Agenda of Council - 27 June 2011

Council 27 June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council - 23 May 2011, Council (Development) - 14 June 2011

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Minutes of Lord Mayor

5 Public Forum

6 PETITIONS

7 Rescission Motions

7.1 DA Assessment Governance Framework

7.2 147 Parramatta Road, Granville

8 Economy and Development

8.1 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group minutes held on 9 June 2011

8.2 Parramatta Traffic Committee minutes held on 9 June 2011

8.3 Adoption of Visitor Strategy for Parramatta 2011-2016

8.4 Restricted Premises Enforcement Policy

8.5 Rawson Street road reserve,
Epping

8.6 399 Church Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
(LOT 1 DP 564570 - Arthur Phillip Ward)

8.7 4-6 Hammers Road, Northmead (Lot 9 DP 7339)

8.8 85 Wigram Street
Harris Park
Lot 12 DP 415

9 Environment and Infrastructure

9.1 Sustainability Retrofits for Residential Apartment Blocks

9.2 Implementation of a City Wide Design Award which also considers Environmental Sustainability

10 Community and Neighbourhood

10.1 Requests for Fee Subsidy for the of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms.

10.2 31 Prospect Street Rosehill

10.3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 22 February 2011

10.4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 3 May 2011

10.5 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 24 May 2011

11 Governance and Corporate

11.1 Investments Report for April 2011

11.2 Loan Borrowing

11.3 Remuneration Tribunal Determination in relation to Fees for Councillor Remuneration

11.4 Report of the Audit Committee meeting held on 31 March 2011

11.5 14th International Riversymposium 'The Value of Rivers' - Brisbane - 26-29 September 2011

11.6 Benchmarking Best Practice In Local Government Conference 2011 - 3 - 4 August 2011 - Melbourne

11.7 ParraConnect Advisory Committee May 2011

11.8 Amendment to Code of Meeting Practice in relation to Question Time

11.9 MAKING OF RATES AND ANNUAL CHARGES 2011/12

11.10 Review of 2011/12 Budget and forward estimates and preliminary 2010/11 forecast result

12 Notices of Motion

12.1 Proposed Urban Renewal Study for Granville

13 Closed Session

13.1 Expression of Interest for Independent Members of the Audit Committee

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

14 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

15 QUESTION TIME

Council 27 June 2011 Item 7.1

RESCISSION MOTIONS

ITEM NUMBER 7.1

SUBJECT DA Assessment Governance Framework

REFERENCE F2008/00998 - D01996713

REPORT OF Administration Officer

To be Moved by Councillor J D Finn and Seconded by Councillors P K Maitra and P Esber

RECOMMENDATION

That the resolution of the Council Meeting held on 23 May 2011, regarding DA Assessment Governance Framework namely:-

“(a) That Council re-affirm the decision of 9 March 2009 and amended on 28 June 2010 regarding the functions delegated to the Chief Executive Officer that relate to the determination of development applications, subject to the following changes, being:

(1) Approve development applications (including Section 96 applications) provided:

i. There are not more than 9 objections to the development; or

ii. The development does not involve a variation to a Development Standard of more than 10%; or

ii. The development application does not relate to land in which Council holds, or has recently held, a direct pecuniary interest; or

iii. The development application is not known to have been made, or relate to a property owned by a member of staff or a Councillor; or

iv. The development application does not involve demolition of a heritage item; or

v. The development application does not relate to a brothel, massage parlour, sex service premises, restricted premises, tattoo parlour, place of public worship, infill housing under the Affordable Housing SEPP or boarding house;

vi. The application does not seek a review of determination under Section 82A review; or

vii. The application is not a Section 96(AA) application, or

viii. The application is not a Section 96(2) application where the original development application was determined by the elected Council; or

ix. The application is not a Section 96 (1A) application where the original development application was determined by the elected Council and the modification sought relates to a condition which was added by the Council beyond the recommendation contained in the officer report.

(b) That if any 2 or more Councillors give the CEO notice in writing that a DA should be considered at a Council Meeting, that application must be referred to Council for determination.

(c) That a monthly report be provided to Councillors listing in summary all development applications which have any of the following characteristics:-

i. still under consideration for 6 months or longer;

ii. more than $750,000 in value;

iii. have attracted any objections;

iv. have an impact or are in a heritage or conservation zone.

(d) That the site inspection, if required, occur in the week before the Council meeting, once the officers’ assessment report has been completed;

(e) That an amendment to the Notification Development Control Plan be prepared to introduce an extended notification period over the Christmas period as outlined in the attached report;

(f) That referral to NSW Police Service of DAs be for liquor licences matters associated with Hotels and Clubs unless the CEO determines otherwise; and

(g) Further, that the Code of Meeting Practice be amended to provide for the consideration of development applications at all Council meetings.”

be and is hereby rescinded.

Attachments:

1 View

Previous Council Report

20 Pages

Council 27 June 2011 Item 8.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT Adoption of Visitor Strategy for Parramatta 2011-2016

REFERENCE F2010/01867 - D01990372

REPORT OF Arts & Cultural Project Officer-Parramatta Stories.City Culture,

PREVIOUS ITEMS 7.1 - Visitor Strategy for Parramatta 2011 - 2016 - Council - 27 April 2011

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement of the Visitor Strategy for Parramatta 2011-2016.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Visitor Strategy for Parramatta 2011-2016 be adopted by Council.

(b) That the members of the tourism reference group be advised of the outcome of Council’s decision and thanked for their efforts in providing valuable input into the development of the Strategy.

BACKGROUND

1. The draft Visitor Strategy was created to build and position Parramatta as a leisure destination to increase visitation, foster repeat visitation, facilitate greater spend, encourage longer stays, grow advocates and evolve perceptions of the City.

2. The Visitor Strategy provides a strategic pathway of objectives and actions that are practical and achievable for a range of stakeholders (industry and Council) to deliver in stages over the next five years.

3. Council at its meeting on the 27 April 2011 resolved that the draft Visitor Strategy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCE

4. The draft Strategy was placed on exhibition in Parramatta Central Library, on Council’s website, and within the customer service centre during the period 28 April 2011 to 25 May 2011.

5. An email was sent to the 160 stakeholders that form the reference group that has been consulted through the development of the Strategy, advising them of Councils approval to place the document on public exhibition and encouraging them to respond with feedback on the draft Strategy.

6. One (1) submission was received and considered during this period.

This submission was from Parramatta Park Trust commending Council on the creation of the Strategy and requesting further work be undertaken on heritage tourism. Attachment 1 (provided to Senior Staff and Councillors only).

· The submission sought to rectify the underselling of heritage, seeking further recognition of the significance of colonial heritage to Parramatta.

· The submission also suggested further reduction of the number of actions and increasing capacity building for the industry from a medium to high priority.

· A response was provided explaining that the Strategy required coverage of a broad range of issues and specific identification of key actions to deliver the goal of increasing and maximizing leisure visitation to the City. The eighteen high priority actions are essential to meet the goal.

· The response also explains that the culture, heritage and identity of Parramatta is identified as a strength of the City and a core component of the Strategy. One of the high priority actions outlines the need for the heritage museums to improve their visitor programs and experience to expand their desirability for potential visitors. National Trust NSW and Historic Houses Trust NSW have accepted the recommendations and all heritage museums have expressed interest in working on the actions of the Strategy.

· The submission did not prompt any amendments to the draft Strategy document.

7. The Parramatta Chamber of Commerce contacted Council following the closure of the public exhibition period and provided verbal feedback. The Chamber will provide a written response to Council following its executive meeting on 15 June 2011.

· The Chamber of Commerce complimented Council on the development of the comprehensive Strategy. The Chamber welcomed the opportunity to continue working with Council and start to actively engage the business community and maintain communication and their enthusiasm.

· The Chamber also expressed a desire to participate with other members of the tourism industry reference group in the development of the industry cluster to support the implementation of the recommendations.

· The Chamber suggested that further work be undertaken in collecting statistical data of visitor numbers and trends with attractions and accommodation sectors to develop market intelligence.

· The Chamber also expressed support for prospectuses to provide further data and advice to encourage leisure businesses to set-up in Parramatta.

· A response was provided explaining that the high priority actions of the Strategy encompass all the main points that the Chamber has raised. The response also advised that formal approval of the Strategy by Council will allow Council staff to work with the NSW Department of Industry and Investment and local stakeholders, such as the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce, to establish the industry cluster. The response also acknowledged the importance of ongoing and long-term support of all parties in the delivery of the Strategy and the desire to secure resources to advance the recommendations.

· The submission did not prompt any amendments to the draft Strategy document.

8. Following assessment of the submissions no amendments where made to the document. The final document is Attachment 2 of this report.

9. Progress on the high priority actions will be monitored regularly, tallied quarterly and reported annually. The implementation and evaluation will be undertaken by Council’s City Culture, Tourism and Recreation Unit in partnership with various teams across Council and through engagement with the Industry Cluster Group and other industry partners.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

10. Prioritised actions will be funded where appropriate, through existing Council programs supported by City Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Major Events, Cultural Heritage and Visitor Information, and City Strategy. Where appropriate, funding will also be sourced through relevant Section 94A Development Contributions Plan and through Council’s delivery plan process.

11. Progress on the actions is currently opportunity driven reliant on partnerships and where possible leveraging existing Council projects to deliver additional outcomes. Several budget bids required to support the delivery of several high priority actions were submitted to Council in 2011/2012 but have not been successful this year. Bids included; Tourism/Visitor Development Program, Worker Research, Things to do: Activities for the City and River Foreshore and Marketing and Communications for the New Leisure Brand.

12. Opportunities to seek grant funding towards implementing components of the Strategy through various Federal and State government departments will be pursued. For example; Council has received a $10,000 grant from NSW Department of State and Regional Development to establish the governance cluster in 2011 with representation of the industry stakeholders, Government and Council.

Michelle Desailly

Project Officer - Parramatta Stories

Attachments:

1	Parramatta Park Trust Submission	14 Pages
2 View	Visitor Strategy for Parramatta 2011-2016	64 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 8.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.5

SUBJECT Rawson Street road reserve,
Epping

DESCRIPTION Use of Rawson Street for the Epping Street Fair on the last Sunday in August for 5 years commencing 2011

REFERENCE DA/112/2011 - Lodged 7 March 2011

APPLICANT/S The Epping Club

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 8^th June 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal is located on Council owned land.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA/112/2011 is seeking approval to carry out a community event, known as the Epping Street Fair on the last Sunday in August for 5 consecutive years commencing in 2011. The dates nominated for the event are 28 August 2011, 26 August 2012, 25 August 2013, 31 August 2014 and 30 August 2015. The street fair is to be carried out within the Rawson Street road reserve between Bridge Street and the lane opposite the Epping Club. The fair is to occur between 10am and 4pm and is estimated to be attended by in the order of 5,000 people. The event will involve the erection of a stage and related equipment, backstage area, a marquee of dimensions 2.4m x 2.4m, 55 stalls for sales of food, wine, educational equipment, arts and crafts and the like and a jumping castle and giant slide. The fair will also include a talent quest and children’s entertainment. The event will require the partial closure of Rawson Street between the roundabout at Bridge Street and the lane opposite the Epping Club and the closure of the Bridge Lane from Bridge Street to Rawson Street 4am to 7pm on the day of the event. Set up will commence at 4.30am and pack up will allow for the street to be reopened to traffic at 7pm.

The site is unzoned under Local Environmental Plan 2001. Clause 49 addresses development of unzoned land and requires development consent for any development on unzoned land. As such, the use of the Rawson Street road reserve is permissible with consent.

The proposed use is consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment), LEP 2001 and DCP 2005.

It is not considered that the event will have any significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area, with impacts being temporary in nature and given the surrounding non-residential land uses. The fair has been held in previous years without any problems arising.

No submissions were received during the notification period.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/112/2011 for the use of Rawson Street for the Epping Street Fair on the last Sunday in August for 5 years commencing in 2011, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2.

Kerry Gordon

Consultant Town Planner

Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Ltd

Attachments:

1 View	Locality Map	1 Page
2 View	S79C report	24 Pages
3 View	Plan	1 Page
4 View	Event Application Details	13 Pages
5 View	Epping Street Fair Booklet	25 Pages
6 View	Waste Management Plan	3 Pages
7 View	Risk Management Plan	31 Pages
8 View	Traffic Management Plan	6 Pages
9 View	Contingency & Evacuation Plan	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 8.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.6

SUBJECT 399 Church Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
(LOT 1 DP 564570 - Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1a) modification to an approved 198 seat non-licensed restaurant. The modifications include a reduction in seating to 64, use of the first floor for storage/administration, removal of seating from the upper most level and reduction of the ground floor area.

REFERENCE DA/270/2010/A - 4 March 2011

APPLICANT/S Dvyne Design & Construction

OWNERS Saisan Property Holdings Pty Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

9 June 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council as the original application was approved by Council on 6 December 2010.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for Section 96 (1a) modifications to a Council approved development consent for the use of an existing building as a non licensed restaurant with seating for 198, ground floor extensions and associated signage. The proposed modifications are as follows:

Ground Floor

· Deletion of the approved rear extension to the building;

· Modification to the layout of the approved kitchen;

· Deletion of the approved “Service lift” accessible from each floor; and

· Retention of the 64 seats with tables, including 10 outdoor seats.

First Floor

· Deletion of all approved first floor seating and tables, the area will only be used for storage and administration relating to the approved restaurant;

· Deletion of all approved partition walls, the waiters station and the approved male and female toilets. The majority of the first floor will be open with floor boards; and

· Construction of one unisex toilet, with a small “kitchenette” to the side at the north-western corner of the building.

Second Floor

· Deletion of all approved second floor seating and tables, the floor is not nominated for any use.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification DCP and no submissions were received.

The likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed and the proposed modifications are considered acceptable with respect to the standards and controls contained within Council’s City Centre LEP 2007 and City Centre DCP 2007.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent No. DA/270/2010 in the manner outlined in attachment 1.

(b) That the original objectors to be notified of Council’s decision.

David Little

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79c Report	8 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Architectural Plans	3 Pages
4 View	Section 96(1a) Statement	3 Pages
5 View	Original 79c Report	43 Pages
6 View	Original Development Consent	14 Pages
7 View	Approved Architectural Plans	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 8.7

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.7

SUBJECT 4-6 Hammers Road, Northmead (Lot 9 DP 7339)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) application to modify Development Consent DA/714/2009 (Seniors Housing Development). The modifications include:
1.The deletion of Condition 1 within Schedule 1 that requires dwellings 5 & 11 to be single storey only;
2.Deletion of ambulance bay at the rear of the site;
3.Increasing the first floor store rooms within villas 3-5 and 8-9; and
4.The deletion of a window on the southern elevation to bedroom 2 of villa 11.

REFERENCE DA/714/2009/A - Lodged 30 March 2011

APPLICANT/S JS Architects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Ms G M Vhong and Ms K L Emerson and Ms J Y T Lee and Mr C Baissari

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 10 June 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council as the original application for Consolidation of 2 allotments, re-subdivision into 3 lots, tree removal and construction of seniors housing development to accommodate 11 villas on proposed Lot B was approved by Council on 13 September 2010 and due to the number of submissions received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Section 96(2) application seeks approval for the following modifications:

1. The deletion of Condition 1 within Schedule 1 that requires dwellings 5 & 11 to be single storey only;

2. Deletion of ambulance bay at the rear of the site;

3. Increasing the first floor store rooms within villas 3-5 and 8-9; and

4. The deletion of a window on the southern elevation to bedroom 2 of villa 11.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy and ten submissions were received. The objections relate primarily to issues relating to height, privacy, shadows, ambulance/visitor bay, trees and property devaluation. The issues are addressed in the Section 79C Assessment Report (Attachment 1) and are not considered to warrant refusal of the application.

The likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed and the proposed modifications are considered acceptable with respect to the standards in SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 contains a development standard, Clause 40 minimum sizes and building height, which requires buildings located in the rear 25% area of the site to not exceed 1 storey in height.

Villa 5 does not encroach in the the rear 25% of the site area.

Villa 11 encroaches within the rear 25% of the site area by a maximum 7m which is approximately half of the length of the villa.

The minor variation will result in a built form that does not cast significant shadows on neighbouring properties, create adverse privacy impacts or add significantly to the bulk of the built form. The plans submitted with the Section 96 Modification Application have removed the window on the southern elevation of the first floor of villa 11, so as to ensure privacy to adjoining properties is not compromised.

As the minor non compliance results in no adverse impact on adjoining properties or on the future occupants of villas within the site, the proposed modification to the condition to retain the first floor of villas 5 and 11 can be supported.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent No. 714/2009 in the following manner:

1. Delete condition no. 1 in Schedule 1 which reads:

The rear units (5 and 11) are to be single storey only.

2. Modify condition no. 1 in Schedule 2 which reads:

1. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Drawing N⁰	Dated
Masterplan – Site Plan, Site Analysis (JS Architects: No. 01/09) Revision G	11 January 2011
Ground Floor Plan (JS Architects: No. 02/09) Revision G	11 January 2011
Roof Plan and Attic Floor Plans (JS Architects: No. 03/09) Revision G	11 January 2011
Elevation, Section and fence details, Garage plans & elevations (JS Architects: No. 04/09) Revision G	11 January 2011
Subdivision Plan (JS Architects: No. 05/07)	9 January 2009
Landscape Plan (JS Architects: No. 09/09) Revision G	11 January 2011
Stormwater Drainage Plan (Concept only), designed by Water Plan Pty Ltd, dated March 2009, Amendment C, Drawing No. NHAM4	2 March 2010

Document(s)	Dated
Arborist Report ( MacKay Tree Management)	4 December 2009
Colour and Finishes Schedule (JS Architects)	3 June 2009

Note: In the event of any inconsistency between the architectural plan(s) and the landscape plan(s) and/or stormwater disposal plan(s) (if applicable), the architectural plan(s) shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3. The following additional condition be imposed:

The Queensland Firewheel tree (identified as tree No. 37 in the arborist report) shall be retained.

Reason: The proposed works are sufficiently distanced from the tree.

4. Modify condition no. 3 as follows:

3. Trees to be retained are:

Tree No	Name	Common Name	Location	DBH Diameter at breast height (mm)	Tree Protection Zone (m)
1	Lophostemon confertus	Brush Box	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	400	8.4
8	Lagerstroemia indica	Crepe Myrtle	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	600	7.2
9-12	Camellia sasanqua	Camellia	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	150	2.2
14	Glochidion ferdinandi	Cheese Tree	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	1200	14.2
15	Eucalyptus tereticornis	Forest Red Gum	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	300	3.6
16	Eucalyptus tereticornis	Forest Red Gum	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	300	3.6
17	Corymbia eximia	Yellow Bloodwood	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	700	8.4
18	Eucalyptus nicholii	Peppermint Gum	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	400	4.8
19	Melaleuca sp.	Paperbark	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	200	2.4
20	Koelreuteria paniculata	Golden Rain Tree	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	300	3.6
37	Stenocarpus sinuatus	Queensland Firewheel	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	200	3

Reason: To protect significant trees which contribute to the landscape character of the area.

5. Modify condition no. 4 as follows:

4. Trees to be removed are:

Tree No	Name	Common Name	Location	Condition/ Height	Reason
2	Magnolia grandiflora	Bull Bay Magnolia	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Poor/4m	The tree is in decline
13	Leptospermum petersonii	Lemon Scented Tea tree	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Fair/8m	Tree is structurally unsound
29	Macadamia tetraphylla	Macadamia	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Fair/10m	Impacted by construction, low significance
30	Juglans major	Arizona Walnut	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Poor/18m	Tree is in decline, located within the building platform
31	Diospyros kaki	Persimmon	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Poor/10m	Tree is in decline, located within the building platform
32	Lagerstroemia indica	Crepe Myrtle	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Good/8m	Located within the building platform, low significance
33	Liquidambar styraciflua	Liquidambar	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Good/8m	Located within the building platform, low significance
34	Jacaranda mimosifolia	Jacaranda	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Fair/10m	Located within the building platform, low significance
35	Cinnamomum camphora	Camphor laurel	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Good/8m	Inappropriate species
36	Malus sp.	Crab Apple	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Poor/4m	In decline
38	Stenocarpus sinuatus	Queensland Firewheel	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Poor/5m	In decline
39	Grevillea robusta	Silky Oak	As shown in section 9.0 of the arborist report	Poor/12m	In decline

(b) Further, that objectors be advised of council’s decision.

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 96 Report	16 Pages
2 View	Plans	7 Pages
3	Confidential floor plans	3 Pages
4 View	Locality Map	1 Page
5 View	Previous S79C Report	53 Pages
6 View	DA/714/2009 Deferred Commencement	24 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 8.8

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.8

SUBJECT 85 Wigram Street
Harris Park
Lot 12 DP 415

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing heritage Item for use as a restaurant.

REFERENCE DA/126/2011 - Lodged at Council 14th March 2011

APPLICANT/S A A Singh

OWNERS D Kumar and S Kumar

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 10^th June 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal involves works to a heritage item.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for alterations and additions to a single storey heritage listed dwelling house at 85 Wigram Street, Harris Park and for a change of use to a 50 seat restaurant with trading hours of 8.00am to 10.00pm Sunday to Thursday and 8.00am to 11.00pm Friday to Sunday. The use of the verandah facing Wigram Street in association with the restaurant is restricted to the hours of 8am -9pm, 7 days a week.

The external works involve a new façade and provision of a small balcony facing Wigram Street, the construction of disabled access ramp along the northern side boundary and replacement of existing structural support beams and walls to the rear of the site to accommodate the proposed restaurant.

The internal works include the creation of kitchen space, toilets (including an accessible toilet), storage, cool room, and the demolition of the partition walls to create a dining area, bar, reception and two side entrances along the northern side boundary, one being an accessible entrance.

A sign is proposed to be located under the eave of the front façade, above the veranadah. However, the applicant has not provided satisfactory dimension details or specified what the sign will state. Therefore, it is recommended the sign be removed from the application.

The proposal does not include provision of outdoor dining on Council’s footpath.

The dwelling house, previously converted to a commercial use via development consent DA/4750/1990 (Natural Therapy Centre) on 9^th march 1990, is a heritage item of local significance under Schedule 6 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (Parramatta), as are adjoining buildings at No.s 83, and 87 Wigram Street.

The proposed use is defined as ‘Refreshment rooms’ under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (Parramatta) and is a permissible land use in the 2(A) Residential Zoning, Harris Park West Conservation Area (Harris Park Precinct).

The application was notified and advertised for a 21 day period between 30^th March and 20th April, 2011. In response, 1 objection was received, raising issues relating to operating hours, litter, odour generated from wastewater being disposed into the kerb and gutter system, vermin infestation, increased parking difficulty and privacy impacts.

The submission is addressed in the assessment report (see Attachment 1), where it is concluded that the issues raised do not warrant refusal, however changes have been recommended to the proposed operating hours.

Council’s Heritage Adviser assessed the proposal and concluded that:

“The subject site is located in the Harris Park West conservation area. It comprises a house that is part of the heritage item, the group of four houses at 83, 85, 87 and 89 Wigram Street. The house was intrusively added to and altered by the previous tenant.

The currently proposed changes include restoration of the front porch, with addition of a set of stairs to the porch and creation of a new entrance. However, the house has an entry from the side, and would not likely have had an entry from the porch. While Council’s database indicated that No. 83 is a Victorian period house, it has lower pitch of the roof, and other features of Interwar houses. I am thus inclined to believe that this house originally had the side entry and the front porch without access to street, in a manner typical for many Interwar houses.

Internally, the proposed changes do not clarify what type of floors and walls are to be created, whether ceilings can be retained, and how much of the original walling is to be retained. These are critical questions, as the front area of the house should be restored (including front rooms facing the street, the porch and entry area) while potential additions to the rear are of secondary impact.

I would thus recommend asking for these details to be clarified and for plans to be updated so as to include a more accurate reconstruction of the front porch and the front rooms.. ”

The issues raised by the Heritage Adviser were addressed by way of amended plans addressed and conditions of consent in the recommendation.

The proposed alterations and additions and the change of use to a restaurant is consistent with the existing scale and use of buildings in the area and is consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2(A) Zone, Harris Park West Conservation Area. The proposal will not unreasonably impact the amenity of surrounding development or the streetscape, subject to a amended operating hours, as recommended.

The provision of 2 spaces at the rear (with 1 doubling up as a loading area) is considered adequate for staff carparking, with the likelihood that some staff members would commute together or travel by public transport. Customers on the other hand would range from those driving to the site from other parts of Sydney, local residents, local workers and visitors to local residents who would walk to the site from neighbouring streets.

The provision of 2 carparking spaces complies with the maximum carparking rate prescribed for the proposed use by SREP No. 28 (Parramatta).

The laneway at the rear of the site is also subject to road widening provisions under the REP. No works are proposed in this location.

For the above reasons, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable. Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 126/2011 for alterations and additions and the change of use of the building to a restaurant at 85 Wigram Street, Harris Park for a period of five years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the following conditions Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that the objector be advised of Council’s decision.

Michael Tully

Development & Certification Officer

Attachments:

1 View	S79C Report	31 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 9.1

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Sustainability Retrofits for Residential Apartment Blocks

REFERENCE F2008/00548 - D01995240

REPORT OF Project Officer - Business Sustainability

PURPOSE:

To respond to the Council resolution of 28 February 2011 regarding the feasibility of expanding the community grants program to include sustainability retrofits for apartment blocks.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the report, and

(b) Further, that a sustainability retrofit program for apartment blocks be included as a project bid under Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program (WaSIP) funding in 2011/12.

BACKGROUND

1. At its Meeting on 28 February 2011, Council resolved that:

“Staff provide a report in relation to the cost and feasibility of funding an expansion of the community grants program to include sustainability retrofits for apartment blocks for pre-BASIX residential flat buildings being on a dollar for dollar basis up to $10,000 for a 3 storey building and $15,000 for high rise.”

2. Based on the 2006 Census residential multi unit dwellings or apartment blocks represent approximately 30 per cent of the total residential building stock within the Parramatta local government area (LGA) thus representing a significant component of the LGA’s electricity and water usage.

3. While there have been a number of State and Federal water and energy efficiency programs available for detached residential houses, the same is not true for multi-unit dwellings such as apartment blocks.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Council’s existing community grants program

4. The community grants program sits within the Community Capacity Unit. The grant program is currently set up to support local not-for-profit community-based groups, organisations and services. Other council units provide support for components of the grants that relate to them however the processing of grant applications sits within the Community Capacity Team.

5. The nature of a sustainability retrofit program does not fit the current criteria for Community Grants and the expansion of the community grants program to include environmental grants of this type would require considerable changes to the structure / governance of the program.

6. The expertise required to design, manage and implement the program would likely sit with the Waste and Sustainability Unit as the delivery unit for environmental education.

Willoughby City Council’s Sustainability Retrofit program

7. Willoughby City Council has a ClimateClever Apartment Program as part of its wider ClimateClever community education campaign which is designed to assist Owner’s Corporations to make their apartment buildings more energy and water efficient.

8. The Program was supported by an employee working full time on the Program along with free energy and water audits for 25 Owner’s Corporations. These audits provided advice in areas such as:

· The installation of energy efficient lighting;

· Water saving devices;

· Smart controls such as timers and sensors;

· The installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems; and

· The replacement of centralised electric storage hot water systems with gas boosted solar hot water systems.

9. The total cost of the Program to Willoughby Council over 1 year was approximately $180,000 made up of:

(a) Project officer x 1 year = $80,000

(b) Energy and water audits x 25 = $50,000

10. The total potential annual savings identified in the Willoughby Council program as a result of implementing recommended actions from all assessments were approximately:

· $230,000 from energy savings;

· 930,000 kWh of electricity;

· 1,000 tonnes CO₂;

· $1,400 from water savings; and

· 1000 kL of water.

Proposed Parramatta Council scheme

11. Willoughby Council’s model for retrofits is relatively resource intensive and would be difficult to implement at Parramatta Council, unless external funding could be obtained.

12. Given the poor fit with the existing community grants program and the complexities involved in modifying its existing structure, it is suggested that a version of the Willoughby Program be implemented and managed within Council’s Waste and Sustainability Team.

13. This project would be included as part of Council’s Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment (WaSIP) funding bid for the 11/12 Financial Year, as this program has predominately an environmental sustainability focus.

14. If WaSIP funding were made available for a building retrofit scheme then the direct financial cost of the scheme to Council would be zero.

15. However, if it were still preferred to run a retrofit program within the community grants scheme, the financial cost to Council would be as follows:

(a) Up to $10,000 per low rise building (up to 3 storeys) x 2 grants

(b) Up to $15,000 per medium / high rise building (3+ storeys) x 2 grants

(c) Total cost of project using community grants program = up to $50,000 annually (depending on community interest / size of retrofits).

Leanne Niblock Paul Hackney

Project Officer A/ Manager

Environmental Outcomes Environmental Outcomes

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 27 June 2011 Item 9.2

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT Implementation of a City Wide Design Award which also considers Environmental Sustainability

REFERENCE F2008/00548 - D01995336

REPORT OF A/ Manager Environmental Outcomes

PURPOSE:

To respond to the Council resolution of 28 February 2011 regarding the possible implementation of a city wide design award which also considers environmental sustainability.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the report.

(b) Further, that a City Wide Design Award for sustainability and urban design be considered as a project bid for the 2012/13 budget.

BACKGROUND

1. At its Meeting on 28 February 2011, Council resolved:

That a report be submitted on the possible implementation of a city wide design award which also considers environmental sustainability.

2. Parramatta City Council Heritage Awards events have been held in 2004, 2005 and 2007 and it is proposed to hold a similar event in the 2011/12 financial year. Previous events recognising Parramatta Design Excellence were held in 2003 and 2005.

3. There are a number of prestigious NSW and Australia wide awards that already recognise achievement in sustainable design. These include but are not limited to the following:

(i) Lend Lease Design Architecture Awards

o Award for Sustainable Architecture

(ii) The Australian Interior Design Awards

o Sustainability Advancement Award (previously Environmentally Sustainable Design Award)

(iii) ARBS Industry Awards

o Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Project Leadership Award

(iv) UDIA National Innovation and Excellence Awards

o Environmental Excellence Award

(v) Banskia Environmental Award

o Built Environment

(vi) Property Council of Australia Innovation and Excellence Awards

o Best sustainable development

(vii) Office of Environment and Heritage Green Globe Awards

o Built Environment Sustainability Award

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Research suggests that economic conditions and resulting development (or lack of) have a major impact on the number and quality of entries in Design Award competitions in other Council areas. Both North Sydney and Waverley Councils reported that they have struggled with this and that entries have not met judge’s expectations. Current low levels of redevelopment within the LGA (and particularly in the commercial and multi-unit residential sector) suggest that significant effort would need to be made to ensure suitable entries were received for a Parramatta based Award.

5. Randwick Council has run successful awards every 2 years since 2006 and reported that the last event in 2010 attracted a large number of quality entries. This appears to be the result of several years of ongoing work, resulting in a large data base of invitees as well as numerous new buildings which have been built in the area.

6. The Parramatta Heritage Awards have a budget of around $16,000, and recognise upgrades of heritage buildings that are sensitive and in keeping with the character of the heritage building. Parramatta has a large number of heritage buildings and as a result, the quality of entries has generally been of high standard and there has been good feedback from the community. However past experience indicates that very significant amounts of staff time is required to obtain sufficient numbers of entries.

7. Council could consider sponsoring an existing or develop a new award category within an established Award (such as those listed previously). However whilst this would demonstrate Council’s support for sustainable design, the focus on sustainable development directly within Parramatta LGA would likely be lost.

8. A successful Awards night would raise the profile of Council and the LGA, which could lead to increased development within the LGA.

Financial Implications for Council

9. The cost of organising a Design Award event at other Councils varies from around $6,500 to $20,000. Costs involved include venue hire, catering, payment of suitably qualified judges, advertising/promotion and production of awards.

10. The financial amount described above does not include significant internal costs associated with the organization of a Design Award event. Other Council’s have reported that at least 2 staff are generally required to work on the event full time in the 1-2 months prior, with a lower workload in the preceding months. These internal resource requirements could be reduced if temporary staff were hired to support the event.

11. Due to lack of internal staff resources within Council to organise an Awards event it is suggested that a contractor or temporary staff member be employed to assist with an Awards Event.

Proposed Budget for Awards

ACTIVITY	COST
Temporary staff member or contractor to assist with Event	$20,000
Marketing & Engagement	$5,000
Event Costs	$10,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST	$35,000

12. If monetary prizes were to be offered to encourage entries to the Awards then this would represent an additional cost.

Leanne Niblock Paul Hackney

Project Officer A/ Manager

Environmental Outcomes Environmental Outcomes

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 10.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT Requests for Fee Subsidy for the of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms.

REFERENCE F2004/07903 - D01952498

REPORT OF Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

PURPOSE:

The report details the process and recommendations for 2011/2012 Fee Subsidies for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms by annual hirers.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the report on requests for fee subsidies for the use of Council’s public halls, community centres and meeting rooms by annual hirers for 2011/2012 be received and noted.

(b) That Council approve the annual fee subsidies to be granted as recommended in the 2011/2012 Fee Subsidy Assessment Sheet.

(c) That the applicants, who have been unsuccessful in receiving a full exemption, be contacted to negotiate a payment program.

(d) Further, that the invoices be issued to those groups who are required to pay fees for their use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms.

BACKGROUND

1. At its meeting on 23 September 2002, Council endorsed the assessment criteria and procedure for managing requests for fee exemptions and reductions. The criteria include consideration of the type of group and its financial circumstances along with likely community benefits.

2. At its meeting of 29 March 2005, Council approved delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to award subsidies outside of the annual process where groups fully meet the endorsed criteria.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Council agreed in 2002 on a policy for fee subsidies for Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms. This report implements this policy for 2011/2012.

4. All annual hirers were invited to apply for a fee subsidy in their booking confirmations.

5. There were thirty seven (37) requests for applications forms. A copy of the application form is Attachment 1. A copy of the accompanying letter is Attachment 2.

6. Thirty Five (35) applications for fee subsidies were received at the time of this report. Two (2) applicants have requested an extension of time to submit their annual application for a fee subsidy, due to individual circumstances.

7. At the time of this report, there was 1 new applicant from previous years applying for a fee subsidy.

8. Council Officers have assessed the applications against the endorsed criteria Attachment 3. A table that summarises the applications, the groups’ demonstrated contribution to the community and inability to pay is at Attachment 4. The subsidies recommended for consideration by Council appear in the second last column of the table.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. All thirty five (35) applications currently meet the assessment criteria.

10. A Councillor workshop for the review of the Fee Subsidy Criteria was held on 14 July 2010. At this workshop, Council considered the application and assessment process and fee subsidy criteria. No changes were made to the fee subsidy process or fee subsidy criteria. Council may wish however, to defer this report and hold a similar workshop this year.

11. A review of the community leasing policy is currently in progress. The fee subsidy process will be considered as part of this review.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. The amount allocated within Councils budget for fee subsidies for halls, community centres and meeting rooms for 2011/2012 is $116,699.

13. Of the applications that currently meet the assessment criteria, it is determined that the total subsidy required to be granted is $125,949.

14. In 2009, Council resolved that all senior citizen services in the Parramatta Local Government Area be exempted from paying hire fees for their use of Council’s public halls, community centres and meeting rooms. Under this resolution, 13 applicants are exempt from paying fees for the 2011/2012 year;

1. Arthritis Foundation of NSW Parramatta

2. Australian Tamil Seniors Association

3. Falun Dafa

4. German Senior Community Incorporated

5. Golden A Club

6. Granville Community Group

7. Granville Country Women’s Association

8. Italian Social Group

9. Multi-national Seniors

10. Over 50s Self Supported Group - Guildford

11. Spanish Speaking Seniors

12. The Sage Club

13. Tuesday Day-Lighters

This comprises $24,824.76 of the total fees subsidised for the 2011/2012 year. In 2010/2011 the total fees subsidised for seniors groups was $17,647.45.

15. In 2010/11, the total subsidy granted was $143,350.94 (this included casual applications determined by the Chief Executive Officer under delegated authority following the annual approval of subsidies by Council).

16. Management of the difference between the allocated budget and the total recommended subsidy will be reported to Council through the September 2011 quarterly review process.

Rebecca Grasso

Manager City, Culture, Tourism and Recreation

Attachments:

1 View	2011-2012 Fee Subsidy Assessment Sheet	1 Page
2 View	Fee Subsidy Assessment Criteria	1 Page
3 View	Fee Subsidy Application Form	5 Pages
4 View	Fee Subsidy Request Letter	12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 10.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT 31 Prospect Street Rosehill

REFERENCE F2011/01127 - D01977658

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

The report recommends Council to purchase the property at 31 Prospect Street Rosehill for public open space

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to purchase 31 Prospect Street Rosehill (Lot 1 DP 128372) at a price as recommended in the valuation report at Attachment 2.

(b) Further, that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute under seal the sale contract and transfer relating to purchase of the property.

BACKGROUND

1. The proposed purchase is subject of a Council action item on 27 April 2011 when “Councillor Finn sought advice on when Council anticipated acquiring the vacant lot at the corner of Arthur and Prospect Streets, Rosehill (across from Rosehill Public School) and to subsequently turn the site into a park”. For reference, a location plan is at Attachment 1.

2. The above property is zoned Open Space within the Harris Park Precinct of Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta (SREP). It has also been reserved for open space for Council acquisition under clause 72 of the SREP. The property has also been zoned RE1 (public recreation) and has been reserved for local open space under Council’s draft Local Environmental Plan 2011, which is expected to be gazetted soon. The land is currently vacant and demolition would not be required to convert the property to open space.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Rosehill has been identified in Council’s Open Space Plan (adopted in 2003) as having a significant under-provision of open space and playground facilities. This area (Rosehill / Harris Park) has the lowest ratio of public open space per person (1.2ha per 1000 population) which is well below the general standard for open space provision being 2.83ha per 1000 population and the Council average of 5.7ha per 1000 population.

4. The demand for open space in the local surrounding area is also increasing through significant medium and high density housing development. To ensure that the distribution and amount of open space addresses current and future population demand, the Open Space Plan has recommended the minimum of one additional park in Rosehill as a high priority.

5. In Rosehill / Harris Park area, there are a number of public open space (refer to Attachment 2) the majority of which with the exception of John Irving Park to the southern edge, is located in the northern / western part of Rosehill / Harris Park. John Irving Park is currently used for a community garden. Due to its proximity to the motorway, it is considered unsuitable for use as a children playground. The Elizabeth Farm Reserve is heritage listed hence the farm including the curtilage is not available for development for a children playground.

6. According to Council’s Open Space Plan (adopted in 2003), the Rosehill area has a severe lack of children playground within a reasonable walking distance (400-500m) which is a commonly accepted local government best-practice benchmark, of the housing area (Attachment 3). There is an increasing trend since 1991, as shown in the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, of increasing high density residential development in Rosehill area which makes provision of children playground a priority. The statistics also indicated high percentage of recent migrants and comparatively high percentage of households without a car in this area, which increases the importance / demand for local open space provision within a reasonable walking distance.

7. For information, the above property was on the market for sale in March 2011. It was sold subject to 190 days deferred settlement with the purchaser intending to develop a child care centre. With the open space land reservation on Council’s Regional Environmental Plan 28 such development proposal cannot proceed if Council decides to purchase the property.

8. The sale agent has advised that the land owner is prepared to release the purchaser from the sale contract and sells the property to the Council instead.

9. BEM Property the Council’s valuation consultant has provided Council a valuation on the open market value of the property. For reference, a summary of the valuation report is at Attachment 4 (confidential). The owner has agreed to the purchase price, as recommended in the valuation report.

10. It is expected that following purchase, the above property can be developed into a park and children playground in 2012/13.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. The purchase of the above property has the support of Council’s Land Use Planning Unit and Open Space & Natural Resources Unit.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. Funds for acquiring this property are available from the Open Space Acquisition and Embellishment Special Rate.

Kwok Leung

Property Program Manager

Attachments:

1 View	Location Plan	1 Page
2 View	Open Space Location Map	1 Page
3 View	Zoning Map (draft LEP 2011)	1 Page
4	Valuation summary	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 10.3

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 22 February 2011

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01995938

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

Note This report was deferred from the Council Meeting on 28 March 2011 for a meeting to be arranged by the Lord Mayor between the Committee and interested Councillors which has now occurred and is reported in further minutes of the Committee.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 22 February 2011. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of 22 February 2011 be received and noted.

(b) Further, that Council note there is no request for additional expenditure in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 15 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 22 February 2011 and this report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

MAIN DSICUSSION POINTS

3. The main issues discussed at the meeting are outlined below.

4. Listing of Parramatta Sand Platform on the State Heritage Register

(a) Officers from Department of Planning, Heritage Branch, Tanya Koeneman and Tracy Appel attended the meeting and provided an update to the Committee on the progress of the application to list the Parramatta Sand Platform on the State Heritage Register.

(b) The reasons for pursuing the listing of the Sand Platform were summarised. These included the importance of recording Aboriginal experience including both loss and destruction; the importance of protecting and conserving a unique area which provides much archaeological information on Aboriginal lifestyle over the past 30,000 years; awareness raising and educational opportunities for all levels of schooling; a reminder of the natural environment continually changing and the strengthening of Aboriginal relationships in the area, particularly with Council.

(c) Advice was provided on the results of the recently held auger testing. The testing indicated that the listing would be for the northern portion of Robin Thomas Reserve extending to the two historic houses in this area.

(d) Members were advised that consultations had been held with the Dharug and Deerubbin Land Council’s, Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee and the Heritage Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

(e) The Committee were informed that the proposed listing would be considered in April and be followed by a public exhibition period of 28 days which would provide advice of the intent to list the Sand Body and invite submissions. Submissions can be submitted by any individual, organisation or the Committee. It was noted that Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee has supported the listing and will report this to Council’s March 2011 meeting.

(f) The Committee recommended that Council support the application for the Parramatta Sand Body to be listed on the State Heritage Register as soon as possible and also noted its support of Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee for the proposal.

5. The passing of Marilyn McGee

The Committee was advised of the passing of former Parramatta and Holroyd Aboriginal Advisory Committee member Ms Marilyn McGee in January this year. The Committee observed a minute’s silence in honour of Ms McGee.

6. Request to attend the Committee meeting by Ms Jillian Coomber, Archaeologist/Heritage Consultant, Comber Consultants Pty Limited

The Committee accepted the offer by Ms Coomber to attend their March Committee meeting and provide an update on archaeological digs happening within the LGA including the site at 140 Macquarie Street.

7. Foundation Acknowledgment

(a) A Committee member drew attention to Council’s Foundation Acknowledgement, adopted by Council at its meeting of 18 October 2010 to be delivered after the Acknowledgement to Country at Council meetings and official Council functions.

(b) The Committee recommended that they express their disappointment to Council that the decision to introduce a Foundation Acknowledgement was taken without reference to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee and requested that the Foundation Acknowledgement no longer occur.

Officer’s Comment:

It is noted that the full wording of Council’s resolution to adopt the Foundation Acknowledgement includes sentiments and actions that will assist in explaining its purpose to the Committee and may ameliorate members’ concerns in relation to this matter. Since this matter arose as business without notice, the full resolution was not at hand at the 22 February 2011 Committee meeting. At the 22 March 2011 meeting, the Council Officer provided the full wording of Council’s resolution to the Committee.

The Lord Mayor attended the Committee meeting on 3 May 201. Further information on this meeting is contained in the ATSIC Advisory Committee 3 May 2011 Report, item - . The matter was further discussed by the Committee on 24 May 2011. See ATSIC Advisory Committee Report 24 May 2011 – item for further information on that discussion.

8. The Committee paid its respects to the victims of the Christchurch Earthquake

The Committee observed a minute’s silence for the victims of the Christchurch Earthquake.

9. Lake Parramatta

(a) The Committee were advised of a meeting at Lake Parramatta between Lord Mayor Councillor John Chedid and Executive Committee members John Robertson and Doug Desjardines. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Committee’s concerns regarding Lake Parramatta.

(b) The Committee were advised that the Lord Mayor had assured them that no major developments were proposed for Lake Parramatta and that he had been supportive of all the issues raised and the recommendations presented by the Executive members.

(c) The Committee recommended to Council that they endorse, in principle, the proposed development at Lake Parramatta provided that:

i) The development is no higher than the existing structure

ii) The development occupies no more of the reserve than the existing fenced area (i.e shadow)

iii) That the development includes a dedicated museum / keeping place which could display artefacts, stories, samples of fauna and flora etc as appropriate of the Barramattagal and Dharug

iv) That the development incorporates an area/ facility which may be used as an educational resource/ training/ meeting place.

(d) The Committee also recommended, as a matter of urgency that Council reconsider the position and employment of an identified Aboriginal Ranger/ Guide to be engaged full time on duties at and associated with Lake Parramatta.

Officer’s Comment:

This recommendation has been forwarded to Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Team to be considered with the consultative processes in preparing the draft Plan of Management for Lake Parramatta.

(e) The Committee also recommended that Council apply to the Heritage Council of NSW to have Lake Parramatta Reserve listed on the State Heritage Register.

Officers Comment:

The Committee will be advised at its 22 March 2011 meeting of Council’s resolution at its meeting of 28 February 2011 not to apply to have Lake Parramatta placed on the State Heritage Register.

(f) The Committee made two further recommendations regarding Lake Parramatta: That an appropriate plaque be placed there recognising the role of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee and that a Tree Planting Ceremony at the Lake be incorporated as part of Council’s Sorry Day activities each year.

Officer’s Comment:

These recommendations have been forwarded to Council’s Civic Events Team.

10. Council’s Management of the Stone Goanna and Meeting Circle at Lake Parramatta

(a) The Committee’s advice was sought by Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Team regarding the management of the Stone Goanna sculpture and Meeting Circle Stones at Lake Parramatta. They were advised that the Circle of Stones was being subjected to continual vandalism.

(b) The Committee recommended that in agreement with advice from Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Team, the Stone Goanna be repaired and the Meeting Circle be dismantled and removed.

11. General Business

The Committee discussed a number of matters including the following.

(a) The Committee were advised of a new Aboriginal catering business, Kallico Catering which as part of their business provided training for Aboriginal women.

(b) The Committee discussed the request put to them by Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Team to have access to Aboriginal Heritage Information held by Department of Environment Climate Change and Water. The Committee raised no objection to this request.

(c) The Committee learnt of a meeting- The Apology and Beyond- organised by the Mt Druitt and District Reconciliation Group to mark the anniversary of the Apology to the Stolen Generation, 2008. The meeting was attended by a number of Committee members.

(d) The Committee were informed of the role of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) which is to undertake informed, specialised campaigning and to mobilise support that achieves justice and self determination for Aboriginal people. The Committee recommended that Council purchase a three years subscription and that the material be displayed at Parramatta Library.

Officer’s Comment:

This recommendation has been forwarded to Council’s Library Services for consideration and action.

(e) Information was provided to the Committee regarding Parramatta Library’s recent reorganisation and that as part of this work, some material and resources relating to Aboriginal people and issues was donated to NSW Lands Council’s Beyond the Bars program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. There are no financial implications to Council arising from this report.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting 22 February 2011

10 Pages

Council 27 June 2011 Item 10.4

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.4

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 3 May 2011

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01944236

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 3 May 2011. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of 3 May 2011 be received and noted.

(b) That Council officers seek the advice of the Executive of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee when approached regarding the use of Aboriginal names or language.

(c) That a brochure be developed to assist in explaining the role of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee.

(d) Further, that Council note that there is no request for additional expenditure.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 15 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 3 May 2011. This report provides a summary of the decisions made at this meeting.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

3. The Lord Mayor, Councillor John Chedid attended the meeting and spoke with members regarding the Foundation Acknowledgment. The Lord Mayor provided background information on the Acknowledgment and informed the Committee he would consider the best time during an event/ function to make the Foundation Acknowledgment.

MAIN AGENDA ITEMS

4. The main agenda items discussed by the Committee were:

5. Approaches to Council officers by external stakeholders regarding the use of Aboriginal language / names in the naming of buildings/ places be referred to the Committee’s Executive Committee. Committee members may be able to provide valuable information and advice to assist Council officers in responding to such issues.

6. Council Officer Maggie Kyle be asked to develop a brochure on the Committee’s role that would assist in increasing internal and external stakeholders’ understanding of the role of the Committee.

7. The Committee discussed Council’s concerns regarding issues discussed at Advisory Committees and the recording of meeting business. The Council decisions regarding these matters were noted. Whilst acknowledging Council’s concerns regarding these issues the Committee noted that all issues it discusses are “close to the hearts of members”.

8. One amendment was required to the Aboriginal content on Council’s website: the garden at Lake Parramatta was designed by Kerrie Kenton. This correction will be arranged by Council officers.

9. The first planning meeting for 2011 NAIDOC was scheduled.

10. The results of the 12 year study Challenging Racism, which includes a survey of the local government areas of Auburn, Holroyd and Parramatta, conducted by the University of Western Sydney, were discussed and members noted their concern regarding its findings. A copy of this report is appended to the minutes. (Attachments 2 and 3).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

11. There are no financial implications to Council.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Minutes 3 May 2011	5 Pages
2 View	Challenging Racism Report	13 Pages
3 View	Challenging Racism Part 2	3 Pages

Council 27 June 2011 Item 10.5

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.5

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 24 May 2011

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01983597

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 24 May 2011. This report provides a précis of the decisions made at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of 24 May 2011 be received and noted.

(b) That Council forward the Committee’s concerns to the Attorney General in relation to the practice of residents from the Parramatta Local Government Area being incarcerated away from their families and a copy of the letter be provided to the Placement Officer at Silverwater Jail.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 15 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 24 May 2011. This report provides a summary of the decisions of the Committee.

MAIN AGENDA ITEMS

3. The Committee noted its preference that the Acknowledgment of Country and Foundation Acknowledgment not be used in conjunction to each other and determined to seek confirmation from Council on how these will be used. Council officers will seek advice on this matter from the Lord Mayor’s Office.

4. The Committee requested a letter be written to the NSW Attorney General regarding the practice in NSW Corrective Services of residents of Parramatta local government area being incarcerated away from their families in contravention of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

5. The Committee requested that appreciation be extended to Ms Donna-Lee Astill and her employer, Indigenous Disability Advocacy Service for the recent outstanding efforts in relation to the relocation of a prisoner from Goulburn Jail. The Committee also asked that a card expressing the best wishes of the Committee be forwarded to Bob Leslie at Nepean Hospital. Council officers will assist the Executive members to attend to these matters.

6. The Committee discussed the Western Sydney NAIDOC Dinner Dance scheduled for 15 July 2011 at a cost of $35 per head, noted that it would be appropriate for the Committee to have a presence at the event, and requested that Council purchase tickets for those Committee members able to attend.

Officer’s Comment:

As the Community Capacity Building Team has a budget dedicated to expenses of Advisory Committee activities, and this is seen as an appropriate NAIDOC Week activity within this year’s program, 12 tickets were purchased.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

7. There are no financial implication to Council.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee 24 May 2011

5 Pages

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.1

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT Investments Report for April 2011

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D01962619

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of April 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for April 2011.

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a report setting out details of all money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

2. The report must include a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and the investment policy of Council.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The closing balance of Council’s investment portfolio as at the 30th April 2011 was $82.3M (Previous Month $85.2M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $83.9M.

4. Councils overall investment holdings decreased by approximately $2.9M as a result of standard weekly pay runs and AP runs. The next Rates installment is not due until the 31^st May 2011.

5. Council holds a diversified range of investment products which include:

· Managed Funds

· Term Deposits (Including Investment – Loan offsets)

· Floating Rate Notes

· Cash at call

Council engages CPG Research and Advisory for assistance in all investment matters relating to advice, risk and portfolio weighting.

6. The weighted average interest rate on Council’s investments for the month of April 2011 versus the UBSA Bank Bill Index is as follows:

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.539% 6.47%

Funds Managers 0.533% 6.39%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.417% 5.01%

Councils Financial Year to Date return is 6.64% versus the UBSA bank bill index of 4.93%

NB: Annualised rates for Managed Funds are calculated on a compounding basis assuming that the interest returns are added to the initial investment amount and reinvested.

7. Council’s overall portfolio exceeded the UBSA Bank Bill Index by approximately 1.46%. The strong return can be attributed to the performance of CFS Global which recorded an annualised 1 month return of 7.73%. CFS comprises of approximately 11.45% of the overall portfolio.

8. Term deposits make up approximately 61% of total holdings and have interest rates ranging from 6.10% to 7.40%.

9. Throughout April Council continued to act on advice received from CPG by reinvesting matured and additional funds into medium range term deposits offering market premium rates. Council’s $50M term deposit portfolio is now strategically placed across the following maturity time frames:

· $23.5M matures within 12 months

· $6M greater than 1 year less than 2 years

· 16.5M greater than 2 years less than 3 years

· $4M greater than 3 years

10. The Government guarantee on $1M term deposits which was adopted after the Global Financial Crisis will be replaced from the 12^th October 2011. Although a final decision has not been made, it is forecasted that the guarantee limit will change to $250k and will stay in place as a permanent measure.

11. Council continues to hold approximately $3.7M in the LGFS Out Performance fund. This fund pays a guaranteed 50 basis above the bank bill index each month. A recent release from the minister prohibits any future investment in LGFS by way of term deposits and managed funds. All existing holdings have become grandfathered and may continue to be held. Finance is awaiting further advice from CPG in regard to the future strategic placement of these funds.

12. The following details are provided on the attachments for information:

Graph – Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance

Graph – Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index

Graphs – Investments and loans interest compared to budget

Summary of investment portfolio

13. The Certificate of Investments for April 2011 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of April 2011 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

14. There is no standard report attachment - detailed submission - attached to this report.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

1 View	Investments & Loans - Performance	1 Page
2 View	Summary of Investments Portfolio	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.2

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT Loan Borrowing

REFERENCE F2004/05857 - D01991950

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To obtain approval for the taking up of the 2010/11 new loan funds of $2,960,000.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes the Manager Finance’s Report.

(b) That Council borrows an amount of $2,960,000 in accordance with the adopted Operational Plan 2010/11.

(d) That the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to determine and accept the most financially advantageous loan offer received following the obtaining of appropriate quotations from lending institutions.

(e) That the Lord Mayor and General Manager be given delegated authority to complete all necessary loan documents and that the Common Seal be applied if required to those documents.

(f) Further, that Councillors be advised of the terms of the loan once the loan funds have been drawn down.

BACKGROUND

1. The adopted 2010/11 Operational Plan provided for Council to take up loan funds of $2,960,000 for its regular borrowing program.

2. Council’s Strategic Financial Management Advisor, Spectra Financial Services, as part of their annual retainer, was engaged to review Council’s loan portfolio, advise on appropriate terms for the proposed borrowing and to seek indicative quotes from financial institutions to provide the loan funds of $2,960,000.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Following discussions with Spectra Financial Services on the most prudent approach to be taken in this new borrowing of $2,960,000, it was agreed that Spectra should seek proposals from major trading banks for the following options. (“Fully amortising” means that repayments of principal are progressively repaid over the term of the loan. A “20% bullet” means that principal repayments are made over the term of the loan based on 80% of the amount borrowed with the remaining 20% paid at the end of the term.

Option 1 - 10 year term, variable rate 10 years, fully amortising

Option 2 - 10 year term, fixed rate 10 years, fully amortising

Option 3 - 7 year term, variable rate 7 years, 20% bullet

Option 4 - 7 year term, fixed rate 7 years, 20% bullet

Option 5 - 5 year term, variable rate 5 years, 60% bullet

Option 6 - 5 year term, fixed rate 5 years, 60% bullet

4. These options were chosen because they provide a range of options from which the most appropriate term and conditions can be chosen. Indicative quotations were sought from the ANZ, Westpac and Commonwealth banks. The National Australia Bank did not wish to participate. At the time the indicative quotes were obtained, the variable rate options were in the range of around 6.7% to 6.9% and the fixed rate options 6.8% to 7.8%. These rates will move day to day as they are made on the basis of a margin on top of benchmark rates in the money markets.

5. Based on their review of Council’s loan portfolio and the market’s initial response to Council’s needs, Spectra Financial Services have recommended that a 7 year term with a fixed interest rate and 20% bullet payment (Option 4) would be the most suitable for Council’s requirements. The fixed interest rate option was chosen as Council currently has a relatively high level of variable rate loans. If this loan is taken at a fixed interest rate the portfolio at June 2011 would be 29% fixed and 71% variable rate loans ($59.7M variable including Civic Place $55M).

6. It is planned that the loan funds will be drawn down in the last week of June. As interest rates vary on a day to day basis and in order to make a valid comparison, it will be necessary to seek pricing for a specific day close to the drawdown date from all potential lenders. In this way the most financially advantageous loan offer for Council can be obtained. It is therefore necessary for Council to delegate to the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer the authority to select the best offer for Council.

7. The new loan borrowing of $2,960,000 was incorporated in Council’s 2010/11 budget and the forward expenditure estimates and forecast debt position within the 2010/14 Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan. The debt servicing of this loan and existing loans will maintain Council’s debt service ratio below the Loan Policy’s objective of less than 8%. The amount borrowed is also in line with Council’s policy of not increasing core debt by limiting new borrowings to no greater than loan repayments made in the same year.

8. All Councillors will be further advised of the terms of the loan once the loan funds have been drawn down.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. Advise has been sought from Council’s Strategic Financial Management Advisor, Spectra Financial Services.

10. The loan funds must be taken up prior to 30 June 2011 in accordance with Council’s Operational Plan.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.4

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT Report of the Audit Committee meeting held on 31 March 2011

REFERENCE F2008/02951 - D01992279

REPORT OF Service Auditor

PURPOSE:

That Council gives consideration to the minutes of the Audit Committee held on Thursday 31 March 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the minutes of the Audit Committee held on Thursday 31 March 2011.

(b) That Council adopt the revised Audit Committee Charter.

BACKGROUND

1. Arising from Council resolution on 25 February 2008 an Audit Committee was established comprising three Councillors and two independent Community Representatives. The current Charter of the Audit Committee was adopted by Council on 27 April 2010.

2. The current councillor members of the Audit Committee are Councillors, A Wilson, J. Finn and M McDermott. The current independent Community Representatives of the Audit Committee are Mr Neil Adams and Mr Mike Barry. The Chief Executive Officer, Council’s auditors and other Council officers are invited to Audit Committee meetings. This approach is consistent with refreshed Internal Audit Guidelines issued by the Division of Local Government in September 2010.

KEY TOPICS

3. The key topics considered at the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 31 March 2011 were:

(a) The Code of Conduct workshop to raise awareness of staff of Council’s policies relating to fraud and corruption prevention. The Committee received the briefing provided by the external service provider who facilitated the workshop.

(b) The endorsement of the strategic Internal Audit Plan for 2010-2013. The Committee requested further changes in the plan in order to align with the operation of Council.

(c) The Committee considered the report of audits finalised in the reporting period including procurement and petty cash reconciliation.

(d) The Committee considered the term of appointment of the independent members of the Audit Committee. As a result, the Committee requested for an increase in the term of office of the independent members. The Committee requested that the suggested changes to the Charter be submitted to Council for approval.

4. The minutes of the meeting and the revised Audit Committee Charter are submitted for consideration.

Emily Tang

Service Auditor

Attachments:

1 View	Minutes of Meeting 31 March 2011	7 Pages
2 View	Audit Committee Charter (Version 4)	8 Pages

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.6

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.6

SUBJECT Benchmarking Best Practice In Local Government Conference 2011 - 3 - 4 August 2011 - Melbourne

REFERENCE F2011/01627 - D01993315

REPORT OF Executive Support Manager

PURPOSE:

This report is being placed before Council to seek the appointment of one (1) Councillor ie Lord Mayor or nominee, to attend the Benchmarking Best Practice In Local Government Conference 2011 in Melbourne from 3 – 4 August 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

That in line with Council Policy for a Category ‘C’ Conference, one (1) Councillor ie Lord Mayor or nominee, should be nominated to attend the Benchmarking Best Practice In Local Government Conference 2011 in Melbourne from 3 – 4 August 2011.

BACKGROUND

1. Leading case studies and advice for local governments on how to improve organisational performance and service delivery, cut costs and pursue continuous improvements will be detailed at the 2011 Benchmarking Best Practice in Local Government Conference.

2. Also to be featured at this year’s conference will be a Workshop session operated by Human Synergistics focused upon assisting local governments to define their organisational culture and achieve constructive cultural change that leads to improved organisational effectiveness.

3. Official Endorsing Organisations for this year’s Conference are the Local Government Business Excellence Network and the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government.

4. The 4^th Annual Benchmarking Best Practice in Local Government Conference will focus on local government best practice in areas such as:
- Organisational development and performance improvement
- Staff productivity and workforce culture
- Management structures and systems
- Best practice HR and Becoming an Employer of Choice
- Achieving financial sustainability
- Business Systems and Technology implementation

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. This is a Category ‘C’ Conference. Category ‘C’ permits attendance of one (1) Councillor ie Lord Mayor or nominee.

6. Copies of the conference program are appended as Attachment 1.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

7. Delegate registration, travel, accommodation and out-of-pocket expenses will total approximately $2500 per delegate.

Scott Forsdike

Executive Support Manager

Attachments:

1 View

Program for Benchmarking Best Practice in Local Government Conference 2011

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.7

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.7

SUBJECT ParraConnect Advisory Committee May 2011

REFERENCE F2011/00898 - D01993904

REPORT OF Manager.Information Systems

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the key discussion points from meetings of the ParraConnect Advisory Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

That the minutes of the ParraConnect Advisory Committee meeting of 16 May 2011, 18 April 2011, 28 March 2011 be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s ParraConnect Advisory Committee meets on the third Monday of each month.

2. Council’s ParraConnect Advisory Committee recently met on 16 May 2011. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of this meeting and meetings 18/04/2011 & 28/03/2011 for Council’s information. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Attachment 1, 2 & 3 respectively

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Meeting 16/05/2011

The main issues considered at the meeting are outlined below.

(a) The development of a communications plan with key messages and confirmed the key stakeholders, the development of “ParraConnect “web site was also agreed”.

(b) The committee accepted the resignation of Geoff Lee and will seek his replacement from UWS.

(c) The Committee was advised of the successful State government Grant for the development of a “Smart City” card involving Parramatta City Council and the private sector.

4. Meeting 18/04/2011

The main issues considered at the meeting are outlined below.

(a) Strategic and Operational Overview and Review

(b) Discussion about positioning/branding of ParraConnect with options such as “the Future City” and “Smart City”, it was agreed that for the immediate future ParraConnect will remain.

(d) Consideration of 44 submissions (from EOI 33/2010 Digital Devised and Applications) The committee has commenced the review of the responses to the EOI, but were only able to review 10 of the 34 of responses and will continue the review at the next meeting. A subcommittee is to be formed headed by George Mavros to further investigate the Kiosk opportunities in the EOI and report to the committee on its progress.

5. Meeting 28/03/2011

The main issues considered at the meeting are outlined below.

(a) Strategic Framework, context and position of Advisory Committee

(b) Purpose of Advisory Committee

(d) Council has provided $50K pa for next 2 years

Elios Alexoulis

Manager Information Communication and Technology.

Attachments:

1 View	Attachment 1 Minutes 16th May 2011	3 Pages
2 View	Attachment 2 Minutes 18th April 2011	3 Pages
3 View	Attachment 3 Minutes 28th March 2011	3 Pages

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.8

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.8

SUBJECT Amendment to Code of Meeting Practice in relation to Question Time

REFERENCE F2004/07851 - D01996601

REPORT OF Team Leader Council Support

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s approval for amendments to the Code of Meeting Practice to ensure its compliance with Department of Local Government Guidelines

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the practice of Question Time at Council Meetings cease and references to this practice be removed from the Code of Meeting Practice, in particular Part 2, Section 7 Clause (5)d, Part 4 Section 35 Clauses 8, 9 and 10 and Annexure B.

(b) Further, that issues raised previously in Question time be raised via the Councillors Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff, Notices of Motion and through the Councillor Request System.

BACKGROUND

1. The practice of Question Time has received increasing comment at recent Council Meetings and accordingly, it is considered an opportune time to give consideration to its future inclusion at future Council Meetings.

2. The Department of Local Government had issued Meetings Practice Note 16 to assist Councils in running their Council Meetings. Advice of the Meeting Notes has previously been distributed to Councillors via the Councillors Information Folder.

3. Whilst Council’s meetings are run generally in accordance with the guidelines, the Practice Notes provides comment on the practice of Councils including an agenda item entitled “Questions without Notice” (or Question Time).

4. In particular, Item 1.4.11 of the Meeting Notes answers the question “Is it appropriate to have as an agenda item “Questions without Notice?” in the following terms:-

‘Having an agenda item, “questions without notice” is inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulation that require notice to be given of matters to be discussed at council meetings (Cl 241).

Allowing questions without notice would avoid the notice provisions of clause 241 of the regulation. That clause enables all councillors and the public to be aware, by reading the agenda, of matters that will be raised at each meeting. It also enables councillors to give careful thought to any pecuniary interest or conflict of interest they might have in a matter, rather than having to hastily confront an issue during the meeting.

However, questions can be proposed by giving notice to the general manager in the usual way and can also be asked during the meeting in relation to business already on the agenda.’

5. Clause 241 of the Local Government Regulations reads in the following terms:-

241 Giving notice of business

(1) A council must not transact business at a meeting of the council:

(a) unless a councillor has given notice of the business in writing within such time before the meeting as is fixed by the council’s code of meeting practice or (if the council does not have a code of meeting practice or its code of meeting practice does not fix that time) as is fixed by resolution of the council, and

(b) unless notice of the business has been sent to the councillors in accordance with section 367 of the Act.

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply to the consideration of business at a meeting if the business:

(a) is already before, or directly relates to a matter that is already before, the council, or

(b) is the election of a chairperson to preside at the meeting as provided by clause 236 (1), or

(c) is a matter or topic put to the meeting by the chairperson in accordance with clause 243, or

(d) is a motion for the adoption of recommendations of a committee of the council.

(3) Despite subclause (1), business may be transacted at a meeting of a council even though due notice of the business has not been given to the councillors. However, this can happen only if:

(a) a motion is passed to have the business transacted at the meeting, and

(b) the business proposed to be brought forward is ruled by the chairperson to be of great urgency.

Such a motion can be moved without notice.

(4) Despite clause 250, only the mover of a motion referred to in subclause (3) can speak to the motion before it is put.

PROPOSAL

6. In accordance with the advice received from the Department of Local Government, it is proposed that Question Time be removed from the agenda for future Council Meetings. Questions previously raised during Question Time may continue to be addressed via the Councillors Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff, Notices of Motion and through the Councillor Request System.

7. Alternatively, Council may wish the inclusion of a “Questions With Notice” on the Council Agenda. Such questions would need to be submitted prior to the issue of the Council Agenda in accordance with the timeframes set for the submission of Notices of Motions (ie by 10am on the Thursday week prior to the meeting).

8. It is noted that Council’s Code of Meeting Practice also contains reference to Question Time being available at the end of all Council Meetings (Part 2, Section 7 Clause (5)d, Part 4 Section 35 Clauses 8, 9 and 10 and Annexure B) and it will be necessary to remove such references. As the deletions are not considered to be a major change to the Code, no advertising of the proposed changes would be necessary.

9. Should Council wish to have a “Questions With Notice”, Council would need to resolve as such and request that the appropriate inclusions be made to the Code of Meeting Practice.

Grant Davies

Team Leader – Council Support

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.9

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.9

SUBJECT MAKING OF RATES AND ANNUAL CHARGES 2011/12

REFERENCE F2009/02499 - D01997076

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

That Council make the following Rates and Charges for the 2011/12

RECOMMENDATION

That Council make the following Rates and Charges for the 2011/12 Rating year

using Land Values with a base date of valuation 1 July 2010

BACKGROUND

Ordinary Rates

(A) Residential Rates

(i) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Residential Suburban land, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero zero two five four five one five (0.00254515) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and fifty six dollars and sixty six cents ($556.66).

(ii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Residential land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District (CBD), because it is a centre of population within the geographical area which is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as Central Business District Centre of Population, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero zero one seven seven zero seven nine (0.00177079) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and fifty six dollars and sixty six cents ($556.66).

(B) Business Rates

(i) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business General land (and is not within the subcategories of Business land referred to in (B)(ii) through to and inclusive of (B)(v) below), an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero one one six seven two zero seven (0.01167207) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and sixty seven dollars and fifty cents ($567.50).

(ii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as business land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District (CBD), because it is within the geographical area which is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero two zero seven three two five three (0.02073253) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and sixty seven dollars and fifty cents ($567.50).

(iii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District – Centre of Activity Area No 2, because it is within the geographical area which is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity Area No 2, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero three four one three four one one (0.03413411) in the dollar upon the Land Value.

(iv) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land and is within the sub-category of “ Industrial Centres of Activity” because it is within the suburbs of Camellia, Chester Hill, Clyde, Eastwood, Ermington, Granville, Guildford, Melrose Park, Merrylands, Northmead, North Parramatta, Old Toongabbie, Parramatta, Pendle Hill, Rosehill, Rydalmere, Seven Hills, Toongabbie, Wentworthville and within the geographical areas which are highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as “Business Industrial Centres of Activity “ inclusive, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero one two five three two nine nine (0.01253299) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and sixty seven dollars and fifty cents ($567.50).

(v) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land and is within the sub-category of “ Industrial Centre of Activity No 2” because it is within the geographical area which is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as Industrial Centre of Activity No 2, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero one two five three two nine nine (0.01253299) in the dollar upon the Land Value.

(C) Special Rates

(i) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta, a Special Rate, which will be known as Open Space Acquisition & Embellishment Special Rate and which will consist of a base amount of sixteen dollars and thirty one cents ($16.31) calculated to yield fifty percent (50.00%) of the total revenue of $1,980,164.10 for this Special Rate to which will be added an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero zero five nine nine five (0.00005995) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards the acquisition of open space including compulsory acquisition and the purchase of remnant bushland, the embellishment and maintenance of public reserve areas, including passive reserve areas and other areas unsuitable for other recreational pursuits, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to the whole of the Parramatta Local Government Area.

(ii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta with the exception of all rateable land that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity and Central Business District Centre of Activity Area No 2 and including land categorised as Residential land within that geographical area, a Special Rate, which will be known as Suburban Infrastructure Special Rate and which will consist of a base amount of six dollars and seventy seven cents ($6.77) calculated to yield twenty five point percent (25.00%) of the total revenue of $1,529,620.66 for this Special Rate to which will be added an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero zero seven four seven two (0.00007472) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards new infrastructure and environmental works within the suburbs of the Parramatta Local Government area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

(iii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as Central Business District Centre of Population and categorised as Residential land within that geographical area, a Special Rate, which will be known as CBD Residential Infrastructure Special Rate and which will consist of a base amount of ten dollars and five cents ($10.05) calculated to yield forty percent (40.00%) of the total revenue of $66,306.61 for this Special Rate to which will be added an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero one six seven three two (0.00016732) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards new infrastructure and environmental works within the Central Business District of the Parramatta local government area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

(iv) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity and Central Business District Centre of Activity Area No 2 but excluding land categorised as Residential land within that geographical area, a Special Rate, which will be known as CBD Infrastructure Special Rate and which will consist of an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero two zero zero four two nine (0.00200429) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards infrastructure improvements within that geographical area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

(v) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Operational Plan as the Economic Development Special Rate area with the exception of all properties categorised as Residential within that area, a Special Rate, which will be known as Economic Development Special Rate and which will consist of an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero

three six five four four (0.00036544) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards the implementation of the Regional Environmental Plan within that geographical area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

D) That Council make the following annual charges for the 2010/11 financial year:

(i) Domestic Waste Management Charges

In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta, for which a Domestic Waste Management (DWM) service is provided or proposed to be provided in accordance with Section 496 of the Local Government Act as follows:

(a) A DWM Charge of two hundred and ninety dollars and ninety cents ($290.90) for:

(1) the removal once weekly of the contents of a 140 litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro rata charge for each additional service requested; and

(2) the removal once fortnightly of a 240 litre recycling bin for all recyclable material such as paper, glass, PET plastics and the like, and to make a further pro rata charge of eighty four dollars and fifty cents ($84.50) for each additional fortnightly recycling service;

(3) the removal once fortnightly of a 240 litre garden waste bin for all grass clippings, prunings, leaves, woodchip and the like, and to make a further pro rata charge of eighty four dollars and fifty cents ($84.50) for each additional fortnightly garden waste service;

(b) A DWM Charge of four hundred and thirty eight dollars and forty five cents ($438.45) for:

(1) the removal once weekly of the contents of a 240 litre capacity garbage container, and to make a further pro rata charge for each additional service requested; and

(c) A DWM Availability Charge of fifty dollars and twenty cents ($50.20), where a domestic waste service is available to vacant residential land.

(ii) Commercial Waste Management Charge

In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta, for which a Commercial Waste Management service is provided or proposed to be provided, an annual charge in accordance with Section 501 of the Local Government Act 1993 as follows:

(a) 140 litre Commercial Waste Management Charge

(1) 1 pick up service per week $297.90

(2) 2 pick up services per week $595.80

(GST Not Applicable)

(b) 240 litre Commercial Waste Management Charge

(1) 1 pick up service per week $449.00

(2) 2 pick up services per week $898.00

1 pick up recycling service per fortnight $88.40 (GST Not Applicable)

1 pick up garden waste service per fortnight $88.40 (GST Not Applicable)

Annual Charges – Stormwater Management Charges

(iii) Residential Properties

(a) In the case of all parcels of rateable urban land (excluding strata properties and vacant land) within the City of Parramatta which are categorised as Residential or Residential CBD an annual charge of twenty five dollars ($25.00) per assessment.

(b) In the case of all rateable strata properties within the City of Parramatta which are categorised as Residential or Residential CBD an annual charge of twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50) per assessment.

(iv) Business Properties

(a) In the case of all parcels of rateable urban land within the City of Parramatta which are categorised or sub-categorised as Business properties (excluding vacant land) an annual charge of twenty five dollars ($25.00) per 350 square metres or part thereof capped at two hundred dollars ($200.00).

Certification

…………………………………………… ……………………

Manager Finance Date

…………………………………………… ……………………

Acting Service Manager Rates Date

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 27 June 2011 Item 11.10

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.10

SUBJECT Review of 2011/12 Budget and forward estimates and preliminary 2010/11 forecast result

REFERENCE F2010/01685 - D01997269

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with updated forecasts for the 2011/12 Operational Plan Budget and Delivery Program forward financial estimates and a preliminary updated forecast budget result for 2010/11.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopts the following changes to the 2011/12 Budget and the 2012/13 to 2014/15 Delivery Program forward financial estimates and Long Term Financial Plan:

	*2011/12*	*2012/13*	*2013/14*	*2014/15*
Operating (deficit)/surplus before capital grants & contributions per previously adopted Operational Plan & Delivery Program	(4,749)	(2,995)	(5,717)	2,916
plus Financial Assistance Grant income adjustment	969	1,321	1,706	2,128
less Depreciation adjustment for revaluation of assets				2,100
Operating result before capital grants & contributions per revised Operational Plan and Delivery Program	(3,780)	(1,674)	(4,011)	2,944

(b) That Council notes the preliminary review of the forecast 2010/11 Budget result as outlined in this report.

(c) Further, that Council adopts the following 2011/12 annual charges and fees for commercial waste management services:

240 litre bin recycle service $88.40 annual charge (GST does not apply)

240 litre bin garden waste service $88.40 annual charge (GST does not apply)

140 litre bin replacement $60.50 per bin (including GST)

240 litre bin replacement $66.00 per bin (including GST)

BACKGROUND

2010/14 Delivery Program and 2011/12 Operational Plan and Budget

At its meeting on 23 May 2011 Council resolved:

(a) That subject to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal approving Council’s application for a special variation to general income, Council adopt the amended 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2011/12 Operational Plan and Budget (including the additional expenditure on the CITSR project) and the 2011/12 Schedule of Fees and Charges.

(b) That subject to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal approving Council’s application for a special variation to general income, Council approve the budgeted income, expenditure and reserves transfers shown in the 2011/12 Operational Plan and vote the necessary funds.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Summary of IPART determination

Council has been advised that IPART has approved in full its application for a special variation to general income for the years 2011/12 to 2013/14. A separate report in this business paper therefore recommends that Council makes the 2011/12 rates and annual charges in line with the Operational Plan’s scenario that was based on IPART’s approval.

The special variation increases approved are:

2011/12 – 4.3% (1.5% above known rate peg of 2.8%)

2012/13 – 4.3% (1% above estimated rate peg 3.3%)

2013/14 – 4.3% (1% above estimated rate peg 3.3%) plus

4.9% approved for the continuation of the special variation that was approved for 2010/11 and that expires at the end of 2012/13

The special variation in 2010/11 of 4.9% above rate pegging was made up of 2% applicable to all ratepayers as part of Council’s financial sustainability strategy and 2.9% applicable to the relevant business ratepayers to continue the funding for the CBD infrastructure and economic development special rates. Continuing this special variation will not involve an increase for ratepayers in 2013/14 as they are already paying the increased amount from 2010/11.

Updated 2011/12 Budget and Forward Estimates 2011-2014

With IPART approving the special rate application there are no adjustments necessary to projected rates income in the 2011/12 Budget and forward financial estimates. An adjustment is however required in relation to forecast income from the Federal Government’s Financial Assistance Grant (FAG).

Since the global financial crisis the Federal Government has brought forward the first installment of a year’s grant so that it is paid in the prior financial year. These early payments have been made as part of the Government’s economic stimulus measures. Council has been advised that the Federal Government has once again brought forward the first installment of the 2011/12 grant and adjustments will be necessary to both the 2010/11 Budget forecast and the 2011/12 Budget and forward estimates. Based on the assumption that early payments will continue, the 2011/12 Budget and forward estimates have been adjusted. The 2010/11 Budget forecast has also been adjusted as detailed later in this report.

An adjustment for depreciation has also been made in 2014/15 as Council is required to do a revaluation every 5 years of infrastructure assets. This exercise was last done in 2009/10. An estimate of $2.1M in additional depreciation expense from 2014/15 onwards has been made in the forward estimates and Long Term Financial Plan.

	*2011/12*	*2012/13*	*2013/14*	*2014/15*
Operating (deficit)/surplus before capital grants & contributions per previously adopted Operational Plan & Delivery Program	(4,749)	(2,995)	(5,717)	2,916
plus Financial Assistance Grant income adjustment	969	1,321	1,706	2,128
less Depreciation adjustment for revaluation of assets				2,100
Operating result before capital grants & contributions per revised Operational Plan and Delivery Program	(3,780)	(1,674)	(4,011)	2,944

It is recommended that the 2011/12 Budget and forward estimates in the Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan incorporating these changes be adopted.

An updated Operational Plan/Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan are included with this report incorporating these changes.

Updated 2010/11 Budget

As noted earlier, the first installment of the 2011/12 FAG will be received in the current financial year. This will increase income by $2M. A review has also been undertaken of expenditure and income following the May month end results. This review indicates that there will be some variances from the year-end forecasts included in the March Quarterly Budget Review. The preliminary estimated variances are summarised as follows:

	*2010/11*
Operating deficit before capital grants & contributions per March Budget Review	(7,707)
plus Financial Assistance Grant additional income	2,021
plus City Services Group savings and additional income	1,000
plus Corporate Group savings and additional income	1,300
plus Outcomes Group savings and additional income	300

Revised operating deficit before capital grants & contributions	(4,385)

Savings and additional revenue relate to various items including interest revenue, employee cost savings and savings in materials, contracts and other expenses.

It should be noted that the savings and additional income identified are estimates only based on a preliminary review of the possible year-end result. Final results cannot be determined until after the end of the financial year and all relevant transactions are brought to account. Further reports on the results for the year will be made to Council in the June Quarterly Budget Review and on the finalisation of the Annual Accounts.

Adoption of commercial waste management charges

At its meeting on 23 May 2011 Council also resolved that the following proposed 2011/12 annual charges and fees for commercial waste management services be placed on public exhibition:

240 litre bin recycle service $88.40 annual charge (GST does not apply)

240 litre bin garden waste service $88.40 annual charge (GST does not apply)

140 litre bin replacement $60.50 per bin (including GST)

240 litre bin replacement $66.00 per bin (including GST)

The close of the exhibition period was 24 June, subsequent to the completion of this report, but at the time of writing no submissions had been received on the proposed charges. Council will be advised of any submissions subsequently received. It is recommended that Council adopts the exhibited fees and charges. The income from these charges was included within the 2011/12 Budget and forward estimates.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Consultation was undertaken with relevant Managers in relation to budget forecasts.

Council is required to adopt its final 2011/12 Operational Plan by 30 June.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

1	Delivery Program 2010 14 , Operational Plan and Budget 2011 12	102 Pages
2	Long-Term Financial Plan June 2011	38 Pages

Note: Attachments 1 and 2 will be circulated to councillors under separate cover when available

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham
Greg Smith – Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Sue Weatherley–Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward			Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Mark Lack – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward			Clr Paul Garrard - Woodville Ward
Clr Glenn Elmore – Woodville Ward			Clr Scott Lloyd – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Pierre Esber– Lachlan Macquarie Ward			Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Prabir Maitra – Arthur Phillip Ward			Clr Andrew Bide – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Phillip Ward	Clr Michael McDermott, Deputy Lord Mayor - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward	Clr Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim– Arthur Phillip Ward

	Councillor / Member Annual Fee		Mayor / Chairperson Annual Fee
	Minimum	Maximum	Minimum	Maximum
Major City	$15,110	$24,960	$32,140	$72,710