Late Items Agenda of Council - Monday, 22 May 2023

Council 22 May 2023 Item 14.1

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT Proposed Recognition of Country in Parks and Reserves

REFERENCE F2022/03176 - D08959458

FROM Councillor Dr Patricia Prociv

MOTION

(a) That the CEO prepare a report to Council to investigate Recognition of Country through the placement of new signage and/or adaption of existing signage in Council owned and controlled parks and reserves.

(b) Further, that the report investigate options for the signage to be in both English and Darug language.

BACKGROUND

1. No background provided.

Patricia Prociv

Councillor

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY ASSETS & OPERATIONS RESPONSE

2. City of Parramatta has more than 370 parks and reserves, all of these have more than one access point for the public. Council’s existing park signage replacement program has an approved budget of $132,000.00 pa. A cost-effective approach to this issue could be to report on how a Recognition of Country could be incorporated into all new signs as part of the replacement program.

3. Alternatively new signage would entail significant costs. Current estimates to supply and install a standard sign is $900/sign (this includes the post, blank, and sign printing) they have an estimated life of 8 years before the blank/print need to be replaced and typically we would expect to replace 3-4% of the signs each year due to vandalism including graffiti, accidental damage, general wear and tear and other environmental factors.

4. A minimum of one sign per park and reserve will initially cost approximately $333,000.00, with an annual maintenance cost of approximately $13,000.00. Council would also need to increase the budget to replace signs at end of life which would be estimated at $33,000.00/yr.

5. As most parks would require more than one sign this proposal will require funding in excess $700,000.00 to implement with ongoing annual maintenance costs (est) of $26,000.00, this does not include forward budgeting for replacement at end of life which is estimated at $66,000.00/yr.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

6. Reporting as per the recommendations can be done within existing resources. Should the motion be supported, any financial and resource implications will be included in the future report to Council.

Patricia Prociv

Councillor

John Warburton

Executive Director, City Assets & Operations

Gail Connolly

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council 22 May 2023 Item 15.1

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

ITEM NUMBER 15.1

SUBJECT LATE REPORT: Questions Taken on Notice - 8 May 2023 Council Meeting

REFERENCE F2022/03176 - D08977225

REPORT OF Governance Manager

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 8 May 2023

Item	Subject	Councillor	Question
Item 12.4	Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 17 November 2022	Darley	1. Can a list of the known sites still to be remediated please be provided, with the cost estimate for each. 2. What sources are available to fund this work in addition to the ~ $1m Council is allocated in our annual capital expenditure budget so Councillors and the community can understand the plan to address the outstanding asbestos remediation work on public land?
Item 12.4	Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 17 November 2022	Bradley	What contribution would the State Government be requested to make in relation to the $30m? Or could staff follow-up as Council has previously requested supplementary funding from the State Government?
Item 13.1	Draft Delivery Program 2022-26, Operational Plan and Budget 2023/24, Long Term Financial Plan 2023-33.	Darley	1. Could staff give reasons as to why there is an uneven increase (5%, 12% and 25%) in the fees and charges for PHIVE? 2. Why are community not-for-profit groups mostly paying the 25% increase? 3. Could staff clarify why there are no four-hour free parking on Sundays in our Fees and Charges.

BACKGROUND

(1) Paragraph 9.23 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states:

“Where a councillor or council employee to whom a question is put is unable to respond to the question at the meeting at which it is put, they may take it on notice and report the response to the next meeting of the Council.”

STAFF RESPONSE

Item 12.4 – Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 17 November 2022

During the approval of the Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 17 November 2022, Councillor Darley asked the following question:

1. Can a list of the known sites still to be remediated please be provided, with the cost estimate for each?

Executive Director City Assets and Operations response:

The provision for James Hardie legacy sites is currently under review. At the time of preparing this response, the provision amounts proposed are still being confirmed. The below is accordingly subject to change as more information about sites and remediation costs become available.

Provision is calculated on the basis of that size of site, multiplied by an average remediation cost per square meter. The average cost is calculated by averaging actual costs achieved at previously remediated sites and is intended to be indicative only.

The following Council owned sites have been identified as James Hardie legacy sites and have been tested and determined to require some degree of remediation in the future. Sites are prioritised for remediation on the basis of risk. Risk is determined following consideration of a number of factors, including site usage, site condition, availability of alternative recreation spaces, and availability of reasonable management controls.

The table below identifies the provisional amount estimated for each site.

Ruse Street Reserve, Harris Park Provisional Amount: $ 1,982,000	Site has been tested and presence of asbestos in soils confirmed. Fenced steep embankment area requires capping. Capping will require stabilisation of embankment. Location currently managed via management controls (restricting access, interim capping treatments, no-dig site).
Ponds Reserve North Provisional Amount: $ 1,016,625	Site has been tested and presence of asbestos in soils confirmed. Several passive recreation areas have been identified which will require capping. Location currently managed via management controls (ensuring adequate grass coverage, no-dig site)
Dundas Park Provisional Amount: $ 4,439,092	Site has been tested and presence of asbestos in soils confirmed. Asbestos present in some areas at depth (ie greater than 0.3m below ground level). Physical capping will ultimately be required and likely occur as park upgrades / renewal occurs in future. Site managed as no-dig site to prevent exposure of materials at depth.
Excelsior Reserve Provisional Amount: $ 1,469,046	Site has been tested and presence of asbestos in soils confirmed. Affected area is an upper embankment between rear property boundaries and an access track, a section of access track, and a larger, steeper, lower embankment area. Capping works proposed to occur in two stages. Procurement for stage 1 capping of upper embankment and access trail in progress.
Dan Mahoney Reserve Provisional Amount: $ 8,847,709	Site has been tested and presence of asbestos in soils confirmed. Site subject to Heart of Play Masterplan. WestInvest funding application for this site for $15 million to implement masterplan was unsuccessful. Site currently managed with interim management plan requiring good grass coverage and exclusion of areas where adequate grass coverage cannot be achieved. Site classified as a no-dig site. Design and further investigations for works that can be staged as funding becomes available scheduled for 2024 financial year.
Dalley Street Reserve Provisional Amount: $ 401,984	Site has been tested and presence of asbestos in soils confirmed. Site consists of a heavily vegetated and fully fenced parcel of land located between a Sydney Water managed canal and the rear of residential properties. Site will require capping. Site currently managed via controls including limiting public access, no-dig site.

The following sites are scheduled for investigations in the future. These investigations will determine whether remediation works are necessary. Sites are prioritised for testing on the basis of risk assessments that consider existing site conditions, site usage, and the availability of evidence in relation to the possible receipt of James Hardie fill:

Reid Park Provisional Amount: $ 3,823,857	Site consists of a grassed area either side of a paved cycleway. Site is adjacent to several identified legacy sites (private properties). Currently managed as a no-dig site. Site to be tested in future.
Vineyard Creek Reserve Provisional Amount: $ 2,817,154	Site consists of heavily vegetated bushland area immediately adjacent to a golf course that has been identified as a potential recipient of legacy waste. Inspections have found no evidence of asbestos waste.
Pye Avenue Reserve Provisional Amount: $ 7,519,166	Site was recently declared a legacy site by EPA based on evidence provided by Council located in historic Hills Council files. Managed as a no-dig site. Inspections have found no evidence of waste in surface soils. Site to be tested on weight of evidence in historic files. Site known to have been a formal nightsoil depot.
James Ruse Reserve Provisional Amount: $ 4,296,207	Site was recently included within the boundaries of Legacy Site #4 due to historic connection to Experiment Farm reserve. Prior investigations at site (geotechnical, contamination, and archaeological) have found little evidence of extensive legacy filling, however, have not covered entirety of site. Site will be prioritised for investigations across extent of site to fill information gaps and determine if material is present requiring remediation. Now managed as a no dig site.

2. What sources are available to fund this work in addition to the ~ $1m Council is allocated in our annual capital expenditure budget so Councillors and the community can understand the plan to address the outstanding asbestos remediation work on public land?

Executive Director City Assets and Operations response:

Options for additional funding include:

· Grant funding. While there are currently no grants that focus on remediation, funding can be sought for embellishments or improvements to public lands with treatments occurring as part of grant funded works.

· Allocation of developer Contributions.

· Increasing the existing budget for remediation works (funded via general revenue).

During the approval of the Minutes of Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 17 November 2022, Councillor Bradley asked the following question:

What contribution would the State Government be requested to make in relation to the $30m? Or could staff follow-up as Council has previously requested supplementary funding from the State Government?

Executive Director City Assets and Operations response:

There has been no indication of how, or if, the State Government intends to provide funding for the remediation of public lands affected by legacy asbestos.

In 2017 the NSW Ombudsman report “Asbestos - How NSW government agencies deal with the problem - A Special Report to Parliament - April 2017” made the following recommendations in relation to James Hardie legacy sites:

ix. Recommendation: Testing be conducted on all sites listed in the Environmental Protection Authority, James Hardie Asbestos Waste Contamination Legacy, Summary Project Report. Where asbestos is identified, those sites should be remediated at NSW Government expense.

x. Recommendation: Residential sites found to contain appreciable quantities of friable asbestos should be acquired and/or remediated at NSW Government expense.

In October 2017, the NSW Government responded to the Ombudsman’s Report stating “The Government supports the Ombudsman’s Report in principle and is considering how best to progress the recommendations”. To date, Council is aware that working groups consisting of members across a variety of government departments have been convened to consider and cost an appropriate approach. Council was not invited to participate in this working party, and Council officers understand no position has been reached at this time. Council has advocated on this issue to LGNSW and the NSW Asbestos Coordination Committee (NACC), and it is understood that these bodies have advocated for Council and its affected residents where possible. Council has provided feedback to Government agencies involved in the working group on the constraints affecting our capacity to remediate lands, including excessive fees such as the NSW Waste Levy, and the absence of grant funding for this purpose.

Council has previously written to the State Government seeking detail of how the state intends to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and advocating for Council and affected residents. Given the recent government change further advocacy to the new Premier and Ministers is proposed.

Item 13.1– Draft Delivery Program 2022-26, Operational Plan and Budget 2023/24, Long Term Financial Plan 2023-33.

During the discussion of Item 13.1 Draft Delivery Program 2022-26, Operational Plan and Budget 2023/24, Long Term Financial Plan 2023-33, Councillor Darley asked the following questions:

1. Could staff give reasons as to why there is an uneven increase (5%, 12% and 25%) in the fees and charges for PHIVE?

Executive Director Community Services response:

The PHIVE fees and charges were developed prior to the opening of PHIVE with the understanding that they would be reviewed during Year 1 operations and may be adjusted in line with operational requirements.

Following 6 months of operations it was identified that for the PHIVE larger flexible meeting rooms and event spaces (Civic Gallery, Maker Spaces and Active Wellness Studios) the labour costs associated with the set up and pack down requirements for each hirer’s brief were considerably more than the smaller standard meeting rooms in PHIVE.

The proposed increases in the fees and charges for the larger flexible spaces now reflect the true cost to serve and is inclusive of additional labour costs for set up and pack down of the spaces. The increases to the fees and charges for the larger flexible spaces has been applied consistently across all three fee categories (Commercial, Community, and Unfunded Not for Profit).

2. Why are community not-for-profit groups mostly paying the 25% increase?

Executive Director Community Services response:

The increase to the fees and charges for select PHIVE meeting rooms and event spaces has been applied consistently across all three categories (Commercial, Community, and Unfunded Not for Profit).

All community and Unfunded Not for Profit hirers are able to book whichever available PHIVE meeting room or event space meets their specific meeting or program delivery needs. If select Unfunded Not for Profit hirers select to book the larger PHIVE meeting and event spaces, they would be subject to the proposed fee increase effective 1 July 2023. PHIVE venue staff regularly liaise with all community hirers to ensure that PHIVE spaces booked are appropriate to meet the specific needs of each individual hirer and the correct fees and charges are applied.

3. Could staff clarify why there are no four-hour free parking on Sundays in our Fees and Charges.

Executive Director Property & Place response:

The 4P free on Sundays in the Multi-Level Car Parks “MLCP” has been removed, to provide flexibility in moving to dynamic pricing within our MLCP which is in line with the approved car parking strategy.

Attachments:

Council 22 May 2023 Item 15.2

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

ITEM NUMBER 15.2

SUBJECT LATE REPORT: Questions with Notice

REFERENCE F2022/03176 - D08977284

FROM Councillor Phil Bradley

QUESTION

1. Would you please provide me with separate typical energy cost savings figures per year for: our LED lighting; 100% renewable electricity PPA; and approximate energy savings per $1,000 spent on more LED lighting, on new rooftop solar PV (was about $250 for good sites), on solar PV on sunny car park areas (about $150?), on energy and water efficiency measures (still about $330?).

2. What would be our appropriate CO2-e emissions offset cost savings per $1,000 spent on solar rooftop PV?

Phil Bradley

Councillor

Executive Director City Assets and Operations response

1. Staff have estimated the typical cost savings per year for LED lighting, rooftop solar PV and water efficiency measures. Staff have calculations for Council’s forward capital works plan.

2. The Cost Savings provided is based on Council’s forecast 3-year capital works plan.

For LED Lighting (Buildings)

The estimated average payback period is 5.09 years. Over the next 3 years Council has a proposed $407k capital investment, this will provide an estimated $56k pa saving. This equates to approx. $138 saving pa per $1000 invested.

For LED Street lighting

For the current $4 million Australian Government funded capital grant investment (that is delivering 2000 LED’s and Smart controls in the LGA). The anticipated savings have been calculated as approximately $451,000 in Year 1 and approximately $7.2 million savings over their 20-year asset life. Council will also receive an anticipated $440,000 revenue from the Energy Saving Certificates (ESCs).

There will be an approximate 36,594 t CO2e- saved over the 20-year asset life. This equates to approx. $14,000 per annum in avoided Carbon offset purchase (international offset price). This equates to approx. $110 saving per annum per $1000 invested.

Energy Efficiency (non-lighting)

The estimated average payback 4.2 years. Over next 3 years our estimated $38,000 capital investment proposed with generate an estimated $14,000 per annum saving. This equates to approx. $368 saving per annum per $1000 invested.

Rooftop Solar PV

The estimated average payback period is 5.5 years. Over the next 3 years we have an estimated $433,000 capital investment proposed that will provide a estimated $78,000 per annum saving.

Plus, we anticipate to receive revenue for individual systems >100kw through Large Generation Certificates (LGCs). Estimated saving of 250 t CO2e- per year for this investment. This equates to approx. $2,000 per annum in avoided Carbon offset purchase (international offset price). This equates to approx. $180 saving per annum per $1000 invested.

100% renewable ESA (Electricity Supply Agreement)

By participating in the joint procurement with SSROC in 2022 and locking in prices, Council has anticipated an estimated $350,000 saving in the first 12 months of contract based on increasing electricity prices.

Water Efficiency

The price of potable water is still very cheap in Sydney at $2.50 per kilolitre (KL) in comparison to energy costs. The water efficiency upgrades applied to Council buildings and amenities may result in up to 30% saving in water consumption.

This equates to approx. $47 saving per annum per $1000 invested.

Phil Bradley

Councillor

John Warburton

Executive Director, City Assets & Operations

Gail Connolly

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.