Late Reports Agenda of Council Briefing

Council Briefing Agenda 10 March 2020

6.1 Response to Petition Requesting the Relocation of Parking on Turner Street, Highgate Adjacent Jack Marks Reserve

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the results of the consultation;

2. DOES NOT APPROVE the relocation of parking as requested in the petition presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 12 November 2019; and

3. NOTES that Administration will inform the residents, owners and lead petitioner of Council’s decision.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcome of the consultation regarding the proposal to relocate parking bays in Turner Street, Highgate

Background:

The City regularly receives requests for the introduction of, or changes to, parking restrictions in both residential and commercial areas. Administration generally undertakes a range of investigations including parking demand and traffic volume surveys to assess traffic and on street parking conditions. That data is then used to determine whether new or amended restrictions are warranted to improve parking availability and amenity.

Details:

At the City’s Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 November 2019 a petition was received from Ms Lauren Ireland of Turner Street, Highgate, comprising of 109 signatures, requesting Council to consider changing the parking restrictions on Turner Street, Highgate. This would involve moving all on street parking from the north side of Turner Street to the south side of Turner Street. This would also involve moving the ‘No Stopping’ zone from the south side to the north side due to the narrowness of Turner Street.

Administration considered that there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to the changes proposed in the petition:

Advantages

· Improved access to users of the reserve who choose to drive

· Improved line of site for residents whilst reversing out of driveways

· Increased number of parking bays overall as the park side does not have crossovers

Disadvantages

· Lack of parking directly outside of residences

· Decreased turning circle whilst exiting driveways

· Additional parking may encourage people to drive to the park instead of walking

Administration sought approval at the City’s Ordinary Meeting of Council on 3 December 2019 to consult with the residents and owners of properties on Turner Street, Highgate as only 22 signatures of the 109 who signed the petition were from residents surrounding Jack Mark’s Reserve.

Consultation/Advertising:

In January 2020 residents and owners of Turner Street and 381 Lord Street were consulted regarding a proposal to relocate the parking in Turner Street, Highgate.

A total of 21 consultation packs were distributed and respondents were asked to support one of the following options;

· Existing parking restrictions (no change)

· Parking changed to the southern side of Turner Street

· Parking changed predominately to the southern side of Turner Street with two spaces on the northern side near Lord Street

At the close of consultation on 7 February 2020, 16 valid responses were received. (A further 15 responses were disregarded as they were not from residents or owners of Turner Street or 381 Lord Street).

Of these responses, ten were in favour of the existing parking restrictions (no change) and six were in favour of moving the parking. Of the six in favour of moving the parking, four were residents of one dwelling.

In the report to Council at its Ordinary meeting of 3 December 2019 the Administration noted that three additional bays would be created if the parking were ‘switched’ to the southern or park side. This figure was subsequently questioned by resident in favour of the change, with specific reference to bays shown adjacent No. 18 Turner Street. Prior to the recent development at this location 3 vehicles could be accommodated but as a result of the completion of the development and installation of a crossover the existing on-road parking has been reduced by two bays. This would mean in practical terms that there would be five additional parking bays created if the parking were changed to the southern side of Turner Street.

It should be noted that the consultation did not specifically mention the bays that could be provided by changing the parking arrangements and so this is not considered a material issue such that the consultation needs to be repeated.

Legal/Policy:

The City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007 regulates the parking or standing of vehicles in all or specified thoroughfares and reserves under the care, control and management of the City and provides for the management and operation of parking facilities.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There is low risk in not changing the current parking restrictions in Turner Street.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Accessible City

We have better integrated all modes of transport and increased services through the City.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The consultation has demonstrated that there is no clear support for change from affected residents and owners. Administration therefore recommends that the parking in Turner Street, Highgate is not relocated and remains as existing.

Council Briefing Agenda 10 March 2020

6.2 Florence and Carr Streets Bike Network Improvements

Attachments: 1. Carr St Occupancy Studies Summary ⇩

2. Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Letter to Residents Launch Consultation ⇩

3. Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Consultation Feedback Grouped ⇩

4. Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Map of Consultation Responses ⇩

5. Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Cycle Lane Map 1 ⇩

6. Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Cycle Lane Concept 1 ⇩

7. Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Cycle Lane Concept 2 ⇩

8. DoT Letter Outlining Position re Carr St Cycle Lane ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the outcome of the Public Consultation for the proposed Florence Street bike friendly improvements and Carr Street protected bike lanes;

2. APPROVES the construction this financial year of the Florence and Carr Streets bike network improvements, in line with the $150,000 grant funding approval provided by the Department of Transport; and

3. REQUESTS Administration to advise the Department of Transport and the respondents of its decision.

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the results of the Florence and Carr Streets bike network improvements public consultation and to recommend that the City proceed with construction in March/April 2020.

Background:

The City’s 2013 Bike Network Plan identified Florence and Carr Streets, West Perth, within the Cleaver Precinct, as an important east-west link but concluded that it was not an attractive cycle route due to high traffic volumes, speeds, and on-road parking. In addition, it was identified as a 'spending priority' by the community as part of the Strategic Community Plan engagement in 2018 to 'connect discontinuous bicycle facilities and link paths to destinations'. The percentage of ‘heavy’ traffic on Carr Street has declined since 2018 with the opening of the Charles Street bus bridge and re-directing of services away from Carr Street. However, this is seen as an enhancement of the route, by both the Administration and Department of Transport (DoT), as it will make it more attractive and safer for cyclists.

In 2018 the City applied for, and received, grant funding from the DoT for design and construction of an on-road cycle route on Florence and Carr Streets, West Perth.

Details:

The DoTs funding approval was in recognition of Florence and Carr Streets not only being identified as a key route within the City’s Bike Network Plan but also their own (DoT’s) Long Term Cycle Network Plan.

This route will improve the east-west linkages identified in the Bike Network Plan by providing protected cycle lanes in Carr Street between Florence and Fitzgerald Streets, and traffic calming on Florence Street, similar in concept to that of a Safe Active Street. The project will also improve access to Beatty Park and Robertson Park and further enhance the connectivity of the City’s wider cycle network, linking into the new signalised crossing on Vincent Street and connecting to the shared paths on Vincent Street, Smiths Lake, Charles Veryard Reserve and recently constructed Loftus Street improvements.

The proposed works will also act as a traffic calming measure and reinforce the reduced 40kph speed limit within the precinct through narrowed lane widths and the use of nibs, line-marking and signage to create the protected bike lanes.

Carr Street, Florence Street to Fitzgerald Street

The Carr Street protected bike lanes are funded through the DoTs Perth Bike Network grants which stipulates the provision of separated cycle lanes as a minimum standard where traffic volumes and speeds are not low enough for cyclists to mix with traffic (this requires a target speed of 30km/h as per Shakespeare Street). Cyclists are classified as vulnerable road users as they are at increased risk of serious injury when involved in a collision and need to be provided protection to prevent such collisions and increase the attractiveness of cycling as a means of transport. Research shows that protected/separated cycle lanes encourage more people to use them than unseparated, on road lanes.

The protected cycle lanes chosen for Carr Street are designed to protect cyclists and remove the risk represented by frequent parking manoeuvres, which was highlighted as part of the consultation for the Bike Network Plan, whilst losing as little parking as possible. The design also represents better value for money due to the limited amount of physical, or hard, infrastructure required.

The new on-road protected lanes nominally involve the loss of up to 19 parking bays. Occupancy surveys conducted in May 2018, October 2018 and August 2019 showed that the on-street parking is rarely fully occupied (see Attachment 1).

Several residents suggested that the City merely refresh the current cycle lanes or improve them with further signage and paint rather than install protected bike lanes. This no longer meets the DoTs minimum standard and would not be eligible for grant funding. Further, it does not offer cyclists any protection from traffic. The current ‘best practice’ design principle is to create cycling infrastructure that is safe, accessible and usable by a wide range of cyclists from the confident road cyclists and commuters to families. The existing unprotected on road cycle lanes do not offer this improved amenity and security and are unlikely to encourage a ‘mode shift’.

To refresh the cycle lanes in their current format would cost in the order of $5,000, inclusive of bike symbols and signage. To paint the lanes ‘green’ using an Australian Standards/Main Roads Approved application (skid resistance, reflectivity etc.) would cost approximately $90,000 at the City’s cost. In addition the City would be responsible for ‘renewing’ the treatment at end of life, typically 10years.

Florence Street, Vincent Street to Carr Street

In respect of Florence Street, which will be funded through a Safe Active Street grant, the traffic speed and volumes are significantly lower than that of Carr Street and as a result only requires a lower level of intervention, which the existing traffic calming measures already achieve. Therefore the only changes will be the installation of on-road tree wells to accommodate additional street trees.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation regarding the construction of bike network improvements along Florence and Carr Streets began on 15 November 2019 and ran until 9 December 2019. Letters (see Attachment 2) were delivered to 615 residents and businesses within the area bounded by Loftus, Newcastle, Fitzgerald and Vincent Streets informing them of the consultation and directing them to the Imagine Vincent website. The City also wrote to all non-resident owners in February 2020. Many comments were received outside of these consultation periods and these comments have also been included. All comments have been summarised in Attachment 3.

Residents were invited to comment on the planned upgrades -“Please use the space below to submit any thoughts or comments you would like to share about the planned upgrades to Florence & Carr Street in West Perth.”

The City received 34 responses from the 1454 letters sent to residents, businesses and land owners with the following results. Of the 34 responses received one specifically related to Florence Street and this concern has been addressed. Therefore it is assumed that there were no further objections to this part of the project.

Specific to Carr Street;

· 11 of the 34 responses (32%) supported the proposed upgrade.

· 19 of the 34 responses (56%) opposed the proposed upgrade.

· 4 of the 34 responses (12%) did not support or oppose the proposed upgrade.

The main concern from residents that were against the project focused on the impact of loss of parking and a perceived lack of road space for the new cycle lanes in Carr Street. There was particular focus on the loss of parking between Charles and Fitzgerald Streets, which will be between three and five bays. As a result of these comments, and feedback that previous occupancy studies were not current, the City has undertaken a final occupancy study in February 2020, which again shows that parking is rarely fully occupied (see Attachment 1).

During the consultation for the Sustainable Environment Strategy the community requested the following actions:

· Install more bike lanes.

· Improve the pedestrian environment to make it safer and easier to get around.

This was reiterated in the community consultation conducted for the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy. When looking at the network as a whole the following issues were typically highlighted:

· Dissatisfaction with connectivity throughout the City, particularly for east-west and circular public transport, and for connectivity of cycling routes.

· Concern for pedestrian and cycling safety in all areas of the City, including across major streets, at roundabouts, and when using existing cycle lanes.

Legal/Policy:

Not applicable.

Risk Management Implications:

The grant funding received from the Department of Transport has specifically been allocated to the 2019/20 financial year and the Department has repeatedly advised that the project has to be completed this financial year and that it will not carryover over any funds for outstanding works. There is a real risk that if the project is not approved the City will lose the funding. Doing so may also negatively impact on future funding opportunities.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Accessible City

Our pedestrian and cyclist networks are well designed, connected, accessible and encourage increased use.

We have better integrated all modes of transport and increased services through the City.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed cycle lanes align with the following outcome of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024:

· Public and active transport are the modes of choice for staff and community.

· Car dependency is reduced.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The budget for the project comprises $150,000 DoT grant funding and $150,000 of municipal funding from cash in lieu for parking.

There are sufficient funds on budget to proceed.

Comments:

Administration recommends that Council proceeds with the construction in 2020 due to its strategic importance and because the project is consistent with the City’s Strategic Community Plan and the Sustainable Environment Strategy. The route was identified in the City’s Bike Network Plan and forms part of the Department of Transport’s Long Term Cycle Network. The proposed project is a key part a route designed to facilitate east-west movements and connect Robertson Park and Northbridge to the rest of the City and currently no other viable alternative east-west route exists.

Council Briefing Agenda 10 March 2020

6.3 Waste Strategy Project - 8 Commercial Waste Collections Options Appraisal

Attachments: 1. Business Case - Commercial Waste Collections Options Appraisal ⇩

Recommendation:

That COUNCIL:

1. NOTES:

1.1 the commercial waste collection options appraisal which was a key action from the City’s Waste Strategy;

1.2 that the City’s current commercial waste service is no longer viable as it does not meet the objectives of the City’s Waste Strategy and as a result of the adoption of a FOGO third bin in October 2020;

1.3 that administration will provide a communications plan to Council which supports implementation of any of these options apart from retaining status quo; and

1.4 that rebate considerations from operational savings will be determined and approved as part of the Council budget setting process; and

2. APPROVES the business case to discontinue commercial waste collection from 3 August 2020.

Purpose of Report:

To present the outcome of Waste Strategy Project 8, the options appraisal for City commercial waste collections.

Background:

The City currently provides a commercial waste collection service for both rubbish and recycling inclusive of the businesses rateable charge. Each rate-paying business may receive a capacity allowance which is calculated using historical methods based on premise type and size (floor space m²) and commercial premises can also request additional capacity for a fee.

The service provided is not based on the best environmental outcome in terms of materials recovery, and the City does not currently have the ability to provide such a service. The current service is one that is suitable for domestic homes and has been extended to commercial premises, which may have been appropriate when waste was collected in a single bin destined for landfill. This single service approach has introduced inefficiency, does not incentivise landfill diversion and does not support the City’s vision of zero waste to landfill.

The City has an obligation to collect domestic waste; there is no obligation to provide a commercial waste service and businesses are not compelled to use the City’s waste service. The City has 2488 commercial premises paying business rates. Approximately 15% (377) of businesses do not use the City’s service and others purchase additional services from private providers on top of what the City provides. Private waste companies provide a wide ranging service that is tailored to the needs of a business and costed in a way that incentivises material recovery.

Project 8 of the City’s Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 “Commercial Waste Collections Options Appraisal” was established to investigate the value of providing the existing commercial service in this capacity and review alternative options.

With FOGO being rolled out to all residential properties from October 2020 there is a further reason to review how the City provides commercial waste collection in the future as the standard domestic 3-bin system will not be suitable for commercial premises. On that basis there is a need for the City to have clear direction on the future of its waste services so that any transition can take place before the introduction of the domestic three bin FOGO service.

Details:

The City does not have a separate commercial waste collection service and commercial tonnages are currently collected comingled with domestic waste in the same vehicle.

The City’s waste team has undertaken a review of the current services as well as a commercial rubbish truck trial and presents the following key findings:

1. Bin Capacity Allowance

Each rate-paying business has a bin capacity allowance which was calculated using historical methods based on premises type and size (floor space). Due to inadequately designed bin stores capacity and limited verge presentation space, many locations are also being serviced multiple times per week (without additional charges applied). It is worth noting that whilst the City’s commercial customers only account for 12% of the City’s total rateable properties, in terms of bin lifts they account for around 21%, demonstrating a disparity in service provision between commercial and residential customers. Additionally, commercial customers are also receiving inconsistent and varied services which are not based on the value of the property or rates paid.

Work undertaken by the City has identified a variance between commercial and domestic bin weights, i.e. commercial bins are on average 6kg heavier than the equivalent domestic bin, thereby resulting in higher disposal costs.

Collection costs are also generally higher for commercial properties as they are often situated in high density areas and cannot be collected by a side lift truck. The rear-lift rounds are more expensive to operate, as extra personnel are required for bin servicing and servicing times per premise are generally longer. In total approximately 36% of the total commercial lifts are undertaken by the rear lift vehicles.

2. Historical Data and records

The site audit highlighted that it is difficult to monitor the Commercial Asset Register due to the fact that commercial and domestic bin infrastructure is currently the same. Additionally, bins are constantly going missing or relocated. This is increasingly problematic at mixed use premises, where bin stores and/or presentation points may be shared and people simply use/take the nearest bin.

Waste Census data provision is currently optional, however the new DWER Approved Methods for Mandatory Reporting under the WARR Regulations 2008, which is effective from July 2020, will require more robust/accurate reporting on commercial waste tonnages and collection costs, which the City would currently struggle to provide with the existing collection methodology. If the service was to continue, it would ideally need to be resourced appropriately with a dedicated truck, appropriate bin infrastructure, personnel and business system to capture and maintain asset information.

3. The current commercial service does not align with the City’s Waste Strategy.

The City currently only provides a limited commercial service. To provide a competitive, cost effective and contemporary service, would require a complete overhaul of existing services and collection methodologies.

A contemporary commercial service should be tailored to the client’s requirements, offering collection of variable waste and recycling streams, variable (including larger than 360 litre) infrastructure and collection frequencies that meet their waste generation needs (which may include shifts, 7 days per week). This would subsequently be charged at appropriate commercial rates for the variable waste streams collected.

To provide such a professional commercial service for the City of Vincent would require dedicated vehicles, larger bin infrastructure, a dedicated Commercial Waste Officer with some administrative support to manage the waste contracts/payments, client relationships and waste education to ensure correct bin usage.

Contamination is currently an on-going issue at our commercial properties, as the standard “bin allowance” system does not incentivise correct waste behaviour/bin usage. A commercial service that is tailored to the needs of the business, would have bin configuration and charges that would maximise recovery.

The implementation of a standard domestic FOGO system from October 2020 is not suitable for commercial businesses. For example, restaurants would have large volumes of food waste, which would not align with FOGO system collection frequencies and permissible bin weights. Each property would need an individual, tailored approach (as outlined above) to ensure cost efficiency and resource recovery to align with the City’s Waste Strategy targets.

OPTIONS APPRAISAL:

Outlined below are the options considered, the associated advantages and disadvantages of each option and any potential cost implications:-

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages	Cost / Savings $
1. No change to current service	· No change for commercial customers	· Service continues to be limited and not fit for purpose. It does not incentivise correct waste behaviours, so will not achieve waste diversion/recovery rates and the City’s target of zero waste to landfill by 2028. · Service continues to be subsidised and inequitable. Due to methodologies in the calculation of bin allowances, majority of the existing properties are receiving a far more superior service than residential ratepayers · Unable to separate commercial and residential waste collection data for Census information · Impact negatively on upcoming contracts as domestic 3 bin system with associated collection frequencies is not compatible with commercial collections; does not align with a domestic service · High contamination rates of commercial bins will continue	Collection cost likely to increase due to increased inefficiency and cost rises in disposal and recycling processing
2. City provides a fit for purpose commercial service	· Tailored service with the result of better resource recovery	· Significant increase in costs to set up service and operate · Cost of new service would be borne by commercial service users · This would typically involve collection of six waste streams (general waste, comingled recycling, green waste, food (only), paper/cardboard and glass recycling) as well as variable bin sizes, operating seven days a week and has sufficient staff to support commercial customers. · Unlikely to be competitive with private sector and so fees will be higher than private operators; high risk of losing customers so not viable for a small local government with a small commercial customer base. · Currently no business system or staff in place to support a commercial service	Significant service cost increase by the City.
3. Provide limited charged service as per residential customers (new three bin domestic FOGO service)	· May suit smaller, non-food premises/businesses such as very small offices.	· Standard domestic FOGO 3- bin service is not designed for commercial customers i.e. general waste bin (140lt) collected fortnightly will be problematic and likely to result in higher contamination levels of all three waste streams · Not aligned with the City’s target of zero waste to landfill by 2028. · Audit required to review suitability when service requested · May be seen as inequitable as not provided to all businesses	$0
4. Discontinue existing commercial service	· Businesses would be able to received tailored waste service which increases landfill diversion · Data collection for Census: able to provide accurate residential waste data only · Operational savings · Capital expenditure reduction	· Commercial customers would need to arrange and pay separately for a private service	$921,000 p.a. reduction in operational cost
5. Discontinue existing commercial service with rate rebate	· Advantages as per Option 4, but with rate rebate provided from operational saving · Rebate compensates for discontinuation of service	· Commercial Customers would need to arrange and pay separately for a private service	$0 savings to the City

Discussion of Options

The service currently offered (option 1) is limited and not fit for purpose. It does not incentivise recycling and material recovery and is not consistent with the City’s Waste Strategy and its vision of zero waste to landfill. The service is subsidised and inequitable as the service is not consistent and is not provided to 15% of businesses. Operationally it is not compatible with domestic services as collection frequencies and waste streams are very different and this gap and inefficiency will worsen when the City introduces the domestic three bin system later this year. For these reasons option 1 is not seen as viable.

Option 2 would involve the setting up of a fit for purpose City collection service to provide a contemporary commercial service that increases resource recovery. The service would not be based on a capacity allowance but on the needs of individual businesses and fees charged would incentivise and increase resource recovery. This service would involve the collection of up to 6 different waste streams (general waste, comingled recycling, paper/cardboard, food, glass and green waste) via a range of bin sizes. It would involve significant up-front investment in plant and infrastructure and would require additional staff and a business system. The City would have a small customer base that would not be compelled to use the City for this service and so the number of participating businesses would be difficult to predict. As this is not core business for the City and it does not have the economies of scale of private providers it is highly unlikely that the City would be competitive in a highly competitive market. This option is not seen as viable for a small Local Government and therefore is not the recommended option.

Option 3 would involve providing a limited charged service for very small businesses that could accommodate the new three bin system e.g. a general waste -140l bin collected fortnightly. This would be considered on a case by case basis and would require individual audit to review suitability so will be resource intensive and difficult to quantify. It is not aligned with the City’s vision of zero waste to landfill as is not as good an option as a commercial service tailored to the needs of an individual business and therefore is not the recommended option.

Options 4 and 5 are similar in that they involve the discontinuation of the City’s activity in the commercial waste market. The result would be that businesses would receive a tailored waste service which would incentivise and deliver increased waste diversion which is consistent with the City’s Waste Strategy. It would deliver substantial operational and capital savings and allow the City to accurately collect domestic waste data required for the waste census and enable the City to accurately calculate its waste diversion. The downside for businesses is that they would need to source and agree a service from the open market and the service would no longer be included as part of rates. This can be abated to some extent by providing early notice of any change in service to businesses with additional support and also by selecting option 5 over option 4 where rates could be rebated to compensate for the service reduction.

Option 4 or 5 is recommended as they are the options that best meet the City’s Waste Strategy vision of zero waste to landfill.

It is impossible to calculate the financial impact on individual businesses as a commercial service is tailored to the businesses, the market is very competitive and rates charged are commercially sensitive and not published. It is likely that many businesses will see an overall cost increase if the City discontinues the service (options 4 and 5) or if the City were to provide a fit for purpose service (option 2) because the service will no longer be subsidised and provided by the City as part of rates.

Consultation/Advertising:

It will be essential that the City develops a comprehensive communications plan to inform, educate and support commercial businesses during any service change. A Communications Plan will be prepared for the selected option apart from retaining status quo.

Legal/Policy:

Waste Policy 2.1.11 will need to be reviewed as the operational elements of the policy will significantly change when the 3-bin FOGO system is introduced. Additionally much of the content is replicated in the Health Local Law and so are superfluous.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium There will be negative feedback from some commercial businesses should the recommended option be agreed and the City discontinues the waste service to commercial customers.

High There is a high risk that the City will not be able to deliver a fit for purpose commercial waste service or a service that meets the City’s strategic aims to increase diversion to landfill and achieve its target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

Low There is a very low risk that a commercial business will not be able to find a private service provider.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

By discontinuing the commercial waste service, commercial customers will be provided with a tailored, contemporary waste service that incentivises and delivers diversion from landfill, which the City would be unable to deliver without significant investment and high risk.

The City’s Waste Strategy 2018-2023 has a vision of zero waste to landfill through maximising recovery and avoidance and cost effective, sustainable and contemporary waste services.

The City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 has identical aims and sets the target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

By ceasing the internal services, our commercial customers will have access to tailored waste packages, inclusive of variable recoverable/recyclable waste streams, which in turn will provide a cost effective collection services which incentivise correct waste behaviours; thus facilitating increased diversion from landfill and assisting in the delivery of our Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 Target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There is the opportunity to reduce base operating costs by circa $921,000 per annum by discontinuing the current in-house commercial service.

In additional, capital savings of circa $470,000 for truck replacement costs could be retained in the waste reserve and be used to offset FOGO implementation costs.

The opportunity for cost savings to be offered as a rebate can be considered by Council as part of the budget setting process.

Comments:

A review of the City’s commercial waste collection service has been undertaken and an options appraisal carried out as required by the City’s Waste Strategy. The need for change has been identified and the option to discontinue the City’s commercial waste collection service is recommended.

Council Briefing Agenda 10 March 2020

7 Community & Business Services

7.5 Major Public Artwork Commission Artist and Design Selection

Attachments: 1. Major Public Artwork Commission EOI ⇩

2. Major Public Artwork Panel Recommendation Background - Confidential

3. Major Public Artwork Panel Scoring - Confidential

4. Major Public Artwork Recommended Concept Design - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council ENDORSES the Major Public Artwork commission for progression to development, fabrication and instalment, as recommended by the tender evaluation panel, and detailed in Confidential Attachments 2, 3 and 4.

Purpose of Report:

To inform Council of the process and outcome of the Major Public Artwork commission and to provide the relevant information needed for Council to endorse the successful artist/s and concept design.

Background:

The Arts Development Action Plan 2018-2020, endorsed by Council in August 2018, included a key project of commissioning a major public artwork. The project was identified as a priority due to its inclusion in the Corporate Business Plan and the City’s long-term goal of commissioning an ‘entry statement’ artwork. Through discussion with the Arts Advisory Group, the project developed into commissioning an iconic large-scale artwork for the City. The commission is funded by cash-in-lieu payments to the Percent for Art policy and is valued at $200,000.

Details:

Creative Brief

The creative brief was kept deliberately open to allow a wide scope of artistic responses and capture the most genuine and creative ideas from artists.

The brief called for an artwork that has the potential to become iconic in the community and fits Vincent’s inner-city location and the diversity of the local community. The brief highlighted the engaged community, use of public spaces, and vibrant places. An artwork that starts conversations and encourages viewers to dig deeper was called for.

Location

Locations were suggested by the Infrastructure team and met the following criteria:

· An entry statement with high visibility from an access point and/or a Town Centre location;

· Provides access for construction and maintenance;

· Land owned and managed by the City; and

· Accessible to power.

The four locations proposed in the tender were Birdwood Square, Beatty Park Reserve, Ivy Park and the corner of Bulwer and Vincent streets. Artists were invited to respond to the site/s that best fit their vision.

Evaluation Process

In consultation with the Arts Advisory Group, an expression of interest (Attachment 1) was put together and advertised in the July – September 2019 period. On 11 September a panel made up of City of Vincent staff, Arts Advisory Group members and two external public art consultants met to assess the 38 submissions based on the evaluation criteria - approach to the creative brief, artistic excellence and experience.

Three (3) submitted concept designs were assessed using the expression of interest criteria and weightings:

· Concept: the artwork is designed by an artist that shows strong vision, innovation, and excellent craftsmanship. The proposed artwork is unique and provides an opportunity for public engagement – 30%

· Context: the artwork is site-specific and considers the relevant themes, architectural, historical, geographical and/or sociocultural context of the site and community identity—30%

· Public safety: the artwork is designed, constructed and installed with best practice risk management and the artwork does not present a hazard to public safety—20%

· Longevity: the artwork is designed to be structurally sound and resistant to theft, vandalism, weathering and excessive maintenance—20%

The three short listed artists were given seven weeks to develop concept designs.

Following presentation of the concept designs at a Council Workshop, further information was sought from two of the shortlisted artist teams. This additional information was provided to the panel and they were asked to re-assess the submissions.

The panel’s revised weighted average scores and individual scores are included as Attachment 3 – Weighted Average 2.

The commissioning process followed by the selection panel, complies with the National Association for the Visual Arts’ best practice guidelines.

The panel’s recommended submission is included as Attachment 4, with background information included as Attachment 2.

Approvals Under Delegation

The expression of interest’s shortlisting process, evaluation criteria, short listed artist list and panel recommendation was reviewed and approved under delegated authority on 28 February 2020.

Consultation/Advertising:

Industry knowledge and expertise - The Arts Advisory Group provided input into the creative brief.

Tender evaluation panel - The tender evaluation panel included staff from City of Vincent teams with expertise in Arts and Activation, Marketing, Community Partnerships, Engineering, and Parks. The panel also included representatives from the Arts Advisory Group and two external public art consultants with experience in commissioning major public artworks—Helen Curtis from Apparatus Consulting and Nathan Giles from Perth Public Art Foundation.

Community consultation - Community opinions on public artworks are necessarily diverse and often passionate. This major public artwork commission includes a requirement to integrate community contributions into the development of the work. The City will organise these community engagement sessions which will create the opportunity for interested community members to hear from the artists, ask questions, and provide input into the community dimension of the installation. A strong communications plan will support the build and installation of the artwork, including regular community updates providing insight into the artwork’s progress and thematic references.

Legal/Policy:

The Major Public Artwork commission relates to three City of Vincent policies:

· 3.10.7 – Art Collection Policy;

· 3.10.8 – Public Art; and

· 7.5.13 – Percent for Public Art.

The draft commission contract was provided to all applicants with the tender package, and shortlisted artists were required to acknowledge that they had read the contract and did not have any queries or requests for changes. The contract template was acquired from Arts Law and adapted to suit the City of Vincent’s processes and policies. The contract represents best practice in commissioning major public artworks.

The expression of interest and shortlist complies with regulation 23 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

Risk Management Implications:

The commission contract mitigates potential risks, with the artists taking responsibility for safe fabrication, installation, and minimising ongoing public risk.

City of Vincent Engineering and Parks staff were part of the selection panel, which allowed for safety, installation and maintenance risks to be identified and mitigated through the EOI. Final submissions have been reviewed to ensure they meet the requirements of Main Roads and provide no foreseeable risk to public safety.

There is a risk that community may not appreciate the art work, or may not approve of the funds being spent on public artwork. Public perceptions are partly mitigated by the communications plan. Funding issues are mitigated by communicating that the budget comes from the developer contributions to the Percent for Art policy.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Enhanced Environment

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

Connected Community

An arts culture flourishes and is celebrated in the City of Vincent.

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

Innovative and Accountable

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The Major Public Artwork brief includes that the artwork must be made from durable, long-lasting materials that can withstand the weather and the community uses of the site, and do not require excessive maintenance. The City of Vincent is required to have maintenance carried out on the artwork as per the maintenance manual provided by the artist—this will ensure the longest artwork lifetime possible.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The budget for this commission is allocated from the Percent for Art cash-in-lieu payment reserves. There will be some additional costs related to marketing, the community engagement sessions, artwork transportation and installation, which will be met from within the City’s operational budget.

Council Briefing Agenda 10 March 2020

7.6 Draft City Property Management Framework

Attachments: 1. Council Policy No. 1.2.1 - Terms of Leases ⇩

2. Property Management Framework ⇩

3. List of City properties ⇩

4. Community Benefit Matrix ⇩

5. Five year forcasted financials ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. RESCINDS Council Policy No. 1.2.1 – Terms of Leases; and

2. ENDORSES the adoption and implementation of the City of Vincent Property Management Framework.

Purpose of Report:

To seek Councils endorsement of the City’s Property Management Framework and approves the rescindment of Council Policy No. 1.2.1 – Terms of Leases (Attachment 1), which is now superseded.

Background:

The City currently has lease/licence arrangements with a range of not-for-profit community organisations, sport and recreation clubs, government agencies and commercial entities. These arrangements were based on the City’s existing Council Policy No. 1.2.1 – Terms of Leases (“Policy”).

The City has experienced issues in administering the Policy as it provides little clarity on the terms of the lease arrangement, and potential variations of those terms based upon the type of organisation, type of activity, or value to the community.

Details:

The City has prepared a Property Management Framework (Attachment 2) to ensure any City property that is leased or licenced is managed in a consistent, fair and transparent manner, along with providing an equitable methodology for calculating lease and licence charges.

Historically there has been no rationale or strategy behind the assignment of leases and licences. The current Policy has been inadequate and simply states that:

· Any new lease granted by the Council shall usually be limited to a five year period and any option to renew shall usually be limited to no more than a ten year period; and

· Council may consider longer periods where the Council is of the opinion that there is a benefit or merit for providing a longer lease term.

The City has completed a comprehensive review of existing leases, and reviewed the application of the Policy to those leases.

Review of current leases and licenses

There are currently 41 leases or licenses (Attachment 3) to organisations for community (13), sport and recreation (17), government and commercial (11) purposes. The current annual rental income from these arrangements is approximately $1,294,005.49 with government leases alone totalling $728,637.33.

The City does not currently make a clear distinction between commercial and community leases. Defined terms are broadly the same across both categories of leases, with the main difference being that rent is traditionally higher for commercial properties.

Under current arrangements, the City has a range of lease fees from community leases (peppercorn rent) to commercial (e.g. Telstra who pay $27,500 per annum). When determining the applicable lease fees for club or community groups, the City considers:

· The group’s capacity to create an income from the premises;

· Likely community benefit; and

· Community need for the facility.

There is some disparity across the community agreements for example, Leederville Tennis Club pays $1.00 per annum whereas other Tennis Clubs are averaging around $1,155.44 per annum.

Until recently, existing leases were silent with respect to fair wear and tear, and made no provision for repair and maintenance responsibilities. Where a club or community group has built their premises and occupied the premises since construction, the City’s approach has been for the club or community group to be responsible for the repair and maintenance, with a nominal rent payable.

Management of lease obligations and responsibilities has led to lessee dissatisfaction, resulting in a reluctance and/or financial inability to pay associated costs. Additionally this occasionally results in groups refusing to enter into new agreements. The main lease terms in dispute are the:

· Emergency Services Levy;

· Building insurance premiums;

· Annual RCD (residual current device), smoke alarm and emergency exit light testing;

· Biannual fire appliance testing;

· Annual termite treatments;

· Quarterly rodent treatments;

· Security and alarm call outs;

· General maintenance;

· Repair and replacement due to fair wear and tear;

· Bore replacement; and

· Structural maintenance works and upgrades.

Industry Standards

Research across the Local Government sector has identified that there are a wide range of approaches and options applied to leases. However, there is a consistent theme of:

· Providing a fair and equitable outcome for community organisations and sporting clubs;

· Delivering a balance between revenue and community value for government organisations; and

· Providing market competitive conditions for commercial enterprises.

Property Management Framework

The City proposes rescindment of the existing Policy and the endorsement of the Property Management Framework. The Property Management Framework (“Framework”) aims to:

· Meet growing community needs and to maximise community benefit by prioritising City owned and managed properties for use where occupancy arrangements include co-location, shared-use and highest community utilisation;

· Meet the Strategic Community Plan’s objectives of ‘Connected Community’ and ‘Thriving Places’ by making City owned and managed properties primarily available for local not-for-profit organisations, community groups and other community purposes;

· Ensure transparency and equity by recognising all financial and in-kind subsidisation by the City where City owned and managed properties are used to meet community needs;

· Ensure sustainable management of City owned and managed property by requiring effective asset management and demonstrated sound financial management; and

· Identifying specific City owned and managed properties that can be made available for commercial activities, supporting income generation and encouraging a sustainable asset management portfolio at aggregate level.

The Framework provides:

· Definitions of occupancy agreement types;

· Tenancy fee methodology;

· Annual Property Management reporting;

· Leasing incentives for small community groups, sporting clubs and community groups and organisations;

· Four tenant classifications with accompanying lease terms;

· Clarity of both tenant and City responsibilities within the lease.

To assist the City in monitoring the financial viability of clubs and community groups, they will be required to complete an annual health check which includes:

· Provision of an annual report or audited financial statements;

· Current contact details and responsibilities of office bearers;

· Certificate of Currency (Public Liability Insurance);

· A breakdown of the membership base including young people, seniors, and social members; and

· Postcodes of all registered members.

Community groups with leases that have recently expired are on short-term leasing arrangements pending the adoption of this Framework.

The proposed Property Management Framework will provide clear direction to Administration on matters that require Council discretion.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City has held discussions with all community groups and sporting clubs within categories 1 and 2 who hold a lease or licence. Feedback from these groups has been reviewed and considered and (where appropriate) incorporated within the Framework. Notably the following has been amended following community feedback:

· Inclusion of an assessment criteria within the Community Benefit Matrix, which is used to determine the subsidy level applied (Attachment 4);

· Removal of the assessment criteria relating to funding; and

· Defining capital upgrades and cap renewals.

Commercial entities and government agencies will be informed of the Framework during the negotiation of lease renewal.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There is a low risk to Council considering adoption of a new Property Management Framework.

Legal/Policy:

This paper recommends rescinding Council Policy No. 1.2.1 – Terms of Leases which is superseded by the implementation of the Property Management Framework.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Connected Community

Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

Financial/Budget Implications:

Under the proposed model, the City will generate an additional $7,903.36 in the first year with $42,090.97 over a five year period. Category one – small community groups have a financial benefit with this framework. The framework also allows for a maximum subsidy of 50% for category one groups and up to 25% subsidy for category two groups (Attachment 5)

Council Briefing Agenda 10 March 2020

8 Chief Executive Officer

8.12 Local Government Statutory Compliance Audit Return 2019

Attachments: 1. Compliance Audit Return 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. ADOPTS the City of Vincent’s Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, at Attachment 1, noting the three areas of non-compliance reported; and

2. AUTHORISES the Compliance Audit Return in recommendation 1. above to be certified by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996.

Purpose of Report:

To adopt the City’s Compliance Audit Return for 2019 (CAR).

Background:

Section 7.13(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) requires local governments to undertake an audit of compliance “in the prescribed manner and in a form approved by the Minister”. In accordance with section 7.13(1)(i) of the Act, the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) requires that all local governments complete a CAR by 31 March 2020.

In accordance with Regulation 14(3a) of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996, the Audit Committee reviewed the CAR at its meeting held on 3 March 2020 and resolved to recommend to Council that it adopts the CAR, noting the areas of non-compliance reported.

Details:

The 2019 CAR contains the following compliance categories:

· Commercial enterprises by Local Governments;

· Delegation of power/duty;

· Disclosure of interest;

· Disposal of property;

· Elections;

· Finance;

· Integrated planning and reporting

· Local Government employees;

· Official conduct;

· Tenders for providing goods and services; and

· Optional Questions.

Administration has identified three areas of non-compliance, as detailed below:

1. Disclosure of Interest – Question 6

Section 5.75 of the Act requires Elected Members and designated employees to complete a disclosure of financial interest by way of a Primary Return within 3 months of their start date. Administration did not receive a Primary Return from one of the new Elected Members by the due date, which was 20 January 2020. The completed Primary Return was submitted on 11 February 2020.

Administration reported this non-compliance to the Corruption and Crime Commission, as required under the Act, on 24 February 2020.

The Elected Member has been advised that the non-compliance has been reported to the DLGSC by way of the CAR and reported as a serious breach to the Corruption and Crime Commission as required under the Act.

2. Finance - Question 8 and 9

Section 7.12a(4) of the Act requires local governments to prepare a report addressing any matters identified as significant by the auditor in the audit report, and stating what action the local government has taken or intends to take with respect to each of those matters. The local government must then present a copy of the report to the Minister within 3 months after the audit report is received.

The auditor’s report dated 27 November 2019 identified the City’s asset sustainability ratio as an issue.

Administration wrote to the Minister for Local Government on 28 February 2020, which is within the 3 month period, and advised that the City’s Asset Sustainability Action Plan would be considered by the Audit Committee at its 3 March 2020 meeting and Council at its 17 March 2020 meeting. Following Council’s consideration at the Asset Sustainability Action Plan it would be provided to the Minister for Local Government.

Due to the timing of the City’s Audit Committee and Council Meetings, a formal response will not be provided to the Minister until after the 17 March 2020 Council Meeting, which is in breach of section 7.12(a)(4) of the Act.

3. Optional Questions – Question 1

Regulation 5(2)(c)of the Local Government Financial Management Regulations 1996 requires the CEO to undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (not less than once every 3 financial years) and report to the local government the results of those reviews.

The City’s internal audit plan 2016-2020 was not fully implemented and therefore it does not appear that the City has complied with reg 5(2)(c).

The City has engaged Stantons International to perform this review between February 2020 and June 2020. A new internal audit plan for 20202/21 to 2023/24 will be developed following the completion of the review.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Regulation 14 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 requires that the Audit Committee reviews the completed CAR and reports the results to Council. Following Council’s adoption of the CAR, the CAR must be submitted to the Department by 31 March 2020. A certified copy means a copy which is signed by the Mayor or President and the CEO.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for Council to consider the CAR.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

An effective system of compliance auditing helps to ensure that the City is sustainable in the long term.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Council Briefing Agenda 10 March 2020

8.13 Report and Minutes of the Audit Commitee Meeting held on 3 March 2020

Attachments: 1. Minutes - Audit Committee - 3 March 2020 ⇩

2. Minutes Attachments - Audit Commitee Meeting 3 March 2020 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. RECEIVES this report from the Audit Committee meeting of 3 March 2020 and the minutes of that meeting at Attachment 1; and

2. NOTES the recommendations of the Audit Committee in respect to the City’s Compliance Audit Return 2019, which is the subject of a separate item on this Council Agenda.

Purpose of Report:

To report to Council the proceedings of the Audit Committee at its meeting held on 3 March 2020 in accordance with clause 2.21(1) of the City’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008.

Background:

The City’s Audit Committee is a statutory committee of Council, established in accordance with section 7.1A of the Local Government Act 1995. The primary objectives of the Audit Committee are to:

· accept responsibility for the annual external audit; and

· liaise with the local government’s internal and external auditors so that Council can be satisfied with the performance of the local government in managing its affairs.

The Audit Committee meets approximately every two months and comprises of three external independent members (one of which is the Audit Committee Chair) and four Elected Members.

Details:

At its meeting on 3 March 2020, the Audit Committee considered seven agenda items as follows:

5.1 Roads to Recovery Breach

5.2 Asset Sustainability Ratio - Action Plan

5.3 City's Corporate Risk Register

5.4 Update on the internal audit process and reg 5 and reg 17 reviews

5.5 Local Government Statutory Compliance Audit Return

5.6 Review of the City of Vincent Audit Log

5.7 Application of the changes to the new accounting standards

A summary of the discussion relating to several of the above items is included below:

Item 5.1 - Roads to Recovery Breach

The Audit Committee was provided with the City’s response to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (Department), dated 28 February 2020, in respect to the City’s participation in the Roads to Recovery program. The response requested that:

· the City’s reference amount for the funding be recalculated; and

· the revised reference amount be based on the period 2014/15 to 2018/19, as previous years’ data is not readily accessible.

The Department confirmed by email on 4 March 2020 that the reference amount can be recalculated based on the period 2011/12 to 2015/16. Administration is in the process of recalculating the reference amount, which will then be reviewed by the City’s auditor.

Item 5.2 – Asset Sustainability Ratio - Action Plan

The Audit Committee considered the Asset Sustainability Ratio non-compliance and the Asset Sustainability Ratio Action Plan, which indicates that the Asset Sustainability Ratio will return to compliance by 2021/22. The Audit Committee also reviewed the City’s letter to the Minister for Local Government dated 28 February 2020, which was required to be provided by the 28 February 2020 in accordance with section 7.12A of the Local Government Act 1995. The letter noted that the Action Plan will be provided to the Minister following Council’s approval of the Audit Committee minutes at its 17 March 2020 Meeting.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Clause 2.21 of the City’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 states:

“2.21 Presentation of committee reports

(1) Every committee is to cause:-

(a) a report with recommendations and suitable preamble;

(b) minutes of the committee’s proceedings and transactions;

to be presented to the Council by the presiding member of each committee concerned, or in his or her absence, a member of the committee in the form of a motion; “That the report be received and the recommendation be adopted”.

(2) No objection to the receipt of a report of any committee, or any part of it, shall be raised when such reports are presented to the Council, except for reasons arising out of such reports.

(3) The presiding member is to:-

(a) put the motion that the report be received;

(b) call for a motion to be moved by any member pursuant to clause 5.6(1), with the exception of item (a) of that clause, with respect to any recommendation contained in the report;

(c) put the motion that the recommendation be adopted in relation to the recommendations contained in the report, apart from a recommendation or recommendations which are the subject of a motion by a member pursuant to the preceding item of this sub-clause; and

(d) ensure that the motions are debated and dealt with in accordance with these Standing Orders in relation to a recommendation or those recommendations in the report which are the subject of a motion or motions by a member or members pursuant to clause 5.6.”

The Audit Committee Terms of Reference governs the functions, powers and membership of the Audit Committee.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for Council to consider the report and minutes of the Audit Committee meeting on 3 March 2020.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.