indigenous art. Improved community and staff facilities, such as toilets and end of journey amenities will provide a safer work environment along with an increased ability to house opening night attendances above the current max of 250 people. (The current lack of toilets has realised a decrease in maximum attendees allowed from 400 to 250). Environmental: The Master Plan demonstrates a commitment to sustainable and environmental design. This includes highly efficient lighting & climate control systems and the installation of solar panels to alleviate running costs. Cultural & Heritage: Improved collection management facilities will ensure the safe keeping of movable Australian Cultural Heritage. The Gallery is listed on the Cultural Heritage Registrar. The upgrading of this facility will ensure the building is maintained for future generation use. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority is required.


52

OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER receiving and advertising the Regional Art Gallery Schematic

Masterplan to allow further information to be gathered and analysed; and



1. DECLINE receiving the Regional Art Gallery Schematic Masterplan;

and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:


CONCLUSION: There are a number of high priority works necessary for the Geraldton Regional Art Gallery to retain an A Classification. However a planned and strategic approach is preferable to ad hoc works. Additionally, a costed and Council endorsed Masterplan will assist in securing potential grant funding from external sources. Therefore Option 1 is the preferred position. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. RECEIVE the Regional Art Gallery Schematic Masterplan; 2. ADVERTISE the Regional Art Gallery Schematic Masterplan for public

comment for a period of 42 days; 3. HOLD a community workshop to discuss the plan; and 4. AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer to use the Regional Art

Gallery Schematic Masterplan as a basis for external funding applications.


53

CC011 MULLEWA COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER BUDGET REVIEW

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12092 AUTHOR: K Seidl, Manager Community Law and

Safety T Hartman, Mullewa District Manager

EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director Creative Communities DATE OF REPORT: 31 August 2011 FILE REFERENCE: LE/10/0001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

SUMMARY: To provide Commissioners the opportunity to review the budget to enable an enhanced Ranger/Community Safety Officer service in Mullewa.

PROPONENT: The proponent is City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The City of Greater Geraldton budget as adopted on 1 July 2011 did not include sufficient funding to enable an acceptable level of Ranger service. Prior to amalgamation the previous Shire of Mullewa engaged a contracted Ranger service that would visit from time to time. The former City of Geraldton-Greenough Rangers form part of the Community Law and Safety department and continue to service the Geraldton-Greenough area for the City of Greater Geraldton. Rangers are the Council’s frontline in ensuring the education and enforcement of local laws while maintaining a safe community alongside other community agencies. The Community Law and Safety department has conducted a risk analysis and presented its findings to the members of the Council Executive. It has been identified that a visiting Ranger service would require two rangers in every instance. It has been identified that to enable a consistent Ranger presence in Mullewa an additional full time equivalent Ranger or two part time Rangers will be required. In this instance as it is a new service, it is recommended that the new position/s should be under the title of Community Safety Officers. This would serve to highlight the education role and to soften the impact of the enforcement responsibilities of a new Ranger service in Mullewa. Other responsibilities will include the promotion of crime prevention initiatives, fire prevention and emergency management activities. Furthermore to enable a Ranger/Community Safety service in Mullewa, a vehicle fitted with Ranger requirements and equipment will also be required. The Mullewa Pound requires an upgrade and $10,000 has been set aside for this purpose.


54

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: A community satisfaction survey of Mullewa (refer to attachment) demonstrated the need for enhanced services in the area of community safety and dog control. The results indicated that the control of dogs and keeping neighbourhoods safe scored the highest in terms of need. This demonstrates the community’s desire for Council to take action in this area. Both the functions of dog control and community safety in the areas of crime prevention, fire prevention and emergency management are realised with the provision of a Community Safety Officer/Ranger service. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: It is essential that the City provides an efficient and consistent service to the Mullewa area to ensure compliance, education and enforcement of State Legislation and Local Laws. Some of the State legislation includes:

Dog Act 1976

Litter Act 1979

Caravan and Camping Grounds Act 1995

Bush Fires Act 1954

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications relevant to the report. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The Executive recommendation would have the following financial implications:

1. $81,000 for Community Safety Officer/Ranger with on costs (annualised cost);

2. $55,000 for an additional vehicle with on costs; and 3. $1,412 for additional equipment.

In real terms the net budget requirement for 2011-12 would be a pro rata amount based on a seven (7) month engagement due to the timing of the recruitment. Therefore, in this financial year the cost structure would be: Operating Expenditure

1. $50,000 employment costs 2. $8,750 vehicle running costs

Capital Expenditure

1. $40,000 vehicle acquisition 2. $1,412 additional equipment.

The operating expenditure in 2011-12 of $58,750 is effectively new funding and would increase the budgeted deficit from $565,015 to $623,765.


55

The capital expenditure of $41,412 can be accommodated by a transfer from Reserve (Plant – current balance $272,268) that does not impact on the City’s net deficit position. Currently, in the budget there is a $25,000 allocation for Ranger services at Mullewa based on the provision of a part-time service. Any unspent funds from the contracted service that is currently being provided would be redirected to reduce the impact on the new funding required to support this new position’s operating expenditure. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for lifestyle Outcome 1.4: A safe and secure community Strategy 1.4.2: Implementation and application of local laws Regional Outcomes: As the City of Greater Geraldton is a regional centre, it is important to demonstrate an effective and efficient provision of service to ensure a safe community. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no economic issues. Social: A safe and secure community with the provision of an effective ranger service in Mullewa will have a direct impact on the social environment of Mullewa. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural issues. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: Rangers act under the delegated authority of the Chief Executive Officer who has delegated authority from Council. A Community Safety Officer would be delegated the same authority.


56

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority is required for option 2 and 3. Absolute Majority is required for the executive recommendation. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER the matter; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:


Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. CONTINUE the current contractual Ranger Service arrangement only; and


CONCLUSION: Option 1 is recommended as there is a demonstrated need to enhance Ranger service provision in the Mullewa community. It is recommended that the service be provided under the title of Community Safety Officer. The previous and current arrangements of a contracted Ranger service a falling behind the demands of the community need. A recent community satisfaction survey supports this sentiment. Option 1 is most effective to enable the Community Law and Safety department to provide a service in Mullewa with no impact on the current service provision offered in the Geraldton-Greenough area. As an enhanced level of service is required for the Mullewa community, option one is recommended. Option 2 is not supported as the needs of the community must be met as soon as possible. Option 3 is not supported due the apparent need for an enhanced service which was made apparent by the attached customer service satisfaction results. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:


57

1. ENDORSE the increase in the organisational permanent staff establishment by one employee through the employment of a Community Safety Officer or two part time Community Safety Officers, the purchase of an additional Ranger vehicle with yearly expenses and necessary equipment to enable a Ranger service in Mullewa; and

2. AMEND the City of Greater Geraldton budget for 2011-12 to include an additional expense of:

a. $58,750 for Community Safety Officer/Ranger operating expenditure

b. $41,412 for capital expenditure.


58

CC012 PUBLIC PARKING IN PARKING STATION 6

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12095. AUTHOR: K Seidl, Manager Community Law and

Safety EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director Creative Communities DATE OF REPORT: 31 August 2011 FILE REFERENCE: LE/4/0001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes (x1)

SUMMARY: To provide Council with the opportunity to endorse the car park at the rear of the SGIO building situated on the corner of Chapman Road and Cathedral Avenue with access from Cathedral Avenue Geraldton (Assessment A18220), be designated City of Greater Geraldton Car Parking Station number 6 and now allow for public parking.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The City of Greater Geraldton Car park number 6 is located on the corner of Chapman Road and Cathedral Avenue with access from Cathedral Avenue Geraldton (Assessment A18220). This car parking space accommodates 101 car parking spaces. The Car park has been subject to lease by the State Government and part of that lease has now come to its end. 19 bays have a current lease agreement which is set to expire in 2016. The still current City of Geraldton-Greenough Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law was last gazetted on the 24 November 2008. This law outlines the following with respect to the determination of parking stations. Section 3.1states: The local government may by resolution constitute, determine and vary and also indicate by signs:

a. Parking stalls; b. Parking stations; c. Permitted time and conditions of parking in parking stalls and

parking stations which may vary with the locality; d. Permitted classes of vehicles which may park in the parking stalls

and parking stations e. Permitted classes of persons who may park in specified parking

stalls or parking stations; and f. The manner of parking in parking stalls and parking stations.


59

This item provides Council the opportunity to determine that the City of Greater Geraldton Car park number 6 could be open to public paid parking, setting aside the currently leased 19 bays. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The City of Greater Geraldton Car Parking Strategy is currently out for public comment. Community feedback captured within the local media indicates a public desire for more public parking. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: As per the City of Geraldton-Greenough Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law, the determination of parking stations within the City of Geraldton-Greenough needs to be resolved by Council. The City of Greater Geraldton Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law is currently advertised for public comment. Until such time that the new City of Greater Geraldton Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law is formally gazetted, the existing law remains current. Section 6.8 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act is relevant to the report as it recommends expenditure from the municipal fund for an additional purpose. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications relevant to this report. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The City of Greater Geraldton Car Parking Station Number 6 has 101 parking spaces. The current Parking fees within the City of Geraldton Greenough are $0.60 per hour or $3.50 per day. The payment of parking fees in the proposed Car Parking Station number 6 enables for between $297 - $393 in revenue per parking fee payable day, should the car park be at capacity. On an annual basis this could demonstrate between $84,942 and $109,902 in revenue. In additional to this is revenue from the current leasing agreement of $10,062 per annum. The above is comparable to the revenue generated from the same car park in the last financial year amounting to $62,760. The cost of the purchase of additional parking machines is approximately $10,000 per machine. The approximate cost to remark bays and signage in the City of Greater Geraldton Car Park number 6 is $6,500. Subject to the approval of the items recommendation, Council procurement process will be followed and quotations for the works and parking machines will be obtained.


60

The Capital Budget for this financial year includes an allocation of $40,000 for the upgrade or expansion to parking machines and associated infrastructure that will accommodate the proposed expenditure. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for lifestyle Outcome 1.4: A safe and secure community Strategy 1.4. : Implementation and application of local laws Regional Outcomes: There are no regional outcomes relative to this report. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The provision of appropriate parking restrictions enables access to business and the ability for various businesses to conduct their operations, then having a flow on effect to the local economy. Social: The provision of appropriate parking restrictions enables fair vehicle access to areas within the City of Geraldton-Greenough. Environmental: There are no environmental issues relative to this report. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage issues relative to this report. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: The City of Geraldton-Greenough Council under powers conferred by the Local Government Act resolved to make the Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2008 on the 28 October 2008. The Local Law was printed in the Government Gazette on 24 November 2008. The City of Greater Geraldton Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law is currently advertised for public comment. Until such time that the new City of Greater Geraldton Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law is formally gazetted, the existing law remains current. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: Section 3.1 of the City of Geraldton-Greenough Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law outlines: 3.1 Determination of parking stalls and parking stations


61

The local government may by resolution constitute, determine and vary and also indicate by signs:

a. Parking stalls; b. Parking stations; c. Permitted time and conditions of parking stalls and parking stations

which may vary with the locality; d. Permitted classes of vehicles which may park in parking stalls and

parking stations; e. Permitted classes of persons who may park in specified parking

stalls and parking stations; and f. The manner of parking in parking stalls and parking stations.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority as per Section 1.8 and 3.1 of the City of Geraldton-Greenough Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER the matter to an alternate meeting of Council; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. to be determined by Council. CONCLUSION: The item further provides the opportunity for Council to endorse the City of Greater Geraldton Car Park number 6 as a metered ticket area, being shared with 19 leased parking bays. Option 1 is recommended to ensure that Council complies with the Local Laws relating to parking and to ensure for the provision of fair and reasonable parking for the community and its visitors. Option 2 is available should Council require further information. There are no further options available. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority as per Section 3.1 of the City of Geraldton-Greenough Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law and section 6.8 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. DETERMINE that the car park on the corner of Chapman Road and Cathedral Avenue with access from Cathedral Avenue Geraldton (Assessment A18220), be designated City of Greater Geraldton Car Parking Station Number 6;

2. DETERMINE that part of the City of Greater Geraldton Car Parking Station Number 6, being 82 bays, two of which being Acrod Bays (as


62

per attached drawing (Proposed City of Greater Geraldton Parking Station No.6), be a metered space providing for ticketed parking in line with the City of Greater Geraldton fees and charges for all day parking; and

3. DETERMINE that 19 bays be set aside for the Department of Water as per the current lease agreement as per the attached drawing (Proposed City of Greater Geraldton Parking Station No.6);


63

CC013 POLLINATORS INC

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12096 AUTHOR: K Godfrey, Manager Economic & Social

Development EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director Creative Communities DATE OF REPORT: 5 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: ED/0006 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Pollinators Inc.

SUMMARY: Pollinators Inc is a not for profit Geraldton based organisation focusing on projects that inspire, enable and deliver social good. The aim of Pollinators is growing social innovation and social entrepreneurship as means to create healthy, resilient communities and solve social and ecological challenges. The City of Greater Geraldton’s leadership and the 2029 and Beyond project have enabled a great expression of community ownership, passion, ideas and energy. Pollinators Inc are proposing to unlock that energy and enable our emerging civic leaders and entrepreneurs to create real change, for social good. Pollinators have presented a partnership proposal to the City to deliver programs that will build capacity, empower the community, build civic leadership and deliver on projects that strongly align with the City’s Plan for the Future and 2029 & Beyond Project. PROPONENT: Pollinators Inc is a not for profit incorporated organisation. The board consists of:

Lisa Greeve – Founder of Greeve and Associates: ethical financial planning services;

David Galloway – Founder of Ferart: sustainability and design services, PCYC board member;

Nicholas Els Community member, Lawyer;

Ashley Robb – Coastal team leader at the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council;

Bernadette Anderson – Events Programmer at the Museum;

Ann Larson – Founder of Social Dimension, Associate Professor and Founder of CUCRH; and

Andrew Outhwaite – Founder at We Are Arising, Founder of Pollinators Inc.

BACKGROUND: Pollinators Inc commenced in Geraldton in 2010. The aim of Pollinators is growing social innovation and social entrepreneurship as means to create healthy, resilient communities and solve social and ecological challenges.


64

The objectives are:

1. Raise public and institutional awareness of social business, social entrepreneurship and social innovation;

2. Provide practical support, training, financial investment and other resources to pilot projects and start-up organisations that demonstrate social innovation;

3. Research, document and share case studies, tools, knowledge and resources in service of the Aim;

4. Provide the means and opportunities for entrepreneurs, investors, supports, professionals and customers to meet, learn together and collaborate in service of the Aim; and

5. Partner with other individuals and organisations with similar aims and objectives.

Pollinators have offered the City a partnership proposal that has several options. Outcomes of the partnership proposal are outlined below. Outcomes Pollinators Inc is aiming to achieve a range of outcomes through to 2014, all aligned with Council approved Strategies, Plans for the Future and 2029 and Beyond community engagement outcomes. They include: For members and program participants:

Increase in the social impact of their venture or project; and

Increase in the turnover of their enterprise or funding for project.

For government agencies and other funders, investors, partners:

Positive contribution to implementation of their strategic goals and plans;

Increase in economic activity and diversity of enterprises in the Mid-West; and

A replicable model and intellectual property of relevance to other regional communities.

For Mid-West residents:

Increase in people participating in community groups and activities;

Increase in the skills and knowledge of emerging leaders and social entrepreneurs; and

Increase in the investment in community projects. Outputs Measurable outputs that would create those outcomes, and which this partnership would contribute could include:

1 refurbished heritage-listed building;

1 new social enterprise directly created;

4 people directly employed in a new social enterprise;

35 new workspaces and 3 new meeting spaces created;

150 meetings and workshops hosted;

150 members (tenants) using CityHive;


65

100 graduates of a multi-week 'Innovative Leadership' program for venture, personal and professional development;

24 graduates of a Business Warriors Program for developing Aboriginal ventures;

24 graduates of a 9 month 'School for Social Entrepreneurs' program, predicted to result in 72 new jobs in the long term; and

1 ‘SROI’ forecast, and 1 ‘SROI’ evaluation report to quantify the social and economic impact of the project relative to investment.

Partnership components Below is an overview of the options that may comprise a partnership package between the City and Pollinators Inc. The first, corporate sponsorship, is the strongest commitment to supporting Pollinators Inc activities. Subsequent options focus on specific projects to deliver particular outcomes. 1. Corporate sponsorship Description The proposal would require the City to contribute cash and in-kind to supporting Pollinators Inc projects and members. Corporate Sponsorship provides relatively unrestricted funding to Pollinators Inc to deliver on its outcomes and outputs.

Outcomes Pollinators Inc would use corporate sponsorship funding and in-kind donations to achieve the outcomes identified in our business plan, and in the ‘Executive Summary’. Activities The activities supported would be determined by Pollinators Inc business and strategic plans, and through regular stakeholder and partner engagement.

Direct Benefits to the City Direct benefits of Corporate Sponsorship vary depending on the contribution (see below), and include:

Corporate Membership of Pollinators: invitations to all events and programs;

Corporate Membership of CityHive: free access to CityHive facilities and programs for 25/50/100 hours per month (for persons nominated by the City);

Recognition and naming rights at CityHive e.g. sponsors board, table, room; and

Social Innovation pack and/or workshop. Cases Corporate Express has joined as a corporate sponsor. Other local and national institutions in finance, building and creative industries are considering corporate sponsorship.

Contribution


66

There are four levels of Corporate Sponsorship available, outlined below and in our prospectus showing the scale of activities and impact for each level of investment.

2. Innovative Leaders Description The proposal would require the City to sponsor one or more series of our ‘Innovative Leaders’ program for 20 participants. This is an ideal program for enabling emerging civic and community leaders (or ‘champions’) to turn their ‘ideas’ from 2029 and Beyond consultations into action. Participants join for 3 months of sessions including one longer ‘learning journey’ to visit local cases. Each participant will develop or work on their own project.

The program will be delivered at nominal cost to participants, facilitated by Pollinators, using specialist partners to train participants in key skills for civic and social leadership. Topics may include: Critical and Creative thinking, Hosting meetings, Project management, Growing networks, Working with government, Business model design, Personal effectiveness, Design thinking and Peer coaching. Support provided to achieve their vision will include expert advice, peer coaching, and online tools and resources as appropriate e.g. ‘Civic Evolution’.

Outcomes The Innovative Leaders program would contribute to all the outcomes identified in ‘Outcomes’ and be aligned with the ‘Directions’ and ‘Visions’ from 2029 and Beyond. Innovative Pollinators would recruit from ideas and people already involved in ‘Civic Evolution’, applicants to the City’s ‘Community Grants’ program, and wider community.


67

Outputs Each ‘Innovative Leaders’ program would aim to graduate 20 participants, and result in a report on the program including quantification of the positive social impact. This would be promoted in the media, online, and through national networks.

Activities Activities would include: program design, brokering partnerships, marketing, recruitment, management, program delivery, evaluation, reporting and celebration.

Direct Benefits to the City Direct benefits of sponsoring one or more ‘Innovative Leaders’ programs would vary on the contribution and could include:

Free participation of up to 2 City staff per program;

Social Innovation pack / workshop delivered in-house to the City; and

Recognition on all materials related to the program.

Cases Pollinators Inc and its partners have extensive experience as participants, designers and facilitators of similar, successful programs, such as:

‘LivingSmart’: state-wide sustainability education program delivered locally through the City and now Durack and with more than 60 participants so far,

‘Community Builders’: regionally-focused peer learning program delivered in the early 2000s and credited with supporting many of today’s civic leaders,

‘Innovation Garden’: designed and delivered by Pollinators board member in conjunction with Learning House in the UK. Flyer attached.

Contribution Full sponsorship is a $10,000 investment per program. 2 programs/year are planned. 3. Swarm Description The proposal would require the City to sponsor one or more ‘Swarm’ events. These events bring together up to 80 people per event. The events are targeted at emerging civic leaders and social entrepreneurs, and would be ‘themed’ and each feature inspirational talks, showcasing of innovative local community projects, and facilitated sessions for participants to build support and get feedback on their projects. The feedback would be both through questions and comments, but also through a polling process designed to identify the most well-supported projects from each session.

The events are free for participants, but strictly limited in number of attendees. Sponsorship would enable a high-quality event and targeting of 2029 &


68

Beyond community ‘champions’, people leading projects on ‘civic evolution’ or recipients/potential applicants for City’s ‘Community Grants’ program.

‘Swarm’ events would build on the energy of the ‘Designing our City’ process, and provide a practical and ongoing means for people with ideas and projects to promote, refine and deliver positive benefits to the community. ‘Swarm’ would become the primary means for funders to identify local projects: like the Mid-West Economic and Resources forum, but focused on positive social and ecological impact.

Outcomes The Swarm events would contribute to all the outcomes identified in the ‘Executive Summary’, to the ‘Directions’ and ‘Visions’ from 2029 & Beyond. The contribution to outcomes would be through the improved networks, visibility of projects (and reduced replication), better-thought through and more clearly-supported ventures.

Outputs Each ‘Swarm program would involve 80 participants and result in a brief report, media coverage before and after, footage, photos and stories posted online.

Activities Activities would include: event design, guest invitations, space hire, marketing, event management, facilitation, catering, clean-up, evaluation, reporting. Direct Benefits to City Direct benefits of sponsoring ‘Swarm’ events would include:

Free participation of up to 3 City staff per event; and

Recognition on materials related to the event and at the event.

Cases Pollinators Inc and its partners have extensive experience as participants, designers and facilitators of similar, successful programs, such as:

‘Civic Evolution LIVE’: “More than 50 people in an ‘open space’ event with more than 16 different ideas discussed. 88% of participants agreed or strongly agreed the forum was useful in progressing their ideas. More than 90% of participants both planned to collaborate with the people they met, and would attend similar forums in the future.”

‘TEDx’: http://www.ted.com/tedx independently organised community events that access the speakers and presentations from the renowned TED talks,

‘Hive’: http://thehive.org.au/about/ Networking events for entrepreneurs started in Melbourne, now in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.

Contribution Sponsorship of a Swarm is a $6,000 investment. Up to 4 could be run per year.

http://www.ted.com/tedx

http://thehive.org.au/about/


69

Partnership packages The components outlined above could be packaged to meet the City’s understanding of priority community needs. Examples of packages are:

1 year, Level 4 Corporate Sponsorship + 1 Swarm = $11,000

80 participants who’ve connected, learned, and been inspired to act locally,

Corporate membership of Pollinators + 10hrs mth use of CityHive.

1 year, Level 3 Corporate Sponsorship + 2 Innovative Leaders programs = $30,000

40 empowered graduates who’ve progressed their community projects,


1 year, Level 2 Corporate Sponsorship + 2 Swarms = $32,000



1 year, Level 2 Corporate Sponsorship + 1 Innovative Leaders + 2 Swarms = $42,000




2 year, Level 2 Corporate Sponsorship + 4 Swarms = $64,000



2 year, Level 2 Corporate Sponsorship + 2 Innovative Leaders + 4 Swarms = $84,000



Corporate membership of Pollinators + 100hrs mth use of CityHive. Expectations Pollinators Inc expect that a partnership with the City will also include details such as:

Agreement on the priority outcomes and outputs to be achieved,

Agreement on reporting, evaluation and review of the partnership,

Nomination of a single contact person for the partnership,

Specify in-kind contributions of staff time to the partnership and projects,

Agreement on dispute resolution processes.


70

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Pollinators Inc ‘City Hive’ project has been presented to the City through Civic Evolution process. Comments that have supported this initiative from the Governance Group include:

2029 Governance Alliance member Jody Bevan: “I am fully supportive of this initiative, & both the Mid West Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the Geraldton Community Bank are looking at ways to support the various projects so Geraldton can be seen to be leading the way in the area of social innovation. It is also about building social & community ‘capital’ and retaining and enticing innovative and entrepreneurial talent to the City. The more support the projects get the sooner they will become reality.” 2029 Governance Alliance member Rob Jefferies: “I believe this innovative initiative should be supported by the City and community via a one-off grant or similar approach (e.g. assist with premises if vacant space is available) but the City should not take on any risk associated with the project.

This initiative is consistent with the City’s economic and capacity building objectives”

2029 Governance Alliance member Alex McKinnon: “Geraldton is well placed to become the centre of innovation in energy, marine science, education, engineering and much more.

This sort of space will help young entrepreneurs who may not previously have had the avenue or access to networks and experience to turn great ideas into reality.

As everyone knows it is a long journey from an idea to a business and the more help the better.”

2029 Governance Alliance member Jenny Kniveton: “I think this idea is fantastic this is definitely a need for this in Geraldton given the forecast for growth in population and industry associated with major projects expected to occur in the future.

Bundiyarra researched something similar to this 2 years ago and in terms of support for emerging Indigenous businesses this concept would enhance training and mentoring for Indigenous people interested in starting their own businesses.”


71

Pollinators Inc. have presented to the following organisations and committees, who have indicated in principle support but have not committed any financial support to date:

Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry: In principle support but not in a position to support financially. Comments that were made by MWCCI Board Members include ‘wow, you got applause, that’s never happened except at our Christmas meetings!‘, ‘most exciting thing we’ve been presented in a good while“;

Mid West Community Services Network: have indicated support, shared ideas and offers of ‘pilot’ spaces, and offered letters of support for the concept;

Mid West Development Commission: Thought this was a great idea and have offered a lot of support to refine an application for Royalties for Regions funding;

Regional Development Australia: Have been thinking along these lines for a while, and have again offered us some space to set-up while we get CityHive up and running;

Small Business Centre Mid-West; working with Pollinators and have expressed interest in concept and a possibility of using the rooms when available; and

More than 50 other local and Perth-based organisations who have indicated their preferences for the space and interest in using it, including the Bendigo Bank and Geraldton Regional Community Education Centre.

COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Discussions on Pollinators Inc and City Hive have been presented to Commissioner Ian Carpenter. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications associated with this item. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications associated with this item. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Forty Two thousand dollars ($42,000) to be appropriated from the existing budget. Expenditure of $42,000 can be accommodated from a transfer from the Strategic Initiatives Reserve (current balance - $179,679). The purpose of this Reserve is to provide funding towards any strategic project or initiative identified by the City. Expenditure that is offset by a transfer from Reserves has a zero impact on the overall budget bottom line.


72

STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area: Opportunities for Creativity. Outcome 2.2: A City that attracts creative people through nurturing

creative industries. Strategy 2.2.2: Partner with appropriate businesses to locate people

and operations to the Geraldton region. Strategy 2.2.4 Facilitate the development and establishment of arts

based creative industries. Key Result Area: Opportunities for Prosperity. Outcome 3.2: A diverse economic base. Strategy 3.2.1: Promote the development and location of small

business, commercial, State and Australian Government agencies.

Outcome 3.3: Geraldton as a leading regional destination. Strategy 3.3.2: Establish Geraldton-Greenough as the preferred place

of business and conferences in regional WA. Regional Outcomes: Pollinators Inc have members within and outside the City region. The partnership aims at delivering demonstrable social impact and community, economic and sustainable development outcomes through support of a financially-sustainable social enterprise delivery model. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Pollinators Inc aims to increase economic activity and diversity of enterprises in the Mid West. Social: CityHive could provide excellent opportunities to ‘connect’ local businesses and entrepreneurs through networks and shared physical spaces. The creation of a physical workspace would provide positive social development opportunities by allowing community members to collaborate and be inspired by like-minded associations, clubs, non-profit groups as well as entrepreneurs, consultants, trainers, visiting corporate staff, project officers and small businesses. CityHive could result in widespread social benefits shared by the whole of the Geraldton community, through the development of creative business and industry, increasing vibrancy within the City.


73

Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage issues. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: At the December 2010 Council meeting, Council gave in principle support for initial seed funding of $50,000 towards the Mid West Academy of Sport. The seed funding was to progress the business plan objectives to allow the Mid West Academy of Sport to be fully operational within two (2) years. Additionally an amount of $25,000 per year for five (5) years (commencing 2012/13) was requested for ongoing operations in addition to the privately sourced funding. The determination was based on the following reasons:

a. Mid West Academy of Sport will identify and develop talented and emerging athletes;

b. Benefit to the community is the flow on affect the academy would create such as the immediate need for educated and well rounded members of the community;

c. Competitions will be enriched as talented athletes continue development while maintaining links with their sporting roots;

d. Partnerships with Durack Institute of Technology and Geraldton university Centre can offer pathways through education and career development;

e. Partnerships with business and local government authorities can assist to provide top class facilities for all to share; and

f. An academy would reinforce the Mid West as region of sporting excellence, opening doors for partnerships with national and international bodies and future commercial opportunities.

DELEGATED AUTHORITY: Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Agreement with Pollinators Inc for a Level 2 Corporate Sponsorship for one (1) year period. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Absolute majority is required for Option 1. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report.


74

Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 6.8 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. DECLINE to support Pollinators Inc. proposal; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. to be determined by Council. Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 6.8 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER the decision and request the proposal be resubmitted to the new Council of the City of Greater Geraldton in October 2011.

CONCLUSION: Pollinators Inc provides an opportunity for the Council to address a number of priorities specified in documents such as Plan for the Future, and the Community Directions developed through the 2029 & Beyond Project. It provides an opportunity for the City to participate in a unique initiative that has the potential to increase economic and social benefit to the community and region. The 2029 & Beyond project is City led and community owned. However the City does not have the resources or manpower to drive and deliver the projects that are coming through. The intent has always been a partnership between the community and the City. Providing financial support to Pollinators to deliver programs that will increase the capacity of the community to drive the identified projects is seen as a fundamental element of the 2029 & Beyond project’s success. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council Absolute Majority pursuant to section 6.8 of the Local Government Act RESOLVES to:

1. COMMIT a financial contribution to Pollinators Inc of $42,000 in the 2011/12 budget towards:

a. 1 year, Level 2 Corporate Sponsorship; b. 1 Innovative Leaders; and c. 2 Swarms;

2. DELEGATE authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Agreement with Pollinators Inc which in lieu of the contribution in 1 above achieves the following:

a. Sponsorship would deliver the Innovative Leaders program for 40 empowered graduates who’ve progressed their community projects. Participants will have the opportunity to participate in a program to enable emerging civic and community leaders to turn their ‘ideas’ from 2029 and Beyond consultations into action; and

b. Sponsorship would deliver two (2) SWARMS that would include 160 participants who’ve connected, learned, and been inspired


75

to act locally, These two events would bring together up to 80 people at each event, targeted at emerging civic leaders and social entrepreneurs, and would be ‘themed’ and each feature inspirational talks, showcasing of innovative local community projects, and facilitated session for participants to build support and get feedback on their projects.


76

CC015 HMAS SYDNEY II MEMORIAL COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES

AGENDA REFERENCE: AUTHOR: A Selvey, Director of Creative

Communities EXECUTIVE: A Selvey, Director of Creative

Communities DATE OF REPORT: 6th September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: ER/12/001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: WA Chapter of the No9 Squadron

Association Inc ATTACHMENTS: Yes SUMMARY: This report seeks to advise Council of a further stakeholder meeting to discuss the request from Mr Peter Robinson, Vice President of the WA Chapter of the No9 Squadron Association Inc. for the dedication of two plaques at the HMAS Sydney II commemorative service on 19 November 2011 and the Council resolution made at the Ordinary Meeting of 10 August 2011.

PROPONENT: The proponent is WA Chapter of the No9 Squadron Association Inc. of Kingsley, Perth. BACKGROUND: At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 August 2011, Council resolved to decline the request from the WA Chapter of the No9 Squadron Association Inc. to dedicate two plaques at the commemorative service on 19 November 2011.

MOVED COMMISSIONER MCILWAINE, SECONDED COMMISSIONER MESSINA That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. DECLINE the request by the WA Chapter of No9 Squadron to dedicate two plaques as part of the Order of Service at the HMAS Sydney II commemorative service on 19 November, 2011;

2. ADVISE the proponents that future requests to Council to lay plaques at the HMAS Sydney II Memorial site may be approved, subject to compliance with the Policy for Commemorative Plaques at the HMAS Sydney II Memorial Site.

The Council resolution was based on the Executive Recommendation, which in turn was based on the recommendation of the HMAS Sydney Memorial II Commemorative Service stakeholder group. This decision was communicated to the WA Chapter of No9 Squadron Assoc, Inc. and they asked to meet with the stakeholder group to present their request and prepared the attached issues paper as a starting point for discussions. The stakeholder group met with Commodore Bob Trotter OAM


77

RAN (Ret'd) FIEAust Past National & WA President, Memorial Officer, as the representative of the is WA Chapter of the No9 Squadron Association Inc. on Wednesday 7 September 201. Commodore Trotter provided some clarification to address concerns regarding logistics and after much discussion and negotiation, the stakeholder group has reconsidered their recommendation to Council and wishes to put the following recommendation to Council.

“That the plaques in question (x2) be dedicated as part of the formal proceedings of the 70th Anniversary Commemorative Service of the HMAS Sydney II on 19 November 2011. The mounting of the said plaques to be deferred to a date to be confirmed and located in accordance with the Policy for commemorative plaques at the HMAS Sydney II Memorial site at Mount Scott. Further the Order of Service as presented by Commodore Bob Trotter, on behalf of and approved by the Naval Association of Australia and their supportive organisations by accepted as a draft Order of Service on the 19 November.”

The group also approved the content and design of the plaques as they are consistent with the said policy and recommend that the Council endorse the plaques. See attached. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Representatives from the RSL, Rotary Club of Geraldton and Naval Association were involved in this discussions as the primary stakeholders. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Commissioner Ian Carpenter is the City’s representative on the HMAS Sydney II Service Working Group and has been involved in these discussions. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Policy for Commemorative Plaques at the HMAS Sydney II Memorial Site at Mount Scott covers the content, design and placement of plaques. It does not however have direct bearing on the timing of installation. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial or budget implications. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 4: Leading the opportunities. Outcome 4.1: Leadership in the organisation and community. Strategy 4.1.3: Implement business and governance frameworks.


78

Regional Outcomes: There are no direct regional outcomes. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: As a tourism icon, the HMAS Sydney II Memorial generates economic benefit. Good management is therefore essential to ensure it retains its value as a tourism asset. Social: The HMAS Sydney II Memorial is highly significant in terms of social benefit. It is source of community pride and there is a strong sense of community ownership. The commemorative service is governed by protocols and any breach of protocol will have an impact on the sense of pride. Environmental: There are no environmental issues. Cultural & Heritage: As a recognised Military Memorial of National Significance, it is essential to ensure good governance to protect the Memorial’s value as a heritage asset. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. UPHOLD the Council Decision made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 August 2011 and decline the request by the WA Chapter of No9 Squadron to lay two plaques at the HMAS Sydney II commemorative service on 19 November, 2011; and

2. REFUSE to approve the content and design of the two plaques as presented by the WA Chapter of the No9 Squadron Association Inc.; and


79


Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER a decision regarding the request by the WA Chapter of No9 Squadron to lay two plaques at the HMAS Sydney II commemorative service on 19 November, 2011.

CONCLUSION: The City seeks the guidance in terms of protocols for military services and functions from stakeholder agencies such as the RSL and the Naval Association of Australia and from the Rotary Club of Geraldton on matters relating to the HMAS Sydney II Memorial. These three key stakeholder groups have met and input into the final recommendation that is being presented to Council as the Executive Recommendation. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: PART A Council by 1/3rd Majority CONSIDERS to RESCIND the Council Decision made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 August 2011:

That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:



PART B Council by Absolute Majority RESOLVES to RESCIND the Council Decision made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 August 2011:

That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:




80

PART C That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. APPROVE the request by the WA Chapter of No9 Squadron to

dedicate two plaques as part of the Order of Service at the HMAS Sydney II commemorative service on 19 November, 2011; and

2. APPROVE the content and design of the two plaques as presented WA Chapter of the No9 Squadron Association Inc.


81

11.5 Reports of Community Infrastructure

CI001 HMAS SYDNEY II – FIFTH ELEMENT – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUEST FROM ROTARY CLUB OF GERALDTON

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12008 AUTHOR: K O’Neill, Project Coordinator, Major

Projects EXECUTIVE: N Arbuthnot, Director Community

Infrastructure DATE OF REPORT: 5 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: PM/4/0021 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Rotary Club of Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: CONFIDENTIAL (x2)

SUMMARY: This report seeks Commissioner approval for $30,000 to be appropriated from the budget and made available to the Rotary Club of Geraldton to complete works on the Fifth Element of the HMAS Sydney II Memorial in time for the 70th Anniversary Commemoration and Dedication of the Fifth Element on 19 November 2011.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the Rotary Club of Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The Rotary Club of Geraldton wrote to the City of Greater Geraldton on 22 August 2011 to ask for some additional financial assistance to cover additional costs for some necessary variations to the final design of the Fifth Element of the HMAS Sydney II Memorial. The necessary variations are:

1. The erection of a stainless steel fence on top of the pump house to satisfy building regulations;

2. Heightening of the retaining wall around the Fifth Element to satisfy building regulations; (Both 1 and 2 variations have already been installed to satisfy statutory requirements); and

3. Landscaping on top of, and surrounding the pump house. (This work has yet to be undertaken).

A further variation to the original scope which will enhance the memorial at night and improve public safety around the memorial is to tastefully improve illumination of the Dome of Souls and Pool areas. This work has yet to be undertaken. Refer to the attached supporting letters for further detail regarding the variations.


82

On receipt of the letter and after consultation with representatives of the Rotary Club of Geraldton it became apparent that the total cost of all these works to completion (including $4,000 for contingency) would be $30,000. The City has already provided $50k and assistance in kind to the Rotary Club for this project. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Consultation has taken place between several City Officers and Rotary Club of Geraldton representatives to determine and agree the remaining scope of work and costs to complete the works requested in this report. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The memorial is registered as a Military Memorial of National Significance under the Military Memorials of National Significance Act 2008. Approval for the Fifth Element of the memorial was received from the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs in a letter dated 18 November 2010. There are no further statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: No specific funds have been allocated in the current budget to cover the cost of these additional works. Funds are available and can be obtained from the Unexpended Capital Works & Restricted Grant Reserve with no impact on the current budget. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 3: Opportunities for Prosperity.

Outcome 3.3 : Geraldton as a leading regional destination.

Strategy 3.3.4 : Facilitate the development of tourism capacity and product.

Regional Outcomes: Enhancing the HMAS Sydney II memorial by adding the Fifth Element will increase tourism to the region as a whole which will result in positive economic impacts for the region.


83

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: Completing the Fifth Element project to the highest standards will without doubt enhance an already popular and nationally recognised memorial, increasing tourism and having a very positive impact on the economy. Social: Significant social impact regarding local heritage and national pride for all Australians and to honour those Australians who served in World War II. Environmental: It is acknowledged that as the Fifth Element of the memorial will feature a Pool of Remembrance it will inevitably have an impact on water usage. Given the significant and fitting nature of the design of the Fifth Element this impact is acceptable. Cultural & Heritage: The HMAS Sydney II Memorial is a nationally recognised memorial of national significance which commemorates the loss of six hundred and forty-five (645) crew members during a World War II battle in November 1941. The existing memorial comprises four elements: the Wall of Remembrance; the Dome of Souls; the Stele and the Waiting Woman. The fifth element of the memorial - a Pool of Remembrance shall without doubt enhance an already established national memorial and popular Geraldton tourist attraction. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: An absolute majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to s6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER the recommendation; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reasons:



84

Option 3: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to s6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. REJECT the recommendation; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:


CONCLUSION: The 70th Anniversary commemoration celebration and Dedication of the Fifth Element on 19 November 2011 will be a very high profile event with senior dignitaries having been invited including the Prime Minister. If the project is not completed in time and sufficient time is allowed for the landscaping etc to “bed down” then there is potential for adverse publicity, much of which would be directed at the City. As an iconic landmark and tourist attraction, it is in the interest of all stakeholder groups including the City of Greater Geraldton to ensure this project is completed and funded to its conclusion in time for the celebrations on 19 November 2011. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to s6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. APPROVE the allocation of a maximum of up to thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to be taken from the Unexpended Capital Works & Restricted Grant Reserve to complete the Fifth Element Project; and

2. DISPERSE funds will on the production of invoices up to the value of $30,000.


85

CI002 EADON-CLARKE SPORTING COMPLEX TENDER RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF WHOLE OF WORKS

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12055 AUTHOR: K O’Neill, Project Coordinator, Major

Projects EXECUTIVE: N Arbuthnot, Director Community

Infrastructure DATE OF REPORT: 5 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: PM/4/0007 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: CONFIDENTIAL - Tender

Recommendation Letter, AECOM 16 August 2011

SUMMARY: This report seeks Commissioner approval to award the tender for the construction and completion of whole of works for the Eadon-Clarke Sporting Complex (ECSC).

PROPONENT: The proponent is The City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: AECOM as the City’s previously appointed Design and Engineering Consultants have undertaken a tender process on behalf of the City for the construction and completion of whole of works for the Eadon-Clarke Sporting Complex. The tender period closed on 15 August 2011. Three tenders were received: Industrial Roadpavers (WA) (Perth); Northcoast Contractors (Geraldton) and Marsh Civil (Perth). The selection criteria used to assess the tenders was based on: price; duration to completion; recent experience; methodology / appreciation of the task; and resource capacity. The contract is a Lump Sum Contract for whole of works as described in the tender specification. AECOM provided a recommendation to the City based on the selection criteria and scoring system. (Refer to confidential attachment) City Officers conducted an independent evaluation of the tenders received to validate AECOM’s recommendation and taking all factors into consideration agreed with AECOM’s recommendation (Refer to confidential attachment)


86

Based on estimates previously provided by AECOM to the City prior to the tender process, the total budget for the project is $3.359m (exc GST) of which $3,223.931 (exc GST) is available to complete the project. This available budget includes whole of works, consultancy and a 15% cost escalation. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Prior to this phase of the project, extensive consultation regarding ECSC redevelopment was undertaken and continues between stakeholders of the Eadon-Clarke Management Committee and officers from the City of Greater Geraldton. Consultation has also included the Department of Sport and Recreation to ensure that the required standards and specific requirements of all users of the recreational facilities at Eadon-Clarke are satisfied. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The total budget for the project is $3.359m (exc GST). Comprising Consultancy Fees $56,730 Cost Escalation $438,140 Construction Costs including contingency $2,864,203 The recommended Tender falls within the budget estimate. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 1: Opportunities for Lifestyle.

Outcome 1.2: Infrastructure which provides a foundation for the community’s needs.

Strategy 1.2.4: Provide accessible active and passive recreational spaces.


87

Regional Outcomes: The Eadon-Clarke Sporting Reserve can accommodate a wide variety of sporting activities. The reserve plays a crucial role in the development of the sporting skills of local senior and junior sport participants and has the potential to be host to regional events post development. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The redevelopment of Eadon-Clarke will enable the expanding population to participate in active recreation. The existence of a high quality, extensive recreational area will enable large scale events to be hosted in Geraldton which may have previously bypassed the City. Such events could attract a significant number of visitors which could result in a beneficial knock on effect to the local economy. Social: The project upon completion will provide first class family orientated playing fields which will encourage and provide various avenues for the development of good general health and wellbeing for the population. Environmental: Eadon-Clarke redevelopment will improve the water efficiency of the reserve and also decrease the environmental impact due to water wastage and high salinity levels which are common in the Spalding Park area. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural or heritage issues. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are no relevant precedents. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: A simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by simple majority pursuant to s3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER making a decision; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

b. to be determined by Council.


88

Option 3: That Council by simple majority pursuant to s3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. REJECT the recommended tenderer ; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. to be determined by Council. CONCLUSION: AECOM as the City’s appointed Design and Engineering Consultant have recommended Industrial Roadpavers (WA) as the being the preferred contractor based on the selection criteria. Each of the three tenderers had positives and negatives in their respective submissions, however Industrial Roadpavers (WA) were clearly the leading submission in terms of price and duration to complete the project. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by simple majority pursuant to s3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. AWARD the contract (RFT 05 1112) for the construction and completion of whole of works for the Eadon-Clarke Sports Complex to Industrial Roadpavers (WA); and

2. RECORD the amount of the winning Tender (including GST) in the minutes.


89

CI003 EASTERN BREAKWATER PROJECT

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12035 AUTHOR: M H Struwig, Project Coordinator EXECUTIVE: N Arbuthnot, Director Community

Infrastructure DATE OF REPORT: 14 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: LP/0076 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes 3

SUMMARY: The Geraldton foreshore is recognised as an iconic attraction for the City and the Mid-West region. It attracts tourists travelling by land and sea, and is well-frequented by local residents. With the expansion of the City and as economic activities in the Mid-West region increase there is a need to further develop the foreshore to meet the growing demands placed upon it. An opportunity now exists to reinvigorate the south-western area adjoining the current Geraldton foreshore. The enhancement of this otherwise isolated precinct would bring much needed amenity and facilities to the area, reduce pressure on the existing foreshore amenities, and provide valuable linkages to the Point Moore precinct. The initial cost of the draft concept for the Eastern Breakwater Precinct is anticipated to be $2.3M; however, further investigation has indicated that this required an additional injection of funds to which a separate grant funding application was submitted for $2.247M and was recently awarded. The total budget for the project of the Eastern Breakwater is now $4,247M. The Project may require a two year timeframe to be completed. The objective of the project is to integrate an otherwise isolated area of commercial; semi-industrial and brown-field site into a vibrant precinct – allowing the City to further enhance and extend the iconic Geraldton foreshore. The project will add value to this underutilized precinct; increase connectivity to other amenity precincts; reduce pressure on existing amenities; and raise the profile for Geraldton and the Mid-West region. Concept designs on the development on the Eastern Breakwater was done by Blackwell and Associates and put to Council. Council decision on 22 March 2011 was to have a period of forty-five (45) days for Public Consultation to invite public comment on the designs. The City received ten (10) submissions, two (2) of the submissions referred back to the original design – Annexure H (which included a suspension bridge) as recommended by the Mediation Committee and approved by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The other issues raised will be taken into consideration during the detailed design. The recent Blackwell & Associates designs and supporting documentation were submitted to the Minister for the Environment; Water for clarification. The


90

approval from the Minister dated 18 August 2011 was received and the Minister endorsed the Black & Associates Concept Designs.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND:

The Eastern Breakwater Precinct was established nearly 6 years ago and is integral to the history of the City of Geraldton-Greenough. The development of the breakwater has provided several benefits and protects the harbour entrance, establishes an eastern boundary to the Port and reduces the noise levels of harbour works.

The following documentation attached to this report details the chronological order of events that led up to the establishment of the Eastern Breakwater Project:

Attachment 1: Concept designs from Blackwell and Associates.

Attachment 2: Letter from the Minister for the Environment; Water dated 18 August 2011.

Attachment 3: Submissions received during the forty-five (45) days Public Consultation.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: A period of forty-five (45) days Public Consultation was held and ten (10) submissions were received. Two of the submissions referred the City to seek the Ministers approval on the changed design as the concept design did not reflect the Minister of Environment; Water approval given in 2002. The submissions received may be summarised as follows:

1. Breakwater located incorrectly. Southerly winds will degrade amenity and landscaping.

2. Objection to wooden walkway (Boardwalk). Cement walking path with seal lookout at end preferred. Objects to expenditure of 44.0m. Outlook at west end will be spoilt.

3. Ministerial conditions for Eastern Breakwater set down as a result of mediation between stakeholders have not been met.

4. As in (3) above and refers to Annexure H of the mediation teams report which incorporates design elements for the development.

5. Indifferent – No comments provided other than for the security fence required to separate train and pedestrian movements.

6. Design approach positive, several elements need to be considered to provide easy access; viewing to port and no vehicle access or parking dissuades elderly.

7. Great idea – needs swimming baths to make a perfect swimming place. Reference to facilities provided in Geneva Switzerland.

8. Interest in fencing between public area and rail tracks.


91

9. Parking shortage. 10. An underwater observatory would be nice. No cafes or commercial

development. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: GPA has already provided $1.4M with another $300K (provided over 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial years) towards this project and the City $300K (provision to be made in the budget for the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial years).

A further $2.247M has been approved by Royalties for Regions grant application (no reciprocal matching of funds).

Total approved budget for the project is now $4.247M.

STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 3: Land Use, Transport and Infrastructure. Outcome 3.1: A sustainable built urban environment. Strategy 3.1.2: Facilitate and encourage the timely completion of

current local land-use plans. Regional Outcomes: The objective of the project is to integrate an otherwise isolated area of commercial; semi-industrial; brown field and park land into a vibrant precinct – allowing the City to further enhance and extend the iconic Geraldton foreshore.

The project will add value to this underutilized precinct; increase connectivity to other amenity precincts; reduce pressure on existing amenities; and raise the profile for Geraldton and the Mid-West region. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The Breakwater will attract more residents and tourists who may spend money on the surrounding business for meals etc. with local economic benefits.


92

Social: There is no negative social impact. Environmental: There are no known environmental issues with the current concept designs. Cultural & Heritage: There are no perceived cultural, heritage or indigenous impacts of the proposal. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: As per the memorandum of understanding between the Geraldton Port Authority and the City of Greater Geraldton. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to s3.18 Performing Executive Functions, of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER the endorsement of the draft concept design; and 2. DEFER public comment on the Eastern Breakwater Project.

Option 3: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to s3.18 Performing Executive Functions, of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. REJECT the draft concept design; and 2. NOT SEEK public comment on the Eastern Breakwater Project.

CONCLUSION:

The Eastern Breakwater has been a major element of the Geraldton Foreshore Project since its inception. The City and the Geraldton Port Authority have worked in collaboration with the community to develop concepts for the Eastern Breakwater over a number of years. These concepts have been amended to achieve what may be considered to be the best value outcome for the community.


93

EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to s3.18 Performing Executive Functions, of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) RESOLVES to:

1. ADOPT Attachment 1 as the Draft Concept Design for the Eastern Breakwater Project as approved by the Minister for Environment dated 18 Aug 2011;

2. ADVISE relevant stakeholders of Council’s decision; and 3. APPROVE the preparation of the detailed design and documentation

in accordance with the Draft Concept Design and calling of tenders for the design and thereafter for the construction of the project.


94

11.6 Reports of Commercial Enterprises

CE013 FUNDING ALLOCATION AND PURCHASE OF MULTI-VIEW X-RAY SECURITY SCREENING SYSTEM FOR PASSENGER HAND LUGGAGE.

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-11469 AUTHOR: B Urquhart, Manager Geraldton Airport EXECUTIVE: B Davis, Director Commercial Enterprises DATE OF REPORT: 02 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: TT/10/0002 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: No

SUMMARY: An amendment is requested to the 2011-12 City of Greater Geraldton budget authorising expenditure of $113,000.00 (ex GST) from the Airport Reserve – to be reimbursed by the Federal Government as part of their commitment for funding security screening equipment for new entry Airports. Geraldton Airport has been provisionally granted $446,000 for its upgrade to date. However recent information suggests legislation will change in the near future requiring a multi–view x-ray system for screening airport passenger hand luggage. The current passenger hand baggage x-ray screening equipment was purchased in 2010 and is a one dimensional x-ray scanning system. Whilst this system meets the current standards, the Office of Transport Security (OTS) have recently advised intended changes to these standards and that the new standard envisages screening carry-on luggage screening by a multi view x-ray including explosive trace detection. Given availability of Federal funding, and to ensure that the current hand luggage x-ray screening facility does not become redundant, it is proposed to purchase the multi view x-ray system in the current financial year. The Federal Department of Transport and Infrastructure has confirmed that a grant funding agreement between the City for Geraldton Airport, and the Department will be increased to allow for reimbursement of an additional $79,500 to upgrade the current one-view system, bringing our total grant to $521,500. Use of funds available from the Airport Reserve in the first instance will enable the purchase to be undertaken. Subsequently, the grant amount of $521,500 will be paid into the Airport Reserve. Rapiscan Systems the supplier of the current equipment have agreed to replace the current passenger hand baggage screening x-ray with the new equipment, meeting OTS requirements, at cost of one hundred and thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000.00) excluding GST.


95

PROPONENT: The proponent is City of Greater Geraldton. BACKGROUND: The Security Screening project at Geraldton Airport was completed in 2010 with the installation of x-ray screening equipment for both passenger checked baggage and passenger hand luggage. The passenger hand luggage x -ray screening equipment purchased was the currently used model with a single dimensional x-ray capability. In June 2011 the Geraldton Airport was approved as a Security Screening Authority by the Federal Office of Transport Security. The approval as a screening authority enabled the commencement of Regular Passenger Jet services to the region and Geraldton’s first International Service connection to Bali, Indonesia via Port Hedland, rather than Bali passengers needing to travel via Perth. The Security Screening accreditation is subject to compliance with standards and operating procedures governed by the Federal Office of Transport Security. From July 2012 the standards for security screening will require the screening of all passengers leaving Geraldton Airport on aircraft with MTOW exceeding 20,000kg. That will include F50 aircraft. The standards for carry-on hand luggage x-ray screening systems are to be amended to include multi-view x-ray and explosive trace detection. To ensure that the screening equipment does not become redundant it is proposed to purchase the system upgrade in the current financial year whilst the grant funding from the Federal Office of Transport and Infrastructure is available for full reimbursement of the system cost. Because the currently installed equipment is relatively new, its replacement by the vendor is able to be undertaken now at a price advantage unlikely to be achieved in 2012 and without further government funding. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: As part of the Airport Master Plan review and update process, during the 2010-11 financial year information and discussion sessions were held with Airport stakeholders. Discussions included the upgrade of the Airport Security rating to that of a Security Screened Authority. There has been no community consultation on the specific issue of upgrading the screening equipment to comply with OTS requirements. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act requires any expenditure not included in the annual budget to be authorised by Absolute Majority. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications.


96

FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: This submission seeks Council approval of an amendment to the 2011-12 Budget to expend $113,000.00 (ex GST) from the Airport Reserve for an upgrade to the passenger hand luggage x-ray screening system to a multi-dimensional system. Of the amount of $113,000, an amount of $79,500 will be reimbursed to the Airport Reserve in addition to the grant of $446,000 currently approved by the Federal Department of Transport and Infrastructure. Net impact on the Airport Reserve is $33,500. Noting that State Government RADS funding enabled the City to undertake the Terminal extension building works necessary to establish a secure departures lounge and accommodate the baggage screening equipment, and that Federal grant funding will cover the acquisition cost of the security equipment, including this upgrade, the City contribution now required is minimal, in effect covering transport and installation costs of the upgrade equipment only. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 3: Opportunities for Prosperity. Outcome 3.1: Geraldton as the major logistics hub of WA. Strategy 3.1.4: Improve linkages nationally through standard gauge

rail to Perth and the national network and the upgrade of the Airport to international capacity.

Outcome 3.3: Geraldton as a leading regional destination Strategy 3.3.4: Facilitate the development of tourism capacity and

product. Outcome 3.4: Geraldton as a major industry and technology centre. Strategy 3.4.2: Develop Geraldton Airport and the Geraldton

Universities Centre technology and enterprise precincts.

Regional Outcomes: Continued development attracting and facilitating expansion and diversity in airline passenger services through Geraldton, and development of Geraldton as a travel destination, will enhance the role of Geraldton Airport as the air transport hub for the Mid West, and will stimulate related economic activity in the services and tourism industries.


97

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no immediate economic impacts from this proposal, other than as noted under Regional Outcomes above. Social: There are no immediate social impacts from this proposal. Environmental: There are no immediate environmental impacts from this proposal. Cultural & Heritage: There are no immediate cultural, heritage, or indigenous impacts from this proposal. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: There are a significant number of precedents in past years of Council authorising unbudgeted expenditures and amending the Budget accordingly, to meet City needs emerging within a financial year, pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995. Where additional grant funds are provided by Federal or State Governments to cover the unbudgeted expenditure, conventional practice by Council has been to authorise the expenditure DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority existing related to this proposal. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Absolute majority is required to amend the budget and authorise the additional expenditure proposed. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOTE the offer of $521,500 grant funding from the Federal Government Department of Transport and Infrastructure for the purchase security screening equipment includes $79,500 for upgrading to a multi view x-ray screening system for passenger hand luggage in the 2011-12 financial year;

2. DECLINE to accept the $79,500.00 grant in 2011-12; 3. REJECT the proposal to provide $113,000.00 additional funds from the

Airport Reserve in 2011-12 to purchase a multi –view x-ray screening system for passenger hand luggage; and


98

4. MAKES the determination based on the following reason: a. To be determined by Council.

CONCLUSION: Support for Option 1, the Executive recommendation, will ensure that the x- ray screening equipment for passenger hand luggage does not become obsolete with the implementation of the expected changes to the screening standards. The purchase of the equipment in the 2011 – 2012 will enable the City to access grant funding $79,500.00 for reimbursement of security equipment from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. APPROVE amendment of the 2011-12 Budget by allocation of $113,000.00 excluding GST from the Airport Reserve for the upgrade purchase of a multi-view x-ray screening system for passenger hand luggage at Geraldton Airport;

2. AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer to accept the offer of additional grant funds of $79,500.00 (excluding GST) from the Federal Government Department of Transport and Infrastructure in 2011-12 for the purposes of purchasing a multi-view x ray screening system for passenger hand luggage at Geraldton Airport by or before 30 June 2012;

3. NOTE that the grant funds from the Federal Government Department of Transport and Infrastructure will be placed into the Airport Reserve; and

4. AUTHORISE the Chief Executive to approve expenditure in 2011-12 of up to $113,000.00 for the purposes of purchasing a multi-view x-ray screening system for passenger hand luggage at Geraldton Airport.


99

CE014 LEASE AGREEMENT BREARLEY TERMINAL - QANTASLINK

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-11472 AUTHOR: L MacLeod, Land and Leasing Facilitator EXECUTIVE: B Davis, Director Commercial Enterprises DATE OF REPORT: 02 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: PM/6/0006 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: Qantas Airways Limited ATTACHMENTS: Yes

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to seek council approval to lease a portion of the Greenough Terminal for the purpose establishing QantasLink check in and associated facilities at the Geraldton Airport.

PROPONENT: The proponent is Qantas Airways Limited. BACKGROUND: Qantas will commence services between Geraldton and Perth on 21 November 2011 operating two flights daily Monday to Friday and one flight per day on weekends. Geraldton will be the 56th destination in their expanding regional network. To enable Qantas to operate from the Geraldton Airport, a check in area and other associated facilities is required. An area was selected for the check in counter at an onsite meeting between with a Qantas representative and the Manager Geraldton Airport. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Should council support the proposal to enter into a lease agreement with Qantas Airways Limited, local public notice inviting submissions on the disposal will be advertised and received for a period of not less than two weeks pursuant to section 3.58 of the Local Government Act. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) – Disposing of Property

Section 3.58: (1) In this section –

“dispose” includes to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, whether absolutely of not; “property” includes the whole or any part of the interest of a local government in property, but does not include money

(3) A local government can dispose of property other than under subsection (2) if, before agreeing to dispose of the property – (a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition –

(i) describing the property concerned; and (ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and


100

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given; and

(b) it considers any submissions made to it before the date specified in the notice and, if its decision is made by the council or a committee, the decision and the reasons for it are recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made.

(4) The details of a proposed disposition that are required by subsection (3)(a)(ii) include —

(a) the names of all other parties concerned; and (b) the consideration to be received by the local government for

the disposition; and (c) the market value of the disposition —

(i) as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition; or

(ii) as declared by a resolution of the local government on the basis of a valuation carried out more than 6 months before the proposed disposition that the local government believes to be a true indication of the value at the time of the proposed disposition.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: An established annual lease fee of $24,243.74 plus GST will be paid quarterly in line with the other major airline currently operating out of the Greenough Terminal. CPI will be applied annually except at the conclusion of the first five (5) year term when a current market revaluation will be conducted to determine the lease fees. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 3: Opportunities for Prosperity. Outcome 3.3: Geraldton as a leading regional destination. Strategy 3.3.3: Establish Geraldton and the Abrolhos Islands as the

capital of Australia’s Coral Coast and leading tourism destination.

Strategy 3.3.4 Facilitate the development of tourism capacity and

product.


101

Regional Outcomes: The introduction of QantasLink will provide the regional community with access to a range of Australian and international destinations by linking them to the extensive Qantas network. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: The introduction of QantasLink will enhance tourism to the Midwest region by providing an alternative airline and flight times that can be linked with QantasLink destinations throughout Australia. Social: There are no social impacts with this proposal. Environmental: There are no environmental impacts with this proposal. Cultural & Heritage: There are no cultural, heritage or indigenous impacts with this proposal. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: The Geraldton Airport leases areas of the Greenough Terminal to commercial airlines. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority existing related to this proposal. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. OPTIONS: Option 1: As per Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. DEFER this item; and 2. MAKES the determination based on the following reason:

a. To be determined by Council.


102


1. GIVE local public notice of the intent to lease 7.35m2 of the Greenough Terminal Lot 363 Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, Moonyoonooka to Qantas Airways Limited for the purpose of a check in counter and shared use of the Baggage Make Up and Take Down Area, staff amenities room and secure lock up storage area for ground handling equipment area;

2. MAKE the determination subject to: a. advertising notice period of no less than two weeks inviting

public submissions; b. any works being subject to, and compliant with any necessary

town planning, building compliance and other relevant statutory approvals;

3. SET the proposed conditions as: a. enter into a five (5) year lease agreement for the lease fee of

$24,243.74 per annum inclusive of GST; b. adjust the lease fees annually as at 1 July in line with the

preceding March Perth Consumer Price Index; c. the lessee being responsible for separately paying all applicable

rates, taxes and other utilities; 4. DELEGATE authority to the CEO to grant approval subject to there

being no objecting submissions received; and 5. REFER the matter back to Council for final consideration if any

objecting submissions are received. CONCLUSION: The establishment of Qantas Airlines Limited at the Geraldton Airport will provide access to Australia’s largest regional airline and provide ongoing employment for the local community. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. GIVE local public notice of the intent to lease 7.35m2 of the Greenough Terminal Lot 363 Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, Moonyoonooka to Qantas Airways Limited for the purpose of a check in counter and shared use of the Baggage Make Up and Take Down Area, staff amenities room and secure lock up storage area for ground handling equipment area;

2. MAKE the determination subject to: a. advertising notice period of no less than two weeks inviting

public submissions; b. any works being subject to, and compliant with any necessary

town planning, building compliance and other relevant statutory approvals;

3. SET the proposed conditions as:


103

a. enter into a five (5) year lease agreement with a further term of five (5) years for the lease fee of $24,243.74 per annum inclusive of GST;

b. adjust the lease fees annually as at 1 July in line with the preceding March Perth Consumer Price Index except at the commencement of the further term option at which time a current commercial valuation will be conducted and the lease fees adjusted accordingly;

c. the lessee being responsible for separately paying all applicable rates, taxes and other utilities;

4. DELEGATE authority to the CEO to grant approval subject to there being no objecting submissions received; and

5. REFER the matter back to Council for final consideration if any objecting submissions are received.


104

CE015 ADOPTION IN PRINCIPAL OF THE GERALDTON AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TO ENABLE PUBLIC RELEASE AND ADVERTISING FOR STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT.

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12050 AUTHOR: B Urquhart , Manager Geraldton Airport EXECUTIVE: B Davis, Director Commercial Enterprises DATE OF REPORT: 06 September 2011 FILE REFERENCE: TT/3/0001 APPLICANT / PROPONENT: City of Greater Geraldton ATTACHMENTS: Yes, Confidential

SUMMARY: The object of this report is to seek endorsement in principal by Council of the proposed Geraldton Airport Master Plan, and authorisation by Council for the public release and advertising of the proposed Plan for stakeholder and public comment.

PROPONENT: The proponent is the City of Greater Geraldton BACKGROUND: During 2010-11, a project was initiated to review and update the Geraldton Airport Master Plan. Progress with the review and update project to 30 August 2011 is as follows:

A preliminary draft new airport master plan was prepared by the consultants, and examined by senior City staff. In early June 2011, comments and suggestions for additions/changes were returned to the consultant for amendment of the draft.

Noise assessments and mapping have been conducted in relation to the development scenario of a new 2600m airstrip (as previously agreed by Council when authorising the procurement of additional land for the airport during 2010-11) with B787 aircraft designated as the ‘design aircraft’.

Obstacle height limitation surveys have been conducted in relation to the development scenario for a new 2600m airstrip parallel to the existing runway.

A final review of the plan has been conducted by City officers.

If the plan is endorsed in principal by council a minimum period of two months is envisaged for a stakeholder and community consultation phase.

After the public comment and consultation process, the proposed Master Plan will be put to Council for formal adoption.

As a standard part of Airport Master Plan review and update processes, the standard and capacity of airport facilities is reviewed and compared with industry capacity/capability benchmarks, in the context of current activity data and trends, and forecast airport activity levels. Data on aircraft movements


105

and schedules, and passenger numbers, informs this process. As well, intentions of existing and potential passenger carriers are canvassed. New business potential (for example air freight) is also considered. The process identifies airside facility development needs (such as apron areas, aircraft refuelling capabilities and so on) and future capacity and development needs for the Terminals – in this case covering both RPT and GA operations. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: As part of the Airport Master Plan review and update process, during the 2010-11 financial year information and discussion sessions were held with Airport stakeholders. Information gained from those sessions has informed the review process. Further consultation with airport stakeholders and the community will occur after a draft proposed new master plan is endorsed for that purpose by Council. This will occur during the September- November period. COUNCILLOR CONSULTATION: Councillors were invited to participate in the Airport stakeholder information and discussion sessions, run by the consultants undertaking the Master Plan review and update process. A number of Councillors chose to attend and participate. Further consultation will occur as the process progresses. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no statutory implications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy implications. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no immediate financial and budget implications. Financial and budget implications will be addressed in a later submission to Council, when seeking endorsement of a final version of the Master Plan, following the stakeholder and community consultation process proposed in this report. STRATEGIC & REGIONAL OUTCOMES: Strategic & Plan for the Future Outcomes: Key Result Area 3: Opportunities for Prosperity. Outcome 3.1: Geraldton as the major logistics hub of WA. Strategy 3.1.4: Improve linkages nationally through standard gauge

rail to Perth and the national network and the upgrade of the Airport to international capacity.

Outcome 3.3: Geraldton as a leading regional destination


106

Strategy 3.3.4: Facilitate the development of tourism capacity and product.

Outcome 3.4: Geraldton as a major industry and technology centre. Strategy 3.4.2: Develop Geraldton Airport and the Geraldton

Universities Centre technology and enterprise precincts.

Regional Outcomes: There are no immediate regional outcomes. However, looking forward, development of a framework for attracting and facilitating expansion and diversity in airline passenger services through Geraldton, and development of Geraldton as a travel destination, will enhance the role of Geraldton Airport as the air transport hub for the Mid West, and will stimulate related economic activity in the services and tourism industries. The recent study of Geraldton-based commercial organisations already or potentially providing FIFO professional and technical services into the Pilbara illustrates the growing demand for enhanced air services. The potential for Geraldton as a home base for FIFO employees of Pilbara and Kimberley resource industry companies – as a more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable model than flying workers from the east coast or the south west – relies on enhancing the capacity of the airport for growth in both charter and RPT services, and developing diversity and extension of carrier services. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL ISSUES: Economic: There are no immediate economic impacts from this proposal, other than as noted under Regional Outcomes above. Social: There are no immediate social impacts from this proposal. Environmental: There are no immediate environmental impacts from this proposal. Environmental and associated urban planning implications will be addressed in a later submission to Council, when seeking endorsement of a final version of the Master Plan, following the stakeholder and community consultation process proposed in this report. Cultural & Heritage: There are no immediate cultural, heritage, or indigenous impacts from this proposal.


107

RELEVANT PRECEDENTS: Past updates of the airport master planning have included appropriate stakeholder and community consultation. Consistent with past practice, this submission seeks Council authority to release a proposed plan for stakeholder and community consultation purposes. DELEGATED AUTHORITY: There is no delegated authority existing related to this proposal. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: A Simple Majority is required OPTIONS: Option 1: As per the Executive Recommendation in this report. Option 2: That Council by Simple Majority pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOTE the progress to date of the Geraldton Airport Master Plan review and update process;

2. REJECT the proposal to endorse the Geraldton Airport Master Plan in principal for the purpose of public release and advertising for stakeholder and public comment; and

3. MAKES the determination based on the following reason: a. To be determined by Council.

CONCLUSION: Support for Option 1, the Executive recommendation, will enable conduct of additional work associated with the review and update of the Geraldton Airport Master Plan and Business Plan, made necessary by the rapidly changing commercial and operational context of the airport. Stakeholder and community consultation is considered essential, and this report seeks Council endorsement of the proposed plan for that purpose. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Absolute Majority pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to:

1. NOTE the progress to date of the Geraldton Airport Master Plan and review and update process;

2. ENDORSE the Proposed Geraldton Airport Master Plan for the purposes of release for stakeholder and community consultation;

3. AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer to approve the public release and advertising of the Geraldton Airport Master Plan for stakeholder and public comment to be sought over a period of two months from the date of advertising; and


108

4. REQUIRE a report to Council, before 28 February 2012 and following consideration of stakeholder and community submissions, with recommendations for adoption of a new Geraldton Airport Master Plan.


109

11.7 Reports to be Received

REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED

AGENDA REFERENCE: D-11-12140 AUTHOR: A Brun, Chief Executive

Officer DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: No FILE REFERENCE: GO/0028 DATE OF REPORT: 6 September 2011

BACKGROUND: Information and items for noting or receiving (i.e. periodic reports, minutes of other meetings) are to be included in an appendix attached to the Council agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENT: The following reports are attached in the Appendix to this agenda:

CS023 Draft City of Greater Geraldton Strategic Community Plan

CS024 Accounts Paid Under CEO Delegation for July 11

CS025 Accounts Paid Under CEO Delegation for August 11

CS026 Financial Statements for July and August 11

CC014 Australia Day Meeting Minutes

SCD056 Delegated Determinations & Subdivision Applications

CE016 FORC Minutes - Regional Councils 15 August 2011

CONSULTATION: Not applicable. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT: Not applicable. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple majority is required. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: That Council by Simple Majority RESOLVES to RECEIVE the appended reports attached to this agenda. COUNCIL DECISION


110

12 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE

HAS BEEN GIVEN

13 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

14 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY PRESIDING MEMBER OR BY DECISION OF THE MEETING

15 CLOSURE


111

APPENDIX 1 – ATTACHMENTS AND REPORTS TO BE RECEIVED Attachments and Reports to be Received are available on the City of Greater Geraldton website at: http://cgg.wa.gov.au/your-council/meetings

http://cgg.wa.gov.au/your-council/meetings


112

ANNEX 1 - CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2007

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995

CITY OF GERALDTON-GREENOUGH

STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2007 Under the powers conferred by the Local

Government Act 1995 and under all other powers enabling it, the Council of the City of Geraldton-

Greenough, resolved on the 27 November 2007 to make the following local law.

PART 1-PRELIMINARY

1.1 Citation

(1) This Local Law may be cited as the City of Geraldton-Greenough Standing Orders Local Law 2007.

(2) In the clauses to follow, this Local Law is referred to as "the Standing Orders."

1.2 Application

All meetings of the Council or a committee and other matters as prescribed are to be conducted in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and these Standing Orders.

1.3 Interpretation

(1) In these Standing Orders unless the context otherwise requires:

“Act” means the Local Government Act 1995 as amended; "CEO" means the Chief Executive Officer or Acting Chief Executive Officer for the time being of the City of Geraldton-Greenough; "committee" means a committee of Council described in section 5.9 of the Act and appointed under section 5.10 of the Act; “conflict of interest” means any conflict between the performance of public duty and private or personal interests that may be described in the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007; "Council" means the Council of the City of Geraldton-Greenough; "presiding member" means the presiding member of a Council committee or meeting, or the deputy presiding member or a member of the committee when performing a function of the presiding member in accordance with the Act; "Regulations" means the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996; and "substantive motion" means an original motion or an original motion as amended, but does not include an amendment or a procedural motion.

(2) Unless otherwise defined herein the terms and expressions used in the Standing Orders are to have the meaning given to them in the Act and Regulations.

1.4 Repeal

The City of Geraldton Standing Orders Local Law as published in the Government Gazette on 22 June 1999 and as amended and published in the Government Gazette on the 1 April 2005 is repealed.

PART 2-BUSINESS OF THE MEETING

2.1 Business to be specified on notice paper

(1) No business is to be transacted at any ordinary meeting of the Council or committee other than that specified in the agenda, without the approval of the presiding member or a decision of the Council. (2) No business is to be transacted at a special meeting of the Council other than that given in the notice as the purpose of the meeting. (3) No business is to be transacted at an adjourned meeting of the Council or a committee other than that –

(a) specified in the notice of the meeting which had been adjourned; and (b) which remains unresolved; except in the case of an adjournment to the next ordinary meeting of the Council or the committee, when the business unresolved at the adjourned meeting is to have precedence at that ordinary meeting.

2.2 Order of business

(1) Unless otherwise decided by the Council the order of business at any ordinary meeting of the Council is to be as follows –

(a) Declaration of opening; (b) Record of attendance/apologies/leave of absence (previously approved); (c) Response to previous public questions taken on notice; (d) Public question time; (e) Applications for leave of absence; (f) Petitions, deputations or presentations; (g) Declarations of conflicts of interest; (h) Confirmation of minutes of previous meetings; (i) Announcements by presiding member without discussion; (j) Reports of committee and officers; (k) Elected members motions of which previous notice has been given; (l) Questions by members of which due notice has been given; (m) New business of an urgent nature authorised by the presiding member; (n) Closure of meeting.

(2) Unless otherwise decided by the members present, the order of business at any special meeting of the Council or at a committee meeting is to be the order in which that business stands in the agenda of the meeting. (3) Notwithstanding subclauses (1) and (2) in the order of business for any meeting of the Council or a committee, the provisions of the Act and Regulations relating to the time at which public question time is to be held are to be observed. (4) Notwithstanding subclause (1), the CEO may include on the agenda of a Council or committee meeting in an appropriate place within the order of business any matter which must be decided, or which he or she considers is appropriately decided, by that meeting. (5) Notwithstanding subclause (1), the Council may include on the agenda of a Council or committee meeting in an appropriate place within the order of business provision for matters which it considers appropriate for a committee or Council to deal with at its meetings.

2.3 Public question time


113

(1) A member of the public who raises a question during question time is to state his or her name and address. (2) A question may be taken on notice by the Council or committee for later response. (3) When a question is taken on notice under subclause (2) a response is to be given to the member of the public in writing by the CEO, and a copy is to be included in the agenda of the next meeting of the Council or committee as the case requires.

2.4 Petitions

A petition, in order to be effective, is to - (a) be addressed to the Mayor; (b) be made by electors of the district; (c) state the request on each page of the petition; (d) contain the names, addresses and signatures of the electors making the request, and the date each elector signed; (e) contain a summary of the reasons for the request; (f) state the name of the person upon whom, and an address at which, notice to the petitioners can be given; (g) be in the form prescribed by the Act and Local Government (Constitution) Regulations 1996 if it is -

(i) a proposal to change the method of filling the office of Mayor; (ii) a proposal to create a new district or the boundaries of the Local Government; (iii) a request for a poll on a recommended amalgamation; (iv) a submission about changes to wards, the name of a district or ward or the number of councillors for a district or ward.

2.5 Deputations

(1) A deputation requesting to meet the Council or a committee is to apply in writing to the CEO who is to forward the written request to the Mayor or the Presiding Member as the case may be. (2) The Mayor if the request is to attend a Council meeting, or the Presiding Member of the committee, if the request is to attend a meeting of a committee, may either approve the request, in which event the CEO is to invite the deputation to attend a meeting of the Council or committee as the case may be, or may instruct the CEO to refer the request to the Council or committee to decide by simple majority whether or not to receive the deputation. (3) A deputation invited to attend a Council or committee meeting;

(a) is not to exceed three persons, only two of whom may address the Council or committee, although others may respond to specific questions from the members; and (b) is not to address the Council or committee for a period exceeding 10 minutes without the agreement of the Council or the committee as the case requires.

(4) Any matter which is the subject of a deputation to the Council or a committee is not to be decided by the Council or that committee until the deputation has completed its presentation.

2.6 Confirmation of minutes

(1) When minutes of a meeting are submitted to an ordinary meeting of the Council or committee for confirmation, if a member is dissatisfied with the accuracy of the minutes, then he or she is to –

(a) state the item or items with which he or she is dissatisfied; and (b) propose a motion clearly outlining the alternative wording to amend the minutes.

(2) Discussion of any minutes, other than discussion as to their accuracy as a record of the proceedings, is not permitted.

2.7 Announcements by the presiding member without discussion

(1) At any meeting of the Council or a committee the presiding member may announce or raise any matter of interest or relevance to the business of the Council or committee, or propose a change to the order of business. (2) Any member may move that a change in order of business proposed by the presiding member not be accepted and if carried by a majority of members present, the proposed change in order is not to take place.

2.8 Motions of which previous notice has been given

(1) Unless the Act, Regulations or these Standing Orders otherwise provide, a member may raise at a meeting such business as he or she considers appropriate, in the form of a motion, of which notice has been given in writing to the CEO. (2) A notice of motion under subclause (1) is to be given at least four (4) clear working days before the meeting at which the motion is moved. (3) A notice of motion is to relate to the good government of persons in the district. (4) The CEO may under his or her own name provide relevant and material facts, circumstances and professional advice pertaining to the notice of motion and may provide recommendations to Council or committee on how it should deal with theses matters. (5) No notice of motion is to be out of order because the policy involved is considered to be objectionable. (6) A motion of which notice has been given is to lapse unless -

(a) the member who gave notice thereof, or some other member authorised by him or her in writing moves the motion when called on; or (b) the Council on a motion agrees to defer consideration of the motion to a later stage or date.

(7) If a notice of motion is given and lapses in the circumstances referred to in subclause (6)(a), notice of motion in the same terms or the same effect is not to be given again for at least 3 months from the date of such lapse unless supported by an absolute majority of Council.

2.9 Questions by members of which due notice has been given.

(1) A question on notice is to be given by a member in writing to the CEO at least four (4) clear working days before the meeting at which it is raised. (2) If the question referred to in subclause (1) is in order, the answer is, so far as is practicable, to be included in written form in the agenda of the meeting, or otherwise tabled at that meeting. (3) Every question and answer is to be submitted as briefly and concisely as possible and no discussion is to be allowed thereon, unless with the consent of the presiding member.

2.10 Urgent business approved by the presiding member or by decision

In cases of extreme urgency or other special circumstance, matters may, with the consent of the presiding member, or by decision of the members


114

present, be raised without notice and decided by the meeting.

2.11 Matters for which meeting may be closed

Any matter on the agenda of the meeting to be discussed “behind closed doors” is to be deferred for consideration as the last item of the meeting unless otherwise resolved by Council.

PART 3-PUBLIC ACCESS TO AGENDA

MATERIAL

3.1 Inspection entitlement

Members of the public have access to agenda material in the terms set out in Regulation 14 of the Regulations.

3.2 Confidentiality of information withheld

(1) Information withheld by the CEO from members of the public under Regulation 14.2, of the Regulations, is to be -

(a) identified in the agenda of a Council or committee meeting under the item "Matters for which meeting may be closed to the public"; (b) marked "confidential" in the agenda; and (c) recorded in the minutes that, "a decision was reached which being confidential in nature will be considered separately in full Council."

(2) A member of the Council or a committee or an employee of the Council in receipt of confidential information is not to disclose such information to any person other than a member of the Council or the committee or an employee of the Council to the extent necessary for the purpose of carrying out his or her duties. Penalty $5,000

PART 4-DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF

INTERESTS

4.1 Separation of committee recommendations

Where a member of the Council has disclosed an interest in a matter, at a committee meeting, and the matter is contained in the recommendations of the committee to an ordinary meeting of Council or to another committee meeting that will be attended by the member, the recommendation concerned is to be separated on the agenda of that ordinary meeting or other committee meeting, from other recommendations of the committee, to enable the member concerned to declare the interest and leave the room prior to consideration of that matter only.

4.2 Member with an interest may ask to be present

(1) Where a member has disclosed the nature of his or her interest in a matter, immediately before the matter is considered by the meeting, he or she may, without disclosing the extent of the interest, request that he or she be allowed to be present during any discussion or decision making procedure related to the matter. (2) If such a request is made, the member is to leave the room while the request is considered. If the request is allowed by the members, the member may return to the meeting and be present during the discussion or decision making procedure related to that matter, but is not permitted to participate in any way.

4.3 Member with an interest may ask permission to participate

(1) A member who discloses both the nature and extent of an interest, may request permission to take part in the consideration or discussion of the matter, or to vote on the matter. (2) If such a request is made, the member is to leave the room while the request is considered. If it is decided at a meeting that a member who has disclosed both the nature and extent of an interest in a matter, be permitted to participate in the consideration and discussion of the matter or to vote on the matter, or both, then the member may return to participate to the extent permitted.

4.4 Invitation to return to provide information

Where a member has disclosed an interest in a matter and has left the room in accordance with the Act, the meeting may resolve to invite the member to return to provide information in respect of the matter or in respect of the member’s interest in the matter and in such case the member is to withdraw after providing the information.

4.5 Disclosures by employees

(1) If an employee within the meaning of section 5.70 of the Act, presents a written report to a meeting, on a matter in which the employee has an interest, the nature of the interest is to be disclosed at the commencement of the report. (2) If such an employee makes a verbal report to a meeting on a matter in which the employee has an interest, the employee is to preface his or her advice to the meeting by verbally disclosing the nature of the interest.

PART 5-QUORUM

5.1 Quorum to be Present

The Council or a committee is not to transact business at a meeting unless a quorum is present.

5.2 Loss of quorum during a meeting

(1) If at any time during the course of a meeting of the Council or a committee a quorum is not present -

(a) in relation to a particular matter because of a member or members leaving the meeting after disclosing a financial interest, the matter is adjourned until either -

(i) a quorum is present to decide the matter; or (ii) the Minister allows a disclosing member or members to preside at the meeting or to participate in discussions or the decision making procedures relating to the matter under section 5.69 of the Act; or

(b) because of a member or members leaving the meeting for reasons other than disclosure of a financial interest, the presiding member is to suspend the proceedings of the meeting for a period of up to thirty minutes, and if a quorum is not present at the end of that time, the meeting is deemed to have been adjourned and the presiding member is to reschedule it to some future time or date having regard to the period of notice which needs to be given under the Act, Regulations, or the Standing Orders when calling a meeting of that type.

(2) Where debate on a motion is interrupted by an adjournment under subclause (1)(b) -

(a) the debate is to be resumed at the next meeting at the point where it was so interrupted; and


115

(b) in the case of a Council meeting (i) the names of members who have spoken on the matter prior to the adjournment are to be recorded in the minutes; and (ii) the provisions of clause 8.5 apply when the debate is resumed.

PART 6-KEEPING OF MINUTES

6.1 Content of minutes

In addition to the matters contained in Regulation 11 of the Regulations, the content of minutes of a meeting of the Council or a committee is to include, where an application for approval is declined or the authorisation of a licence, permit, or certificate is otherwise withheld or cancelled, the reasons for the decision.

6.2 Preservation of minutes

Minutes including the agenda of each Council and committee meeting are to be kept as a permanent record of the activities of the local government and are to be transferred to the State Records Office, being a directorate of the Library and Information Service of Western Australia, in accordance with the retention and disposal policy determined by that office from time to time.

PART 7-CONDUCT OF PERSONS AT COUNCIL

AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS

7.1 Official titles to be used

Members of the Council are to speak of each other in the Council or committee by their respective titles of Mayor or councillor. Members of the Council, in speaking of or addressing employees, are to designate them by their respective official titles.

7.2 Members to occupy own seats

At the first meeting held after each ordinary elections day, the CEO is to allot by random draw, a position at the Council table to each councillor and the councillor is to occupy that position when present at meetings of the Council until such time as there is a call by a majority of councillors for a re-allotment of positions.

7.3 Leaving meetings

During the course of a meeting of the Council or a committee no member is to enter or leave the meeting without first advising the presiding member, in order to facilitate the recording in the minutes of the time of entry or departure.

7.4 Adverse reflection

(1) No member of the Council or a committee is to reflect adversely upon a decision of the Council or committee except on a motion that the decision be revoked or changed. Penalty $1,000 (2) No member of the Council or a committee is to use offensive or objectionable expressions in reference to any member, employee of the Council, or any other person. (3) If a member of the Council or committee specifically requests, immediately after their use, that any particular words used by a member be recorded in the minutes, the presiding member is to cause the words used to be taken down and read to the meeting for verification and to then be recorded in the minutes.

7.5 Recording of proceedings

(1) No person is to use any electronic, visual or vocal recording device or instrument to record the

proceedings of the Council or a committee without the written permission of the Council. (2) Subclause (1) does not apply if the record is taken by or at the direction of the CEO, with the permission of the Council or committee.

7.6 Prevention of disturbance

(1) Any member of the public addressing the Council or a committee is to extend due courtesy and respect to the Council or committee and the processes under which they operate and must take direction from the presiding member whenever called upon to do so. Penalty $1,000 (2) No person observing a meeting, is to create a disturbance at a meeting, by interrupting or interfering with the proceedings, whether by expressing approval or dissent, by conversing or by any other means. Penalty $1,000 (3) Members and members of the public are not to use or have turned on mobile phones or paging devices without the approval of the presiding member.

PART 8-CONDUCT OF MEMBERS DURING

DEBATE

8.1 Members to indicate they wish to speak

Every member of the Council wishing to speak is to indicate by a show of hands or other method agreed upon by the Council. When invited by the presiding member to speak, members are to address the Council through the presiding member.

8.2 Priority

In the event of two or more members of the Council or a committee wishing to speak at the same time, the presiding member is to decide which member is entitled to be heard first. The decision is not open to discussion or dissent.

8.3 The presiding member to take part in debates

Unless otherwise prohibited by the Act, and subject to compliance with procedures for the debate of motions contained in these Standing Orders, the presiding member may take part in a discussion of any matter before the Council or committee as the case may be.

8.4 Relevance

Every member of the Council or a committee is to restrict his or her remarks to the motion or amendment under discussion, or to a personal explanation or point of order.

8.5 Limitation of number of speeches

No member of the Council is to address the Council more than once on any motion or amendment before the Council except the mover of a substantive motion, in reply, or to a point of order, or in explanation.

8.6 Limitation of duration of speeches

All addresses are to be limited to a maximum of five minutes. Extension of time is permissible only with the agreement of the presiding member.

8.7 Members not to speak after conclusion of debate

No member of the Council or a committee is to speak to any question after the right of reply has been exercised or declined.


116

8.8 Members not to interrupt

No member of the Council or a committee is to interrupt another member of the Council or committee whilst speaking unless:

(a) to raise a point of order; (b) to call attention to the absence of a quorum; (c) to make a personal explanation under clause 9.14; or (d) to move a motion under clause 10(1)(f).

8.9 Re-opening discussion on decisions

No member of the Council or a committee is to re-open discussion on any decision of the Council or committee, except for the purpose of moving that the decision be revoked or changed.

PART 9-PROCEDURES FOR DEBATE OF

MOTIONS

9.1 Motions to be stated

Any member of the Council or a committee who moves a substantive motion or amendment to a substantive motion is to state the substance of the motion before speaking to it.

9.2 Motions to be supported

No motion or amendment to a substantive motion is open to debate until it has been seconded, or, in the case of a motion to revoke or change the decision made at a Council or a committee meeting, unless the motion has the support required under Regulation 10 of the Regulations.

9.3 Unopposed business

(1) Upon a motion being moved and seconded, the presiding member may ask the meeting if any member opposes it. (2) If no member signifies opposition to the motion the presiding member may declare the motion in subclause (1) carried without debate and without taking a vote on it. (3) A motion carried under subclause (2) is to be recorded in the minutes as a unanimous decision of the Council or committee. (4) If a member signifies opposition to a motion the motion is to be dealt with according to this Part. (5) This clause does not apply to any motion or decision to revoke or change a decision which has been made at a Council or committee meeting.

9.4 Only one substantive motion considered

When a substantive motion is under debate at any meeting of the Council or a committee, no further substantive motion is to be accepted.

9.5 Breaking down of complex questions

The presiding member may order a complex question to be broken down and put in the form of several motions, which are to be put in sequence.

9.6 Order of call in debate

The presiding member is to call speakers to a substantive motion in the following order:

(a) The mover to state the motion; (b) A seconder to the motion; (c) The mover to speak to the motion; (d) The seconder to speak to, or reserve the right to speak to the motion; (e) A speaker against the motion; (f) A speaker for the motion; (g) Other speakers against and for the motion, alternating in view, if any;

(h) Mover takes right of reply which closes debate.

9.7 Member may require questions to be read

Any member may require the question or matter under discussion to be read at any time during a debate, but not so as to interrupt any other member whilst speaking.

9.8 Consent of member required to accept alteration of wording

The mover of a substantive motion may not alter the wording of the motion without the consent of the seconder.

9.9 Order of amendments

Any number of amendments may be proposed to a motion, but when an amendment is moved to a substantive motion, no second or subsequent amendment is to be moved or considered until the first amendment has been withdrawn or lost.

9.10 Amendments must not negate original motion

No amendment to a motion can be moved which negates the original motion or the intent of the original motion.

9.11 Substantive motion

If an amendment to a substantive motion is carried, the motion as amended then becomes the substantive motion, on which any member may speak and any further amendment may be moved.

9.12 Withdrawal of motion and amendments

Council or a committee may, without debate, grant leave to withdraw a motion or amendment upon request of the mover of the motion or amendment and with the approval of the seconder provided that there is no voice expressed to the contrary view by any member, in which case discussion on the motion or amendment is to continue.

9.13 Limitation of withdrawal

Where an amendment has been proposed to a substantive motion, the substantive motion is not to be withdrawn, except by consent of the majority of members present, until the amendment proposed has been withdrawn or lost.

9.14 Personal explanation

No member is to speak at any meeting of the Council or a committee, except upon the matter before the Council or committee, unless it is to make a personal explanation. Any member of the Council or committee who is permitted to speak under these circumstances is to confine the observations to a succinct statement relating to a specific part of the former speech which may have been misunderstood. When a member of the Council or committee rises to explain, no reference is to be made to matters unnecessary for that purpose.

9.15 Personal explanation - when heard

A member of the Council or a committee wishing to make a personal explanation of matters referred to by any member of the Council or committee then speaking, is entitled to be heard immediately, if the member of the Council or committee then speaking consents at the time, but if the member of the Council or committee who is speaking declines to give way, the explanation is to be offered at the conclusion of that speech.


117

9.16 Ruling on questions of personal explanation

The ruling of the presiding member on the admissibility of a personal explanation is final unless a motion of dissent with the ruling is moved before any other business proceeds.

9.17 Right of reply

(1) The mover of a substantive motion has the right of reply. After the mover of the substantive motion has commenced the reply, no other member is to speak on the question. (2) The right of reply is to be confined to rebutting arguments raised by previous speakers and no new matter is to be introduced.

9.18 Right of reply provisions

The right of reply is governed by the following provisions:

(a) if no amendment is moved to the substantive motion, the mover may reply at the conclusion of the discussion on the motion; (b) if an amendment is moved to the substantive motion the mover of the substantive motion is to take the right of reply at the conclusion of the vote on any amendments; (c) the mover of any amendment does not have a right of reply; (d) once the right of reply has been taken, there can be no further discussion, nor any other amendment and the original motion or the original motion as amended is immediately put to the vote.

9.19 En bloc motions

When dealing with each report in Council, the presiding member shall highlight items within the reports that require absolute or special majority approvals or are items where members or attending officers have declared an interest. The presiding member then invites members to identify other items they wish to deal with individually including items they wish to have amended or may want clarification on. The presiding member then invites an en bloc motion to adopt the recommendations for the remaining items. The minutes shall record at the end of each report item that they were adopted by the en bloc method.

PART 10-PROCEDURAL MOTIONS

10.1 Permissible procedural motions

In addition to proposing a properly worded amendment to a substantive motion, it is permissible for a member to move the following procedural motions:

(a) that the matter be moved back to Committee; (b) that the Council (or committee) proceed to the next business; (c) that the question be adjourned; (d) that the Council (or committee) now adjourn; (e) that the question be now put; (f) that the member be no longer heard; (g) that the ruling of the presiding member be disagreed with; (h) that the Council (or committee) meet behind closed doors, if the meeting or part of the meeting to which the motion relates is a matter in respect of which the meeting may be closed to members of the public under section 5.23 of the Act.

(i) that the council move to committee

10.2 No debate on procedural motions

(1) The mover of a motion stated in each of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (h) and (i) of clause 10.1 may speak to the motion for not more than five minutes, the seconder is not to speak other than to formally second the motion, and there is to be no debate on the motion. (2) The mover of a motion stated in each of paragraphs (e) and (f) of Clause 10.1 may not speak to the motion, the seconder is not to speak other than to formally second the motion, and there is to be no debate on the motion.

10.3 Procedural motions - closing debate - who may move

No person who has moved, seconded, or spoken for or against the substantive motion, or any amendment may move any procedural motion which, if carried, would close the debate on the substantive motion or amendment.

10.4 Procedural motions - right of reply on substantive motion

The carrying of a procedural motion which closes debate on the substantive motion or amendment and forces a decision on the substantive motion or amendment does not deny the right of reply to the mover of the substantive motion.

PART 11-EFFECT OF PROCEDURAL MOTIONS

11.1 Matter be moved back to committee – effect of motion

The motion "that the matter be moved back to Committee," if carried, causes the debate to cease immediately and for the Council (or Committee) to move to the next business of the meeting enables the matter to be addressed by originating committee.

11.2 Council move to committee – effect of motion

The motion “that Council move back to committee” enables the matter to be discussed without the limitation on the number of speeches.

11.3 Council (or committee) to proceed to the next business - effect of motion

The motion "that the Council (or committee) proceed to the next business", if carried, causes the debate to cease immediately and for the Council (or committee) to move to the next business of the meeting. No decision will be made on the substantive motion being discussed, nor is there any requirement for the matter to be again raised for consideration.

11.4 Question to be adjourned - effect of motion

(1) The motion "that the question be adjourned", if carried, causes all debate on the substantive motion or amendment to cease but to continue at a time stated in the motion. (2) If the motion is carried at a meeting of the Council -

(a) the names of members who have spoken on the matter are to be recorded in the minutes; and (b) the provisions of clause 8.5 apply when the debate is resumed.

11.5 Council (or committee) to now adjourn - effect of motion

(1) The motion "that the Council (or committee) now adjourn", if carried, causes the meeting to stand adjourned until it is re-opened at which time the meeting continues from the point at which it was


118

adjourned, unless the presiding member or a simple majority of members upon vote, determine otherwise. (2) Where debate on a motion is interrupted by an adjournment under subclause (1) -

(a) the debate is to be resumed at the next meeting at the point where it was so interrupted; and (b) in the case of a Council meeting

(i) the names of members who have spoken on the matter prior to the adjournment are to be recorded in the minutes; and (ii) the provisions of clause 8.5 apply when the debate is resumed.

11.6 Question to be put - effect of motion

(1) The motion "that the question be now put", if carried during discussion of a substantive motion without amendment, causes the presiding member to offer the right of reply and then immediately put the matter under consideration without further debate. (2) This motion, if carried during discussion of an amendment, causes the presiding member to put the amendment to the vote without further debate. (3) This motion, if lost, causes debate to continue.

11.7 Member to be no longer heard - effect of motion

The motion "that the member be no longer heard", if carried, causes the presiding member to not allow the speaker against whom the motion has been moved to speak to the current substantive motion or any amendment relating to it, except to exercise the right of reply if the person is the mover of the substantive motion.

11.8 Ruling of the presiding member disagreed with - effect of motion

The motion "that the ruling of the presiding member be disagreed with", if carried, causes the ruling of the presiding member about which this motion was moved, to have no effect and for the meeting to proceed accordingly.

11.9 Council (or committee) to meet behind closed doors - effect of motion

(1) Subject to any deferral under clause 2.11 or other decision of the Council or committee, this motion, if carried, causes the general public and any officer or employee the Council or committee determines, to leave the room. (2) While a decision made under this clause is in force the operation of clause 8.5 limiting the number of speeches a member of the Council may make, is suspended unless the Council decides otherwise. (3) Upon the public again being admitted to the meeting the presiding member, unless the Council or committee decides otherwise, is to cause the motions passed by the Council or committee whilst it was proceeding behind closed doors to be read out including the vote of a member or members to be recorded in the minutes under section 5.21 of the Act. (4) A person who is a Council member, a committee member, or an employee is not to publish, or make public any of the discussion taking place on a matter discussed behind closed doors, but this prohibition does not extend to the actual decision made as a result of such discussion and other information properly recorded in the minutes. Penalty $5,000

11.10 Question - when put

When the debate upon any question is concluded and the right of reply has been exercised the presiding member shall immediately put the question to the Council or the committee, and, if so desired by any member of the Council or committee, shall again state it.

11.11 Question - method of putting

If a decision of the Council or a committee is unclear or in doubt, the presiding member shall put the motion or amendment as often as necessary to determine the decision from a show of hands or other method agreed upon so that no voter’s vote is secret, before declaring the decision.

PART 12-MAKING DECISIONS

12.1 Question – when put

When the debate upon any question is concluded and the right or reply has been exercised the presiding member shall immediately put the question to the Council or the committee, and, if so desired by any member of the Council or committee, shall again state it.

12.2 Question – method of putting

If a decision of the Council or a committee is unclear or in doubt, the presiding member shall put the motion or amendment as often as necessary to determine the decision from a show of hands or other method agreed upon so that no voter’s vote is secret, before declaring the decision.

PART 13-IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

13.1 Implementation of a decision

(1) If a notice of motion to revoke or change a decision of the Council or a committee is received before any action has been taken to implement that decision, then no steps are to be taken to implement or give effect to that decision until such time as the motion of revocation or change has been dealt with, except that -

(a) if a notice of motion to revoke or change a decision of the Council or a committee is given during the same meeting at which the decision was made, the notice of motion is of no effect unless the number of members required to support the motion under Regulation 10 of the Regulations indicate their support for the notice of motion at that meeting; and (b) if a notice of motion to revoke or change a decision of the Council or a committee is received after the closure of the meeting at which the decision was made, implementation of the decision is not to be withheld unless the notice of motion has the support in writing, of the number of members required to support the motion under Regulation 10 of the Regulations; and (c) if a motion to the same effect as any motion which has been negated by the Council shall not again be entertained within a period of three months, except with the consent of an absolute majority.

(2) Implementation of a decision is only to be withheld under subclause (1) if the effect of the change proposed in a notice of motion would be that the decision would be revoked or would become substantially different. (3) The Council or a committee shall not vote on a motion to revoke or change a decision of the


119

Council or committee whether the motion of revocation or change is moved with or without notice, if at the time the motion is moved or notice is given:-

(a) action has been taken to implement the decision; or (b) where the decision concerns the issue of an approval or the authorisation of a licence, permit or certificate, and where that approval or authorisation of a licence, permit or certificate has been put into effect by the Council in writing to the applicant or the applicant’s agent by an employee of the Council authorised to do so; without having considered a statement of impact prepared by or at the direction of the CEO of the legal and financial consequences of the proposed revocation or change.

(4) Where a motion or amendment would have the effect of incurring expenditure not provided for in the budget, that motion or amendment shall not be moved other than in the form of a reference of the question to the Committee whose responsibilities include Finance, unless by absolute majority or Council resolves otherwise. (5) If new written information is introduced at a meeting which materially affects an item of business to which a recommendation of any Committee has been made, then that item of business shall be referred back to the Committee for further investigation, unless by absolute majority Council decides otherwise.

PART 14-PRESERVING ORDER

14.1 The presiding member to preserve order

The presiding member is to preserve order, and may call any member or other person in attendance to order, whenever, in his or her opinion, there is cause for so doing.

14.2 Demand for withdrawal

A member at a meeting of the Council or a committee may be required by the presiding member, or by a decision of the Council or committee, to apologise and unreservedly withdraw any expression which is considered to reflect offensively on another member or an employee, and if the member declines or neglects to do so, the presiding member may refuse to hear the member further upon the matter then under discussion and call upon the next speaker.

14.3 Points of order - when to raise - procedure

Upon a matter of order arising during the progress of a debate, any member may raise a point of order including interrupting the speaker. Any member who is speaking when a point of order is raised, is to immediately stop speaking and be seated while the presiding member listens to the point of order.

14.4 Points of order - when valid

The following are to be recognised as valid points of order:

(a) that the discussion is of a matter not before the Council or committee; (b) that offensive or insulting language is being used; (c) drawing attention to the violation of any written law, or policy of the Local Government, provided that the member making the point of order states the written law or policy believed to be breached.

14.5 Points of order - ruling

The presiding member is to give a decision on any point of order which is raised by either upholding or rejecting the point of order.

14.6 Points of order - ruling conclusive, unless dissent motion is moved

The ruling of the presiding member upon any question of order is final, unless a majority of the members support a motion of dissent with the ruling.

14.7 Points of order take precedence

Notwithstanding anything contained in these Standing Orders to the contrary, all points of order take precedence over any other discussion and until decided, suspend the consideration and decision of every other matter.

14.8 Precedence of presiding member

(1) When the presiding member rises during the progress of a debate every member of the Council or committee present shall preserve strict silence so that the presiding member may be heard without interruption. Penalty $500 (2) Subclause (1) is not to be used by the presiding member to exercise the right provided in clause 8.3, but to preserve order.

14.9 Right of the presiding member to adjourn without explanation to regain order

(1) If a meeting ceases to operate in an orderly manner, the presiding member may use discretion to adjourn the meeting for a period of up to fifteen minutes without explanation, for the purpose of regaining order. Upon resumption, debate is to continue at the point at which the meeting was adjourned. If, at any one meeting, the presiding member has cause to further adjourn the meeting, such adjournment may be to a later time on the same day or to any other day. (2) Where debate of a motion is interrupted by an adjournment under subclause (1), in the case of a Council meeting -

(a) the names of members who have spoken in the matter prior to the adjournment are to be recorded; and (b) the provisions of clause 8.5 apply when the debate is resumed.

PART 15-ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

15.1 Meeting may be adjourned

The Council or a committee may decide to adjourn any meeting to a later time on the same day, or to any other day.

15.2 Limit to moving adjournment

No member is to move or second more than one motion of adjournment during the same sitting of the Council or committee.

15.3 Unopposed business - motion for adjournment

On a motion for the adjournment of the Council or committee, the presiding member, before putting the motion, may seek leave of the Council or committee to proceed to the transaction of unopposed business.

15.4 Withdrawal of motion for adjournment

A motion or an amendment relating to the adjournment of the Council or a committee may be


120

withdrawn by the mover, with the consent of the seconder, except that if any member objects to the withdrawal, debate of the motion is to continue.

15.5 Time to which adjourned

The time to which a meeting is adjourned for want of a quorum, by the presiding member to regain order, or by decision of the Council, may be to a specified hour on a particular day or to a time which coincides with the conclusion of another meeting or event on a particular day.

PART 16-PRESENTATION OF COMMITTEE OR

OFFICER REPORTS

16.1 Reports of committees - questions

When a recommendation of any committee is submitted for adoption by the Council, any member of the Council may direct questions directly relating to the recommendation through the presiding member to the Presiding Member or to any member of the committee in attendance.

16.2 Permissible motions on recommendation from committee

A recommendation made by or contained in the minutes of a committee may be adopted by the Council without amendment or modification, failing which, it may be -

(a) rejected by the Council; or (b) replaced by an alternative decision; or (c) referred back to the committee for further consideration.

16.3 Standing orders apply to committees

Where not otherwise specifically provided, these Standing Orders apply generally to the proceedings of committees, except that the following Standing Orders do not apply to the meeting of a committee -

(a) clause 7.2, in regard to seating; (b) clause 8.5, limitation on the number of speeches.

PART 17-ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

17.1 Suspension of standing orders

(1) The Council or a committee may decide, by simple majority vote, to suspend temporarily one or more of the Standing Orders. (2) The mover of a motion to suspend temporarily any one or more of the Standing Orders is to state the clause or clauses to be suspended, and the purpose of the suspension.

17.2 Cases not provided for in standing orders

The presiding member is to decide questions of order, procedure, debate, or otherwise in cases where these Standing Orders and the Act and Regulations are silent. The decision of the presiding member in these cases is final, except where a motion is moved and carried under clause 10.1(g).

PART 18-COMMON SEAL

18.1 The Council’s common seal

(1) The CEO is to have charge of the common seal of the Local Government, and is responsible for the safe custody and proper use of it. (2) The common seal of the Local Government may only be used on the authority of the Council given either generally or specifically and every document to which the seal is affixed must be signed by the Mayor

and the CEO or a senior employee authorised by him or her. (3) The common seal of the local government is to be affixed to any local law which is made by the local government. (4) The CEO is to record in a register each date on which the common seal of the Local Government was affixed to a document, the nature of the document, and the parties to any agreement to which the common seal was affixed. (5) Any person who uses the common seal of the Local Government or a replica thereof without authority commits an offence. Penalty $1,000 ___________________________________ Dated: 27 November 2007 The Common seal of the City of Geraldton-Greenough was affixed by authority of a resolution of the Council in the presence of: IAN CARPENTER, Mayor GARY BRENNAN, Chief Executive Officer

Date post:	22-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times