Agenda of Ordinary Council - Thursday, 7 December 2023

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Sport and Recreation Facility - Management and Operating Model

Subject: Sport and Recreation Facility - Management and Operating Model

Ordinary Council at its meeting on 23 November 2023 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting to held on the 07 December 2023.

Record No: SU9115 - 56049/23

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens

Executive Summary

The Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre (LCRSC) project is due for completion in late-2025, well in advance of this date Council must establish the most appropriate management and operating model for the LCSRC. The cornerstone of such a determination, is striking the balance between Council maintaining all operational risks and costs versus contracting out to de-risk operational impacts on Council. This Report recommends that Council undertake a tender process to contract out operation of the facility with the Bistro and Golf Course Management offered as separate components, due to their specialised nature.

The key reasons outlined in the report for contracting out are based on Council’s organisation scale, capacity and risk profile. In summary, Council’s relatively small scale, (4^th smallest in the Metropolitan area), lack of management, financial resources and human resources to operate what is a unique and complex facility with a diverse mix of activities, and the potential risk to maintaining Council’s overall financial sustainability, are best served by the contracting out model. To ensure the community’s use needs are fully understood it is recommended Council undertake a process with potential community users of the facility to understand their proposed utilisation rates of the facility, prior to the acceptance of any tender.

Background

Council, at its meeting of 23 March 2023, when considering the “Sport and Recreation Facility - March 2023 Progress Report”, resolved in part:-

“5. Resolves that the management/operational model for the Sport and Recreation Facility will be determined by Council and that a report be prepared on the available options including modelling of financial feasibility of a Council operated Sport and Recreation Facility;”

Since that resolution, the Council has determined to proceed with construction of the LCSRC and this report provides background as to options regarding future management of the facility.

Discussion

History of Council’s Consideration of the Business Model

In August 2018, Council released an Expressions of Interest (EOI) titled “Build and Operate the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct” (AT-1) as the first of two (2) stages in a procurement strategy to best understand market interest in the LCSRC. The proposed centre is unique in that it seeks to introduce a very broad range of sporting activities at the one location. This is consistent with the Council's previous resolutions in November 2020, February 2022, and August 2022 to look to diversify recreation and sporting opportunities (rather than allow single sports to dominate) on the site given the lack of financial viability of the current (at the time) offerings on the site. Each of the Resolutions included a Community Consultation aspect to understand the broader needs of the Lane Cove LGA from a sport, recreation and amenity perspective including scale and location.

The EOI outlined the project as “The Recreation Precinct will operate and maintain a Golf Course and provide a variety of other recreation, dining, function space, health, fitness and leisure program opportunities. Council will consider options where organisations contribute capital or seek Council to contribute capital, or a combination of both, to deliver the facility. Organisations can seek to participate in all or particular offerings to be provided in the facility, e.g. food and beverage only as a specialty operator.”

Three (3) responses were received for the entire facility (Key Operators) and three (3) submissions were received indicating interest in individual components of activities that could occur on the site.

The key outcomes from the EOI process and subsequent post-response meetings were:-

· The amount of capital contribution available from the Key Operators was circa $10m, which was not significant in terms of the overall funding for the project. Any capital contribution by the Key Operators would also attract a high Return On Investment (ROI) for them, and Council had access to much less expensive capital. It became evident Council would need to fully finance the project.

· The Key Operators independently formed the view that golf operations were the “weak link” in the project, and they would prefer not to operate golf.

· There were entities interested in the golf operations component only.

· Single discipline expertise may also be required for the food and beverage offerings (one Key Operator responded on a partnership basis with an established restauranteur).

· The facility is viable (subsidy would not be required) with a mix of community and commercial facility components, activities and programs;

· Council’s design intent of multi-purpose, scalable and flexible spaces was supported.

In May 2021, Xypher Sport + Leisure prepared a Business Case and Business Model based on the original nine (9) multi-sport court scheme. These reports were subsequently updated and revised in September 2022 (AT-2) reflecting the reduction to eight (8) multi-sport courts in support of Council’s grant application (ultimately successful) under the NSW Government Multi Sport Community Facility Fund.

These reports were on the basis of the outcomes of the EOI process, with the Key Operator not contributing capital, revenue from Food and Beverage was also excluded, given the main purpose was to understand whether the facility was viable (subsidy would not be required) with a mix of community and commercial facility components (including merchandise and a small retail offering akin to a kiosk), activities and programs;

Separately Council has Discussed the Operation of Various Similar Facilities, these include:-

1. Willoughby Leisure Centre: In-House Operate, with a Subsidy;

2. Hornsby and Galston Aquatic and Leisure Centres: In-House Operate, no Subsidy;

3. Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre: Externally managed by YMCA;

4. North Sydney Pool and Gym: In-House Operate, previously sub-contracted learn to swim;

5. North Sydney (Crows Nest) Indoor Sports Centre: Externally managed, no subsidy;

6. Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre: In-House Operate;

7. Canada Bay Council – Concord Oval Gym and Recreation Centre: In-House Operate, no Subsidy;

8. Mosman Aquatic Centre (Externally managed, no subsidy) and 2 x Indoor Courts In-House Operate.

Clearly, there are a variety of models for the operation of similar facilities, and therefore Council must ultimately determine its priorities and risk appetite for operations*. More specifically, and to expand upon Operation and Management models there are essentially four options:-

1. Internal (In-House) Management, Council retain all operational risks and costs.

2. External (outsourced) Management, Council retain all operational risks and costs.

3. Council Business Enterprise (Special Purpose Vehicle / Entity owning management rights – not common in NSW and Ministerial approval required). Council transfer all operational risks and costs.

4. Full External Operations - Lease and licence agreements. Council transfer all operational risks and costs.

When it comes to the future management of the LCSRC, the following important and strategic outcomes have been identified, in priority order:-

· Operating Sustainability – LCSRC does not incur an operating loss;

· Market Responsiveness – Management can make changes in response to demand:

· Asset Management – future maintenance and repairs are adequately provided for in Council budgets; and

· Long-term financial sustainability – all future costs including refurbishment and capital replacement are financed by LCSRC profits and Council is not dependent on external (grant) nor internal funding to develop them;

The Benefits of In-House Operation vs Contracting Out

The following provides a summary of the key benefits generally of operating facilities In-House vs Contracting Out.

Benefits of In-House Operation:

1. Direct Control: Managing a sports facility In-House provides a high degree of control over its daily operations and decision-making. This control can extend to setting specific policies, creating unique programming, and tailoring services to meet the community and council's requirements.

2. Alignment with Council’s Objectives: In-House management ensures that the sports facility is aligned with the objectives and values in Council’s IP&R and other planning frameworks.

3. Community Engagement: In-House management fosters a direct connection with the local community to allow Council to develop and deliver programs that are finely tuned to their specific needs and preferences.

4. Increased Revenue Potential: By managing the facility directly, Council can capture 100% of the generated revenue.

5. Investment Control: In-House management provides complete control over decisions regarding facility operational maintenance and upgrades. This control ensures that the facility is well maintained and continually improved according to Council's standards.

Benefits of Contracting Out:

1. Expertise and Efficiency: Third-party management companies bring extensive industry expertise and a track record of efficient facility operation. Their specialised knowledge can lead to cost savings and optimised resource allocation.

2. Reduced Administrative Burden: Contracting out transfers the operational and administrative responsibilities to the operator, reducing Council’s workload and cost(s). This allows Council management to allocate more time to core activities.

3. Risk Mitigation: The Key Operator assumes the financial and staffing risks associated with facility operations, serving as a protective buffer for Council and ensuring that unexpected financial challenges are mitigated.

4. Access to Networks and Resources: Key Operators possess well-established industry networks and access to marketing resources, which can boost event bookings, attract sponsors, and expand the user base of the facility.

5. Flexibility: Contracted management offers adaptability in response to market dynamics and changing community needs. It allows for swift adjustments in programming, pricing structures, and operational strategies to ensure the facility remains competitive and relevant.

6. Profit-Sharing Models: Profit-sharing arrangements, which provide Council with a share of the facility's profits, typically over and above a threshold, serve as an additional source of revenue without downside revenue risk for Council.

Aquatics & Recreation Victoria (ARV) tabled a research paper in August 2023 as a “Guide to Maximising Management Outcomes for Your Council and Community” (AT-4). ARV is the Victorian peak (industry) body and receive funding from the Victorian State Government. At a high level, the Guide was developed to support “LGA’s in determining the most effective and efficient way to manage their Aquatic and Recreation Centres whilst maximising the social, health and well-being outcomes of their local communities”. The research paper includes a “Decision Making Matrix” that is aligned with Council’s understanding of the risks and benefits associated with determining the appropriate management and operating model and is captured in the Conclusion of this Report.

The State of Victoria is considerably further along the Sport and Recreation infrastructure delivery journey than not only NSW, but indeed on a national scale. NSW has approximately the equivalent of 30% in terms of indoor stadia compared to Victoria and it is therefore with good reason, the ARV research paper is important supporting material for consideration.

The following table provides a matrix in respect of each option for operation of a facility.

As outlined earlier, given there is a mix of models and council’s have chosen a relatively even distribution of them, it can be deduced that council’s have had regard to their own circumstances, and in particular their own organisation’s scale, capacity and risk profile in selecting an option. Regardless of which model is selected, each can ensure Council’s overarching goal of equity of access can be achieved where one activity does not dominate, but instead opportunities for use and participation will be maximised across all community sport and recreation activities. The following provides an examination of the operation of the Sport and Recreation facility based on these factors.

Contracting Out Management and Operating Services for the Sport and Recreation Centre

In this scenario a third-party Key Operator would deliver a holistic service that includes centre, program and facilities management for which Council receive annual rent, or annual rent plus revenue share.

In each instance, the Key Operator would be responsible for all operating expenditure including staff (and on-costs), maintenance and cleaning whilst Council would retain responsibility for capital expenditure items. An annual rent construct is akin to Council’s arrangement with Bluefit for the management and operation of the Lane Cove Aquatic and Leisure Centre that delivers a known revenue stream to Council underpinned by a joint community-first approach for the delivery of services. Council has input into setting fees, activities that occur within the centre, groups which have guaranteed access, whilst also maintaining quality assurance of the centre operations. This arrangement currently returns a surplus to Council which offsets the capital expenditure Council has incurred in relation to the pool over the years. Delivering a surplus is for swimming pool operations is rare in the metropolitan area.

Alternatively, a profit share can be structured that guarantees a minimum annual payment to Council, after which the parties share revenue. As long as the minimum amount payable to Council represents value to Council, the revenue share arrangement provides potential upside if ultimately performance exceeds forecasts made when entering the contract.

The key question for a prospective Key Operator is, what will the LCSRC “look like”? In other words, what space is programmable (eg multi-sport courts, multi-purpose rooms, members lounge etc), for whom and what sport (or activity / event) and the fees chargeable? Council has not yet sort specific commitments to use of the facility, particularly during peak time, but this should occur prior to entering into any contract. Like the Aquatic and Leisure Centre, Council can mandate court and other space allocation, pricing, and programming for casual, school, community, club and association use. Council will then manage the contract under an arrangement framed by strict Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and Service Level Agreements (SLA).

Based on the general advantages of Contracting Out outlined earlier in the report, the following key advantages and disadvantages have been identified specifically in relation to the LCRSC.

Advantages

· Industry knowledge, expertise and likely economies of scale on the basis that prospective Key Operators are multi-site operators; Utilisation ie participation rates are typically higher in externally contracted facilities, which aligns with Council’s goal.

· Under a lease arrangement, the Key Operator absorbs all staff costs and responsibilities (including on-costs, acquisition and retention, WH&S), facility management costs (including preventative / reactive maintenance and cleaning); removing any impact on Council Management’s focus on core activities

· Council can set entry fees and charges, and control the activities that occur within the centre, groups which have guaranteed access and maintain quality assurance of the centre operations.

· Certainty to Council around financial outcomes and forecasting. Council’s budget is delicately balanced in terms on going expenditure commitments, the avoidance of opportunities for ‘shocks’ has been key to council’s current sustainable financial position.

· Agility in decision-making particularly in response to market disruption and / or market (structural) changes that may logically include and / or demand a shift in programming time(s) and space to optimally meet Council’s community and commercial aspirations (in that order);

· From a procurement perspective, Council is provided with critical insights to programming, method(s) of service delivery, market capacity to deliver, risk appetite, and community partnership ethos. Council currently as no inhouse expertise in managing such a facility

Disadvantages

· LCSRC is an unknown quantity (no baseline established), this may impact tendered rental income and / or annual fee arrangements;

· Theoretical reduction in Council influence over strategic direction and /or business as usual activities^;

· Key Operator may divert disproportionate resources and energy to achieve commercial aspirations ^;

· Key Operator may seek to cut costs in facility maintenance^;

· Key Operator may seek to reduce operating costs, for example where air-handling plant is available for customer comfort it may not be utilised when required^;

· If Council separately contacts out the Bistro and Golf operation, potential for conflict between the tree operators^;

^Disadvantage (or risk) can be managed out by Council contractually.

Council Management and Operation (Contract In)

Under an internal management model, Council can have direct control over the delivery of sport, recreation and leisure outcomes at the LCSRC. In this scenario, Council has full flexibility to control programming, pricing, access (generally) and usage.

However, Council is not (currently) equipped with expertise nor financial or staffing perspective to support such activity which represents the probable drain (and distraction) of existing centralised Council services / staff to administer the LCSRC, namely: Human Resources (recruitment, onboarding, training, continuous development and retention), Finance (including payroll and budget establishment / forecasting), Information Technology, Work Health and Safety, and Marketing.

Gearing up to satisfy the aforementioned scale and logistical needs is largely unquantifiable at this early stage, however it will add a significant layer of complexity to Council in its business as usual activities. Further, an in-house managed model means that Council is responsible not only for all programming (structured and unstructured sport / recreation), but also the likelihood of casual LCSRC on-site staff. From a financial perspective, the above risk(s) are borne by Council in the absence of annual rent under contracted out services.

Whilst Council’s Business Case and Model reports were largely developed on the premise of external LCSRC management with Council retain all operating financial risks, there are Council’s (generally large) that manage such sites internally. In many instances, Council management is undertaken when there is more than one site such that the economies of scale (generally) that are enjoyed by external Management Companies, are to the best of their ability replicated. Willoughby Council is one (NSROC) exception to this rule, whereupon Council manage and operate the Willoughby Leisure Centre (WLC) and in the absence of any other sites, have chosen to aggregate centre management (booking, programming etc) and facilities management staff across the Northbridge Baths and Tyneside Tennis Courts site(s). In summary, Willoughby Council is able to utilise the same number of staff that would ordinarily manage the WLC to also administer the other two (2) sites at little additional cost. Despite this, Willoughby Council Financial Statements report a multi-year subsidy for the WLC.

Interestingly, North Sydney Council which has traditionally operated the North Sydney Pool (previously with a contractor operating learn to swim), but has always contracted out the operation of the Crows Nest Indoor Sports Centre, fully transferring operational risk and costs.

The City of Canada Bay Council have recently commenced operations at the Concord Oval site that includes two buildings:

· Building A – Independently managed by the Wests Tigers National Rugby League (NRL) and West Harbour (Sydney Rugby) Clubs who together, pay annual rent to Council;

· Building B – Four (4) indoor multi-sport courts, gym and creche managed and operated directly by City of Canada Bay Council.

Under the above hybrid arrangement, all facilities management and outdoor grounds maintenance (including landscaping) is under the care and control of Council. In addition, City of Canada Bay Council own and operate the Five Dock Leisure Centre and across the three (3) sites employ between 80 and 100 people (30 of which are Fulltime Equivalent - FTE). All of the staff are specific to the delivery of sport and recreation services, during COVID most of the part-time staff were stood down by Council whilst the FTE count were redeployed internally.

Research suggests that Metropolitan Sydney sport and recreation centre management is approximately split evenly between in-house and external models. That said, the majority of Council managed and operated centres exist in large councils where the Council owns two (2) or more sites to leverage economies of scale similarly to Management Companies (Key Operators).

Assuming Council has answers to the question(s) posed above, it is true to say that the LCSRC is a site with complexity. There is no similar site in Metropolitan Sydney with such a diverse offering: multi-sport courts (indoor / outdoor); golf course; bistro and dining; program rooms; and / or event space(s). Collectively, from a management and operational perspective the LCSRC demands a high level of expertise.

Advantages

· Direct control over the delivery of community sport, recreation and leisure outcomes at the LCSRC ensuring alignment to Council’s goals

· Full flexibility to control programming, pricing, access (generally) and usage. In addition to full control over pricing and programming, the Council would oversee all management and operating matters including asset management and staffing;

· Strong alignment with Council vision and strategy;

· Asset cared for and maintained by Council;

· Clear understanding of community, financial and operating outcomes;

Disadvantages

· Delivery of multi-sport centres is not a core activity of Council, nor a core capability within the current FTE headcount;

· Greatest impact on existing Council resources (management, human and financial), with potential to divert from core activities noting Council is the 4^th smallest in the Sydney Metropolitan area;

· Acquisition of experienced staff which includes onboarding, training, continuous development and retention;

· Local Government award structure and related staff on-costs exceed the private sector, staff costs represent approximately 50% of total operating costs and Council is bound by this structure;

· Lack of agility and/or commercial acumen to operate in the competitive and specialist environment of sport, recreation and leisure service delivery;

· Limited economies of scale via the sharing of human resources (staff) across other sport and recreation sites as they either simply do not exist, or in the instance of Lane Cove Aquatic and Leisure Centre are under long-term management / lease arrangements (2031);

Operation of Bistro and Golf Operations

The original EOI feedback and the observations of PMY in reviewing the Xypher Report(s) that concluded revenue from Food and Beverage relating to the Bistro and social functions were below comparable venue rates. The actual facility has been designed to provide separate facilities for kiosk type pre-packaged food and drinks to be operated by the key operator for the facility and separate full-line food and drinks via the Bistro, golfers lounge, and multi-purpose spaces for functions. Based on this, the Bistro / Event activity would benefit from specialist management and activation noting one of the EOI respondents expressed their management and operating interest in partnership with a Food and Beverage operator. Similarly, referencing the golf related EOI feedback, Council has subsidised golf operations since 2004 and only during 2022 (COVID) did income and expenditure approach a breakeven outcome.

Council envisages that, in the management and operating models as described (internal and external), golf operations will encompass both income and expenditure items. In other words, a golf operator will be responsible for managing green fees and golf-related merchandise (revenue), and simultaneously sub-contract golf course maintenance (greenkeeping) services (expenditure) on behalf, and with the approval of, Council. In this scenario, Council will be responsible for capital expenditure (eg irrigation, bridges, paths and tree trimming) only.

Conclusion

This report proposes that Council operate the facility under the same model as the very successful Lane Cove Aquatic Centre and contract out the operation of the facility. The key reasons outlined in the report are based on Council’s organisation scale, capacity and risk profile. In summary, Council’s relatively small scale, (4^th smallest in the Sydney Metropolitan area), lack of management, financial resources and human resources to operate what is a unique and complex facility with a diverse mix of activities, and the potential risk to maintaining Council’s overall financial sustainability, are best served by the contracting out model.

Given the unique and complex site Council is best served by running a competitive tender process which will provide multiple views from tenders on the economics of the facility and the way the facility should operate via their business plans, which will be based on industry knowledge, expertise, market innovations and opportunities for economies of scale based on Council’s partnership ethos.

The next steps in the process would be for Council to call for tenders for a Key Operator, such will provide for operation of the whole facility and separate sub-tenancies for Bistro operations and Golf Course Management. As part of this process, Council staff will work with potential community users of the facility to understand their proposed utilisation rates of the facility.

Given construction is currently underway it will be necessary to separate out the process for Bistro operations to proceed as a priority, as ultimately this will potentially impact on the fit-out or the Bistro space to coincide with the opening of the facility.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. the report be received and noted;

2. Undertake a Request for a Key Operator which will include the option of subletting of the Management of Golf Operations including coaching and Bistro / Event disciplines;

3. Undertake a process with potential community users of the facility to understand their proposed utilisation rates for utilisation of the facility, prior to the acceptance of any tender;

4. Undertake a separate process to identify an operator for the Bistro / Event activities as a priority to facilitate fit-out prior to the opening of the facility; and

5. Receive a report on the outcomes of the tender process at the appropriate time.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	EOI - Build and Operate Lane Cove Recreation Precinct 2018	22 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precinct - Multi Sports Community Fund Business Case - FINAL	67 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	LCSRP - Business Case Review - Final	17 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	ARV management Models - Maximising Management Outcomes for Council and Community	64 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Draft Swimming Pool Inspection Program

Subject: Draft Swimming Pool Inspection Program

Ordinary Council at its meeting on 23 November 2023 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting to held on the 07 December 2023.

Record No: SU1802 - 67411/23

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Mark Brisby

Executive Summary

The Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Swimming Pools Regulation 2018 is the legislation relating to the requirements for swimming pools in NSW.

The Act and regulation require that all Councils develop and adopt a program for the inspection of swimming pools in its area. This report proposes that Council endorse the draft program and place it on public exhibition in accordance with its Community Consultation Policy.

The key responsibilities for Council in relation to pool safety are;

· Adopt an inspection program

· Carry out mandatory inspections of for pools situated on land used for tourist and visitor accommodation, residential flat buildings and properties containing more than two dwellings every three years

· Issue compliance and/or non-compliance certificates

· Investigate complaints regarding breaches of the act

· Advertise safety requirements for pools and provide education.

· Report annually on pool inspections

It should be noted that there is no requirement for Council to inspect all backyard pools every three years.

The attached draft swimming pool inspection program addresses each of these responsibilities and proposes that Council where resources permit and there is no valid certificate of compliance or occupation certificate carryout a risk-based inspection program.

According to the NSW Swimming Pool Register, there are approximately 2,500 pools located within the boundaries of the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

Discussion

Council’s draft swimming pool program aims to increase pool safety awareness and compliance and to explain the scope of the proposed inspection program.

The Act and Regulations do not require Council to inspect every pool but mandates inspections for certain types of pools i.e. tourist & visitor accommodation along with properties that contain 2 or more dwellings. The draft program includes the requirement for these pools to be inspected every three years.

A risk-based inspection program is proposed to be implemented to improve the levels of compliance relating to swimming pool fencing and to satisfy Council’s obligations under the Act.

Council’s inspection program will consist of a mandatory component and a pro-active component, comprising:

a. A mandatory three-year inspection regime, for pools situated on land used for tourist and visitor accommodation, residential flat buildings and properties containing more than two dwellings;

b. Upon receipt of an application made to Council for an inspection and certificate of compliance in relation to the sale or lease of a property containing a swimming pool, in accordance with the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2010 and the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010;

c. Upon receipt of an application by the owner of a property containing a swimming pool for an inspection and certificate of compliance under section 22C of the Act;

d. In response to a report or complaint made to the Council concerning an inadequately fenced or unauthorised swimming pool on a specific property;

e. In response to receiving notification from an Accredited Certifier, under section 22E (4) of the Act, who is unable to issue certificate of compliance;

f. Swimming pools on properties for which an application has been made to Council for a Building Information Certificate;

g. Proactive observations, where it has been identified (i.e. by a Council officer) that the swimming pool barrier appears to be deficient or may otherwise not be compliant.

In addition to the above and, where resources permit, Council will seek to inspect other private swimming pools where there is no valid Swimming Pool Certificate of Compliance or Occupation Certificate.

The above inspection program does not apply to swimming pools the subject of an Occupation Certificate or a Swimming Pool Certificate of Compliance that has been issued within the past three (3) years, unless Council receives a complaint or is made aware that the swimming pool barriers are non-compliant.

Council’s Swimming Pool Inspection Program will be based on the properties identified in the NSW Swimming Pool Register as having a swimming pool or spa pool upon the property.

Inspections of swimming pools will be carried out in accordance with relevant prescribed timeframes (subject to arrangements being made for access to the premises to undertake the inspection).

Education and Awareness

Pool owner education and awareness is an important contributing factor in lifting swimming pool safety compliance rates.

Regular community education and awareness program will be delivered through community publications, media releases, Council’s website, owner self-assessment checklists and customer enquires with Council officers during the inspection process.

The core pool safety messages will include the importance of pool barrier maintenance, adult supervision and knowledge of first aid. Further community education will also include the requirements of property owners with a swimming pool, sale and lease provisions and the promotion of official sources information.

Community Consultation

It is necessary for Council, as the relevant local authority, to consult with the community in relation to the development of the inspection program. The following is proposed in accordance with the Lane Cove Community Engagement Policy.

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to seek community views on the draft Swimming Pool Inspection Program. All comments, submissions and information received will be reviewed and evaluated in the context of the draft program and reported back to Council for consideration.

Method

Level of Participation	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	ENewsletter Council’s website exhibition	Engagement HQ Online survey
Indicative Timing	December 2023 - January 2024	December 2023 - January 2024

Conclusion

The draft swimming pool inspection program is proposed in response to the requirement of the swimming pool act and regulation. The draft addresses all the criteria of the legislation with a risk-based approach inspection program.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the draft Swimming Pool Inspection Program for the purposes of public exhibition and places it on exhibition for 42 days in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report.

Mark Brisby

Director - Planning and Sustainability

Planning and Sustainability Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

DRAFT Swimming Pool Inspection Program - November 2023

12 Pages

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Greenwich Baths Lease Arrangements - Community Consultation Outcomes

Subject: Greenwich Baths Lease Arrangements - Community Consultation Outcomes

Ordinary Council at its meeting on 23 November 2023 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting to held on the 07 December 2023.

Record No: SU2168 - 64585/23

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens

Executive Summary

Council considered a report Greenwich Baths Lease Arrangements (AT-1) at the September 2023 Meeting which recommended that Council enter into a new lease with the incumbent tenant and operator, Bluefit Pty Ltd (Bluefit). Council resolved that:-

“1. The report be received and noted;

2. Council defers a decision on this matter;

3. Council undertake community consultation with the intent of this consultation being to provide community members with an opportunity to outline their views as to the future operation of Greenwich Baths to include Option 1, 2 and an opportunity to outline alternative options;

4. Council receives a report at its November meeting on the outcome of this consultation and recommendations as to the future operation of the Baths; and

5. Pending Council’s decision as to the future operation of the Baths, the Baths continue to operate in holdover mode under the current lease as per Option 1 outlined in the Council report.

This report details the Community Consultation outcomes and recommends that Council enter into a 5-year lease with Bluefit under management and operation model “Option 1”.

Background

The current operator, Bluefit was the only respondent to Council’s “Request for Commercial Arrangements” issued on 26 July 2023 to manage the Baths. They proposed two operating models, Option 1 and Option 2. Based on feedback received prior to, and during the September Meeting, a third option (Option 3) was developed based on all year round free access to the Baths to allow for comparison with the submitted options.

To operate the baths, regardless of which options, the following activities are required:-

1. Daily beach cleaning;

2. Daily cleaning of showers and toilets (swimming season);

3. Weekly cleaning of showers and toilets (non-swimming season);

4. All garden maintenance (all year round);

5. On-site collection and removal of waste (all year round);

6. Maintenance of turn boards and ropes;

7. Annual Fire Safety and Pest Control inspections.

The Baths are currently open during the following times (Spring/Summer Season):

September: 7am to 5pm (aligned to commencement of school holidays)

October: 7am to 6pm

November: 7am to 7pm

December: 7am to 8pm

January: 7am to 8pm

February: 7am to 7pm

March: 7am to 6pm

April: 7am to 5pm

Pending Council’s decision, per point 5 Bluefit continue to operate the Baths under a holdover provision from the previous (expired) lease.

Discussion

Council released an email newsletter, website exhibition and online survey on 4 October 2023. The website exhibition included the following summary of the options:-

The website exhibition received a total of 367 visits before closing on 1 November. Of the total visitors, 60 undertook the survey. When prompted to rank Options 1, 2 and 3 in order, that is stating a preferred option, the respondents voted as follows:-

· Option 1 scored 32 (53.33%)

· Option 2 scored 15 (25.00%)

· Option 3 scored 13 (21.67%)

Respondents were invited to provide comments via free form text, below are some of the comments received:-

· “Option 1 provides most amenity and services to the community at a modest entry fee and will maintain this most precious community asset which has been a major attraction to families with young kids and people who enjoy swimming in the harbour. It will maintain the Baths as the pre-eminent harbourside community baths facility in Sydney which has attracted wide usage not only from Greenwich but from many other neighbouring suburbs.”

· “Coming down with the kids for nippers is a wonderful community experience. We've had some amazing Sunday mornings at the baths over the past few years.”

· “I love the current operating model, I think they provide great value for money and ensure a safe and clean environment for our family to visit”

· “Beach safety is a great service that benefits the community and needs to stay so our young people have access to a harbour beach in a safe environment.”

· “I like having a lifeguard on duty, kiosk open and clean facilities.”

· “Safer for young children, and happy to pay for this service.”

· “Parents look after children, so I think we don’t need lifeguards”

· “I think the baths should be open to the public as much as possible, and free of charge.”

· “Current model is excessive in price and limited in access. It’s a public beach let the public use it.”

It is worth noting, an informed desktop analysis has estimated that under Option 3, the additional cost to Council would exceed $80,000 per annum. This cost does not include the redeployment of existing Council staff and the necessary change in duties to accommodate the extra work with maintaining (to community satisfaction) the Baths site.

A complete list of the survey questions, responses and comments have been distributed to Councillor’s on a confidential basis.

Conclusion

Community consultation feedback displays a clear preference for the management and operating model Option 1 “Open Spring / Summer Season with Lifeguard Supervision”. Such an arrangement delivers continuity of service, site management and safety for Lane Cove residents and visitors to the Greenwich Baths.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. The report be received and noted;

2. Enter into a 5-year lease with Bluefit Pty Ltd based on Option 1 – Open Spring/Summer with school holiday and weekend lifeguards at a rent of $10,000 per annum.

3. Enter into a lease with TfNSW for that part of the land beyond the high mean watermark for a period matching the Bluefit Pty Ltd lease.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

REPORT - Greenwich Baths Lease Arrangements

3 Pages

Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Council Policies Review - Part 2

Subject: Council Policies Review - Part 2

Ordinary Council at its meeting on 23 November 2023 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting to held on the 07 December 2023.

Record No: SU241 - 20734/23

Division: Corporate and Strategy Division

Author(s): Stephen Golding

Executive Summary

Council’s Policy Register, located on the website, provides a full list of all policies adopted by Council. To ensure the Register continues to contain useful, relevant and current policies, Council Officers undertake reviews of all policies during the course of a Council term.

The purpose of this report is for Council to review and consider the re-adoption of the following policies as part of the ongoing policy review for the Council Term, which will extend throughout the remainder of this term:

· Council’s Contributions to Common Boundary Fences Policy,

· Enforcement Policy,

· Keeping Animals Policy,

· Trees and Tree Root Damage Claims Policy and

· Street Parties: Traffic and Parking Arrangements Policy,

This is the second report of a series of five reports to Council with policy review recommendations for adoption.

Background

The purpose of the review is to ensure that all policies are contemporary, compliant with current legislation and/or guidelines issued by State and Federal agencies, are consistent with Council’s direction and reflect industry standards.

Council previously reviewed and adopted polices at the July 2017 Ordinary Council meetings.

Discussion

This marks the second report of a series of five reports which will be presented to Council, over the course of the remaining council term, outlining the results of the review. Due to the sheer number of policies within the Policy Register, the plan is to present the revised policies to the Council gradually over the balance of the Council term, thereby providing sufficient time for the Council to review them, particularly if there are any proposed amendments.

Below is a summary of six (6) policies which have recently been reviewed. None of the policies require more than administrative amendments. Please note each of the policies outlined below contain a hyperlink (in the heading) to the current adopted policy version which is also located on Council’s website.

Contributions to Common Boundary Fences Policy

The purpose of this policy is to make clear Council’s position in relation to its obligations under the Dividing Fences Act, 1991.

This policy has been reviewed with no amendments required. (AT-1)

Enforcement Policy

This Policy provides structure for consistency and transparency in regulatory activities and enforcement actions and facilitates a proportional approach to compliance and enforcement.

The Policy provides guidelines and protocols for Council staff in the management of regulatory activities which will assist Council staff to act promptly, effectively and consistently in response to allegations of unlawful activity.

This policy has been reviewed with no amendments required. (AT-2)

Keeping Animals Policy

This policy informs the Lane Cove community of Council's regulatory powers concerning keeping animals in the urban environment. The policy aims to; minimise the incidence of nuisance caused by animals, protect the welfare of companion and domestic animals, protect the welfare and habitat of native fauna, minimise the disturbance and damage to protected vegetation and inform the community of the main statutory restrictions and acceptable limits which apply to the keeping of animals for domestic purposes.

This policy has been reviewed with no amendments required.(AT-3)

Trees and Tree Root Damage Claims Policy

This policy establishes the basis for the treatment of claims for reimbursement of the cost of injury or repair to damaged property alleged to have been caused by trees growing on Council land.

This policy has been reviewed with minor administrative amendments, including a more generic reference to Council’s insurer. (AT-4)

Street Parties: Traffic and Parking Arrangements Policy

This policy defines the requirements for short term road closures for street parties in local roads that have either: low traffic volumes, requiring Council approval; or high traffic volumes, requiring a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and RMS approval.

This policy has been reviewed with minor administrative amendments, including changing Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) to Transport for NSW (TfNSW). (AT-5)

Public Interest Disclosures – Internal Reporting Policy

All agencies in NSW are required to have a Public Interest Disclosure (PID) Policy under section 42 of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2022 (PID Act). Council’s Public Interest Disclosures – Internal Reporting Policy has been reviewed in line with the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2022.

The NSW Ombudsman released an “Overview of the new Public Interest Disclosure Act 2022” (AT-7) and “Developing your Public Interest Disclosure Policy Guidelines” (AT-8) that contains a Model PID Policy (Model Policy).

In order to adhere to the requirements of the PID Act 2022, the Draft Policy (AT-6) is the adopted NSW Ombudsman Model Policy (AT-8), with only necessary administrative changes required to align with Council's policy structures, formats and references to other related documents.

Conclusion

The above policy amendments ensure that the Policy Register is up to date with current practice and legislation. None of the amendments are such that it is considered necessary to undertake community consultation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the reviewed and updated policies

Steven Kludass

Director - Corporate and Strategy

Corporate and Strategy Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Draft - Policy HS-03-Contributions to Common Boundary Fences Policy	3 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Draft - Policy ES-05 Enforcement Policy	11 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Draft - Policy ES-08 - Keeping animals	17 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Draft - Policy CS-14 Trees and Tree Root Damage	4 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	Draft - Policy OSUS-04 Street Parties traffic and parking arrangements	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	Draft Policy-CS-07 Public Interest Disclosures - Internal Reporting Policy	20 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑7 View	Overview of the new PID Act 2022 Information sheet	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑8 View	Ombudsman NSW Developing-your-PID-Policy-guideline-(Model Policy)	33 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Update on Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and Sustainability Upgrades

Subject: Update on Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and Sustainability Upgrades

Record No: SU9072 - 68788/23

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Bernadette Riad

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the roll-out of on-street electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, the installation of solar PV on Council’s Civic Centre, and the upgrade of lighting at Pottery Green Oval to LED.

In an Australian first, street side power poles have been turned into charging stations for electric vehicles, with a total of nine chargers now up and running on local streets in Lane Cove. Combined with the chargers contained within Council’s off-street car parks, there are now 30 chargers installed within the 10.5 square kilometres of the Lane Cove local government area (LGA).

Works are also underway to install a 99.6kW at the Civic Centre and replace inefficient metal halide sports lighting at Pottery Green Oval with more efficient LEDs. It is recommended the report be received and noted.

Background

Council has an adopted target to reduce emissions from the Lane Cove Local Government Area (which includes Community, Business and Council) by 80% by 2030 (from a 2016/17 baseline), with an interim target of 20% by 2024. The most recent data available shows that as at 2021/22 the Lane Cove Local Government Area had achieved reductions of 11%.

Electricity and transport remain the largest contributors to emissions across the LGA and are the focus of initiatives covered in this report.

Context for the rollout of EV Charging Infrastructure

The NSW Government’s EV Strategy (2021) outlines one of the top 3 barriers to EV uptake as being charging availability.

To that point, recent data indicates that almost 30% of drivers in NSW do not have access to off-street parking to charge an EV. The provision of strategically located kerbside charging infrastructure will give these drivers confidence that their charging needs can be met and that an EV is a well-supported purchase.

Recognising the need to prepare for and accelerate the deployment and commercialisation of on-street charging infrastructure, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) awarded Intellihub $871,000 in funding for an Australian first deployment of 50 EV chargers on street side power poles across New South Wales.

Lane Cove Council was one of eight councils to be involved in the project, working with Intellihub to identify suitable sites, conduct community consultations, and seek the necessary approvals for the installation of 7 on-street chargers in our LGA.

During this time, Council also entered into discussions with Ausgrid to roll out an additional 2 on-street chargers on existing power poles.

Progress on the rollout of EV Chargers

The new on-street chargers were the first to be installed in the Intellihub program and are now available at parking spots at the following addresses:

· Pheonix Street, Lane Cove (opposite number 20)

· 11 Little Street, Lane Cove

· Cnr Oxley and Nicholson Streets, St Leonards

· 15-21 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North

· 2-4 Pinaroo Place, Lane Cove North

· 72 Christie Street, St Leonards

· 21 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West

· 54 Gordon Crescent, Lane Cove North (Ausgrid)

· 13-15 Greenwich Road, Greenwich (Ausgird)

The deployment of these chargers has been fully funded by the providers, with Council providing nominal funding to assist with line marking and parking signage.

As outlined in the community consultations undertaken in July of this year, parking at all 9 sites has been limited to 2 hours (for EVs only while charging) to provide adequate charge times and facilitate turnover for access to the chargers.

The 22 kilowatt chargers are user pays chargers, and connect directly to the overhead electricity network, with energy use being matched with 100% accredited GreenPower. All maintenance and operational costs are covered by the suppliers.

Following the announcement of kerbside charging grants by the NSW Government in July 2023, Council was approached by a number of potential applicants for further expansion of the kerbside EV chargers.

In total there are now 30 publicly available charges in the Lane Cove LGA, the largest Network in the NSROC Region.

Progress on Solar PV at the Civic Centre and Upgrades to Lighting at Pottery Green Oval

significant progress has been made in improving the Civic Centre's infrastructure to enable the installation of a 99.6kW solar PV system which will cover 30% of the Centre’s energy needs. To upgrade the existing 16kW solar PV system significant roof upgrades were required which are now complete. Installation of the new system is currently in progress, and is scheduled for completion in December, subject to the required approvals from Ausgrid.

Council has also commenced work to replace the sports field lighting at Pottery Green Oval to improve both energy efficiency and the lighting quality for users of this field. As part of this upgrade, Council will replace the existing 8 x 2000W metal halide lights with 8 x 1500w LEDs, providing a 25% reduction in energy consumption. When the Bob Campbell Oval upgrade project is complete all sportsfield lighting will utilise LED lighting.

Further to this, Council is also exploring opportunities to utilise funding through the Community Energy Upgrade Fund which will provide co-funding for energy efficiency and electrification upgrades of local government facilities that will include:

· Replacing high energy use gas heating in the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre with energy saving heat pumps

· Investing in other energy efficiency upgrades.

Guidelines for funding are due to be released this month, with applications open from January through to April 2024.

Conclusion

Despite a high percentage of our residents living in multi-unit dwellings, Lane Cove has a higher than average take up of EVs. The rollout of on-street chargers across the LGA will further improve accessibility to charging infrastructure for our residents and visitors alike.

The addition of the new 99.6kW solar PV system at the Civic Centre will cover 30% of the Centre’s energy needs, and bring the total solar capacity installed on Council facilities from 458kW to 557.5kW. It is worth noting that this local renewable generation is considerable when compared to that of neighbouring councils such as North Sydney and Willoughby Council who have a total installed capacity of 499kW and 400kW respectively.

The Pottery Green Sportsfield Oval lighting upgrade to LED will deliver a 25% reduction in energy use. All these initiatives further demonstrate Council’s leadership to achieve the adopted emission reduction targets for the Lane Cove LGA.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the report.

Mark Brisby

Director - Planning and Sustainability

Planning and Sustainability Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Report into Proposed Free Period Product Trial

Subject: Report into Proposed Free Period Product Trial

Record No: SU129 - 69211/23

Division: Community and Culture Division

Author(s): Susan Heyne

Executive Summary

This report responds to Council’s resolution in August 2023 to pilot a program of supplying free period products in Council-run facilities.

A national survey conducted in 2021 found that 15% of respondents living in NSW could not afford period products.

Council currently provides free period products to young people at the youth centre. At the start of 2023, the NSW Government installed over 4,000 vending machines providing free period products to students in public schools. However, there are still many community members who do not have access to free products.

Running a broader pilot program offering free period products in Lane Cove would help identify the need in the area. The approximate cost of installing and maintaining a vending machine that dispenses free period products is $3,500 excluding GST per year.

Background

At the Council meeting held 24 August 2023 Council resolved that:

1. Council Receives a report from Council Officers on a pilot program of supplying free period products in Council-run libraries, pools, community centres, sporting ground change rooms, and highly utilised public toilets. The report includes an assessment of the need for the service, the potential benefits, and the approximate cost for the 2024/2025 FY budget; and

2. Notifies relevant community organisations, health services, schools, and sports clubs about the pilot.

This report addresses the points in the above resolution.

Discussion

In July 2021 the “Period Pride Report: Bloody Big Survey Findings” was released. This was Australia’s largest survey on attitudes and experiences of periods to date. The report was commissioned by Share the Dignity, an Australian charity that distributes period products to anyone who menstruates and needs support.

The report uses the definition of “period poverty” as “the lack of access to sanitary products, menstrual hygiene education, toilets, handwashing facilities and waste management”. This situation is a result of a person not having access to, and not being able to afford, these essential items.

The survey found that 15% of respondents living in NSW could not afford period products and that this issue disproportionately impacts the unemployed, university and TAFE students, homeless people, the LGBTQIA+ community, and people displaced due to domestic violence. Data specific to Lane Cove about period poverty and the need for free period products is minimal and only anecdotal.

Synergy Youth Centre has provided free period products to young people attending the centre for over a year. Products are available from a box on a shelf near the toilets to be taken as needed. It is not monitored by staff other than replenishing the box as required. Records indicate that the team have not initiated any product reorders since the initial order placed over a year ago. Additionally, product consumption has been sporadic. The centre averages 500 visits from young people a month. Despite the low take up of products, Synergy will continue to provide free period products to young people at the centre.

Library staff have been approached on occasion and asked for period products. On these occasions products have been provided by staff personally. There has also been one occasion when staff have purchased products for a library visitor. The frequency of these occasions have not been high enough for the matter to be raised as an issue nor for products to be provided as part of the library’s hygiene facilities.

Delvena Women and Children’s Refuge has a period product dispenser provided by Share the Dignity at no cost to the organisation or residents.

At the start of 2023, the NSW Government installed over 4,600 dispensers in public schools across state, providing access to free period products to students.

Council is currently running a youth consultation program and questions about access to free period products have been included in the survey and also in the workshops. As part of the promotion of this consultation, local sporting clubs and community organisations received an email inviting them to participate in the consultation and share the information amongst their members. The consultation ends in December and there are insufficient responses at this time to provide input into this report.

The best way to measure the need for free period products is to run a pilot program. Other Councils that have run pilot programs to provide free period products include Inner West Council and City of Melbourne. As a result of these pilot programs, vending machines have now been permanently installed in council facilities across their local government areas.

When installing the dispensing machines, each Council carefully chose venues that are managed by the council, open for extended hours, easily accessible, and used by people of all ages, cultures, and socio-economic backgrounds. City of Melbourne selected 2 libraries, 2 community centres, one recreation/aquatic centre, and the public toilets at the Town Hall. Inner West Council, selected 3 libraries, 2 recreation/aquatic centres, and a youth centre.

Other councils that have installed vending machines in the Sydney Metropolitan Area include Blacktown City Council, Campbelltown City Council, Georges River Council and Penrith City Council. The vending machines in these councils are located in their library. Each of these vending machines were installed by Share the Dignity.

The cost of installing and maintaining a vending machine varies. A vending machine from Share the Dignity costs $25,000 to build, install and maintain for four (4) years. These machines dispense a pack containing six tampons and two pads. Share the Dignity installs their machines in areas of high need.

Inner West Council has engaged Enviro-LCS to install and maintain their vending machines. The cost of installing and maintaining one of their dispensers is $3,500 excl GST per annum. These machines dispense a single item, either a pad or a tampon, whichever the person chooses.

Ideally, a trial in Lane Cove would be located in the public toilets in the Canopy or the Library is preferred as these locations are centrally located and accessible. The selection of the preferred partner would be to support Share the Dignity is an innovative not for profit provider dedicated to providing practical solutions to tackle period poverty. However, it should be noted that a service such as Enviro-LCS provides a more sustainable approach to provision as only the types of products preferred by the user are provided.

Conclusion

Period poverty is a real issue for many people. However, until Council offers a solution, it is difficult to gauge the need.

Free products for NSW public school students is a great step toward addressing the issue for one part of the community, but there are other community members who do not have access to free products.

Running a pilot program in Lane Cove with at least one vending machine, located in a venue that is owned or managed by Council, open for extended hours, easily accessible and used by people of all ages, cultures and socio-economic background would provide the information needed to determine the need for such a service in this community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Pilot a 12-month free period product program with at least one dispenser and that this dispenser be located at Lane Cove Library with funding to be included in the budget for the 2024-2025 financial year;

2. Ensure that any other dispensers included in the pilot program are installed at venues that are owned or managed by Council, open for extended hours, easily accessible and used by people of all ages, cultures, and socio-economic background; and

3. Reviews the pilot program after 12 months to determine the ongoing need for dispensers.

Stephanie Kelly

Director - Community and Culture

Community and Culture Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Annual Community Satisfaction Survey Results

Subject: Annual Community Satisfaction Survey Results

Record No: SU7705 - 64364/23

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): Rachel Hensman

Executive Summary

Each year Council undertakes a Satisfaction Survey which aims to understand and identify the trends in community’s satisfaction with Council’s performance across various service delivery areas including planning and development, maintenance of roads and footpaths, parks and open space, and community services and facilities as well as the community’s level of satisfaction with Council’s overall performance.

In the 2023 survey, Council achieved an overall satisfaction rating of 90%, with 23% of residents stating they were very satisfied with Council’s overall performance. In addition to this, of the 20 service delivery areas surveyed, 14 received satisfaction ratings of more than 80%.

This report includes a summary of the ratings received across the service areas surveyed and provides high level analysis on the top performing areas and the areas noted for improvement.

It is recommended that the report be received and noted, and the results of the survey be published on Council’s website.

Background

Council has conducted a Customer / Community Satisfaction Survey each year since 1996, with the number of service delivery areas reviewed increasing over time. The annual survey allows Council to track progress in key service delivery areas in accordance with Council’s Community Strategic Plan and identifies the community’s level of satisfaction with the overall performance of Council. The survey is also used to better understand how the community contacts Council and the satisfaction with Council’s customer service, communication, and engagement.

In November 2022, the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey results were formally reported to Council and at its Ordinary Meeting on 24 November 2022, Council resolved to undertake the following actions:

“1. Receive and note the report.

2. Subject to appropriate budget provision in the Operational Plan 2023/24, a working group of Council staff and a suitably qualified external consultant be established to review the design and content of the Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey to ensure that Council can track trends but at the same time can identify new priorities and expectations of the community; and

3. The Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey to be conducted in 2023 shall incorporate the recommendations of this working group.”

Discussion

Survey Review

During June and July 2023, key internal stakeholders met to review Council’s existing customer experience and community satisfaction survey processes and completed a desktop review of other similar sized Councils across Sydney. Staff also engaged with external market research consultant Micromex to better understand potential changes to Council’s existing survey questions and process.

On 14 August 2023, the outcomes of the review were presented to Councillors at a Councillor Workshop with the following key refinements:-

§ Rename the survey the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey to distinguish it from the customer service specific surveys completed by Council officers throughout the year;

§ Move to a 5-point rating scale (from the existing 4-point scale) to align with both the Community Strategic Plan consultation methodology and to allow for benchmarking with other Councils;

§ Revised verbatim question to ask the community for “the service they value the most and the Council service or activity they would like to see improved”;

§ Removal of any survey questions no longer required, and addition of any service area KPIs included in the Annual Report;

§ Continued reporting of survey results to Council and making the survey results available on Council’s website.

Survey Methodology

The 2023 Annual Community Satisfaction Survey was completed by 402 residents via telephone (36% landline and 64% mobile), with calls taking place between 14 – 23 September 2023. 50% of the survey respondents were recruited via a computer based random sample using data available to Micromex and 50% were contacted via a Council supplied database of customers who had contacted Council since the start of the year for a customer service request.

To allow the change from the 4-point rating scale previously used to a 5-point rating scale, the question regarding overall satisfaction was asked twice in the survey (once at the beginning and again at the end) using both scales. A further explanation of this process and the conversion method is contained in the Customer Satisfaction Survey Results report included as AT-1.

Community Satisfaction Results

Using the new 5-point rating scale (with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest), 90% of residents rated Lane Cove Council in the top 3 ratings (at least somewhat satisfied). This is on par with the Micromex benchmark which uses survey results from 22 other Councils as a comparison.

It is interesting to note that when a breakdown of the individual ratings is completed, 23% of Lane Cove residents said they were ‘very satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance compared to the Micromex benchmark result of only 11%.

Figure 1.0 - Overall satisfaction with Lane Cove Council compared to Micromex benchmark

In addition to the overall satisfaction rating, the community is asked to rate the performance of Council in 20 individual service delivery areas which sit under the broad themes of Natural and Built Environment, Community Services and Facilities, Culture and Recreation, Local Economic Development and Council Services and Engagement.

Of these 20 service areas, 14 received satisfaction ratings of more than 80%. The below graphic shows the top 5 highest rated service areas in terms of satisfaction.

Figure 2.0 - Top 5 service areas by satisfaction rating

In comparison to the 2022 Satisfaction Survey, it should be noted that special events, the library and Lane Cove Aquatic Centre all appeared in the top 5 last year with all three rating 98% or higher. In 2022, Special Events was also the highest rated service area scoring 100%.

The importance of some of these service areas is also noted in the verbatim comments, with both community events/activities and the library ranking equal third for the most valued service.

The below graphic shows the bottom 5 service areas in terms of satisfaction rating, with even the lowest rated area for satisfaction – control of development – achieving 63%.

Figure 3.0 - Bottom 5 service areas by satisfaction rating

The following commentary is provided in relation to the lower performing areas.

Control of development was also the lowest ranked area for community satisfaction in 2022 (69%). 6% of residents raised control of development as an area for improvement in the open question and a review of the verbatim feedback provided shows that the main concern expressed by residents is a desire for a stronger role in the development approval processes and in particular an interest in controlling and influencing local development projects. Further comments noted concerns regarding the impact of the construction work itself on both residents and the environment.

Community satisfaction with consultation and engagement rated at 75%. Although this is slightly lower than the rating received in 2022 (79%), the result is on par with the Micromex benchmark satisfaction rating of 76%.

In their feedback, residents advocate for more inclusive and transparent community engagement, however, the majority of comments relate specifically to consultation and engagement around development applications and other significant changes within the LGA. Council during the year reviewed an updated it community engagement strategy based on the IAP2 Consultation Framework and has recently introduced (July 2023) a new online community engagement platform, Engagement HQ, that better facilitates the community in having their say.

Traffic Management responses related to traffic flow, speed control, and congestion resulting from new developments. They seek solutions to improve traffic management and safety on local roads. These issues are typically area specific and Council continues its regular program of addressing issues on a priority basis. In 2022/23 Council developed for consultation a major traffic management strategy for the Mowbray Precinct which particularly focuses on all the matters raised in that area, and when adopted funding is available for implementation.

Council communication, especially when contacting council staff via telephone scored 78%. To improve this area (it was also identified in the 2022 survey) Council launched its new centralised new call centre in October 2023. The impact of this on the satisfaction rating should be evident in next year’s survey.

Tree Management by Council included mixed feedback re. approval process, maintenance of existing Council trees, request for more trees, handling of requests relating to dangerous trees. Council new website has been significantly improved in relation to tree management. The tree assessment process averages a three-week turnaround. Council has increased significantly, through the use of additional contracted resources, improved Council owned tree maintenance and planting programs.

Council’s website received a satisfaction rating of 84% compared to the Micromex benchmark of 88%. Again, it is important to note that Council launched a new website in July 2023 which now includes mobile compatibility and is continuing to review and update the content based on customer feedback. Given the new website had only been live for around 2.5 months when the survey was conducted, the impact of this on the satisfaction rating will be evident in next year’s survey.

Finally, the graphic below (Figure 4.0) shows the most valued services as noted by residents in the open question towards the end of the survey. Waste and recycling was mentioned by 32% of residents, well above any other service, demonstrating the importance to residents for Council to perform its core functions well. The satisfaction rating for this area sits at 90% which is on par with last year’s score of 92%.

Recreational and/or sporting facilities was the most valued service for 22% of Lane Cove’s residents with verbatim comments stressing the importance of a well-maintained and safe environment for recreation. In this area, sports fields, parks and playgrounds all scored above 90% satisfaction rating.

Figure 4.0: Most valued services

Conclusion

It is recommended that the report be received and noted, and the results of the survey be published on Council’s website.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this report; and

2. Publishes the results of the 2023 Annual Community Satisfaction Survey on Council’s website.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Annual Community Satisfaction Survey Results - 2023

40 Pages

Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

IPART - Final Report on the Rate Peg Methodology Review

Subject: IPART - Final Report on the Rate Peg Methodology Review

Record No: SU914 - 67207/23

Division: Corporate and Strategy Division

Author(s): Don Johnston

Executive Summary

The Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has recently released its final report on its review of the rate peg methodology. The final report was released following consideration of feedback received during the consultation period, including Council’s submission, and sets out IPART’s decisions on the new rate peg methodology and how it will be implemented.

Overall, the new methodology is supported. It responds favourably to a number of points in Council’s submission on the draft report. One area which has not been reformed is the population growth factor, which has not been modified. Council has to date never received additional rate peg from population growth under the current and now continuing formula, which is a missed opportunity. Overall however, the changes are a sensible approach to a forward-looking rate peg methodology. It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

Background

IPART released its draft report on the rate peg methodology in June 2023. Council considered a report on IPART’s suggested approach on 20 July 2023 and resolved to endorse the lodged submission. In summary, Council’s submission was to:

1. Support using annual wage increases in the Local Government (State) Award, together with any one-off adjustments under the Award;

2. Support releasing an indicative rate peg in September but expressing concern that the final announcement, including an adjustment for the Emergency Services Levy (ESL), in May was too late and should be in February instead;

3. Support the establishment of adjustment factors to cover specific external costs such as cyber security;

4. Support a staged transition to the new methodology;

5. Support the proposal to review the methodology every 5 years; and

6. Not support the retention of the productivity factor.

IPART received 73 submissions on its draft report.

Discussion

The final report on the rate peg methodology was released on 9 November 2023. The full 228 page report is available on the IPART website - Final-Report-Review-of-the-rate-peg-methodology-August-2023.PDF (nsw.gov.au). An extract from the report’s Executive Summary is attached as AT-1 summarising IPART’s decisions. Each of IPART’s decisions on the new methodology appear below with a brief comment.

· Measure the annual change in NSW councils’ base costs for 3 groups of councils (instead of one that includes all NSW councils) to better account for the diversity of their base cost patterns. These groups are metropolitan, regional, and rural councils.

This is a positive outcome for the industry as a whole. Regional and rural councils experience different cost pressures to metropolitan councils and this will be reflected going forward.

· Use a new, simpler model with forward-looking indicators to measure this change instead of the LGCI [Local Government Cost Index]. This measure, the Base Cost Change (BCC), comprises 3 components that we consider better capture councils’ costs:

o Employee costs (primarily wages, including superannuation guarantee) measured by the Local Government (State) Award.

o Asset costs measured by the Reserve Bank of Australia’s (RBA’s) forecast change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), adjusted to reflect the average difference between changes in the Producer Price Index (Road and bridge construction, NSW) and changes in the CPI.

o All other operating costs (including administration, utility costs, insurance but excluding the Emergency Services Levy (ESL)) measured by the RBA’s forecast change in the CPI.

This is a sensible and transparent way to capture annual increases in councils’ costs and addresses Council’s submission on wage increases.

· Include a separate council-specific ESL factor, lagged by one year, that reflects the annual change in each council’s ESL contribution.

While the one-year lag is not ideal for what can be a quite volatile number, this is a sensible approach due to the timing of the announcement of annual ESL contributions (April each year) and will enable the ongoing pre-Christmas announcement of the annual rate peg.

Council’s submission supported the September release of an indicative rate peg. IPART decided not to do this given the lagged approach to the ESL cost component and continuation of announcing the rate peg in September/October each year.

· Maintain our existing approach and make additional adjustments for costs driven by external factors outside councils’ control as needed, if ratepayers will benefit from these costs and we have the information we need to calculate the necessary adjustment. These costs may include managing climate change impacts and cyber security threats, for example.

Examples of IPART’s existing approach include adjustments to account for changes in the superannuation guarantee in 2021-22, which were included in the 2023-24 rate peg and for local government election costs. The adjustment for local government election costs was followed by a negative adjustment the following year.

Again, this is seen as a sensible acknowledgement that external factors can impact on councils’ base costs and should be reflected in the rate peg as and when required and is consistent with Council’s submission.

· Continue to add a population factor but use a refined approach to more accurately measure the change in councils’ residential populations by deducting prison populations from the residential population in a council area and then calculating the growth in the non-prisoner residential population of a council area for the relevant year.

This is an important issue for high growth areas and its continuing inclusion is a positive outcome for all councils although no refinements were introduced.

· Retain the productivity factor in the rate peg methodology and for it to remain as zero by default unless there is evidence to depart from that approach. This may include further analysis and consultation on the factor and considering outcomes of other local government reviews which could inform other ways of driving productivity and determining the appropriate role of the productivity factor.

Council’s submission did not support the retention of a productivity factor in the rate peg methodology and, to that extent, the decision to retain it is disappointing. On a more positive note, it is to remain as zero by default.

In addition to the decisions specifically related to the rate peg itself, IPART made a number of related decisions.

· We will review our rate peg methodology at least every 5 years using a transparent and consultative review process.

Council supported this position in its submission and welcomes the initiative.

· We have decided to establish a council implementation reference group to advise us on the implementation of our new rate peg methodology. The purpose of the reference group would be to identify any practical issues or unintended consequences that might arise from implementation. We will develop a Terms of Reference for the reference group and consult publicly on this.

Council supported the formation of a reference group in its submission subject to more information being provided on its role, objectives, membership terms, recruitment process and potential remuneration. It would appear that this additional information will become evident in the Terms of Reference and/or during the consultation process.

· Although our decisions on the rate peg methodology will address some of the concerns stakeholders have, the rate peg methodology is a part of the broader regulatory framework which may require legislative change to address all stakeholder concerns. We recommend the NSW Government commission an independent review of the financial model of councils.

In its submission, Council made an additional comment in relation to ‘Build-to-Rent’ developments and the inequity that arises between singly owned large-scale developments and strata titled developments. One of the themes that led to IPART’s recommendation for an independent review was to “ensure rates affordability and equity of the rating system”. The review should therefore provide Council with an opportunity to again raise this issue and push for a change to the rating system to address the inequity.

Finally, it is worth reiterating from the Council report on IPART’s draft report that, while Council welcomes the review and is supportive of the decisions made, rate pegging severely compromises Council’s ability to meet residents’ expectations. Considering the practices across the rest of Australia, the best course of action would be to eliminate rate pegging entirely. In the absence of that, the base cost change model will at least be a better measure of cost increases and result in a better rate peg.

Announcement of the 2024/25 Rate Peg

IPART announced the 2024/25 rate peg on 21 November using the new BCC model.

Based on the new BCC models for the 2024-25 financial year:

· Employee costs represent between 36% and 41% of council costs and will rise by 4.5%.

· Asset costs represent between 18% and 26% of council costs and are forecast to rise by 4.0%.

· Other operating costs represent between 38% and 41% of council costs and are forecast to rise by 3.2%

This results in a BCC increase of 3.9% for 2024/25.

In addition, IPART made adjustments for superannuation and the ESL. The superannuation adjustment is 0.4% for all councils. Lane Cove’s ESL adjustment is 0.6%, remembering that this is calculated using the 2023/24 increase in ESL. Lane Cove’s population factor is again 0.0%. In total, Council’s rate peg for 2024/25 is:

Base Cost Change	3.9%
Superannuation adjustment	0.4%
ESL factor	0.6%
Population factor	0.0%
2024/25 Rate Peg	4.9%

Conclusion

The move away from the Local Government Cost Index, which uses past increases in costs, to the Base Cost Change model using forward-looking indices and known external cost increases will no doubt improve the setting of the annual rate peg. IPART’s decision to review the model at least every 5 years will ensure that it remains relevant and effective.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the report.

Steven Kludass

Director - Corporate and Strategy

Corporate and Strategy Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Extract from Executive Summary - IPART Final Report

Ordinary Council Meeting 07 December 2023

Planning Reforms, Housing Targets and Regulatory Enforcement

Subject: Planning Reforms, Housing Targets and Regulatory Enforcement

Record No: SU3486 - 70876/23

Division: Lane Cove Council

Author(s): Councillor Merri Southwood

1. I refer to the announcement by the Department of Planning and Environment of proposed new planning rules to fast track low and medium -rise housing.

In 2018 Council lodged a Planning Proposal to seek to prohibit multi-dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

As part of the Gateway process, Council was required to provide to the Department of Planning and Environment “The total number of lots eligible for manor houses/multi-dwelling housing under the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code area in R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones (taking into account the SEPP exclusions)”.

On 30 October 2018 Mr Michael Mason, Executive Manager-Environmental Services advised the Department that “The totals for the R2 and R3 zones are 2565 and 120 respectively”.

Council’s proposal was subsequently approved for gazettal by the Department.

What is Council’s current estimate of lots eligible for manor houses/multi-dwelling housing under the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code area in R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones (taking into account the SEPP exclusions}.

2. Council is aware of or in receipt of several proposals to construct build to rent developments on commercial sites.

Are build to rent dwellings classed as dwellings for the purposes of housing targets?

What is Council’s current estimate of the housing stock that could be created if the build to rent proposals, of which it is aware, are delivered?

3. Community members often report to Councillors what appears to be wilful damage or destruction of trees on public land.

Is the preferred way to report concerns through the Development and Compliance page under the Report It tab?

Does Council have a publicly accessible register of reported locations of alleged damage or destruction?

Are details of infringements issued or legal action taken for damage or destruction of trees on public land displayed on the Council Snapshot and, if so, where?

4. In the event that Council becomes aware that consent conditions in an approved DA are inadequate to manage a risk, does Council have the right to vary such conditions unilaterally?

If yes and, if the conditions have been determined by an authority other than Council, which authority must determine the variation of such condition(s)?

Response from Director Planning and Infrastructure

1. What is Council’s current estimate of lots eligible for manor houses/multi-dwelling housing under the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code area in R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones (taking into account the SEPP exclusions}.

Based on Council’s previous Planning Proposal which analysed the entire LGA, approximately 2,565 (R2 zoned) lots were eligible to do either manor houses or multi-dwelling housing and 120 (R3 zoned) lots were eligible to do either manor houses or multi-dwelling housing. These numbers were based on previous SEPP exclusions.

While staff have not seen the full details of the proposed State Government changes, it is known that these changes will only apply to areas within 800 metres or either a railway station or town centre. Based this, approximately 1,537 (R2 zoned) lots and 88 (R3 zoned) lots would be eligible for the new SEPP. It is reasonable to assume that the number of eligible lots (mentioned above) would be reduced further depending on State Government’s lot size restrictions

2. Are build to rent dwellings classed as dwellings for the purposes of housing targets?

What is Council’s current estimate of the housing stock that could be created if the build to rent proposals, of which it is aware, are delivered?

They are classed as dwellings but it is unclear whether or not they can be counted towards housing targets. The DPE have not provided a definitive position.

Council is only aware of two sites proposed for build-to-rent in the commercial area at this stage. The Telstra Exchange site is proposed to have 272 dwellings, while the Nicholson Street site is proposed to have approximately 250 dwellings.

3. Community members often report to Councillors what appears to be willful damage or destruction of trees on public land. Is the preferred way to report concerns through the Development and Compliance page under the Report It tab?

Yes in the first instance. In emergency situations Councillors are able to contact the Director, Planning & Sustainability direct.

Does Council have a publicly accessible register of reported locations of alleged damage or destruction?

Are details of infringements issued or legal action taken for damage or destruction of trees on public land displayed on the Council Snapshot and, if so, where?

Yes as part of the Planning & Sustainability Report – Infringements.

4. In the event that Council becomes aware that consent conditions in an approved DA are inadequate to manage a risk, does Council have the right to vary such conditions unilaterally?

If yes and, if the conditions have been determined by an authority other than Council, which authority must determine the variation of such condition(s)?

Not applicable

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

Councillor Merri Southwood

Councillor

Lane Cove Council

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

AT‑1 View	Agenda - November 2023 Traffic Committee	76 Pages
AT‑2 View	Minutes - November 2023 Traffic Committee	10 Pages

AT‑1 View	Council Snapshot - November 2023	41 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Resolution Tracker Report - November 2023	37 Pages	Available Electronically