Finance and Governance Standing Committee

Notice of Meeting

Monday, 13 November 2017

 

 

Tuesday, 07 November 2017

 

 

A meeting of the Finance and Governance Committee will be held at 6.00pm on Monday,

13 November 2017 in the River Room, Georges River Civic Centre, corner Dora and MacMahon Streets, Hurstville, for the consideration of the business available on Council's website at http://www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-Meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

Gail Connolly

General Manager

 

 

BUSINESS

1.      Apologies

2.      Disclosures of Interest

3.      Minutes of previous meetings

4.      Committee Reports

 


Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting

Summary of Items

Monday, 13 November 2017

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Finance and Governance - 09 October 2017

Committee Reports

FIN371-17         Advice on Court Proceedings - October 2017

(Report by General Counsel)....................................................................................... 3

FIN372-17         Investment Report as 30 September 2017

(Report by Team Leader Financial Reporting)....................................................... 13

FIN373-17         Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and Audit Charter

(Report by Internal Auditor)........................................................................................ 28

FIN374-17         Tender for the Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration

(Report by Manager Project Delivery)....................................................................... 58

FIN375-17         Tender for the Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 136

FIN376-17         Tender for the Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 139

FIN377-17         Property Matter - Release and Extinguish Restrictive Covenant - 22 Stanley St Kogarah

(Report by Strategic Property Officer)..................................................................... 143

FIN378-17         Property Matter - Proposed Reclassification of Land at 4-6 Dora Street Hurstville

(Report by Head of Strategic Property).................................................................. 151

FIN379-17         Property Matter - 6 Allen Street South Hurstville

(Report by Head of Strategic Property).................................................................. 154

FIN380-17         Property Matter - Proposed Rental Reduction for Beverley Park Golf Course

(Report by Executive Manager Premium Facilities and Properties)................. 159

FIN381-17         Tender for Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy for Business Zoned Land

(Report by Senior Strategic Planner)..................................................................... 161


 

 

FIN382-17         Property Matter - Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water over 41D Kingsway, Kingsgrove

(Report by Strategic Property Officer)..................................................................... 165

FIN383-17         Telecommunications Facility, Redin Place Reserve Connells Point

(Report by Head of Strategic Property).................................................................. 169

FIN384-17         SOORT Increase

(Report by Executive Manager People and Culture).......................................... 171

FIN385-17         Payroll Consolidation Project

(Report by Executive Manager People and Culture).......................................... 183   

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 3

Committee Reports

Item:                   FIN371-17          Advice on Court Proceedings - October 2017 

Author:              General Counsel

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

Recommendation

That the information be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Advice on Council’s Court Proceedings for the period 25 August to 30 October 2017 is contained within this report. 

 

Background

 

2.      The current Court Proceedings for the reporting period are broken down as follows:

High Court

·   1 x Application for Leave to Appeal (Tanious)

Land and Environment Court Appeals

·   14 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

·   2 x Class 2 Appeal (Tree Dispute)

·   4 x Class 4 Proceedings (including 2 Contempt of Court proceedings)

Supreme Court

·   1 x Notice of Intention to Appeal (Malifa – Congregational Church of Samoa)

·   1 x Application under s88K for easements (Telado) over Council’s land

Local Court

·   13 x Prosecutions

NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal

·   1 x Application (Briscoe-Hough v Tegg & Ors)

Cost Recovery

·   5 x cost recovery matters

 

Total Costs

·   Total costs to date for the 2017/18 financial year are $154,623.

·   Total legal costs recovered to date for the 2017/18 financial year are $133,126.

 

Historical Costs

·   Total costs for Court proceedings in the 2016/17 financial year were $736,241 [$575,161 (Hurstville) and $161,080 (Kogarah)].

New Matters

 

3.      Five new matters were received/commenced during the reporting period: one Local Court matter (Mitchell), five Class 1 Appeals (D R Design (NSW) Pty Limited, Talmoe Pty Limited, Marion McDowell Associates, G R Capital Pty Limited and One Funds Management ATF Kingsgrove Property Trust), one Supreme Court matter (Telado) and one NCAT matter (Briscoe-Hough v Tegg & Ors).

 

Finalised Matters

 

4.         Antoniou in Class 1 (hearing), Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Limited in Class 1 (s34 Agreement), Briglia & Cerra in Class 1 (s34 Agreement), Malifa (formerly Congregational Christian Church Samoa) in Class 1 (hearing), Rindfleish in Class 2 (hearing) and Atanasovski in Class 2 (hearing).

 

Current Table

 

5.      The Court Proceedings current for the reporting period for Council are set out below. The external costs include both external legal and consultants’ fees.

 

 

 

No.

Property Address / Applicant / Proceedings Number

Description of Matter

Status / Critical Dates

External Costs to Date From 2017/18 FY

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 1 Appeals

1

58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Applicant:

Marion McDowell and Associates

 

Proceedings No.

241879 of 2016

 

Class 1 Appeal against Council Order for demolition of existing unauthorised structure.

Judgment handed down on 13 June 2017.  Council’s order was upheld. Compliance period extended to 13 September 2017, pending outcome of building certificate application.  Building certificate application refused.  Appeal lodged.

$6,414.00

2

25 Old Forest Road, LUGARNO

 

Applicant: George Antoniou

 

Proceedings No. 2826 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 2016/0314 for child care centre for 45 children.

Matter heard on 23 August 2017.  Judgment handed down on 10 October 2017.  Appeal upheld for 40 place childcare centre with amended plans.

$24,625.00

 


 

 

3

12 – 22 Woniora Road, Hurstville

 

Applicant: Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 64848 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 154/2016 for construction of an additional two storeys to Building D of mixed use development

Heads of Agreement for VPA for $1million signed.  S34 Agreement entered into and consent granted 22 September 2017.

$27,038.00

4

54 – 56 Johnstone Street, Peakhurst

 

Applicant: AMIA Investments Pty Ltd ATF MIAA Trust

 

Proceedings No:  206973 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA2017/0105 for demolition of existing structure, construction of 9 townhouses and strata title subdivision

Matter listed for S34 Conference on 6 November 2017. 

$9,945.00

5

70 – 78 Regent Street, Kogarah

 

Applicant: Regent Land Pty Limited ATF Regent Land Unit Trust

 

Proceedings No. 215083 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 2017/111 for the demolition of existing buildings over eight lots (5 properties), amalgamation of the lots and development of an 11 storey residential flat building with 127 apartments and 145 car parking spaces

 

Matter listed for S34 Conference on 6 December 2017.  External urban design, planning and traffic consultants briefed.

$3,252.00

6

11 Stanley Street & 28 – 36 Victoria Street, Kogarah

 

Applicant: No. 1 Victoria Dragons Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 217118 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA9/2017/110/1 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of a residential flat building comprising 96 residential dwellings over 3 levels of basement parking

Matter listed for S34 Conference on 4 December 2017.   External urban design, planning, heritage and traffic consultants briefed.

$2,545.00


 

7

2 – 10 Palmerston Street, Kogarah

 

Applicant: Palmerston Dragon No. 1 Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 217105 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA9/2017/112/1 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of a residential flat building comprising 67 residential dwellings over 2 levels of basement parking.

Matter is listed for S34 Conference on 5 December 2017. External urban design, planning, heritage and traffic consultants briefed.

$2,254.00

8

41 – 47 Princes Highway, Kogarah

 

Applicant:

GCK Investments Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No.  235909 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA183/2016 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 10 storey mixed use development consisting of ground floor commercial tenancy and 51 residential apartments over basement car parking.

Matter is listed for S34 Conference on 19 December 2017. External urban design, planning, heritage and traffic consultants briefed.

$2,451.00

9

832-836 King Georges Road and 51 Connells Point Road, South Hurstville

 

Applicant: Cash Warwick Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No.  245201 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal – application to modify Development Consent no. DA99/2016 granted on 6 April 2017 by the Land and Environment Court proceedings 2016/380571 to delete the lower level basement, internal re-configuration of remaining basement levels, removal of one lift and reconfiguration of the fire stair and bicycle parking

Matter is listed for hearing on 20 December 2017.

$4,793.00

10

70 – 76 Pitt Street, Mortdale

 

Applicant: D R Design (NSW) Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 273727 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA2017/0242 for demolition of existing structures, site amalgamation and the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building with basement car parking.

Matter is listed for S34 Conference on 17 January 2018.

$0

11

55 Amy Road, Peakhurst

 

Applicant: Talmoe Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No: 290117 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 2017/0202 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi dwelling development consisting of 4 units of 2 storeys and car parking at 55 Amy Road, Peakhurst

Matter discontinued following the issue of development consent by Council.

$0

12

58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Applicant:

Marion McDowell and Associates

 

Proceedings No.

294745 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of Building Certificate Application No. 149D2016/0038 lodged on 21 September 2016 and refused on 20 September 2017.

Matter listed for contested hearing on 2 March 2018.

$0

13

1 – 5 Treacy Street, Hurstville

 

Applicant: G R Capital Group Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 304530 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA2017/0205 for the construction of five additional levels (31 apartments) to an approved mixed development under Development Consent DA2014/0183 (as modified)

Matter is listed for first directions hearing on 7 November 2017.

$0

14

6 The Crescent, Kingsgrove

 

Applicant: One Funds Management Ltd ATF Kingsgrove Property Trust

 

Proceedings No. 2017/309712

Actual refusal of DA2017/0151 for construction of new off-street entry to premises along Vanessa Street, Kingsgrove.

Matter is listed for first directions hearing on 10 November 2017.

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$83,317.40

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Proceedings

1

5 Munmurra Road, Riverwood

Parties:

Saso Atanasovski & Olivera Atanasovska

No: 178780 of 2017

 

Class 2 Appeal – Tree Dispute Application

Matter was heard on 15 September 2017 and proceedings were concluded on that day.  Council had advised applicant it had no objection to removal of trees.  Applicant has made a costs application.  Awaiting decision.

$0


 

2

32 Vista Avenue, Peakhurst Heights

Parties: Paul & Victoria Rindfleish

No: 188208 of 2017

Class 2 Appeal – Tree Dispute Application

Matter was listed for hearing on 25 September 2017 and application was dismissed by the Commissioner.

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$0

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings

1

84D Roberts Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Parties:

 

Romanous Developments Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

40883 of 2013

 

Court orders entered on 24 July 2015 for Class 4 proceedings requiring remediation works under supervision of independent site auditor.

Respondent sought variation to complete works the subject of DAs for Wall and Drainage Works (as defined).  Amended Orders made.  Subject to ongoing monitoring of orders.

$2,017.20

2

5 Maclaurin Street, PENSHURST

 

Parties: Emanuel Mifsud & Crystina Mifsud

 

Proceedings No. 377447 of 2016

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to clearing of articles and matter.

Contempt proceedings heard on 26 July 2017 before her Honour Justice Pain.   Judgment delivered on 1 September 2017.  Mr Mifsud was fined $2,000 (to be paid by 29 September 2017) and fined $500 per week until the orders are complied with. Mr Mifsud was allowed until 24 November 2017 to clean up the property before the $500 per week fine would commence. Council was awarded costs.

$10,130.00

3

117 Kyle Parade, Kyle Bay

 

Parties: Michael Stanley Lowe

 

Proceedings No. 127157 of 2017

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to removal of crane

Matter heard 16 and 17 October 2017.  Orders made for crane to be removed by 17 April 2018 and costs of $30,000 to be paid by 17 February 2018.

$16,804.00

4

1A Hill Street, Hurstville

 

Parties:  Australian Consulting Builder Pty Limited

Contempt proceedings commenced against respondent for failure to maintain the premises in a matter that would permit no intruders and pose no safety risk.

Court orders entered for demolition of offending building by 1 December 2017.  Matter adjourned to 15 December 2017.

$15,302.00

 

Subtotal

 

 

$44,253.20

High Court of Australia

1

1 Arnold Street

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Mofeed Louis Tanious

 

Proceedings No.

2017/32320

 

Class 2 Land and Environment Court commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry at the premises.  Orders upheld by Court with extension of time to comply to 25 April 2017.

Council was successful in resisting the applicant’s leave application to the Court of Appeal.  Summons dismissed with costs on 16 August 2017.  Applicant has now commenced proceedings in the High Court.  Awaiting confirmation from the High Court.

$1,350.00

 

Subtotal

 

 

$1,350.00

Supreme Court

1

977 Forest Road, Lugarno

 

Applicant: Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney

 

Proceedings No: 103967 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA2015/0443 for a child care centre

Applicant has lodged a Notice of Intention to Appeal to the Supreme Court however has not lodged any further documents and time has now expired.  Applicant to pay Council’s costs.

$0

2

296 Forest Road and Diment Way, Hurstville

 

Applicant: Telado Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 299079 of 2017

Applicant seeks s88K order for property rights in perpetuity over Council land known as Central Plaza. Applicant sought order for mediation which was refused by Court.

Applicant has withdrawn its Notice to Produce to Council.  Applicant to file its evidence by 24 November 2017.  Council’s evidence due by 22 December.  Further directions hearing on 2 February 2018.

$17,475.00

 

Subtotal

 

 

$17,475.00

Local Court Proceedings

1

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

Appeal against PIN for breaches of development consent. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Matter part heard on 20 May and 26 October 2016. Magistrate requires further submissions. Matter heard on 25 September 2017 and adjourned to 20 December 2017 for decision.

$1,610.00

2-6

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

 

Appeals against five PINs for breaches of development consent and one water pollution offence under POEO Act.

Defendant pleaded guilty to 4 offences, 1 withdrawn.  Magistrate has ordered written submission evidence on sentencing.  Matter heard on 25 September 2017 and adjourned to 20 December 2017 for decision.

$2,277.00

7-12

25 Koorabel, 25A Koorabel, 25B Koorabel Street

LUGARNO

 

Parties:

Daoud & Daoud Developments Pty Ltd

 

Appeals against six PINs issued for carrying out development not in accordance with development consent.

Matter adjourned for sentencing to 16 August 2017.  Following submissions, Magistrate Bartley has reserved his decision and listed the matter for sentencing on 7 November 2017.

$8,248.90

13

Greenbank St, Hurstville

 

Parties:

Daniel Mitchell

Parking offence

Matter was heard on 13 September 2017.  Court issued an $800 fine to be paid within 90 days.

$0

 

 

Subtotal

 

 

$12,135.90

NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal

1

Briscoe-Hough v Tegg & Ors

Gregory Briscoe-Hough v Warren Tegg, Constantine Hindi, Lupco Konjarski, Gavin Tennant & Greg Copson (NSW Electoral Commission)

 

Applicant has commenced proceedings alleging, “Irregularities in the conduct of the election in breach of Act and Regs”.

Matter is listed for further directions on 28 November 2017.  Following receipt of nomination forms, Applicant to further particularise his claim and respondents to prepare a response by 24 November 2017.

$0

 

Sub Total

 

 

$0

Cost Recovery

1

The Baptist Church Union of NSW and The Baptist Churches of NSW Property Trust

 

No. 83357 of 2017

 

Church has taken proceedings to  prevent gazettal of the acquisition notice relating to 4 – 6 Dora Street, Hurstville

Council was successful in resisting the Church’s injunction.  Property acquired by Council on 31 March 2017.  Costs assessment currently being prepared.

$0

2

37 Boronia Street

KYLE BAY

 

Parties:

Mrs Megan McOnie

 

Proceedings No.

40940 of 2015

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to a non-compliant swimming pool fence, overgrown vegetation and unhealthy swimming pool water.

Court Orders in support of Council’s Notices/Orders made. Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced.  Pool secured by Council December 2016.  Costs recovery commenced.  Property being sold by mortgagee.  Council’s costs to be paid out of sale proceeds.

$0

3

5 Booyong Ave, Lugarno

 

Parties: Sasho Naumcevski

Class 5 proceedings in relation to unauthorised excavation works at 5 Booyong Avenue, Lugarno

Costs payable pursuant to Court Orders in enforcement proceedings.  Mr Naumcevski has entered into (and to date, complied with) an instalment arrangement in relation to the $49,881.24 payable. 

 

$0

4

799 Forest Road PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

CC Builders (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

155689 of 2016

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0457 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling housing development including six dwellings. 

 

Judgment handed down on 16 February 2017.  Consent granted to amended plans.  Costs recovery for s97B costs underway.

$0

5

399-403 Princes Highway

CARLTON

 

Applicant :

Michael Murr

 

Proceedings No.

336689 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 75/2016 for 5 storey residential flat building containing 22 units and strata subdivision.

S34 conference

Proceedings fixed for contested hearing on 24 and 25 May 2017.  Matter relisted on 20 June 2017 for submissions on need for cl. 4.6.  Judgment handed down by Commissioner Smithson on 18 July 2017.  Appeal upheld, development consent granted and no clause 4.6 required. Awaiting payment of S97B costs of $15,000.

$13,356.60

 

Subtotal

 

 

$13,356.60

 


 

6.      The cost savings to date by virtue of S34 delegations are as follows:

 

Month (2017/18)

Savings

July

$0

August

$32,000

September

$32,000

October

$0

  Total

$64,000

 

Financial Implications

7.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

09/1077

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 13

Item:                   FIN372-17          Investment Report as 30 September 2017 

Author:              Team Leader Financial Reporting

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 Recommendation

That the Investment Report as at 30 September 2017 be received and noted

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for September 2017 and compares it against key benchmarks.  The report includes the estimated market valuation of Council’s investment portfolio, loan liabilities, and an update on Council’s legal action against various parties.

2.      Council’s annualised rate of return is 3.28%, which is 1.52% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals at $1,209,836 is $117,656 above 2017/18 year-to-date adopted budget

 

Background

3.      Council’s Responsible Accounting Officer, is required to report monthly on Council’s Investment Portfolio and certify that the Investments are held in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy and Section 625 of the Local Government Act.

Investment Performance Commentary

4.      Council’s performance against the benchmark for returns of its investment portfolio for September 2017, are as follows:

 

 

1 Month

3 Month

12 Month

Portfolio Performance

0.25%

0.82%

3.28%

Performance Index

0.14%

0.43%

1.76%

Excess

0.11%

0.39%

1.52%

                         

Notes                                                       

1       Portfolio performance is the rate of return of the portfolio over the specified period

2       The Performance Index is the rate of return of the market (comparable securities) over the specified period                                     

3       Excess performance is the rate of return of the portfolio in excess of the Performance Index.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.      Council’s investment portfolio as at the end of September was as follows:

Security Type

Market Value $000's

% Total
Value

Cash at Bank

8,398

4.34%

11am Cash

9,346

4.83%

31 Day Notice Account

22

0.01%

Flexi Deposit (Fix/Float)

5,014

2.59%

Floating Rate Deposit

6,024

3.12%

Floating Rate Note

63,616

32.91%

Floating Rate TCD

3,536

1.83%

Term Deposit

91.415

47.29%

Managed Funds Trust

5,947

3.08%

Total Cash and Investments

193,318

100.00%

 

 

6.   At the end of September 2017 Total Cash and Investments were $193.318 million and have decreased by $1.78 million from August 2017 as a result of normal monthly operational spend.

 

7.      Council continues to utilise the Federal Government’s current guarantee   ($250,000) investing in Term Deposits with a range of Authorised Deposit Taking Institutions (ADI’s) on short to medium term investments (generally 30 days to 180 days maturity) where more competitive rates are available.

 

Legal Issues

 

8.      Nil.

 

Loan Liability

 

9.      Council’s loan liability as at 30 September was $2.5 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade in Mortdale. Next repayment of $125,000 is due 28th December 2017.

The outstanding balance on this facility is at a variable interest of 194 basis points over 3 month BBSW. At the current 3 month BBSW rate, the interest rate payable is 3.66% pa.

 

10.    Council receives a 4.00% pa subsidy under the NSW Government’s Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme funding agreement for this Jubilee Park upgrade facility. It is intended to continue this financially-advantageous arrangement through to full term in 2022.

 

 

 

Policy Limits

 

11.    The following graph shows the limits, as a percentage of total cash investments, of the amount by periods, as allowed under Council’s policy, and comparing them to the amounts actually invested, as a percentage of the total cash investments.

 

12.    It shows that the funds invested are now within the limits set in the Investment Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment Income

 

13.    Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $1,209,836 at 30 September and is $117,656 above year to date adopted budget.

Certificate by Chief Financial Officer (Responsible Accounting Officer): Rob Owens

 

14.    Investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Minister’s Guidelines, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Investments

Investment Duration

 

Investment Term

Market Value

% Total Value

Policy Limits %

0 to < Year

63,083

32.63%

100

1 to < 3 Years

66,537

34.42%

70

3 to < 5 Years

63,698

32.95%

50

> 5 Years

-

 

25

Portfolio Total

193,318

100.00%

 

 

15.    Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 32.63% of assets maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.    The following graphs show analysis of the total cash investment by:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Investments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17.    Council’s investment portfolio is mainly directed to term deposits, which account for approximately 50% of total investments. Yields have steadily contracted, while tracking bond market volatility in the short term.

 

18.    Bank Floating Rate Notes (FRN) offer liquidity and a higher rate of income accrual, which is highly recommended by our Investment Advisors (CPG Research & Advisory) going forward.

 

19.    The following are the types of investments held by Council:

 

a)      At Call refers to funds held at a financial institution, and can be recalled by Council either same day or on an overnight basis.

 

b)      A Floating Rate Note (FRN) is a debt security issued by a company with a variable interest rate. This can either be issued as Certificates of Deposit (CD) or as Medium Term Notes (MTN). The interest rate can be either fixed or floating, where the adjustments to the interest rate are usually made quarterly and are tied to a certain money market index such as the Bank Bill Swap Rate.

 

c)      A Fixed Rate Bond is a debt security issued by a company with a fixed interest rate over the term of the bond.

 

d)      A managed fund is a professionally managed investment portfolio that individual investors can buy into, purchasing 'units' rather than shares. Each managed fund has a specific investment objective. This is usually based around the different asset classes (cash, fixed interest, property and shares). The money you invest is used to buy assets in line with this investment objective. When you invest in a managed fund, you are allocated a number of 'units'. The value of your units is calculated on a daily basis and changes as the market value of the assets in the fund rises and falls.

         

* These managed funds have been grandfathered since the NSW State Government changed the list of Approved Investments as a result of the Cole enquiry (which was reflected in the Ministerial Order dated 31/7/2008).

 

Credit Rating

 

20.    Credit ratings are generally a statement as to an institution’s credit quality. Ratings ranging from A1+ to NR (Short Term) & AAA to BBB- (long term) are considered investment grade.

 

21.    A general guide as to the meaning of each credit rating that Council deals with is as follows:

 

Short-term

A1+: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

A1:    Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, many positive investment attributes but also elements susceptible to adverse effects of changes in economic conditions.

A2:    Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but also speculative s or lack of protection against changes of economic conditions.

B1:    Moderate characteristic capacity to meet financial commitments, also in good economic conditions.

Unrated:   This category includes unrated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s) such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies to the extent not Commonwealth-guaranteed. No rating has been requested, or there is insufficient information on which to base a rating.         

Long-term

AAA: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

AA:   quality companies, a bit higher risk than AAA. An obligor has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree.

A:      economic situation can affect finance. An obligor has strong capacity to meet its financial commitments but is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligors in higher-rated categories.

BBB: medium class companies, which are satisfactory at the moment. An obligor has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.

Unrated:    This category includes unrated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s) such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies to the extent not Commonwealth-guaranteed. No rating has been requested, or there is insufficient information on which to base a rating.

 

22.    The credit quality of Council’s portfolio is relatively high with approximately 67% of assets rated ‘A’ or higher. The ‘AAA’ assets represent the deposit investments covered by the Federal Government’s Financial Claims Scheme (FCS).

 

23.    The remaining 33% rated ‘BBB’ or ‘unrated’ reflects the attractive deposit and Floating Rate Notes (FRN) investments with the regional and unrated ADIs.

 

Council’s Investment Powers

 

24.    Council’s investment powers are regulated by Section 625 of the Local Government Act, which states:

 

•        A council may invest money that is not, for the time being, required by the council for any other purpose.

 

•        Money may be invested only in a form of investment notified by order of the Minister published in the Gazette.

 

•        An order of the Minister notifying a form of investment for the purposes of this section must not be made without the approval of the Treasurer.

 

•        The acquisition, in accordance with section 358, of a controlling interest in a corporation or an entity within the meaning of that section is not an investment for the purposes of this section.

 

25.    Council’s investment policy and strategy requires that all investments are to be made in accordance with;

 

•        Local Government Act 1993 - Section 625

 

•        Local Government Act 1993 - Order (of the Minister) dated 12 January 2011

 

•        The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A (2), 14C (1) & (2)

 

•        Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993

 

•        Investment Guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Investment Portfolio as at 30 September 2017

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN372-17              Investment Report as 30 September 2017

[Appendix 1]          Investment Portfolio as at 30 September 2017

 

 

Page 21

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 28

Item:                   FIN373-17          Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and Audit Charter 

Author:              Internal Auditor

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the updated Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter attached as Attachment 1 to this report.

 

Executive Summary

1.      In May 2017 Council endorsed the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) Charter. The Charter has now been updated following the election of the new Council and is submitted for consideration and adoption.

2.      Council’s ARIC is also required to have its own, separate (internal) Charter.  This “Internal Audit Charter”, is distinct from the Council’s Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) Charter. The “Internal Audit Charter” has been adopted by the (ARIC) Committee, for its own use and it is attached, for information.

 

Background

3.      The NSW Government in 2016 adopted legislation in the form of the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38, which requires every NSW Council to have an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) and mandates and defines the role of an ARIC. The legislation when proclaimed, will compel the creation of an ARIC in every Council, significantly improving the practice of internal audit across local government. 

 

4.      Section 428(a) provides as follows:

(1) A council must appoint an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

(2) The Committee must keep under review the following aspects of the council’s operations:

(a)  compliance,

(b)  risk management,

(c)  fraud control,

(d)  financial management,

(e)  governance,

(f)  implementation of the strategic plan, delivery program and strategies,

(g)  service reviews,

(h)  collection of performance measurement data by the council,

(i)  any other matters prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The Committee is also to provide information to the council for the purpose of improving the council’s performance of its functions.

5.         Each Council is required to have an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter, to facilitate compliance with the new provisions of the Local Government Act. Each Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will also have its own Internal Audit Charter, for the same reason.

 

6.      Council’s External Auditor requires annual completion of the following declaration:

We operate an effective internal audit function and management promptly acts upon recommendations for improvement and rectifies reported shortcomings.

We have appropriate internal audit and risk management systems, which satisfy the requirements of the Office of Local Government’s ‘Internal Audit Guidelines’ (Guidelines). In particular, we have:

i.    ensured the General Manager is ultimately responsible and accountable for Council’s risk management;

ii.    established and maintained a risk management framework that is appropriate to the Council;

iii.   established and maintained an internal audit function that reports functionally to the Audit and Risk Committee and administratively to the General Manager;

iv.   ensured the operation of the internal audit function is consistent with the ‘Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards and the IIA Code of Ethics for performance standards, practices and guidelines’;

v.   ensured the internal audit function has a charter consistent with the ‘sample audit charter’ in the Guidelines;

vi.   established an Audit and Risk Committee with a majority of independent members and an independent chair;

vii.  ensured the Audit and Risk Committee operates as an advisory committee that assists the [General Manager] review aspects of the Council’s operations listed in the LG Act ;

viii. ensured the Audit and Risk Committee has a charter consistent with the ‘sample internal audit charter’ in the Guidelines.

 

Remove the requirements above that the council has not satisfied and select the paragraphs below as appropriate.

 

We have disclosed to you instances where we:

i.    have not satisfied the requirements of the Office of Local Governments ‘Internal Audit Guidelines’

ii.    believe non‑compliance with the requirements of the Office of Local Governments ‘Internal Audit Guidelines’ may have caused the internal audit function to be ineffective for all or part of the reporting period.

 

7.         Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will continue work to the Charters, to provide independent assurance that programmes and activities are in place to manage Council’s risk profile.

 

 

 

Financial Implications

 

8.      No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

D17/171043

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

ARIC Charter (in TOR format) 13 Nov 2017

Attachment View2

Internal Audit Charter (in TOR format) Oct 2017


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN373-17              Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and Audit Charter

[Appendix 1]          ARIC Charter (in TOR format) 13 Nov 2017

 

 

Page 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT, RISK and IMPROVEMENT

COMMITTEE  CHARTER

 
 

 

 

 

 

 


DOCUMENT ADMINISTRATION

 

Document Owner

Internal Auditor

Related Documents

·      Internal Audit Guidelines Sept 2010, NSW Premier and Cabinet – Division of Local Government. Issued under Local Government Act, 1993 – Section 23A

·      www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Internal-Audit-Guidelines-September-2010.pdf

 

 

References & Legislation

·      Local Government Act 1993 and related Regulations

·      Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning ) Act 2016 No 38.

Document Identifier

D17/171043

 

 

PURPOSE

The ARIC Charter sets out the role, responsibilities and structure of the ARIC Committee.


 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DOCUMENT ADMINISTRATION.. 2

PURPOSE. 2

The ARIC Charter sets out the role, responsibilities and structure of the ARIC Committee. 2

1.      Role and Authority. 4

1.1  Role. 4

1.2 Authority. 6

1.3 Reporting relationships. 6

2. Membership, Chairperson and Voting. 7

2.1 The membership of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will be as follows: 7

2.2  Chairperson. 9

2.3  Tenure. 9

2.4  Assessment of Committee performance. 9

2.5 Competencies. 10

2.6 Induction and Training. 10

2.7 Administrative Support. 10

2.8 Responsibilities of Members. 10

2.9 Committee Facilitator. 10

2.10 Voting. 11

2.11 Proxy. 11

2.12 Attendance at meetings. 11

3. Meetings. 11

3.1  Scheduling of meetings. 11

3.2  Additional meetings. 12

3.3  Forward meeting plan. 12

3.4  Distribution of agendas and working papers. 12

3.5 Conflicts of Interest. 12

3.6 Quorum. 13

3.7 Public Participation. 13

3.8 Record keeping. 13

4. Responsibilities of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. 13

4.1  Risk Management – review whether or not : 14

4.2  Control Framework – review whether or not: 14

4.3  External Accountability : 14

4.4 Legislative Compliance : 15

4.5 General Compliance and Business Improvement (S428A LG Act  and Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38) : 15

4.6 Internal Audit. 15

5.  Communications & Reporting. 16

5.1 Reporting. 16

5.2 Other reports. 16

5.3 Information requirements of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. 17

6. Code of Conduct and other Council Policies. 17

6.1  Code of Conduct. 17

 

 

 

 

1.    Role and Authority

1.1 Role

The primary role of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee of the Georges River Council (referred to in this Charter as the “Committee” or the “ARIC”) is to advise Council on Audit, Governance, Risk Management, and Business Improvement related matters, policy and strategies, within the Committee’s capabilities and working to an Audit Plan which encourages good Governance, Internal and External Audit and attention to Business Improvement, also providing independent, objective assurance about the effectiveness of Council’s risk mitigation controls.

This Committee is an advisory committee only and it has no authority to expend Council funds or make decisions that are binding on the Council (refer Section 4 Responsibilities of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee).

The Committee will fulfil its role by:

·    Providing a forum for communication between all stakeholders i.e. the Council, General Manager, Senior Management , Internal and External Audit and contracted agents.

·    Ensuring and supporting the independence of the Internal Audit function.

·    Monitoring the resources allocated to the Internal Audit function and to make recommendations to the General Manager where required, to ensure that sufficient and appropriate resources are made available.

·    Reviewing and endorsing or improving the plans and programmes of annual and longer term risk based Audits, as developed by the Internal Auditor.

·    Contributing where possible and appropriate, to the following objectives of the Council, as defined in the Local Government Act S 428A and as amended by the  Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38 :

(a)  compliance,

(b)  risk management,

(c)  fraud control,

(d)  financial management,

(e)  governance,

(f)  implementation of the strategic plan, delivery program and strategies,

(g)  service reviews,

(h)  collection of performance measurement data by the council,

(i)  any other matters prescribed by the regulations.

·    providing where possible and appropriate information to the Council for the purpose of improving the Council’s performance of its functions.

·    Endorsing, reviewing and monitoring the outcomes of the 5 Year Strategic Internal Audit Plan, the Annual Internal Audit plan and the Internal Audit function.

·    Encouraging and assisting Council to meet compliance requests from the Office of the Auditor General.

·    Facilitating and promoting use of thorough and reasonable governance procedures throughout the Georges River Council.

·    Assisting the Internal Audit function to provide independent assurance and assistance to Council, in the effective discharge of its responsibilities in relation to:

- Risk Management

- Internal Control

- Governance

- External Accountability Responsibilities

- Financial reporting

- Compliance with laws and regulations,

Responsibilities of the Committee are further discussed in section four of this Charter.

1.2 Authority

The Council authorises the Committee, within the scope of its role and responsibilities, to:

a) Obtain any information it needs from any employee or external party (subject to their legal obligations to protect information).

b) Discuss any matters with the External Auditor, or other external parties (subject to confidentiality considerations).

c) Request the attendance of any Council employee or Councillor to ARIC meetings.

d) Request external legal or other professional advice, if considered necessary by ARIC, to meet ARIC responsibilities.

 

 1.3 Reporting relationships

The NSW Auditor General is the statutory auditor for the Council. Within the Council, the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee’s relationships with the elected Council, other Council Committees and internal reporting and external relationships are represented diagrammatically below;

Rounded Rectangle: Council

 

 

 

 

 

 


Rounded Rectangle: Chief Operating Officer

                                                                                                              

Rounded Rectangle: Internal Auditor
 

 

 

 

 

 


2. Membership, Chairperson and Voting

2.1 The membership of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will be as follows:

 

2.1.1   Voting Members, five (5) persons:

(i) two Georges River Council Councillors and

(ii) three independent external members, at least one of whom has financial management expertise and one of whom shall be the Chair.

.

Current Office of Local Government guidelines discourage the membership of the Mayor.

 

2.1.2   Non-voting advisors (these persons will ordinarily attend all or relevant parts of the meetings)

a) General Manager

b) Service Unit Manager – Governance and Risk

c) Internal Auditor (Committee Facilitator)

 

2.1.3   Representative(s) of the Auditor General, a non-voting position.

 

2.1.4        Other persons

The Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee may request the following persons to attend all or part of the meetings, to present relevant information as required:

a) Other Council officers.

b) Representative of the External Auditor.

c) Other external parties.

d) Other Councillors may attend as observers, at the discretion of the Chair.

Voting Membership of the Committee can be withdrawn only by resolution of the Council. Council staff will be appointed and removed as required, by the General Manager.

 

2.1.5   Alternates

The two Councillor members of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee shall each have an alternate, nominated by resolution of Council. The alternates can only attend and vote at meetings in place of the member, where that member is unable to attend the meeting and has registered an apology.

2.1.6   Casual Vacancies.

A casual vacancy caused by the resignation or death of an independent Member, will be filled by undertaking the following process:

(i) Where a casual vacancy occurs, the Internal Auditor / Committee Facilitator will report this matter to the next Committee meeting and record it appropriately in the Minutes, and highlight it in the report to the next available Council Meeting.

(ii) The Internal Auditor / Committee Facilitator will provide a report to the next available Council Meeting regarding the proposed replacement. This report will give consideration to the following options;

 (a) The Committee Facilitator will review the original expressions of interest received and will confirm if any of those individuals who previously nominated, are suitable and still prepared to be considered as a member of the Committee.  A recommendation may be made, for an appointment by Council resolution.

(b) Where no previous nominations are still appropriate or current, expressions of interest will be called to fill the vacancy, for an appropriate recommendation and appointment by resolution of the Council.

(c) Where a vacancy occurs within 9 months preceding the conclusion of the Term of the current Council, the vacancy will not be filled until after the impending Council election.

 

(iii) Once endorsed by the Council, a new Member filling a casual vacancy will hold office for the remainder of the term of the Member whom he/she has replaced.

2.2 Chairperson

The Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will be chaired by one of the Independent, External members, appointed as Chair by the Council. The Chairperson is to have precedence at the meeting and shall determine the order of proceedings, generally as set by the agenda. All comments by members of the Committee and others present, shall be made through the Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, another independent member elected by the Committee, shall chair the meeting.

Council’s Code of Meeting Practice shall be used as the reference guide, for any matters pertaining to the Committee meetings, which are not otherwise outlined in this Charter.

 

2.3 Tenure

The independent, external members will be appointed for a term of three years, with one member in the first term of the Committee being appointed for an initial two years period, so that the triennial spilling and changeover of memberships will allow for continuity and transfer of corporate knowledge, with one member being replaced or reappointed on a different three year cycle to the other two. Members may be eligible for extension of appointments or re-appointment by the Council.

Further to the above provisions, independent membership of the Committee will expire at the end of the financial year in which a Local Government General election takes place. This is to allow the new Council to review the membership and provide for transition to a new membership.

 

2.4 Assessment of Committee performance

The Chairperson of the Committee will initiate a review of the performance of the Committee every twelve months. This review will consider the performance of individual members of the Committee as well as overall performance. The review will be conducted on the following basis:

-Self-assessment by the Committee

-An assessment by stakeholders with input sought from the Council, the General Manager, the Service Unit Manager Risk and Audit, the Internal Auditor and the External Auditor.

The assessment will be conducted utilising a standardised evaluation format.

The assessment of the performance of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will be presented to Council for its review. Any action proposed that arises from this review can only be taken as a result of a decision of Council.

Further formal reviews of the Audit function will be conducted as required by relevant Standards.

 

 2.5 Competencies.

At least one independent member of the Committee shall have accounting or related financial management experience with understanding of accounting and auditing standards in a public sector environment.

2.6 Induction and Training.

New members will receive relevant information and briefings on their appointment to assist them to meet their Committee responsibilities.

2.7 Administrative Support.

The Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will be provided with administrative support, by the Office of the General Manager.

2.8 Responsibilities of Members

Members of the Committee are expected to:

a) Understand the relevant legislative and regulatory environment of Audit and Risk Management in NSW Local Government and any particular requirements appropriate to Georges River Council.

b) Contribute the time needed to study and understand any documentation or papers provided.

c) Apply high level analytical skills, objectivity and good judgment.

d) Express opinions frankly, ask questions that go to the fundamental core of issues and pursue independent lines of enquiry.

e) Abide by the Georges River Council’s Code of Conduct.

 

2.9 Committee Facilitator.

The Committee facilitator is currently the Internal Auditor appointed by the General Manager. The facilitator is responsible for co-ordinating the preparation of reports, agendas, invitations, minutes and meetings of the Committee, as well as any presentations from guest speakers.

2.10 Voting.

No formal voting rules apply to ARIC meetings. As the Committee has an advisory role, its decisions or recommendations are made by consensus and no decision or recommendation is deemed to be a decision of the Council, unless the matter is referred to Council for determination and a resolution eventuates. If Committee consensus is not achieved and if required, the matter shall be referred to the Council for determination.

2.11 Proxy.

Voting by proxy is not permitted. Only members in attendance at the meeting, either in person or via live telephone or video conferencing methods, shall be entitled to participate in the decision making process of the Committee. (See also Cl 3.6).

If a member is unable to attend the meeting, but wishes to be in attendance for discussion of a particular matter, he / she can notify the Chairperson prior to the meeting, to request deferral of the item to a subsequent meeting, or to request that the Chairperson formally indicate the member’s view to the Committee, during the discussion on the matter.

 The Committee shall decide if a matter is to be deferred to a subsequent meeting, based on the representations made to the Chairperson by the absent member.

 

2.12 Attendance at meetings.

The attendance by members, at meetings of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee shall be recorded. Where a member does not attend and does not provide an apology for 2 consecutive meetings, this will be reported to Council and a determination will be made by Council as to that member’s ongoing tenure on the Committee. The record of attendance at meetings by all members, will be presented in Council’s Annual report.

 

3. Meetings

3.1 Scheduling of meetings.

The Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will meet four (4) times per year, with one of these meetings to include review of the annual audited financial reports and external audit opinion. Another of these meetings will specifically consider the Annual and 5 year Strategic Internal Audit plans.

3.2 Additional meetings.

The Chairperson of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee may convene additional meetings if required. Other Committee members may submit requests to the Chairperson for additional meetings.

3.3 Forward meeting plan.

A forward meeting plan, including meeting dates and significant agenda items, will be agreed by the Committee each year. The forward meeting plan will cover all Committee responsibilities as detailed in this Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter.

3.4 Distribution of agendas and working papers.

The agenda & meeting papers of scheduled meetings of the ARIC shall be circulated to members via the Council’s Portal, at least 5 working days prior to a scheduled meeting. Each meeting shall be properly recorded by the taking of minutes.

3.5 Conflicts of Interest.

Committee members must verbally declare to the meeting any conflicts of interest or pecuniary interests at the start of each meeting, or before any discussion of a relevant agenda item or topic. Details of any conflicts of interest should be appropriately minuted and the Chairperson should confirm with the Committee facilitator, that such a record has been made.

Where any members or invitees at Committee meetings have declared a conflict of interests, or are deemed by the Chairperson to have any real or perceived conflict of interests, it may be appropriate that they be excused from Committee deliberations on the issue where the conflict of interest may exist. The final arbiter of such a decision will be the Chairperson of the Committee.

The Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016, in Section 440 - Codes of conduct, provides that:

* (2) The Local Government Regulations may provide that the provisions of the model code relating to the disclosure of pecuniary interests are also to apply to the following persons:

(a) a member of a committee of a council (including the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee),

 

(b) an adviser to a council.

*This part of the revised legislation has not yet been proclaimed as law, as at 30 September 2017.  Members of the ARIC have not been classified as “Designated Officers” for the purposes of S441 and S449 of the Local Government Act. Members consider the potential existence of conflicts of interests at each meeting and if declared, conflicts of interests would be managed in accordance with the provisions of S451 the Local Government Act.

Further, The Local Government Act S439AA(4) provides as follows:

Other exclusions:
“A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in a code of conduct as not being required to be disclosed.”

3.6 Quorum.

A minimum of three (3) voting members of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will need to be in attendance to constitute a quorum. Meetings can be held in person or by attendance via telephone or video-conference. (See also Cl 2.11)

3.7 Public Participation.

Due to the often confidential nature of the items presented at the meetings, all meetings of the Committee will be closed to the public.

 

3.8 Record keeping.

The agendas and minutes of the Committee shall be stored as a permanent record of Council, as determined by the General Manager. Any questions by members regarding the minutes are to be referred immediately to the Committee Facilitator and if any error in the minutes is confirmed, the Committee Facilitator shall arrange to make the appropriate changes. Minutes will be completed within 2 weeks of the Committee meeting.

 

4. Responsibilities of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

 

The ARIC has no executive powers except those expressly provided by the Council. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Committee must at all times recognise that primary responsibility for management of Council, rests with the Council and the General Manager as defined by the Local Government Act.

In addition to the role outlined under section 1.1 above, the Committee’s responsibilities include an oversight function in the following specific areas, including further responsibilities as defined in the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38 - S 428A :

4.1 Risk Management – review whether or not :

a) Management has in place a current and comprehensive risk management framework and associated procedures for effective identification and management of business and financial risks, including fraud. These risks must be taken into account when formulating Internal Audit planning.

b) A sound and effective approach has been followed in establishing business continuity planning arrangements, including whether plans have been periodically tested and test results reported.

 

4.2 Control Framework – review whether or not:

a) Management has adequate, appropriate internal controls in place.

b) Management has in place relevant policies and procedures and these are periodically reviewed and updated.

c) Appropriate governance processes are in place to assess and document levels of compliance with policies and procedures.

d) Appropriate policies and procedures are in place for the review, management and exercise of delegations.

e) Management is taking effective steps to embed a culture, which is committed to good governance, lawful and where possible ethical behaviour.

 

4.3 External Accountability :

a) Review Auditor General advices, all financial statements and External Audit opinions, including whether appropriate action has been taken in response to audit recommendations and recommended adjustments.

b) Consider contentious financial reporting matters, in conjunction with Council’s management and External Auditors.

c) Periodically review External Audit plans and reports in respect of planned or completed External Audits, and monitor the implementation of audit recommendations by management.

d) Consider significant issues raised in relevant Auditor General communications, External Audit reports and any Office of Local Government Better Practice guides and ensure appropriate action is taken.

e) Meet “in camera” with Audit Office and/or Contract Auditor management, without the presence of management, at least annually.

4.4 Legislative Compliance :

a) Determine whether management has used its best endeavours, in appropriately considering legal and compliance risks, as part of risk assessment and management arrangements as recommended in any guidelines provided by the Office of Local Government

b) Review the effectiveness of systems for monitoring compliance with relevant laws, regulations and associated government policies.

 

4.5 General Compliance and Business Improvement (S428A LG Act  and Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38) :

a) Implementation of the strategic plan, delivery program and strategies,

b) Service reviews,

c) Collection of performance measurement data by the Council,

d)  Any other matters prescribed by law.

e)  provision of general  information to the Council, for the purpose of improving the Council’s performance of its functions.

4.6 Internal Audit

a) Act as a forum for communication between the Council, General Manager, senior management, Internal and External Audit.

b) At the meeting held prior to the commencement of the ensuing financial year, review the Internal Audit coverage, the annual Internal Audit Plan and the revised 5 year Strategic Internal Audit Plan, ensure the plans have considered the Risk Management Framework and Council’s adopted Risk Appetite and endorse the plan.

c) Consider the adequacy of Internal Audit resources to carry out its responsibilities, including completion of the approved Internal Audit Plan and actioning of the projects identified in that plan.

d) Review audit reports and consider significant issues identified in audit reports and action taken on issues raised, including identification and dissemination of better practices.

e) Monitor the implementation of Internal Audit project recommendations, by  management.

f) Review the Internal Audit Charter once every 2 years, ensuring appropriate organisational structures, authority, access and reporting arrangements are in place.

g) Periodically review the performance of Internal Audit, as required by the Standards.

h) Meet “in camera” with the Internal Auditor without the presence of management, at least annually.

5.  Communications & Reporting

5.1 Reporting

The Committee shall report back to Council within a six (6) months period following each meeting. Summary reports may be presented to the Council. The report shall provide Council with the following as appropriate and applicable:

                   - Minutes of each meeting

- All significant issues which can be reported without  prejudice to the audit function.

This provision is to permit the implementation of Committee recommendations in a reasonable window of confidentiality, to optimise the effectiveness of Committee actions.

The Committee through the Chairperson, shall also submit and present on an annual basis, a formal report to Council outlining the Committee’s major achievements, issues identified and other relevant matters, to a closed session of a Council meeting.

5.2 Other reports.

The Committee can also elect to report to Council at other times. Examples of where this may be required, include proposed significant changes to scheduled Audit tasks included in the endorsed Internal Audit plan.

5.3 Information requirements of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

The Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will be presented via the Portal, with the following standing information for each meeting.

-Progress against the adopted, Annual Internal Audit Plan.

-Suggested amendments to the Annual Internal Audit Plan.

-Status of completed Internal Audit reports .

-Status of actions required in previous Minutes of the Committee

-A report outlining any relevant correspondence received from regulatory authorities such as the NSW Auditor General, Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the NSW Ombudsman’s Office, Office of Local Government.

-

6. Code of Conduct and other Council Policies

6.1 Code of Conduct

Each Committee member who is not otherwise a Councillor or Council staff member, shall be provided with a copy of Council’s adopted Code of Conduct and other related policies that may be applicable to the operation of the Committee.

The conduct of each Committee member is expected to be consistent with the principles outlined in these Council publications.

Members of the Committee are not permitted to speak to the media as representatives of the Committee, unless authorised and approved by Council.

  

 

 

Charter Approved by Council: 13  November  2017.

Review due date: October 2019

 

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN373-17              Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and Audit Charter

[Appendix 2]          Internal Audit Charter (in TOR format) Oct 2017

 

 

Page 49

 

 

INTERNAL  AUDIT  CHARTER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


DOCUMENT ADMINISTRATION

 

Document Owner

Internal Auditor

Related Documents

·      Internal Audit Guidelines Sept 2010, NSW Premier and Cabinet – Division of Local Government. Issued under Local Government Act, 1993 – Section 23A

·      www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Internal-Audit-Guidelines-September-2010.pdf

 

 

References & Legislation

·      Local Government Act 1993 and related Regulations

·      Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning ) Act 2016 No 38.

Document Identifier

D17/171161

 

SF 16/569… This document contains extracts from OLG Guidelines under S 23A of the Local Government Act.

 

 

 

PURPOSE

This Internal Audit Charter is the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee’s formal statement of purpose, authority and responsibility for the internal auditing function within Georges River Council.

.


 

 

Contents

 

DOCUMENT ADMINISTRATION.. 2

PURPOSE. 2

1.      Policy. 4

2       Scope of Work. 6

3       Reporting Arrangements. 7

1. 8

2.      4  Planning Requirements. 8

3. 8

4.      5  Quality Assurance & Improvement Programme. 8

6       Co-ordination with External Audit. 9

7       Co-ordination with Corporate Governance and Risk Management. 9

8       Review of the Internal Audit Charter. 9

9       Evaluation of Internal Audit. 9

10          Conflicts of Interest. 9

11          Attachments: 9

12          Variation and Review.. 10

 


 

1.   Policy

 

1.1    Introduction

 

This “Audit Charter” is adopted by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. It is distinguished from the “Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter”, which is adopted by the Council, to define the role of the Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee, formed pursuant to S428A(1) of the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38.

The purpose of Internal Auditing (IA) is to provide independent, objective assurance and consulting services designed to add value and improve Council’s operations. IA provides independent assurance over the internal controls and risk management framework of the council. IA thereby helps Council to accomplish its policy objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluating and improving the effectiveness of risk management, audit, control and governance processes.

This Audit Charter is a formal statement of purpose, authority and responsibility for the internal auditing function within Georges River Council.

·    It establishes Internal Audit within Georges River Council as an independent and objective service to Council.

·    It outlines the legal and operational framework under which Internal Audit will operate.

·    It authorises the Internal Auditor to promote and direct a broad range of internal audits across Georges River Council and where circumstances warrant and approval is granted, external bodies.

In the context of this Charter, the terms Internal Audit, Internal Audit function and Internal Audit personnel are interchangeable. Any staff position titles described, may be amended by the General Manager.

 

1.2    Role and Authority

 

Internal Audit at Georges River Council is managed by the Internal Auditor as appointed by the General Manager. The Internal Auditor is the focal position for internal audit activities, fulfilling the role of “Chief Audit Executive” as defined in the Standards issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors.

 

The Internal Auditor is authorised to direct a comprehensive programme of internal audit work in the form of reviews, previews, consultancy advice, evaluations, appraisals, assessments and investigations of functions, processes, controls and governance frameworks in the context of the achievement of Council’s business objectives. This programme of internal audit work may be carried out by the Internal Auditor, or other persons or organisations engaged by the Internal Auditor, in consultation with the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

For this purpose, all persons formally engaged in Internal Audit must be authorised to have full, free and unrestricted access to all functions, property, personnel, records, information, accounts, files, monies and other documentation, as necessary for the conduct of their work.

1.3    Objectivity, Independence and Organisational Status

Objectivity requires an unbiased mental attitude. As such, Internal Audit shall perform internal audit engagements in such a manner that they have an honest belief in their work and that no significant quality compromises are made. Further, objectivity requires Internal Audit staff to not subordinate their judgment on internal audit matters, to that of others.

To facilitate this approach, Internal Audit must have an independent status within Georges River Council and for this purpose, shall be responsible through the Internal Auditor, to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee and administratively to the General Manager.

Internal Audit must be independent of the activities reviewed, and therefore an internal auditor must not undertake any operating responsibilities outside of internal audit work, without the approval of the General Manager and the knowledge of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. Internal Audit staff should not have any executive or managerial powers, authorities, functions or duties, except those relating to the management of Internal Audit. Internal Audit must report to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee, any situations where they feel their objectivity may be impaired.

The work of Internal Audit does not relieve the staff of Georges River Council from their accountability to properly and safely discharge their responsibilities. All Georges River Council staff are responsible for risk management and the operation and enhancement of internal controls. This includes responsibility for implementing remedial action endorsed by management, following an internal audit.

Internal Audit must not be responsible for operational activities on a daily basis, or in the detailed development or implementation of new or changed systems or policies and procedures, or for internal checking processes. Development and emplacement of such efficiencies remains the responsibility of relevant, local managers.

The Internal Auditor must only be replaced by the General Manager, after appropriate consultation with the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

 

2    Scope of Work

2.1    The scope of services provided by Internal Audit shall encompass:

·    Phase 1 reforms to the Local Government Act, published on 23 September 2016 and advised by Office of Local Government (OLG) Circular 2016/35.

·    The examination and evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of systems of internal control, risk management, governance, and the status of ethical behaviour.

·    Ascertaining conformity with the goals and objectives of the Georges River Council.

·    Assessment of the economic and efficient use of Council’s resources.

·    The examination of compliance with policies, procedures, plans and legislation.

·    Assessment of the reliability and integrity of information.

·    Assessment of the safeguarding of assets.

·    Any special investigations as directed by the General Manager or the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

·    All activities of the Georges River Council, whether financial or non-financial, manual or computerised.

The scope of internal audit work may include:

·    Assurance services: Objective examination of evidence for the purpose of providing an independent assessment on risk management, control, or governance processes of Council. Examples may include financial, performance, operational, compliance, system security, and due diligence engagements. Consulting services: Advisory and related client service activities, the nature and scope of which are agreed with the client and which are intended to add value and improve Council’s governance, risk management, and control processes without the internal auditor assuming management responsibility. Examples include special Audit projects, counsel, advice, facilitation and training.

Any of the above services may also be provided by external, contracted specialists.

 

2.2    Internal Audit Methodology

Internal Audit shall use the most appropriate methodology for each internal audit engagement, depending on the nature of the activity and the pre-determined parameters for the engagement. Generally, internal audits will include:

·    Internal audit planning (both strategic and annual plans).

·    Field-work planning prior to each audit.

·    Reviewing and assessing risks in the context of the audit objectives.

·    Examination and evaluation of information.

·    Communicating findings and results.

·    Following up on the implementation of audit recommendations.

2.3    Operating Principles

Internal Audit shall conform to:

·    The Standards and Code of Ethics issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors.

·    Where relevant, the Statement on Information Systems Auditing Standards issued by the Information Systems and Control Association. *

·    Relevant auditing standards issued by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB). These standards “establish requirements and provide application and other explanatory material on the responsibilities of the auditor, the outside contractor and the assurance practitioner, as appropriate, when performing audits, reviews, assurance or related services engagements”.

* See OLG Guidelines under S23A of the Local Government Act (Sect 7 pg 59)

 

2.4    Professional Care and Conduct

Internal Audit shall:

·    Possess the knowledge, skills, and technical proficiency essential to the performance of internal audits.

·    Be skilled in dealing with people and in communicating audit issues effectively.

·    Maintain their technical competence through a programme of continuing education.

·    Exercise due professional care in performing internal audit engagements.

·    Conduct themselves in a professional manner.

·    Conduct their activities in a manner consistent with the concepts expressed in the Standards and the Code of Ethics as mentioned in section 2.3.

3    Reporting Arrangements

The Internal Auditor will report to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. At each Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee meeting, the Internal Auditor shall submit a report summarising all audit activities undertaken during the period, indicating:

·    Internal audit engagements completed or in progress.

·    Outcomes of each internal audit engagement undertaken.

·    Remedial action taken or in progress.

On completion of each internal audit engagement, Internal Audit shall issue a report to its audit customers (the auditee) detailing the objective and scope of the audit, and resulting issues based on the outcome of the audit. Internal Audit shall seek from the responsible senior executive, an agreed and endorsed action plan outlining remedial action to be taken, along with an implementation timetable and identification of a person responsible.

The auditee shall have a maximum of fifteen working days from the date of receipt of an internal audit report, to provide written management responses and action plans, in response to issues and recommendations contained in internal audit reports. This timeframe assumes that any urgent, remedial action would have been identified and commenced prior to or immediately upon the formal release of the audit report.

The Internal Auditor shall make available all internal audit reports to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

The work of Internal Audit is solely for the benefit of Georges River Council and is not to be relied on or provided to any other person or organisation, except where this is formally authorised by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee and the Internal Auditor.

In addition to the normal process of reporting on work undertaken by Internal Audit, the Internal Auditor shall draw to the attention of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee, all matters that, in the Internal Auditor’s opinion, warrant reporting in this manner.

4       Planning Requirements

Internal Audit uses a risk-based, rolling programme of internal audits to establish an annual Internal Audit Plan to reflect a programme of audits over a 12 month period, as well as a 5 year Strategic Plan. This approach is designed to comply with Office of Local Government guidelines, while being flexible, dynamic and timely, in order to meet the changing needs and priorities of Georges River Council.

The Internal Auditor shall prepare / update an annual Internal Audit Plan and a 5 year Strategic Plan showing the proposed areas for audit, for review and approval by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. The annual Internal Audit Plan shall be based on an assessment of the goals, objectives and business risks of the Council and shall also take into consideration any special requirements of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee and senior executives.

The Internal Auditor has discretionary authority to adjust the Internal Audit Plan and engage resources to complete audit projects, as a result of requests from the General Manager to conduct reviews that are not on the plan, with these to be reported to the next meeting of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

5    Quality Assurance & Improvement Programme

The Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee  must oversee the development and implementation of a quality assurance and improvement programme for Internal Audit, to provide assurance that internal audit work conforms to the Standards and is alert to opportunities for improvement.

6       Co-ordination with External Audit

The Internal Auditor shall, at least annually, consult with the external auditor, to discuss matters of mutual interest, to co-ordinate audit activity, and to reduce duplication of audit effort.

7       Co-ordination with Corporate Governance and Risk Management

The Internal Auditor shall periodically consult with the Manager Governance and Risk, to help Council achieve collaborations between Internal Audit, Risk Management and Governance activities and to reduce duplication of efforts.

8       Review of the Internal Audit Charter

The Internal Auditor must periodically review the Internal Audit Charter, to ensure it remains up-to-date and reflects the current scope of internal audit work.

9       Evaluation of Internal Audit

The Internal Auditor must develop performance measures (key performance indicators) for consideration and endorsement by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee, as a means for the performance of Internal Audit to be periodically evaluated.

Internal Audit shall also be subject to an independent quality review at least every five years. Such review shall be in line with the Standards of Professional Practice in Internal Audit and be commissioned by and report to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

10  Conflicts of Interest

Internal auditors should not provide audit services for work for which they may previously have been responsible. Whilst the Standards provide guidance on this point and allow this to occur after 12 months, each instance should be carefully assessed and documented.

When engaging internal audit contractors, the Internal Auditor must take steps to identify, evaluate for significance and manage, any perceived or actual conflicts of interest that may impinge upon internal audit work.

Instances or reports of perceived or actual conflicts of interest by the Internal Auditor or Internal Audit staff and contractors are to be immediately reported to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee by the Internal Auditor. The subsequent management or resolution of any identified conflicts of interests shall be monitored by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

 

11     Attachments:

There are no attachments.  

Reference may be made to Internal Audit Guidelines, issued by Department of Premier and Cabinet – Division of Local Government in September 2010 and still relevant by the authority of S23A of the Local Government Act 1993.  See:  https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Internal-Audit-Guidelines-September-2010.pdf

 

12  Variation and Review

The Audit , Risk and Improvement Committee reserves the right to review, vary or revoke this policy .

Any changes to this Internal Audit Charter must be approved by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

This Internal Audit Charter - policy was authorised by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

Date of Adoption by Committee: 13 February 2017 .

 

 

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 60

Item:                   FIN374-17          Tender for the Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration 

Author:              Manager Project Delivery

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a) That, under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accept the tender that is recommended for T17/014 Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration as outlined in the report.

 

(b) That the General Manager be authorised to sign the Contracts with the preferred Contractor on behalf of Council.

 

(c)  That Council inform the unsuccessful Tenderers of the resolution.

Executive Summary

1.      The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the results of the tender process completed in accordance with Part 3, Division 1, Section 55 and Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, for the Tender for the Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration and to seek resolution from Council on entering into a Contract with a successful Tendered to appoint as the Principal Contract to carry out the proposed contract works.

2.      This report explains the background for Council to decide if it wishes to enter into a contract with the entity recommended as the Principal Contract.  The report details the tender process supporting the recommendation for Council’s consideration, with the confidential matters being contained within the confidential attachments.

 

Background

3.      The Riverwood Wetlands Restoration project aims to enhance the natural ability of the wetland to bring about environmental and social benefits.  Restoring the original flow regime will improve the wetland's ability to cleanse stormwater and run-off passing through and entering Salt Pan Creek.  The works will also improve the amenity of the site for recreational users and local residents who regularly use the walking tracks within the wetland.

 

4.      In August 2016, Georges River Council was successful in obtaining a grant of $81,800 under the NSW Environmental Trust Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme. These grant funds were awarded to undertake restoration works at Riverwood Wetlands.

 

5.      In 2017, Council Officers engaged Australian Wetlands Consulting (AWC) to prepare a Riverwood Wetland Restoration and Rehabilitation Plan.  This plan included an assessment of the wetlands current function, a prioritised list of restoration works and a draft concept plan (see attached plan).

 

6.      This plan initiated the allocation of $180,000 of Council funds from the 2017-2018 financial year capital works project to undertake these works.

 

7.      Council Officers prepared a Request for Tender for the Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration.

 

8.      The Director Assets and Infrastructure appointed a Tender Evaluation Committee for the Tender prior to advertising, and all tender documentation was reviewed by the Manager Project Delivery prior to issuing.  A Probity Advisor was not appointed to this Tender process due to the low contract value.

 

9.      Tender documentation included:

a.   RFT T17/014 - Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration

b.   General Conditions of Contract Incorporating AS4000-1997

c.   Australian Wetlands Consulting Riverwood Wetlands Restoration Plan

 

10.    The Tender Evaluation Committee determined the Tender Evaluation Criteria prior to advertising of the tender.  The essential criteria and mandatory criteria was determined as follows:

 

Essential Criteria

a.   Best value for money

i. Lump Sum price and trades break-up prices;

ii.  Schedule of hourly rates.

iii. Financial standing and position of the Tenderer.

b.   Demonstrated capacity and technical ability to carry out the works under the Contract:

i. Specific experience and expertise in design and construct contracts;

ii.  Company profile; current commitments for main and sub-contractors;

iii. Proven capacity to meet deadline; and

iv. Plant and equipment available to complete the works.

c.   Demonstrated managerial and technical capability, qualifications, experience:

i. Quality experience and quality references of the Tenderer;

ii.  Nominated site personnel CVs and previous work history; and

iii. Nominated sub-contractors CVs and previous work history with the Tenderer.

d.   Capacity to achieve the program:

i. Program shows critical paths and detailed tasks required to achieve deliverables for the project; and

ii.  Sequencing of the works.

e.   The proposed methodology:

i. Traffic and pedestrian management plan; and

ii.  Storage of materials.

Mandatory Criteria

a.   Demonstrated capacity to fulfil the WHS and environmental requirements including insurances.

b.   Insurances:

i. Public Liability min. $20M

ii.  Workers Compensation

iii. Comprehensive Vehicle(s) Insurance.

c.   Compliance with quality assurance standards and systems of quality assurance.

d.   Degree of compliance with Work Health & Safety requirements.

e.   Conformity and compliance of the Tenderer’s submission with the RFT.

11.    T17/014 Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald and Tenderlink on 26 September, 27 September and 30 September 2017.

 

12.    The tender closed at 2pm Wednesday 18 October 2017 in the presence of the Tender Opening Committee.  Three (3) submissions were received via Tenderlink from the following companies:

a.   Civil Constructions

b.   Soil Conservation Service

c.   Total Earth Care

No late submissions were received.

13.    The Tender Evaluation Committee individually assessed each submission, and met on 20 October 2017 and 30 October 2016 to review submissions and seek any clarifications.  Details of the Tender Evaluation Committee and these meetings are provided in the confidential attachment.

14.    The Tender Evaluation Committee completed the tender assessments and the evaluation process and identified a tender that represents best value for money. 

15.    The Tender Evaluation Committee recommends that under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accepts the tender identified as the preferred Contractor as outlined in the confidential attachment to this report.

 

Financial Implications

16.    Within budget allocation - $50,000 reallocation from 2016-2017 financial year and $180,000 allocated from 2017-2018 financial year.  $81,800 was obtained in grant funding under the NSW Environmental Trust Restoration and Rehabilitation Programme.

 

File Reference

T17/014

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Riverwood Wetland Restoration Plan

Attachment View2

Confidential Attachment - T17/014 - Design and Construct of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration (Confidential)

Attachment View3

Confidential Attachment A - T17/014 - Tender Assessment Summary (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN374-17              Tender for the Design and Construction of Riverwood Wetlands Restoration

[Appendix 1]          Riverwood Wetland Restoration Plan

 

 

Page 63

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 138

Item:                   FIN375-17          Tender for the Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst 

Author:              Manager Project Delivery

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a) That, under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accept the tender that is recommended for T17/022 Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst as outlined in the report.

 

(b) That the General Manager be authorised to sign the Contracts with the preferred Contractor on behalf of Council.

 

(c)  That Council inform the unsuccessful Tenderers of the resolution.

 

Executive Summary

1.   The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the results of the tender process completed in accordance with Part 3, Division 1, Section 55 and Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, for the Tender for the Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst and to seek resolution from Council on entering into a Contract with a successful Tenderer to appoint as the Principal Contract to carry out the proposed contract works.

 

2.   This report explains the background for Council to decide if it wishes to enter into a contract with the entity recommended as the Principal Contract.  The report details the tender process supporting the recommendation for Council’s consideration, with the confidential matters being contained within the confidential attachments.

 

Background

3.   The intersection of Belmore Road, Peakhurst with Clarendon Road and Richards Avenue is currently controlled by Give-Way restriction, whereby traffic travelling along Belmore Road has priority.  In analysing the crash history for the 2017-2018 Australian Government Blackspot Programme, it was found that there is a cluster of crashes that indicated that the subject intersection needed a road safety treatment to enhance its safety.

4.   Accordingly Georges River Council applied for Blackspot funding to install a single roundabout at the intersection of Belmore Road, Clarendon Road and Richards Avenue.

 

5.   On 18 July 2017, Georges River Council was notified that it was successful in obtaining $193,000 under the 2017-2018 Australian Government Blackspot Programme to construct a single lane roundabout at the intersection of Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst.

6.    Detailed designs for the new roundabout were prepared which catered for two pedestrian refuges in Belmore Road, north and south of the roundabout to assist pedestrians to cross Belmore Road. This design was approved by the Georges River Council Traffic Committee on 18 July 2017 and endorsed by Council on 7 August 2017

7.      Council Officers prepared a Request for Tender for the Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst.

 

8.      The Director Assets and Infrastructure appointed a Tender Evaluation Committee for the Tender prior to advertising, and all tender documentation was reviewed by the Manager Project Delivery prior to issuing.  A Probity Advisor was not appointed to this Tender process due to the low contract value.

 

9.      Tender documentation included:

a.   RFT T17/022 Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst

b.   General Conditions of Contract Incorporating AS4000-1997

c.   Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst – Technical Drawings

d.   Georges River Council Specifications for Civil Construction Works

 

10.    The Tender Evaluation Committee determined the Tender Evaluation Criteria prior to advertising of the tender.  The essential criteria and mandatory criteria was determined as follows:

 

Essential Criteria

a.   Best value for money

i. Price and trades break-up in accordance with the provided Bill of Quantities;

ii.  Schedule of hourly rates.

b.   Demonstrated capacity and technical ability to carry out the works under the Contract:

i. Specific experience and expertise in similar works;

ii.  Company profile; current commitments for main and sub-contractors;

iii. Proven capacity to meet deadline; and

iv. Plant and equipment available to complete the works.

c.   Demonstrated managerial and technical capability, qualifications, experience:

i. Current Licences;

ii.  Nominated site personnel CVs and previous work history; and

iii. Nominated sub-contractors CVs and previous work history with the Tenderer.

d.   Capacity to achieve the program:

i. Program shows critical paths and detailed tasks required to achieve deliverables for the project; and

ii.  Sequencing of the works.

e.   The proposed methodology:

i. Traffic and pedestrian management plan; and

ii.  Storage of materials.

Mandatory Criteria

a.   Demonstrated capacity to fulfil the WHS and environmental requirements including insurances.

b.   Insurances:

i. Public Liability min. $20M

ii.  Workers Compensation

iii. Comprehensive Vehicle(s) Insurance.

c.   Compliance with quality assurance standards and systems of quality assurance.

d.   Degree of compliance with Work Health & Safety requirements.

e.   Conformity and compliance of the Tenderer’s submission with the RFT.

11.    T17/022 Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald and Tenderlink on 5 September, 6 September and 9 September 2017.

 

12.    The tender closed at 2pm Thursday 28 September 2017 in the presence of the Tender Opening Committee.  Seven (7) submissions were received via Tenderlink from the following companies:

a.  All Civil Solutions Group Pty Ltd

b.  Ally Property Services Pty Ltd

c.  Civeco Pty Ltd

d.  KK Consultants Pty Ltd T/A KK Civil Engineering

e.  Mack Civil Pty Ltd

f.   North Shore Paving Co. Pty Ltd

g.  Planet Civil Pty Ltd

No late submissions were received.

13.    The Tender Evaluation Committee individually assessed each submission, and met on 6 October 2017 to review submissions and seek any clarifications.  Details of the Tender Evaluation Committee and these meetings are provided in the confidential attachment.

 

14.    The Tender Evaluation Committee completed the tender assessments and the evaluation process and identified a tender that represents best value for money. 

 

15.    The Tender Evaluation Committee recommends that under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accepts the tender identified as the preferred Contractor as outlined in the confidential attachment to this report.

 

Financial Implications

16.    Within budget allocation - $193,000 Grant under the Federal Government 2017-2018 Australian Government Blackspot Programme.

 

File Reference

T17/022

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Confidential Attachment - T17/022 - Construction of a Roundabout at Belmore Road and Clarendon Road, Peakhurst (Confidential)

Attachment View2

Confidential Attachment A - T17/022 - Tender Assessment Summary (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 141

Item:                   FIN376-17          Tender for the Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval 

Author:              Manager Project Delivery

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a) That, under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accept the tender that is recommended for T17/044 Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval as outlined in the report.

(b) That the General Manager be authorised to sign the Contracts with the preferred Contractor on behalf of Council.

(c)  That Council inform the unsuccessful Tenderers of the resolution.

Executive Summary

1.   The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the results of the tender process completed in accordance with Part 3, Division 1, Section 55 and Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, for the Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval and to seek resolution from Council on entering into a Contract with a successful Tendered to appoint as the Principal Contract to carry out the proposed contract works.

2.   This report explains the background for Council to decide if it wishes to enter into a contract with the entity recommended as the Principal Contract.  The report details the tender process supporting the recommendation for Council’s consideration, with the confidential matters being contained within the confidential attachments.

 

Background

3.   Harold Fraser Oval is located at Princes Highway, Kogarah Bay and is home to A-grade cricket and football.  Over the recent years, the condition of the ground has been compromised with inadequate drainage causing saturated areas on the pitch / field.

 

4.   This tender is for the design and construction of all drainage, irrigation and cricket wicket table infrastructure, and the subsequent resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval, Kogarah Bay.

The purpose of this work is to renew a valuable recreational asset by alleviating existing issues with wet soils, and ensure the development of a quality sporting oval with appropriate irrigation and surfacing.

 

5.   In early 2017, Council Officers reviewed the concept of undertaking drainage works at Harold Fraser Oval, however it was agreed that to provide a quality sportsfield, drainage irrigation and surfacing of the field would ensure that the asset was constructed to the highest possible level for the community.

6.   Works would be divided into three (3) categories:

a.   Harold Fraser Oval Drainage and Irrigation Detailed Design

b.   Construction Works for Drainage and Irrigation Infrastructure

c.   Design and Construction Works for Cricket Wicket Table and Oval Resurfacing

 

7.   The project would commence in March 2018 (following the completion of the cricket season) and completed by September 2018.  This would also coincide with the construction of the new Harold Fraser Oval Community Pavilion which is part of the Stronger Communities Program.  As this impacts on the use of Harold Fraser Oval during the winter season, St George Football Association were consulted prior to the scheduling of the works.  St George Football Association has provided their full support for the delivery of these projects and the closure of the ground for the 2018 Winter Season.

 

8.   This project initiated the allocation of $250,000 of Council funds from the 2017-2018 financial year capital works project to undertake these works, plus further funds from the Georges River Section 94A Contributions Plan and Kogarah s94 Plan No 5 Open Space 2007.

9.   Council Officers prepared a Request for Tender for the Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval.

 

10. The Director Assets and Infrastructure appointed a Tender Evaluation Committee for the Tender prior to advertising, and all tender documentation was reviewed by the Manager Project Delivery prior to issuing.  A Probity Advisor was not appointed to this Tender process due to the low contract value.

 

11. Tender documentation included:

a.   RFT T17/044 - Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval

b.   General Conditions of Contract Incorporating AS4000-1997 (as amended)

c.   Harold Fraser Oval Base Survey

d.   Geotechnical Investigation. Harold Fraser Oval, Kogarah Bay

e.   Drainage on east side of Harold Fraser Oval

f.    Harold Fraser Oval Light Design 2016

g.   Harold Fraser Oval Existing Irrigation Plan

 

12. The Tender Evaluation Committee determined the Tender Evaluation Criteria prior to advertising of the tender.  The essential criteria and mandatory criteria was determined as follows:

 

Essential Criteria

a.   Best value for money

i. Lump Sum price and trades break-up prices;

ii.        Schedule of hourly rates.

iii.       Financial standing and position of the Tenderer.

b.   Demonstrated capacity and technical ability to carry out the works under the Contract:

i. Specific experience and expertise in design and construct contracts;

ii.        Company profile; current commitments for main and sub-contractors;

iii.       Proven capacity to meet deadline; and

iv.       Plant and equipment available to complete the works.

c.   Demonstrated managerial and technical capability, qualifications, experience:

i. Quality experience and quality references of the Tenderer;

ii.        Nominated site personnel CVs and previous work history; and

iii.       Nominated sub-contractors CVs and previous work history with the Tenderer.

d.   Capacity to achieve the program:

i. Program shows critical paths and detailed tasks required to achieve deliverables for the project; and

ii.        Sequencing of the works.

e.   The proposed methodology:

i. Traffic and pedestrian management plan; and

ii.        Storage of materials.

 

Mandatory Criteria

f.    Demonstrated capacity to fulfil the WHS and environmental requirements including insurances.

g.   Insurances:

i. Public Liability min. $20M

ii.        Workers Compensation

iii.       Comprehensive Vehicle(s) Insurance.

h.   Compliance with quality assurance standards and systems of quality assurance.

i.    Degree of compliance with Work Health & Safety requirements.

j.    Conformity and compliance of the Tenderer’s submission with the RFT.

 

13. T17/014 Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald and Tenderlink on 26 September, 27 September and 30 September 2017.

 

14. The tender closed at 2pm Tuesday 24 October 2017 in the presence of the Tender Opening Committee.  One (1) submission was received via Tenderlink from the following company:

a.   Renworx Pty Ltd

No late submissions were received.

15. The Tender Evaluation Committee individually assessed the submission, and met on 31 October 2016 to review the submission and seek any clarifications.  Details of the Tender Evaluation Committee and these meetings are provided in the confidential attachment.

16. The Tender Evaluation Committee completed the tender assessments and the evaluation process and identified a tender that represents best value for money. 

17. The Tender Evaluation Committee recommends that under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accepts the tender identified as the preferred Contractor as outlined in the confidential attachment to this report.

 

Section 94A Contributions

18. The Georges River Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017 levies contributions for the Harold Fraser Oval cricket practice wickets (estimated cost of $75,000). As at 30 June 2017 there was a balance of $1,088,068 in the Georges River Section 94A Contributions Plan funds. Some of these funds have already been allocated to other projects in the Section 94A Plan. There are sufficient funds in the Contributions Plan to allocate $75,000 for the cricket wickets.

 

19. The Kogarah Section 94 Contribution Plan No. 5 - Open Space 2007 levies contributions for a range of embellishment works at Harold Fraser Reserve and Parkside Drive. As at 30 June 2017 there was a balance of $1,349,682 in the Plan funds and as such there are sufficient funds to allocate $375,000 for embellishment works at Harold Fraser Oval.  The Section 94 Working Party supports the allocation of the funds to the projects.

 

 

Financial Implications

20. Within budget allocation - $250,000 allocated from 2017-2018 Kogarah Bay Ward Capital Works and $40,000 reallocation from 2016-2017 Budget. In addition to the allocated budget for the project, $75,000 for the Harold Fraser Oval practice cricket wickets from the Georges River Section 94A Contributions Plan and $375,000 for the Harold Fraser Oval embellishments works from the Kogarah Section 94 Contribution Plan No. 5 - Open Space 2007.

 

File Reference

T17/044

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Confidential Attachment - T17/044 - Design and Construction of Drainage, Irrigation and Resurfacing of Harold Fraser Oval (Confidential)

Attachment View2

Confidential Attachment A - T17_044 - Tender Assessment Summary (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 145

Item:                   FIN377-17          Property Matter - Release and Extinguish Restrictive Covenant - 22 Stanley St Kogarah 

Author:              Strategic Property Officer

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

a)   That Council release the Restrictive Covenant over land located at 22 Stanley Street, Kogarah described as Lots 64 and 65, Section B in Deposited Plan 1397.

 

b)   That the release and extinguishment of the Restrictive Covenant not be reliant on the submission of a Development Application for the site.

 

c)   That delegation is given to the General Manager to execute the formal application and all other associated documentation on behalf of the Council, for the release and extinguishment of the Restrictive Covenant.

 

d)   That the applicant reimburse Council’s costs in the release and extinguishment of the Restrictive Covenant.

 

Executive Summary

1.      22 Stanley Street, Kogarah described as Lots 64 and 65, Section B in Deposited Plan 1397 were burdened with a covenant in 1992 by the former Kogarah City Council which restricted the land’s development potential.

2.      Following the adoption of the Kogarah Local Environment Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012) a significant increase in development potential for this location is now allowed. Clause 1.9A ‘Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments’ of the new LEP resulted in the restrictive covenant on this land being deemed obsolete.

3.      The land is in the process of being sold and Council has received a formal request from the purchaser to have the covenant extinguished.

 

Background

4.      The property at 22 Stanley Street Kogarah was recently put up for sale by the current owners. The site has an area of 408.32sq metres and is zoned R4 – High Density Residential and consists of a single residential dwelling.

5.      Through the sale process it has been discovered that these two lots are burdened by a Restrictive Covenant placed upon the titles of the Lots in February 1992.  The terms of the restriction are as follows:

 

“Development of any future first floor addition to the subject property shall stand no closer to the Stanley Street alignment than 7.62 metres.”

 

6.      At the time of the imposition of the Covenant, the Kogarah Planning Scheme Ordinance was the applicable planning instrument. Since that time, this instrument has been superseded by KLEP 2012, which was gazetted in May 2017.

 

7.      Kogarah LEP 2012 has zoned this area as High Density Residential. The covenant is a restriction and impediment on development of the site and contrary to the objectives of the zone and planning direction for this precinct.  It is clear that with the evolution of time and the Kogarah LEP2012 that this restriction is not considered relevant to the current planning controls applicable to the site.

 

8.      Clause 1.9A of KLEP 2012 – Suspension of Covenants, Agreement and Instruments states that any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of development that is otherwise permissible under the provisions of the LEP or with consent granted under the Act, does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose.  However, the above does not apply to covenants imposed by the Council or that the Council requires.  As such, the covenant cannot be simply dismissed during the assessment of an application and needs to be removed from title of each lot.

 

9.      The removal of the covenant does not affect the zoning of the site or increase the development potential of the site to what is anticipated under the provisions of the LEP.  The objectives of the zone and permitted use are what will drive the type of redevelopment.  Its removal will provide more clarity and certainty for the purchaser of the land and their preparation of a Development Application for the site in terms of bulk and scale.

 

10.    Any application for the redevelopment of the site will still be required to address the objectives of the site, the current controls under the Kogarah LEP 2012 and be in context with the surrounding developments.  A subsequent development application will be subject to a full detailed assessment by Council.

 

11.    The Restrictive Covenant states:

“The Council has the right to release the Restriction.”

12.    As the covenant is considered redundant, it is recommended that Council agree to the removal of the Restrictive Covenant.

 

Financial Implications

13.    No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

17/2692

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Restrictive Covenant - 22 Stanley St Kogarah

Attachment View2

Location Plan - 22 Stanley St Kogarah

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN377-17              Property Matter - Release and Extinguish Restrictive Covenant - 22 Stanley St Kogarah

[Appendix 1]          Restrictive Covenant - 22 Stanley St Kogarah

 

 

Page 147

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN377-17              Property Matter - Release and Extinguish Restrictive Covenant - 22 Stanley St Kogarah

[Appendix 2]          Location Plan - 22 Stanley St Kogarah

 

 

Page 152

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 153

Item:                   FIN378-17          Property Matter - Proposed Reclassification of Land at 4-6 Dora Street Hurstville 

Author:              Head of Strategic Property

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     That Council, pursuant to Part 2 Division 1 Section 30 of the Local Government Act, 1993 reclassify Lots 13 and 14 in DP6510 located at 4-6 Dora Street, Hurstville from Community to Operational land.

(b)     That the General Manager be authorised to lodge a planning proposal and to execute all documentation to effect the reclassification of 4-6 Dora Street, Hurstville from Community to Operational.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Through publication in the NSW Government Gazette No.44, on 31 March, 2017 Georges River Council became the registered proprietor of land described Lots 13 and 14 in Deposited Plan (DP) 6510, located at 4-6 Dora Street, Hurstville.

2.      Upon acquisition and by way of default, the subject lots were classified as Community land pursuant to Section 31 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act).  As the land was acquired to form part of the future Civic Precinct, this report will recommend that Council commence the process to reclassify the land from Community to Operational land.

 

Background

3.      Georges River Council is the owner of the following allotments that form part of the proposed Civic Precinct that are currently classified as Operational land:

·    Lot 200 and 201 in DP831931

·    Lot B in DP321590

·    Lot A and B in DP340310

·    Lot 1, 5 and 6 in DP13720

·    Lot A and B in DP389008

 

In July 2008 the Hurstville Baptist Church made a written approach to Council offering to sell the site as it no longer required the Church building and adjacent dwelling for congregation purposes. Following lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with the Church, Council commenced the acquisition of this property via compulsory process.  On 31 March, 2017 via publication in the NSW Government Gazette No.44, on 31 March, 2017 Georges River Council became the registered proprietor of land described Lot 13 and 14 in DP6510.  A location plan is annexed to this report as Attachment 1.

 

4.         Before a council acquires land, or within three months after it acquires land, a council may resolve (in accordance with the Act) that the land be classified as Community land or Operational land.  Previous Council reports did not resolve to reclassify the land to Operational upon acquisition. 

 

5.         As Council did not resolve to classify the land to Operational land either prior to the acquisition or within the three month period allowed after acquisition, the land is now considered to be classified as Community land.  In order to reclassify the land to Operational commensurate with the remainder of the civic precinct, Council is now required to undertake a planning proposal.

 

6.         The proposed reclassification from Community to Operational land will align Lots 13 and 14 in DP6510, with the current Operational classification for the remainder of the adjoining Civic Precinct site.  The land, once reclassified to Operational, will permit Council to progress the redevelopment of the Hurstville Civic Precinct site in accordance with Council’s Operational Plan 2017/2018.

 

7.         In order to facilitate the proposed reclassification, this report seeks Council’s formal endorsement to proceed with the statutory re-classification process including the preparation of a planning report and all advertising in relation to public notification and all procedures required as part of the Gateway Determination process.

 

Financial Implications

8.      No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

17/2698

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Location Plan 4-6 Dora Street Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN378-17              Property Matter - Proposed Reclassification of Land at 4-6 Dora Street Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Location Plan 4-6 Dora Street Hurstville

 

 

Page 155

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 156

Item:                   FIN379-17          Property Matter - 6 Allen Street South Hurstville 

Author:              Head of Strategic Property

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     That the General Manager be delegated authority to renegotiate the terms of sale as generally detailed in this report and in accordance with the financial terms outlined in the attached confidential report to the former Kogarah City Council detailed 25 July 2015.

 

(b)     That the Mayor and General Manager be authorised to execute all documentation relating to the disposal of 6 Allen Street, South Hurstville and under the common seal of Council if required.

 

(c)     That the General Manager continue to withhold Council’s consent as landowner to the development application described in this report unless and until the applicant reasonably satisfies Council in accordance with the terms of the existing Contract relating to this Property.

Executive Summary

1.      In 2015, the former Kogarah City Council resolved to enter into a contract with Asia Capital Partners (Asia Capital) for the purchase of Council’s 10 space (at grade) car park located at 6 Allen Street, South Hurstville (Property).  The optional contract relied upon Asia Capital securing similar rights of purchase over adjoining land-holdings.

2.      In accordance with the executed agreements, Asia Capital now wishes to proceed with the purchase that will result in the sale of the car park and the reinstatement of the Council’s 10 car parking spaces within the new development once construction is complete.  The reinstated car parking spaces are thought to be of little value to the public as they will be concealed within the new residential development.

 

3.      The purpose of this report is to consider renegotiating the terms of sale so that rather than receiving the reinstated car spaces, Council receives an appropriate cash equivalent for each space.  The proceeds could then be placed in the Asset Realignment Reserve to be utilised for future parking requirements at the discretion of Council.

 

Background

4.      Council (former Kogarah City Council) is the registered proprietor of an at-grade, 10 space, public car park described as Lot C in Deposited Plan (DP)17767 located at 6 Allen Street, South Hurstville and described as the Property throughout this report.  It has an area of approximately 423.65m2, is zoned B2 Local Centre and is classified as Operational land.  A location plan is annexed to this report as Attachment 1.

5.      On 27 July, 2015 the former Kogarah City Council resolved  to dispose of the Council car park located at the Property directly to Asia Capital (or its nominee), who hold call options over adjoining property located at 2 and 4 Allen Street and 42 to 46 Connells Point Road, South Hurstville.  The proposed sale was on the proviso that Council would buy back the spaces within the new development, at an agreed rate per space, deducted from the agreed purchase price. 

6.      A copy of the 2015 report and Minute is annexed to this report as Attachment 2.  The report is considered Confidential as it discloses the detailed terms of sale, particularly within paragraph 8.

 

7.      Council is advised that the resolution from the former Kogarah City Council meeting of 27 July 2015 is as follows:

That No.6 Allen Street, South Hurstville be offered for sale to Asia Capital Partners (or affiliated entity) subject to conditions including but not limited to those detailed in Paragraph 8 of the report.

8.      Whilst it is not common practice, the direct sale of the land to a developer without inviting tenders is permitted in accordance with Section 55(3)(d) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (LG Act).

 

9.      Without disclosing the terms of the sale, the former Kogarah City Council agreed to a Put and Call Option with Asia Capital over the Council car park land.  The purchaser has similar option agreements over adjoining land parcels.  Together with the Council’s land, Asia Capital was able to offer the land to the market as one large potential development site.  

 

10.    It is understood that the option has been on-sold to a third party who has lodged a development application with Council for a multi storey residential unit development.

 

11.    As part of the agreement, Council was to receive what was considered market value (in 2015) for the land at 6 Allen Street.  Upon completion of the development, Council would buy back 10 parking spaces within the new development at the agreed rate (as described in the confidential report attached), with settlement to take place prior to the Construction Certificate being obtained but no later than 12 months after the Development Consent had been granted.

 

Current Position

12.    In reviewing the commercial arrangements and subsequent plans associated with the development, Council officers are of the opinion that reinstatement of the 10 car parking spaces on ground level within the new development may be of little public benefit as the spaces will not be visible from the street and are marked as parallel spaces at the rear of the first parking level.  The configuration of the proposed parking spaces appears to result in the Council spaces being very difficult to access in terms of manoeuvrability.  A copy of the parking plan is shown in Attachment 3.

 

13.    If Council decided to continue with the requirement (under contract) of having public parking reinstated, Council would be the owner of a minor strata title land holding within a much larger privately owned development. With limitations and ongoing management and maintenance costs that strata title attracts, it is considered better to renegotiate the terms of the contract whereby Council could receive a cash equivalent for the 10 spaces. Council could then redirect this amount into better-utilised and unrestricted public parking assets. This approach is supported by Council’s traffic engineers.

 

14.    Council’s planning assessment team has advised that the DA, because it involves Council land, has been sent to an external planning consultant for the purposes of assessment. The DA will ultimately be determined by Council’s IHAP as the value is less than $20/30 million.

 

15.    In addition, as the development application includes parts of Council’s land, the proponent on the DA has sought consent from Council as landowner to the lodgement of the development application. That consent has not been provided. Pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EPA Act), landowner’s consent must be obtained at a point in time before development consent can be granted. It does not necessarily prevent or delay the assessment of the DA, although development consent cannot be granted to the application if land owner’s consent is ultimately not provided.

 

16.    However, the Courts have determined that councils as landowners, do not have the same rights as private landowners with regard to the withholding of landowner’s consent to a development application. A Council does not have the right to arbitrarily withhold consent as an ordinary owner of private land has that right. Failure to grant owner’s consent, simply to frustrate the right of the applicant, “would be a mala fide abuse of power” (Sydney City Council v Claude Neon Ltd (1989) 15 NSWLR 724. In addition, the Land and Environment Court has the power to grant owner’s consent to a development application in place of the Council if the Council refuses that consent.

 

17.    Furthermore, the Courts have held that the act of a Council in providing landowner’s consent to a development application, does not equate to the Council approving the merits of the development application (Sydney City Council v Ipoh Pty Ltd (2006) 149 LGERA 329).

 

18.    The other consideration is the terms of the contract with Asia Capital. Pursuant to the Option agreement, Council as landowner is entitled to refuse to provide landowner’s consent until such time as it is satisfied with the development application. At this stage, Council is not satisfied and has advised the applicant that this is its position on numerous occasions from 1 September 2017. There are various significant non-compliances with Council’s planning controls and inadequate information has been submitted with the development application. Therefore, the General Manager has declined to provide owner’s consent at this stage.

 

19.    If the applicant can provide the additional information and satisfy Council (in accordance with the Contract), it is recommended that Council does provide that landowner’s consent to the development application, in circumstances where it is made clear that the giving of the landowner’s consent is not tantamount to Council’s approval of the development application on its merits. Until that time, it is recommended that Council continue to refuse to supply that landowner’s consent.

 

Financial Implications

20.    Within budget allocation.

File Reference

17/2721

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Location Plan - 6 Allen St South Hurstville

Attachment View2

Council Report and Minute from  27-07-2015 (Confidential)

Attachment View3

Council Parking Plans - 2-6 Allen Street and 42-46 Connells Point Road South Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN379-17              Property Matter - 6 Allen Street South Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Location Plan - 6 Allen St South Hurstville

 

 

Page 159

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN379-17              Property Matter - 6 Allen Street South Hurstville

[Appendix 3]          Council Parking Plans - 2-6 Allen Street and 42-46 Connells Point Road South Hurstville

 

 

Page 160

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 161

Item:                   FIN380-17          Property Matter - Proposed Rental Reduction for Beverley Park Golf Course 

Author:              Executive Manager Premium Facilities and Properties

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     That a rent reduction of 50% for the golf course lease be granted to the Beverley Park Golf Club for the current financial year.

(b)     That the rent reduction be conditional upon the re-establishment of the Steering Committee in accordance with the existing lease agreement.

 

Executive Summary

1.      On 5 June, 2017 Council agreed to grant a rent reduction of 50% for the annual rental fee  of ($76,000) for the Beverley Park Golf Course, for the 2017/2018 financial year, subject to the preparation and submission of a financial plan for the period 2017 to 2022 that demonstrates the ongoing financial viability/solvency of the Club.

 

2.      Council officers have reviewed the financial plan recently submitted by the Beverley Park Golf Club (the Club).  Based on the documentation submitted, this report will recommend that Council conditionally offer the Club a rental reduction of $38,000 for the current financial year.

Background

3.      Georges River Council currently leases the Beverley Park Golf Course to the Beverley Park Golf Club for an annual lease fee in the amount of approximately $76,000 per annum inclusive of GST.

 

4.      Earlier this year, the Club approached Council with a request for financial assistance and in particular to waive the annual course rental, citing recent major stormwater works within the golf course as the reason behind challenging trading conditions.  The current 50% subsidy is in addition to a 12 month rent free period granted to the Club (for the golf course rental of approximately $76,000 p.a. inclusive of GST) for the 2016-2017 financial year. 

 

5.      As a result of the club’s request, Council on 5 June, 2017 resolved the following:

 

a)    That subject to the conditions below, the Beverley Park Golf Club be granted a rent reduction of 50% for the current annual lease fee associated with the golf course.

b)    That the rent reduction of 50% be subject to the preparation and submission of a financial plan for the period 2017 to 2022 that demonstrates the ongoing financial viability/solvency of the Club.

c)    That the submission of the required financial plan (as per (b) above) be provided for Council’s consideration and approval within 30 days of the date of this resolution.

d)    That should the financial plan not be submitted, the Club be charged the full rental amount in accordance with the lease agreement.

e)    That no rent reductions apply to the lease fee for the golf clubhouse.

 

6.      In accordance with 5(b) above, the Club submitted financial documentation in support of the Club’s ongoing financial viability.  A copy of the confidential financial documentation is annexed to this report as Attachment 1 (Projected Cash Flow).

7.      Council’s Acting Chief Financial Officer has reviewed the Club’s submission (in support of the proposed rent reduction), details of which are provided in confidential Attachment 2 to this report.

 

8.      Based on the recommendation of Council’s Acting Chief Financial Officer, it is recommended that Council grant the Beverley Park Golf Club a 50% rent reduction equalling $38,000 for the current lease fee to ensure the ongoing financial sustainability of the Club.

 

9.      In order to ensure that Council’s financial interests are protected into the future, Council will require the re-establishment of the Club’s Steering Committee in accordance with the Clause 8 of the lease.

 

Financial Implications

10.    A $38,000 rent reduction will have a slight impact on Council’s operating funds for the 2017/2018 financial year.

 

File Reference

17/1392

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Projected Cash Flow  (Confidential)

Attachment View2

Financial Assessment - Beverley Park Golf Course  (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 163

Item:                   FIN381-17          Tender for Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy for Business Zoned Land 

Author:              Senior Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a) That, under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accept the tender that is recommended for T17/023 Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy for Business Zoned Land as outlined in the report.

 

(b) That the General Manager be authorised to sign the Contracts with the preferred Contractor on behalf of Council.

 

(c)  That Council inform the unsuccessful Tenderers of the resolution.

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the results of the tender process completed in accordance with Part 3, Division 1, Section 55 and Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, for the Tender for the Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy for Business Zoned Land and to seek a resolution from Council on entering into a contract with a successful Tenderer to appoint as the Principal Consultant to carry out the proposed project works. 

 

2.      This report explains the background for Council to decide if it wishes to enter into a contract with the entity recommended as the Principal Consultant. The report also details the tender process supporting the recommendation for Council’s consideration, with the confidential matters being within the confidential attachments.

 

Background

 

3.      In early 2017, Council identified a need to prepare a Car Parking Strategy for the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA). The Car Parking Strategy will apply to all of the commercial centres across the LGA and will take a holistic place making approach to the provision of parking across each of the centres.

 

4.      One of the objectives of the Car Parking Strategy is to review the existing public car parking available in the commercial centres across the Georges River Council LGA and make recommendations for disposal, retention and enlargement.

 

5.      The Environment and Planning Directorate was granted $1.1 million under the Stronger Communities Fund in 2017/18 Budget. This included $150,000 for the Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy.

6.      Council Officers prepared a Request for Tender for the Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy for Business Zoned Land.

 

7.      The project manager appointed a Tender Evaluation Committee for the Tender prior to advertising, and all tender documentation was reviewed by the Procurement Officer prior to issuing.  A Probity Advisor was not appointed to this Tender process due to the low contract value.

 

8.      Tender documentation included:

a.      RFT T17/023 - Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy for Business Zoned Land

b.      General Conditions of Contract Incorporating AS4122-2010 including any amendments and schedules

c.       Returnable Schedules

 

9.      The Tender Evaluation Committee determined the Tender Evaluation Criteria prior to advertising of the tender.  The essential criteria and mandatory criteria determined included:

Essential Criteria

a.   Qualifications and skills of the Project Team - 10%

·    Qualifications, skills and references of the Tenderer

·    Project team member CVs and previous work history

                  

b.   Demonstrated capacity and relevant experience of the Project team - 15%

·    Specific experience and expertise in similar works;

·    Company profile; current commitments for main and sub-contractors

   

c.   Understanding of the expectations of the Study and preparation of a sound methodology – 30%

·    Understanding of project tasks

·    Preparation of a methodology to undertake the project tasks 

 

d.   Best Value for money in undertaking the Study - 15%

·    Cost break-up in accordance with the provided Schedule of Prices

·    Schedule of hourly rates for team members  

 

e.   Ability to complete the work within the envisaged timeframe as per an agreed timetable - 25%

·    Program timetable shows critical paths and detailed tasks required to achieve deliverables for the project

·    Sequencing of the works               

 

f.    Potential conflicts of interest - 5%

·    No scope of conflict of interest for the project team members 

 

Mandatory Criteria

a.   Demonstrated capacity to fulfil the WHS and environmental requirements including insurances.

b.   Insurances:

i. Public Liability min. $20M

ii.  Professional Indemnity min $10M

iii. Workers Compensation

c.   Compliance with quality assurance standards and systems of quality assurance.

d.   Degree of compliance with Work Health & Safety requirements.

e.   Conformity and compliance of the Tenderer’s submission with the RFT.

 

10.    T17/023 for Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy for Business Zoned Land was advertised in Sydney Morning Herald and Tenderlink on 22 August, 23 August and 26 August 2017 in accordance with clause 167 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.  

 

11.    The tender closed at 2pm Wednesday on 13 September 2017. The tender opening was conducted in the presence of staff from Council’s Procurement and Information Management sections. A number of questions raised during the tender period were answered on Tenderlink as part of an Addendum.

 

12.    Three (3) submissions were received via Tenderlink from the following companies:

·    Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

·    SALT3

·    Parking and Traffic Consultants Pty Ltd

 

There was a late submission that was not considered.

 

13.    The fees quoted in the three submissions ranged between up to $200,000 and up to $320,000 and exceeded the projected budget of $150,000 for the preparation of the Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy. All three submissions complied with the other essential and mandatory criteria and formed part of the tender assessment. The excess amount is proposed to be allocated from another project as noted in Financial Implications section below.

 

14.    The Tender Evaluation Committee individually assessed each submission, and met on 28 September 2017 to review submissions and seek any clarifications.  Details of the Tender Evaluation Committee and this meeting are provided in the confidential attachment.

 

15.    The Tender Evaluation Committee completed the tender assessments and the evaluation process and identified a tender that met the Tender Brief and represented the best value for money. 

 

16.    The Tender Evaluation Committee recommends that under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accepts the tender identified as the preferred Consultant as outlined in the confidential attachment to this report.

 

Financial Implications

17.    As mentioned above, a budget of $150,000 has been set aside for Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy from the Stronger Communities Fund allocated to the Environment and Planning Directorate for the 2017/18 financial year. The remainder up to $35,000 will be allocated from the $280,000 intended for the Economic Development Strategy - Development and Implementation; also from the Stronger Communities Fund.

 

Next Steps

·    Preferred Consultant appointed – December 2017

·    Car Parking Strategy delivered - June 2018

 

File Reference

T17/023

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Tender Evaluation Report (Confidential)

Attachment View2

Appendix A - Tender Evaluation Committee Average Scores (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 167

Item:                   FIN382-17          Property Matter - Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water over 41D Kingsway, Kingsgrove 

Author:              Strategic Property Officer

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     That Council resolve to grant an Easement to Drain Water over Lot 47 Section 4 in DP 11417 (41D Kingsway, Kingsgrove).

(b)     That the General Manager and Mayor be authorised to execute the s.88B Instrument or Transfer Granting Easement and all associated documentation to create the easement, under the Common Seal of the Council, if required.

(c)     That all costs associated with the granting of the easement be met by the applicant.

Executive Summary

1.      As a deferred condition of Development Consent DA2016/0315, the owner of 402 Stoney Creek Road, Kingsgrove is required to obtain an Easement to Drain Water over adjoining Council land described as Lot 47 Section 4 in DP11417.  The subject land is an existing Drainage Reserve known as 41D Kingsway, Kingsgrove. 

2.      The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the “in principle” terms agreed to between the parties and to subsequently seek approval to grant the proposed easement.

 

Background

3.      The former Hurstville City Council is the registered proprietor of a drainage reserve legally described as Lot 47 Section 4 in DP 11417 and known as 41D Kingsway, Kingsgrove. 

4.      Council has received a request from an adjoining owner located at 402 Stoney Creek Road, Kingsgrove for an Easement to Drain Water to be granted in favour of their property, to the existing public drainage infrastructure located within the drainage reserve.  The required easement is a condition of approved Development Consent DA2016/0315 dated 18 April, 2017.

5.      The proposed easement to drain water will be granted over a Council owned parcel of “Operational” classified land. Council is permitted to grant easements for drainage over operationally classified land.

6.      The proposed easement will be 1m wide and 3.2m in length and will connect into the existing drainage infrastructure within the reserve as detailed in Attachment 1 to this report.  Attachment 2 is a location plan of the easement in relation to the reserve.

7.      In exchange for granting the proposed easement, the applicant will be required to pay market value consideration for encumbering Council’s land as determined in the confidential valuation advice, shown as Attachment 3 to this report. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay Council’s incurred valuation, legal and all associated easement survey, lodgement and registration costs as well as costs for the necessary infrastructure works and subsequent make good.

8.      Council has in the past granted similar easements over public lands for comparable amounts of consideration.  It is considered that the imposition of such an easement will not significantly affect the value of the reserve parcel.  Accordingly, the determined amount of consideration is considered to represent fair market value for an encumbrance that will burden Council’s public reserve in perpetuity.

 

Financial Implications

9.      No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

17/1848

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Drainage Easement Plan - 402 Stoney Creek Rd Kingsgrove

Attachment View2

Location Plan - 402 Stoney Creek Rd Kingsgrove

Attachment View3

Valuation Report prepared by PJC Property Services (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN382-17              Property Matter - Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water over 41D Kingsway, Kingsgrove

[Appendix 1]          Drainage Easement Plan - 402 Stoney Creek Rd Kingsgrove

 

 

Page 169

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN382-17              Property Matter - Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water over 41D Kingsway, Kingsgrove

[Appendix 2]          Location Plan - 402 Stoney Creek Rd Kingsgrove

 

 

Page 170

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 171

Item:                   FIN383-17          Telecommunications Facility, Redin Place Reserve Connells Point 

Author:              Head of Strategic Property

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     That the information contained in this report, including (confidential) legal advice be received and noted.

(b)     That the Mayor write to the Carrier requesting removal of the facility and expressing disappointment at the process and manner in which the Carrier has installed the facility.

 

Executive Summary

1.         By way of resolution on 23 October 2017, Council requested the General Manager to investigate and advise Council of any legal avenues of appeal that may be available to challenge the installation of the mobile phone facility at Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point.

2.         Council’s legal advice from a barrister included a review of the documentation provided by CPS Global/Vodafone (the Carrier) and the subsequent installation of the facility, through both the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Infrastructure and the Low Impact provisions of the Telecommunications Act, 1997 (Commonwealth).

 

3.         It is the opinion of the barrister, that the facilities have been lawfully constructed, whether viewed separately or together.  In addition, Council has no available legal re-dress as a property owner.

 

Background

4.       On 23 October, 2017 Council resolved:

 

(a)     That the Mayor write to Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield, the Federal Minister for Communications and Mr David Coleman MP, the Federal Member for Banks and request an immediate investigation into the following matters regarding the installation of a telecommunications (base station) facility in Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point:

(b)     The classification of the base station facility as ‘low impact’ under the Telecommunications Act, 1997 and whether this classification is legally correct given the size and environmental impact of the facility; and

(c)     A reduction of the signal strength of the facility from more than 3% to 1% or less, given that the radio frequency will be up to 3.98% of Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) exposure limits and the facility is located within a residential area.

(d)     That the Mayor write to the Hon Anthony Roberts MP, the NSW Minister for Planning and Mr Mark Coure, Member for Oatley and request an immediate investigation into the following matter regarding the installation of a telecommunications (phone tower) facility in Redin Place, Connells Point:

(e)     The classification of the tower facility as ‘exempt development’ under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and whether this classification is legally correct given the size and environmental impact of the facility.

(f)      That the General Manager investigate and advise Council of any legal avenues of appeal that may be available to challenge the installation of the facility.

5.      Council has sought external legal advice from a barrister (Mark Seymour) in order to determine if the installation and use of the facility by the Carrier was lawful.

6.      In reviewing the proposal, the barrister considered the installation of the facility in accordance with the SEPP Infrastructure, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination, 1997.

 

7.      To summarise the application of the relevant legislation, the Carrier has lawfully constructed the mobile phone antennae on the light tower in accordance with the SEPP Infrastructure.  Additionally, the equipment shelter complies with Part 3, Item 5 of the Federal Low Impact Determination.  Installation of the equipment shelter is therefore also considered to be lawful.

 

8.      As the installation and use of the facility is authorised by a Commonwealth Act, Section 109 of the Constitution would render an inconsistent state law, such as the Environmental Planning and Assessment,1979 or the Local Government Act, 1993, inoperative.  It is the opinion of Counsel that Council’s consent to the installation of the facility is therefore not required.

 

9.      Furthermore, consideration has been given to Council’s legal avenues as the land owner upon which the Ausgrid pole is located.  The Electricity Supply Act, 1995 takes away Council’s rights as a property owner.

 

10.    As the facility is considered lawful and as Council has no ability from a legal perspective to challenge the validity of the construction and use of the mobile phone tower, it is recommended that Council pursue other avenues available, in accordance with the existing resolution of Council. 

 

11.    In addition, it is recommended that Council approach the Carrier to request removal of the facility (or reduction in the electromagnetic emission levels), taking into account residents’ concerns.

 

12.    Council, accordingly has no legal avenues of appeal or review open to it as either a land owner or a consent authority.

Financial Implications

13.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

17/251

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Barrister's Legal Advice - Redin Place  (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 173

Item:                   FIN384-17          SOORT Increase 

Author:              Executive Manager People and Culture

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     That Council receive and note this report.

 

Executive Summary

1.      On 29 August 2017, the report and determination under Section 24C of the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975 was published.

2.      In accordance with the Standard Contract for General Managers and Senior Staff, for each anniversary of the commencement date, the remuneration package will be increased by a percentage amount that is equivalent to the latest percentage amount increase in remuneration for Senior Executive Office holders, as determined by the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal.

3.      This report is to inform Councillors of the percentage amount that will be applied to the remuneration packages of the General Manager and Council’s Senior Staff.

 

Background

1.   The General Manager’s employment is administered through the Office of Local Government, Standard Contract of Employment for General Managers of Local Councils.

2.   Clause 8 of the employment contract outlines the structure of the remuneration package and how increases to this package are applied.

3.   In accordance with Clause 8.5 on each anniversary of the commencement date, the total remuneration package will be increased by a percentage amount that is equivalent to the latest percentage amount increase in remuneration for senior executive office holders as determined by the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal.

4.   On 29 August, 2017 the report and determination under section 24C of the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975 was published (Attachment 1).

5.   The Tribunal has determined a general increase of 2.5% for all Senior Executive Officers, effective on and from 1 July 2017.

6.   This increase will apply to the remuneration package of the General Manager and Council’s Senior Staff.

7.   The increase will be effective from the individual officer’s anniversary commencement date.

 

File Reference

D17/196367, D17/196342

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

2017 Annual Determination-SOORT-Chief and Senior Executive Service

 


Georges River Council - Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 November 2017

FIN384-17              SOORT Increase

[Appendix 1]          2017 Annual Determination-SOORT-Chief and Senior Executive Service

 

 

Page 174

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Finance and Governance Standing Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 November 2017             Page 185

Item:                   FIN385-17          Payroll Consolidation Project 

Author:              Executive Manager People and Culture

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a)     The report is received and noted.

Executive Summary

1.   Georges River Council (Council) was proclaimed on 12 May 2016 following the amalgamation of the City of Hurstville and the City of Kogarah.

2.   Currently Council operates three pay cycles. They are as follows:

a.   Fortnightly pay in arrears (new employees and employees of the former Hurstville City Council);

b.   Weekly pay in arrears (outdoor employees of the former Kogarah City Council); and

c.   Weekly pay in advance (indoor employees of the former Kogarah City Council).

3.   In late 2013 the former Hurstville City Council transitioned its weekly pay system to fortnightly.  That transition was not disputed by the United Services Union (USU).

4.   In accordance with Council’s adopted Implementation Plan, consultation commenced in March 2017 with employees, the Consultative Committee and the industry unions about transitioning to establish a consolidated pay cycle across the amalgamated entity.

5.   To support employees through the transition to fortnightly pay in November 2017 five options of financial support were made available.

6.   In May 2017 the General Manager advised the three industry unions of the progress towards Council meeting the transition timeline, support options provided and consultation in progress with affected staff.

7.   While the Local Government Engineers Association (LGEA) and Development and Environmental Professionals' Association (DEPA) made no comment about Council’s proposed consolidation of pay cycles, the United Services Union (USU) commenced advising their 112 affected members to not elect a financial option of support during the transition.

8.   In order to ensure staff were not financially disadvantaged through the transition period Council was left with no option but to lodge a Dispute with the Industrial Relations Commission. The Dispute sought to confirm the General Manager’s ability under the Local Government (State) Award to proceed with payroll consolidation.

9.   Following unsuccessful mediation, Chief Commissioner Kite arbitrated the dispute between Council and the USU in early October 2017.

10. At this time Chief Commissioner Kite is yet to make his recommendation.

11. This report informs Council in regard to the General Manager’s lawful ability and the operational requirement to consolidate the pay cycles.

 

 

 

Background

 

1995 USU Agreement to Fortnightly Pay Cycles

1.   The manner and timing of payments to employees was a feature of Local Government State Awards prior to 1995.  Previously the ‘Payment of Wages’ clause found at 20(i) of the Municipal and Shire Council Wages Staff (State) Award (271 IG1) and 16A(i) of the Local Government Salaried Officers (State) Award (267 IG 1252) provided that employees may, by mutual agreement, be paid either by the week, fortnight or other period.

2.   During the 1995 Local Government (State) Award negotiations all local government unions, including the USU, chose to give up the right of ‘mutual agreement’ in determining weekly or fortnightly pay cycles as part of a package of conditions and offsets. 

3.   The package of conditions included an 11% increase in pay rates over 2 years paid in three instalments - 6% increase effective 11 May 1995, a 2.5% increase effective 11 February 1996 and a 2.5% increase effective 11 November 1996.

4.   As a result, the Payment of Wages clause now found at 8(i) of the Award provides that a council shall pay either by the week or the fortnight.  As such the discretion to determine the pay cycle is with the employer (General Manager).

5.   Since 1995 local government staff have enjoyed the 11% pay increase (and the resulting compounding effect) as paid by ratepayers and the community.

 

Council’s Merger Obligations

6.   In February 2016, The NSW government published a document ‘Preparing for Change: Guidance for Councils’ as a preparation tool to be used for pending amalgamations.

7.   The publication was developed in consultation with unions and reviewed with industry bodies. The USU was provided opportunity to comment and shape the content of the publication.

8.   This document focused on the period during which merger proposals are being examined and reported upon. It refers to this as the preparation phase to help councils consider and plan for a potential merger. The document also made reference to the potential implementation phase. This would be the period from which new councils are announced or proclaimed.

9.   The ‘Preparing for Change’ document detailed the expectations on councils when reviewing and planning the payroll function for a newly merged council. The document makes detailed payroll references to undertaking the following:

-     documenting current payroll arrangements of councils including the frequency of the pay,

-     analysing employment arrangements including,

i. evaluating payroll and information and communications technology systems,

ii.        considering how a new payroll system could operate, and

iii. considering how and when existing systems could be consolidated.

-     consolidating business systems. Priority areas for systems harmonisation include financial management and reporting, payroll, human resources and asset management, and

-     business systems for the new council need to be developed, tested and implemented. This needs to be considered in the context of establishing a cohesive and equitable culture across the new council.

10. In May 2016, the NSW government published a further document ‘Managing for Change: Guidance for Key Staff’ in merged councils. The purpose of this document was to provide guidance to General Managers and assist with the implementation of new councils, and was prepared in consultation with the unions.

11. General Managers were required to include actions in the Implementation Plan to:

i. decide how payroll will be run,

ii.        plan for a consolidated payroll system,

iii. develop and test the new system, and

iv. deliver the program to implement the new payroll system.

12. The Implementation Plan was adopted by Council and approved by DPC and the OLG in November 2016.

 

Current Payroll Consolidation Practice – Other Merged Councils

13. All merged councils are required to implement new payroll systems and consolidate existing payrolls.

14. As an example, Dubbo Regional Council, a merged council, recently transitioned half their workforce to a fortnightly pay cycle from a weekly cycle.

15. The USU lodged an extensive log of claims with Dubbo Regional Council on 27 April 2017 in which the USU outlined the terms that would need to be met for employees to move to a fortnightly pay cycle.

16. Dubbo Regional Council responded to the USU on 2 May 2017 rejecting the USU’s log of claims.

17. There was no further action taken by the USU.

18. A fortnightly pay cycle information pack was distributed to all employees on 4 May 2017 and offered only one option to staff - being an interest free loan to be paid back to Dubbo Regional Council within six months.

19. A fortnightly pay cycle providing equity for all staff commenced at Dubbo Regional Council in July 2017.

20. Other merged councils are currently proceeding towards the implementation of fortnightly payrolls and consultation and transitioning has commenced.  At this stage it appears that the USU has not objected to those impending proposals.

 

Georges River Council – Payroll Consolidation Project

21. Since proclamation Council has operated three pay cycles. They are as follows:

-     Fortnightly pay in arrears (new employees and employees of the former Hurstville City Council);

-     Weekly pay in arrears (outdoor employees of the former Kogarah City Council); and

-     Weekly pay in advance (indoor employees of the former Kogarah City Council).

22. In late 2013 the former Hurstville City Council transitioned its weekly pay system to fortnightly.  That transition was not disputed by the USU.

23. The function of payroll sits within the People and Culture Department with a current staffing level of four (4) fulltime, one (1) part time and one (1) casual. The team includes a Coordinator, People and Culture who oversees the strategic and broad operational functions, a Team Leader who is responsible for the overall payroll processing and additional duties including superannuation, workers compensation and Australian Tax Office payments. The remaining payroll team work separately to process one of the three (3) pay cycles.

24. Operating three pay cycles is inefficient. Council has needed to employ additional part time and casual labour on a weekly basis and has paid payroll staff for additional hours or overtime. The additional cost to ratepayers of $85,560.48 (approximately $5,700 per month) is shown in the below table.

 

25. The Team Leader Payroll spends an average of three (3) hours each week resolving approximately 30 incorrect processing errors, 60 time and attendance adjustments changes and 10 late annual/sick leave applications.

26. At this time the payroll function does not have the capacity to provide a proactive and customer focussed service to the staff and organisation. There is no opportunity to provide payroll tailored service to staff working at the depots and other smaller work sites. Staff must come to the payroll office or wait for email responses to routine questions and queries. There is also no capacity to provide value to the organisation through proactive and systematic payroll analysis and reporting. 

27. The table below represents indicative savings to be achieved consolidating to process one fortnightly pay for all staff.

28. These savings are contained within the payroll team labour and do not represent the further savings that would be achieved across the organisation through more efficient and streamlined processes.

TIME

Item/Task

Completion Time

3 Pay Cycles

Cost (Fortnightly Staff Hours)

Completion Time

1 Pay Cycle

Cost (Fortnightly Staff hours)

Completing variation report

4 hours ( Average 1 hour per report 4) per fortnight

$180

3 hours (2 reports) per fortnight

$135

Payroll calculation checking (Team cross checking)

10 hours per fortnight

$450

6 hours per fortnight

$270

Payroll calculation checking (Coordinator & Finance Signoff)

3 hours per fortnight

$180

1 hour per fortnight

$60

Adjustments to pay in advance (adjusting sick leave etc.)

5 hours per fortnight

$225

1 hour per fortnight

$45

Responding to staff queries

10 to 20 per day each including walking in, email and phone

$1,125

5 to 10 per day each including walking in, email and phone

$675

Adjusting errors

10-15 p/fortnight

$115

1-5 p/fortnight

$40

Super reconcile & submit                      

5 hours/fortnight

$225

3 hours/fortnight

$135

Payroll deduction

5 hours/fortnight

$225

3 hours/fortnight

$135

Bank download

1 hours/fortnight

$45

0.5 hours/fortnight

$23

End of Financial Year

56 hours annually

$97

35 hours annually

$61

ELE Report monthly

2 hours monthly

$45

1 hour monthly

$23

 

COST FOR 3 PAY CYCLES

$2,912

COST FOR 1 PAY CYCLE

$1,602

Fortnightly savings associated with running 1 pay cycle

$1,310

Annual savings associated with running 1 pay cycle

$34,060

 

Communication and Consultation with Staff

29. Consultation with staff and unions about transitioning to one fortnightly pay cycle commenced on 21 March, 2017.

30. On 12 April 2017 the General Manager resolved to start the implementation of transitioning to fortnightly pay, effective from 23 November 2017.

31. The communication and consultation program rolled out to the 189 affected staff is detailed below:

 

Date

Communication Method

 

Audience

21 March 2017

Consultative Committee

Consultative Committee + Unions

12 April 2017

Executive meeting

Executive Team

8 May 2017

GM Newsletter notification

All staff

16 May 2017

Consultative Committee presentation of *project plan

*assistance options  *communications plan

Consultative  Committee , Unions

16 May 2017

GM Newsletter notification

All staff

17 May 2017

Email notification from Executive Manager P&C including: *Fact Sheet

*Schedule of Staff info sessions

All staff

19 May 2017

GM Newsletter notification

All staff

22 May 2017

 

Staff Information sessions- Payroll Harmonisation

Civic Theatre

10:00am

All staff

23 May 2017

 

Staff Information sessions- Payroll Harmonisation

Carlton Depot

9:30am

Staff Information sessions- Payroll Harmonisation

Carlton Depot

10:30am

All staff

 

 

24 May 2017

Staff Information sessions - Payroll Harmonisation

Ocean St Kindergarten

2:00pm

Staff Information sessions - Payroll Harmonisation

Kogarah Library

9:00am

Staff Information sessions - Payroll Harmonisation

Narani Child Care Centre

1:30pm

Staff Information sessions - Payroll Harmonisation

South Hurstville Kindergarten

2:30pm

All staff

 

 

25 May 2017

Staff Information sessions - Payroll Harmonisation

Hurstville Library

11:00am

Staff Information sessions - Payroll Harmonisation

Kogarah Library

1:00pm

Staff Information sessions - Payroll Harmonisation

Kogarah Library

1:30pm

All staff

 

 

 

22 May – 25 May 2017

Staff Information Sessions (Face to face presentation by People & Culture)

All staff

25 May 2017

Letter of update to Unions

USU, DEPA, LGEA

29 May 2017

feedback from staff info sessions and reminder for financial workshops

Meeting with Working Group Change Agents

30 May 2017

Staff Information Sessions Feedback

Executive Team

Project Working Group (staff change agents)

1 June 2017

Consultative Committee (16 May) Minutes distributed by email

Consultative Committee + Unions

2 June 2017

GM Newsletter notification

All staff

6 June 2017

Payroll Harmonisation session facilitated by Executive Manager at 7am Mortdale Depot

Depot staff

7 June 2017

Payroll Harmonisation session facilitated by Executive Manager at 7am at Carlton Depot

Depot staff

2 June – 9 June 2017

Distribution of staff letters outlining options for selection (hand delivered or posted if on leave)

All affected staff

9 June 2017

GM Newsletter notification

All staff

13 June 2017

Email reminder re: Managing Financial Obligations Workshop

Library Manager/Coordinators

13 June 2017

Email reminder re: Managing Financial Obligations Workshop

Depot Manager/Coordinators

16 June 2017

GM Newsletter notification

All staff

19 June 2017

Email reminder re: Managing Financial Obligations Workshops

All staff

11 July 2017

Staff Information Session – Outcome of Industrial Relations conciliation

All affected Depot staff

22 August 2017

Email notification to all staff advising on additional option as a result of the Local Government State Award 2017 providing for the ability to cash out excess long service leave

All staff

28 August 2017

Staff communication email and posters advising of free individual financial/ budget planning sessions to assist staff with the transition

All staff

Financial Support Options for Transitioning Staff

32. To support staff making the transition to a fortnightly pay cycle Council made available five options of financial assistance:

(a) OPTION 1 – No Financial Assistance

(b) OPTION 2 – Interest Free Loan 10 Repayments

(c)  OPTION 3 – 12 month Interest Free Loan

(d) OPTION 4 – Nominated Weekly Deductions

(e) OPTION 5 – Long Service Leave Entitlement (double pay or cash out excess).

33. Commencing from 1 June 2017 a letter was hand delivered to all affected employees requesting they elect an option of support through the transition. 

34. On 11 July 2017, with the USU’s support, the General Manager notified all affected staff and requested that all staff who had not yet provided a preference for a support option, to elect and confirm a transition option.

35. This enabled the People and Culture Department to prepare and provide the appropriate support to affected employees – particularly as the USU was not advising affected staff of the potential risk that it may not be successful in pursuing its claim that the transition should not occur.

36. As at 25 October 2017 staff have elected the following assistance during the transition to a fortnightly pay cycle:

(a) OPTION 1 – No Financial Assistance (118)

(b) OPTION 2 – Interest Free Loan 10 Repayments (15)

(c)  OPTION 3 – 12 month Interest Free Loan (12)

(d) OPTION 4 – Nominated Weekly Deductions (17)

(e) OPTION 5 – Long Service Leave Entitlement (double pay/cash out) (21).

Six staff did not respond to People and Culture with their election option.

 

General Manager’s Obligations - Local Government Act 1993 and Code of Conduct

37. To assist the General Manager to make an informed decision about Council’s transition to a fortnightly pay cycle, advice was sought from the Legal Branch of Local Government New South Wales (LGNSW).

38. In particular, the advice was sought to assist with the IRC dispute and to ensure that the General Manager complied with her obligations under the Local Government Act 1993 and Model Code of Conduct.

39. The below advice was prepared having regard to the General Manager having been delegated all functions by Council except those prohibited by section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (the Act).

40. By reference to section 335 of the Act which details the functions of the General Manager, LGNSW Legal Branch has advised that it “views the change to a fortnightly pay cycle to be an operational matter and therefore solely in the purview of the General Manager. Specifically, under section 335, the General Manager’s functions include:

(a) to conduct the day-to-day management of council in accordance with the strategic plans, programs, strategies and policies of the council; and

(k) to implement the council’s workforce management strategy.”

41. LGNSW Legal Branch has also advised that the transition to fortnightly pay would fall within the “day-to-day management of council” and implementation of the “workforce management strategy”.

42. Council’s adopted Workforce Management Strategy requires the General Manager (amongst other things) to implement the relevant industrial legislation and policies (the provisions of the Award) and provide a fair and equitable approach towards the management and employment of all employees.

 

Councillor’s Obligations - Workforce Management Strategy, Local Government Act 1993 and Code of Conduct

43. LGNSW Legal Branch has advised that Section 232 of the Local Government Act is of relevance on this issue. Section 232 states:

“The role of a councillor is as follows:

(a) to be an active and contributing member of the governing body,

(b) to make considered and well informed decisions as a member of the governing body,

(c)  to participate in the development of the integrated planning and reporting framework,

(d) to represent the collective interests of residents, ratepayers and the local community,

(e) to facilitate communication  between the local community and the governing body,

(f)   to uphold and represent accurately the policies and decisions of the governing body,

(g) to make all reasonable efforts to acquire and maintain the skills necessary to perform the role of a councillor.

(h) A councillor is accountable to the local community for the performance of the council.”

44. Specifically, sub-section 232(1)(b) - to make considered and well informed decisions as a member of the governing body - is most relevant to these considerations.

45. LGNSW Legal Branch has advised that the Council and individual Councillors must not contravene the Local Government Act 1993. To do so amounts to a breach of Council’s Code of Conduct (Code).  Specifically, clause 3.1 of the Code states:

‘3.1 You must not conduct yourself in carrying out your functions in a manner that is likely to bring the Council or holders of civic office into disrepute. Specifically, you must not act in a way that:

(a) contravenes the Act, associated regulations, Council’s relevant administrative requirements and policies.”

46. Further, clause 6.7 of the Code provides that the following interactions are deemed to be inappropriate:

“(a) Councillors and administrators approaching staff and staff organisations to discuss individual or operational staff matters other than broader workforce policy issues;

(g) Councillors and administrators directing or pressuring council staff in the performance of their work, or recommendations they should make.”

47. LGNSW notes that section 435 of the Local Government Act provides that if satisfied that council has incurred any deficiency or loss as a consequence of negligence, misconduct or as a result of any contravention of the Act then individual councillors may be surcharged for the loss or deficiency incurred by Council.

48. Further the new Draft Model Code of Conduct, clause 7.5 states that Councillors must not engage in any of the following inappropriate interactions:

“Councillors and administrators approaching staff and staff organisations to discuss individual or operational staff matters including but not limited to industrial relations matters such as grievances, workplace investigations and disciplinary matters.”

49. As previously advised in this report, Council is currently in dispute in the IRC regarding payroll consolidation.

Payroll Consolidation Project – Financial Investment and Implications

50. The table below represents the current investment in labour associated with the payroll consolidation project.

SUMMARY OF PROJECT HOURS

Staff Member

Total hours

Rate

Total Cost

Coordinator Payroll

340

57

$19,380

Team Leader Payroll

280

50

$14,000

Payroll Officer

140

40

$5,600

Payroll Officer

90

40

$3,600

Payroll Officer

90

34

$3,060

Payroll Administrator (casual)

105

30

$3,150

IMT Business Systems

315

58

$18,270

Project Management

182

52

$9,464

TOTAL STAFF COST

 

 

$76,524

 

51. In addition the following table represents Council’s expenditure in preparing the technology infrastructure and system to move to one fortnightly pay cycle.

SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL CONSULTANT COSTS

WORK SCOPE AND PROGRESS

CONSULTANT COST

Payroll System Consolidation - March 2017

$ 13,328.00

Establishment Consolidation - July 2017

$ 3,920.00

Payroll Consolidation - due to complete 4 November

$ 16,320.00

Final implementation work (now postponed at the request of the General Manager)

$ 1,920.00

Result of Postponement – reversal of work completed  -  Scheduled for 2 November 2017

$ 1,920.00

Result of postponement - reconfigure and import Payroll Consolidation -  not yet scheduled

$ 7,680.00

 

52. In making the transition in the future, some of the planning and configuration work can be reused.  However, there are a number of activities in this project that are very time sensitive, and as a result will need to be reworked afresh once the General Manager implements a new transition date.

53. Based on these activities, an additional consultant will be required for four days to complete the project as a result of the delay.  The main activities to completed by the consultant over these days will include:

-     Update/refresh job details import template,

-     Create new entitlements import template,

-     Update test database and import job details and employee entitlements,

-     Assist payroll staff with testing (identify and correct any/all issues)

-     Cutover to production, and

-     Re-process approved leave entitlements including annual, long service, parental, sick, vari-leave, etc (extract, delete and re-import),

54. Further, legal costs associated with the USU’s opposition to transition employees to a fortnightly pay cycle has resulted in Council incurring $34,819 in external legal expenses to date.

Above Award Entitlements Currently Provided to Georges River Employees

55. The General Manager provides an annual program of additional benefits to all employees which extends beyond current Award entitlements.  These additional benefits are valued at over $1.24 million per year as shown in the table below.

56. Whilst this is discretionary expenditure, it is considered that these benefits provide value for money to Georges River ratepayers as they contribute towards increased productivity, reduced sick leave and workers compensation claims, higher morale and improved organisational culture.  They also assist in the attraction and retention of high calibre staff as Georges River Council is now regarded as an employer of choice in the sector.

 

SUMMARY OF ABOVE AWARD ENTITLEMENTS

ENTITLEMENT/ PROGRAM

ANNUAL COST TO COUNCIL

Three additional annual leave days provided to full time and part time (pro rata) staff as grant days during the Christmas period.

$ 495,000

Annual Health and Well Being Fair

$ 23,000

Accredited Certificate IV Courses in Leadership, Project Management and Workplace Health and Safety currently being undertaken by 56 staff

$ 45,600

Annual preventative health program. Flu Shots and Skin Cancer Checks. Cost to Council

$33,841

Fitness Passport Implementation and Management

$ 10,400

Monthly communication BBQs for Depot staff

$ 3,600

Apprentice and traineeship program

$174,000

Employee Assistance Program

$ 5000

Annual Learning and Development budget

$ 450,000

Total

$ 1,240,441

 

Equity in Employment Conditions

57. Fairness, equity and parity in employment conditions are essential to effectively drive a positive and engaged workforce culture.

58. Implementing one fortnightly pay cycle for all staff irrespective of their former organisation demonstrates Council’s commitment to deliver fair and equitable people practices and is consistent with Council policy (the Workforce Management Strategy).

59. Former Hurstville Council employees made the transition to a fortnightly pay cycle from a weekly pay cycle in 2013 as provided for by the Award.  They did not receive any financial incentive to make the change and the transition was not disputed by the USU.

60. It is also important to note that the recent September 2017 ‘Staff Engagement Survey’ resulted in increases in satisfaction scores compared to the March 2017 survey. Specifically

-     A 10.7% increase in staff that agreed or strongly agreed to being committed to the success of Council, and

-     An 18.8% increase in overall satisfaction with Council as an employer

Conclusion

61. The General Manager has advised staff that the payroll consolidation will be postponed until early 2018.

62. The postponement will mean an additional cost to ratepayers for labour and system reconfiguration. This current cost estimate is $19,310.00.

63. The People and Culture team advised affected staff of the postponement and the impact this delay has on their financial support option.

64. The General Manager has offered additional financial management workshops for employees who are yet to attend a session/take up the offer.

 

File Reference

D17/199428