Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee · Minutes - Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee 9 November 2016 Page 1 FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION

MINUTES

Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee

Wednesday, 9 November 2016, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 2

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 3

FPOL1611-2 TENDER FCC476/16 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SUPERINTENDENCY SERVICES FOR FREMANTLE PARK 3

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 7

FPOL1611-1 FUTURE USE OF THE DIFFERENTIAL RATE AND FREMANTLE BID EXTENSION REQUEST 7

FPOL1611-3 BUSTER THE FUN BUS SERVICE AGREEMENT 21

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION 24

FPOL1611-4 PARKING INFRINGEMENT APPEALS POLICY 27

FPOL1611-5 GRAFFITI VANDALISM ACT 2016 32

FPOL1611-6 RATE CONCESSION COUNCIL SUBMISSION - 7 STRANG COURT BEACONSFIELD - MIRCO AND AMENTI 36

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 39

FPOL1611-7 ITEM WITHDRAWN CONFIDENTIAL REPORT – MAJOR EVENT SUPPORT 39

CLOSURE OF MEETING 40

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 41

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee

9 November 2016

Page 1

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 9 November 2016 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.07 pm.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

"We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today."

IN ATTENDANCE

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Andrew Sullivan Presiding member / South Ward Cr David Hume Deputy presiding member / Beaconsfield Ward Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Mr Philip St John Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Fiona Hodges Director Community Development Mr Graham Tattersall Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery Ms Beverley Bone Manager Community Development Mr Matthew Piggott Manager Field Services Mrs Linda Keys Minute Secretary There were approximately 5 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Nil

LEAVE OF ABSENCE


9 November 2016

Page 2

Nil

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the minutes of the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee as listed in the Council agenda dated 12 October 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item FPOL16011-1: Olwyn Williams


9 November 2016

Page 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Nil

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

FPOL1611-2 TENDER FCC476/16 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SUPERINTENDENCY SERVICES FOR FREMANTLE PARK

ECM Reference: FCC476/16 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 November 2016 Previous Item: FPOL 1607-6 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Project Manager, Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tenders were advertised for an architect to manage four key phases of the redevelopment of Fremantle Park that will involve, construction of shared clubroom facilities, changerooms, tennis court and bowling green improvements, and new parking facilities. This report recommends that Council award Site Architecture Studio the contract to supply the architectural design and superintendency services for Fremantle Park and to commence Phase 1 of the project only at a value of $54,060.

BACKGROUND

In 2011 the Fremantle Park Bowling Club, Fremantle Lawn Tennis Club and Fremantle Park Association formed a joint working group to explore a proposal for a multi-use community facility at Fremantle Park. The three founding clubs will form a new entity to run and operate the facility. The current clubrooms for both the Fremantle Bowls Club and Fremantle Lawn Tennis Club were constructed more than 50 years ago and the facilities are in need of refurbishment or replacement to meet member and community user requirements. The scope of the redevelopment is anticipated to include new shared clubhouse facilities for up to 280 people, including appropriate amenities, storage, change-rooms, tennis and bowling courts improvements and new car parking facilities for use by the general public and stakeholders.


9 November 2016

Page 4

Tenders were advertised in the West Australian newspaper and via the Tenderlink portal on 24 August 2016, for a suitably qualified and experienced architect to deliver the following four key phases:

Phase 1 – Site plan and outline concept plans;

Phase 2 – Detailed design;

Phase 3 - Tender documentation for construction; and

Phase 4 – Superintendency of construction. The tender closed on 23 September 2016. COMMENT Sixteen tenders were received in response to the advertisement from the following organisations:

1. Trustee for the BDG Trust t/as Bollig Design Group. 2. Trustee for Chaney Architecture Trust. 3. SPH Pty Ltd. 4. Slavin Hart Architects Pty Ltd. 5. Site Architecture Studio. 6. SIA Architects Pty Ltd. 7. Quattro Architecture 8. Oldfield Knott Architects Pty Ltd. 9. Lycopodium Infrastructure Pty Ltd. 10. Holton Connor Architects and Planners. 11. Hodge Collard Preston Pty Ltd. 12. Gresley Abas Architects. 13. Christou Design Group. 14. Bernard Seeber Pty Ltd. 15. Armstrong Parkin Architects Pty Ltd. 16. (A) POD Pty Ltd t/as Donovan Payne Architects.

The evaluation panel, consisting of 4 City officers, assessed all responses against the qualitative criteria outlined in the tender. The qualitative criteria and their relevant weighting were:

a) Relevant Experience 20% b) Skills and Key Personnel 20% c) Demonstrated Understanding 20% d) Price 40%

The evaluation panel rated the responses using the criteria above resulting in the following scores and overall ranking:


9 November 2016

Page 5

Following the initial evaluation, the highest scoring respondent, Site Architecture Studio were invited to attend a clarification meeting with the tender panel and project sponsor. The evaluation panel were happy that Site Architecture Studio has the required expertise, a good understanding of the complexity of this specific project and that their handling of issues will not leave the City or its stakeholders exposed to unnecessary risk.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

The estimated total contract price is $210,580 excluding GST. The value of phase 1 is $54,060. The delivery of design work has been broken down into 4 phases. Each phase will be subject to stakeholder approval before the architects may proceed to the next phase. $100,000 has been approved for this financial year (16/17) to develop the detailed design. The capital cost for future financial years is proposed to be funded via a three way arrangement:

City of Fremantle ($1.85 million);

Fremantle Workers Social and Leisure Club Inc. ($1.85 million); and

Department of Sport and Recreation ($400,000). As part of the overall project, the City will evaluate the potential to fund the provision of an at-grade car park, which will not form part of the FPS & CC lease arrangements. The estimated cost of this car park is currently $350,000.

Service

Delivery Plan

Relevant

Experience

Key Personal

Skills and

Experience

Demonstrated

Understanding

of the Project

Price Total Score

Quoter/Tenderer (Company Name) 20 20 20 40 100

Trustee for the BDG Trust T/AS Bollig Design Group 14 12 14 27.5 67.5 6

Trustee for Chaney Architecture Trust 10 11 12 28.6 61.6 12

SPH Pty Ltd 11 10 12 28.2 61.2 13

Slavin Architects Pty Ltd 13 13 15 28.0 69.0 5

Site Architecture Studio 16 16 15 39.8 86.8 1

SIA Architects Pty Ltd 9 9 9 40.0 67.0 7

Quattro Architecture 11 11 11 24.3 57.3 14

Oldfield Knott Architects Pty Ltd 11 11 10 19.0 51.0 16

Lycopodium Infrastrucutre Pty Ltd 11 12 13 28.3 64.3 10

Holton Connor Architects and Planners 12 13 13 33.1 71.1 4

Hodge Collard Preston Pty Ltd 12 12 13 39.9 76.9 3

Gresley Abas Architects 14 13 14 22.8 63.8 11

Christou Design Group 12 13 14 25.6 64.6 9

Bernard Seeber Pty Ltd 10 10 12 21.9 53.9 15

Armstrong Parkin Pty Ltd 12 11 12 31.0 66.0 8

(A)POD Pty Ltd t/a Donovan Payne Architects 14 14 16 33.9 77.9 2

Overall Rank


9 November 2016

Page 6

Legal

The Contract is expected to commence in January 2017 for a period of up to 24 months. The Terms and Conditions of Contract will be the City’s Provision of Goods and Services Contract.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The delivery of Phase 1 will include engagement with stakeholders in the development of the preparation of 3 options for the layout of the site and in the finalisation of the concept plan.

CONCLUSION

Based on a detailed evaluation of tenders received it is recommended that Site Architecture Studio be awarded the contract to supply the architectural design and superintendency services for Fremantle Park.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Award Site Architecture Studio the contract to supply the architectural design and superintendency services for Fremantle Park and to commence Phase 1 of the project only at a value of $54,060.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson


9 November 2016

Page 7

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

FPOL1611-1 FUTURE USE OF THE DIFFERENTIAL RATE AND FREMANTLE BID EXTENSION REQUEST

ECM Reference: Document ID 3282430 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 November 2016 Previous Item: SGS1205-5 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Manager Economic Development and Marketing Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Fremantle BID request for five year extension of

agreement Survey of businesses 2014 Survey of businesses 2016 Business workshop report: 22 August 2016 Fremantle Business Forum summary: 7 October 2016 Letter from Fremantle Chamber of Commerce re: use of differential rate funds – Fremantle BID

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In April 2011, council adopted the Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2011-15. A key task of the strategy was to “seek to establish a Business Improvement District (BID).” On 23 May 2012 Council resolved:

1. That the proposed Fremantle Business Improvement District (BID) Company Limited Constitution be noted;

2. That the Business Plan be supported; 3. That the Funding and Performance Agreement between the City of

Fremantle and the Fremantle Business Improvement District (BID) Company Limited be approved.

From the 2012/13 financial year, the BID has been effectively funded through collection of the ‘differential rate’, paid by property owners in a defined area within the Fremantle CBD. Between 2012/13 and 2016/17 the City of Fremantle provided approximately $1.8 million of ‘differential rate’ funding to the Fremantle BID in order for it to deliver the Business Plan supported by Council. On 27 October 2016 the BID Chairperson wrote to the CEO to request a five year extension to the BID agreement. The BID’s letter and proposed actions are included as attachments. The quantum of funding requested by the BID totals approximately $1.8 million over the proposed five year term (up to and including 2021/22). The main consideration before Council is - if the differential rate is collected:


9 November 2016

Page 8

1. What kinds of services should it be spent on? 2. Who should administer the funding and how?

Consideration of the BID’s request requires evaluation of the BID’s performance against the 2012 BID agreement and aggregate funding, evaluation of the new proposal and proposed actions, feedback from the business community, and cursory exploration of other potential options for use of the differential rate funding. The purpose of this report is to recommend that the BID’s request not be accepted for the reasons that (a) the proposed actions are considered to be too diverse and potentially lacking in impact and (b) it is likely that a more effective model for distributing the differential rate money can be identified based on lessons learned from the differential rate working group and the BID project. This report recommends Council request Officers explore alternative governance models for the future use of the differential rate from 2017/18 financial year onwards, based on a set of principles intended to empower and engage the Fremantle business community to use the funding to its full capacity.

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of the 2008/09 financial year, the City of Fremantle introduced a City Centre Commercial Rate to ‘fund the management, administration and delivery of activities aimed at enhancing economic and social viability, and general amenity, of the Fremantle Central Business District (CBD)’. Since that time, the City has levied the City Centre Commercial Rate on all commercial land parcels within the coloured area of the CBD on the below map.


9 November 2016

Page 9

The funding for the BID is effectively raised through the City Centre Commercial Rate, which, in 2016/17, has a rate in the dollar of $0.079439, compared with the Commercial and industrial general rate in the dollar of $0.075223. The difference in the two is commonly called the ‘differential rate’. In April 2011, council adopted the Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2011-15. Action 3.1 of the Strategy was to “implement the Fremantle Retail Model Plan (2010) recommendations relating to better-whole-of-city retail management and coordination” with the key task of “seek to establish a Business Improvement District (BID) as identified in the retail model plan.” At that time, the City established a BID steering group comprised of 11 members of the business community and two City Officers. A survey of property owners undertaken to inform the scope of the BID’s activities identified the following priorities:


9 November 2016

Page 10

As a result of the consultation, the steering group resolved the key issues to be addressed by the BID, once it was created. In addition to the overall management of the Fremantle CBD:

A united business voice

Improved safety and security

Coordinated marketing, promotions and events

Improved car parking services The Fremantle BID was established in late 2012 on the basis of the BID Funding and Performance Agreement and the original BID Business Plan, adopted by Council in May 2012. Since 2012/13, the City’s funding arrangement with the BID has been as follows:

Financial year Funding

2012/13 $315,000 + $50,000

2013/14 $322,875 + $150,000

2014/15 $330,947

2015/16 $339,221

2016/17 $347,701

Total $1,855,744

BID funding and performance agreement 2012-2017 The overall intention was that the Fremantle BID provides commercial property and business owners and other stakeholders with a unified voice to more effectively manage the BID area. According to the agreement, the purposes of the BID Project include:

implementing initiatives to improve, promote and develop the image of the Business District and business conditions within it;

improving the safety, amenity and atmosphere within the Business District;

increasing the competitive potential of businesses in the Business District by attracting more visitors to the Business District; and

positioning the Business District as a key destination for shopping, business and leisure.


9 November 2016

Page 11

The agreement states that ‘the Company shall not be subject to any direction from the City in respect of the manner in which the Company delivers its programs and activities and may exercise its independent discretion as to the most appropriate and effective manner of doing so’. Therefore, the BID has functioned autonomously from Council. BID Business Plan The BID’s role is described in the business plan as:

1. Promote the development and advancement of commercial and trading interests of business in the Business District (Fremantle CBD) through a coordinated and structured promotion and planning program.

2. Foster the wellbeing and economic development of the Business District. 3. Implement public relations and marketing activities to generate positive publicity

for the Business District, including activities to market the Business District as a place to do business.

4. Enhance safety and security and to attract and retain business. Since 2012/13 the BID has delivered annual reports and evaluation surveys to its members and the City. Fairly minor changes to the agreement and business plan have been proposed by the BID board over the lifespan of the BID agreement; these have been accepted by the City’s CEO, as per the terms of the agreement. To date, the BID has increased its membership to 397 members. It is free to become a member of the BID and it is estimated that there are 600 eligible members within the BID area. Evaluation surveys Two surveys of the Fremantle business community have been undertaken by City Officers during the life of the BID: once in late 2014 and once in September 2016 in preparation for this report (both are attachments to this report). The key findings from the business surveys (2014 and 2016) are as follows: Q. How do you rate the BID’s performance (2014)?

Q. How do you rate the BID’s performance (2016)?


9 November 2016

Page 12

Q. Various questions (2014)

Q. Do you think the BID has used the differential rate money well (2016)?

Q. What kinds of things do you think the differential rate money should be spent on (2016)?

Comments from the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce The Fremantle Chamber of Commerce are highly active in the Fremantle community and have been an interested observer of the BID since its inception. The Chamber’s former CEO held a position on the BID board for approximately the first three years of its existence. The Chamber’s letter in response to the BID’s proposal is included as an


9 November 2016

Page 13

attachment. The letter expresses concerns over the appropriateness and effectiveness of the BID business plan and states that the Chamber does not support the proposal from the BID.

COMMENT

Main consideration before Council The topic of the differential rate has drawn out a range of opinions and suggestions from the Fremantle business community. These have been presented in the two formal surveys conducted by City Officers as well as various business forums, general meetings and workshops since its creation. When the issue is distilled to its core elements, the main consideration before Council is if the differential rate is collected:

1. What kinds of services should it be spent on (i.e. service definition)? 2. Who should administer the funding and how?

A business as usual approach would involve extending the BID agreement as per its request. This approach is not recommended. It is likely that an alternative governance model can be developed that delivers more impactful and durable outcomes from the differential rate. Additionally, future activities should have closer linkages to the major issues identified by the business community. BID reporting on key achievements The BID has reported its key achievements in the attachment to this report. Lessons learned

1. The impost on the time of volunteer BID Directors is considerable. The dedication and commitment of the BID board members should be recognised and applauded. However, it is questionable whether this level of involvement is appropriate and sustainable in the long-term. The project should not require such onerous involvement from BID Directors.

2. Greater direction from Council is needed. Relatively vague statements in the original business plan such as ‘foster wellbeing and economic development of the business district’ has given the BID little clarity on where it should have focused its resources and activities.

3. The business community is not united in its opinion of the BID’s choice of activities and priorities.

4. It is preferable that the money be used on less projects in a more impactful way. 5. The creation of the BID has not succeeded in meeting one of its original intentions

of being “a united business voice” for Fremantle. In many ways it has resulted in the opposite – it has at times been controversial and divisive.

6. BIDs are most successful with a clearly defined purpose for being and a clear performance measures. In retrospect, the original business plan may have been too open to interpretation, scope creep and duplication of Council services. A lack of defined scope and clear service definition is the likely cause behind the perception from parts of the business community, including the Chamber, that the BID has not focused on the right activities.

7. Use of differential rate funding on capital works projects is not desirable.


9 November 2016

Page 14

8. The fifth guiding principle in the original 2012-17 BID business plan says the BID has a narrowly defined responsibility; however, the remainder of the business plan and the activities undertaken by the BID to date have been contrary to this.

9. It is estimated that the impact of the BID on Council resources equate to approximately 0.5 – 1.0 FTE. This is based on a regular point of contact within the City as well as calling on technical specialists as required (e.g. parks and landscape, engineering, assets, marketing).

10. The BID’s ASIC reporting requirements are onerous for Directors and costly. This means the BID has fewer resources to dedicate towards core business improvement activities.

Officer observations The current BID staff and board have injected renewed energy and effort into the BID. This is reflected in the improved perception of BID’s performance from 42% to 57% satisfaction from 2014 to 2016. Officers receive positive reports of the impact that BID staff have in coordinating the BID’s street activation network. The BID should be recognised for these achievements. However, it is doubtful that the BID has returned $1.8 million in value to the Fremantle business community over its five year lifespan. Officers regularly receive comments from property and business owners that too great a portion of the funding is spent on organisational overheads and that greater focus should be placed on more ‘big ticket’ items. Efforts at small-scale place making are important. However, they are unlikely to have major or lasting benefits for the Fremantle business community or deliver return on investment for differential rate money. It is recommended that the funding is best used to support delivery of one or two major items per year. For example, this could be items such as: attraction of major events in off-peak periods; a major place marketing exercise; a ‘renew Newcastle’ style program delivered by a professional service provider; or an expanded visitor concierge program to help visitors navigate around the Fremantle CBD and to provide tourism based information. Community perceptions survey & other surveys The main economic development themes identified in the 2015 Community Perceptions Survey and the Fremantle Business Forum of 7 October 2016 relate to items that are clearly Council’s responsibility to deliver. These items primarily relate to streetscape amenity and the redevelopment of the central city – an issue that the Kings Square Project is intended to address. These issues are complex and well known to Council. General economic outlook The World Bank economic outlook report released in Sept 2016 suggests a stagnant economy for the year ahead, in a global sense and for Australia. The report states that ‘sideways in the new forward’ for the next 2-3 years. It is fair to expect that this logic applies to Fremantle as it enters what is expected to be a major transformational period, spearheaded by the Kings Square redevelopment. Once completed, that project is intended to address the major problem for the Fremantle economy – the lack of pedestrian traffic on Mondays-Thursdays and non-tourism periods such as the winter months.


9 November 2016

Page 15

It is important to note that the primary beneficiaries of the Kings Square project (during construction and afterwards) is expected to be the local business community. Workers during the construction period are likely to generate significant expenditure capture opportunities for local retail and hospitality businesses. Once completed, the expected 1,500 new office and retail workers, and increased visitor numbers are expected to have an even greater impact on the local economy by delivering a revitalised city centre at all days of the week and times of the year. At that time, the needs of the business community are likely to have changed. It is important to keep an open mind when considering the future use of the differential rate and the exploration of different models.


Financial

The funding for the BID is effectively raised through the City Centre Commercial Rate, which, in 2016/17, has a rate in the dollar of $0.079439, compared with the Commercial and industrial general rate in the dollar of $0.075223. The difference in the two is commonly called the ‘differential rate’. The City has collected the differential rate from the 2008/09 financial year onwards and the BID is the latest model used to distribute that money. The payment to the Fremantle BID for the 2016/17 financial year is $347,701 (exc. GST). The five-year funding agreement includes a provision for a 2.5% annual increase on the BID funding. If that basis was continued for five years as requested, it equates to the following: $356,394; $365,304; $374,437; $383,798; and $393,393. This totals $1,873,326. All figures are excluding GST. Legal

Following Council’s resolution in May 2012, the City entered into a contractual relationship with the Fremantle BID Company Limited in accordance with a Funding and Performance Agreement and Service Level Agreement between the City and the Company. It says the following: “2. Term of Agreement

a) This Agreement commences on the Commencement Date and continues for a period of 5 years, ending on 30 June 2017 (“Term”).

b) At least 6 months prior to the end of the Term, the City will determine in its discretion whether or not it will continue imposing the Differential Rate and if so, whether or not it will pay the Differential Rate to the Company for a further term, having regard to:

i. the City’s assessment of the Company’s performance during the Term; ii. the City’s review of the Company’s Reports for the Term; and iii. the outcome of the City’s consultation with the Business Community in

relation to the BID Project and the performance of the Company, which the City must complete at least 6 months prior to the end of the Term.

c) The parties agree to negotiate in good faith the terms of any extension of this Agreement. However, neither party is bound to or deemed to agree to any further term, except where the parties have agreed in writing the terms of any extension.


9 November 2016

Page 16

d) For the avoidance of doubt, the City is not required to pay the Differential Rate, or any other support, to the Company following the end of the Term.”

Under clause 2(b) Council must determine no later than 31 December 2016 whether or not it will continue to pay the differential rate to the BID. In respect to use of unspent funds, the agreement states: ‘If the Business Plan is complied with and any Funds remain unspent, the Company is not required to return those Funds to the City and may otherwise apply the excess Funds in furtherance of the Objects’. Operational

Approximately 0.5 – 1.0 FTE of Officer time is spent annually supporting or responding to the BID. This is expected to remain the same regardless of the governance model used to administer the differential rate in the future. Organisational

N/A – the BID operates independently of Council.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The current and future use of the differential rate is intended to support achievement of the outcomes articulated in the Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020.


Extensive community engagement was undertaken in 2011 and 2012 prior to the establishment of the BID.

In 2014, approximately half way through the BID’s five year funding agreement, Officers conducted a survey of the business community to gauge perceptions on the BID’s performance and value add (see attachment).

In September 2016 Officers conducted a second survey (with some benchmarked questions) of the business community to gauge perceptions on the BID’s performance to date and opinions of the future use of the differential rate (see attachment).

On 22 August 2016, a workshop between the BID, City and Chamber of Commerce was conducted at the Chamber to discuss the future of the BID (see attachment).

On 7 October 2016, a workshop between City Officers and Elected Members and representatives from the business community was conducted to discuss interim actions (24-30 months) to support the economic development of Fremantle, as well as a short session on the future use of the differential rate.

The BID has provided the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce with copies of its annual reports and its extension request to Council. The Chamber’s comments are provided as an attachment to this report.


9 November 2016

Page 17

CONCLUSION

Priority activities for the business community The future use of the differential rate should be linked to the priority activities identified by the Fremantle business community. These activities are outlined and prioritised in the 2014 and 2016 surveys attached, as well as the attached notes from the two workshops (August and October 2016). The majority of these actions are the responsibility of Council and are in progress, or within the powers of Council to deliver with a shift in internal resources. The actions outlined as part of the BID’s five-year funding proposal do not adequately reconcile with the intelligence provided by these surveys and workshops. Therefore it is recommended that the business plan and funding request not be supported. For non-Council priority actions, it is recommended that the funding is best used to support delivery of one or two major items per year. For example, funding could be used for activities such as: attraction of a major event; a major place marketing exercise; a ‘renew Newcastle’ style program delivered by a professional service provider; or an expanded visitor concierge program to help visitors navigate around Fremantle and to provide tourism based information. The issue of place marketing is identified as a priority for the business community. The Chamber of Commerce are strong advocates for increased funding for marketing Fremantle. The current strategy to market Fremantle to visitors (Fremantle Story) was developed as a collaborative effort - representatives of the Chamber, BID and City comprised the working group that developed the overarching ‘Fremantle Story’ strategy so that it could be used by the public and private sector organisations. Should it be determined that the best future use of the differential rate is place marketing, those future activities could be undertaken by the City’s marketing team or by a third party (e.g. a marketing agency) in line with the agreed marketing strategy. Communication with the business community An important point from the surveys and workshops is that communication between Council and the business community needs to improve. This applies to justification for Council decision making, strategy setting and updates on implementation of plans. Future of the Fremantle BID The future of the Fremantle BID and the future use of the differential rate are linked. It is highly doubtful that the Fremantle BID will continue to exist in its current form without funding from the City. To date the BID has succeeded in raising only nominal revenue from alternate sources. Therefore, consideration of the BID’s request requires evaluation of not only the BID’s performance against the 2012 BID agreement and aggregate funding, but exploration of other potential options for use of the differential rate funding. Alternative governance models It is likely that a model that delivers better outcomes for the business community can be found by re-working the structure of the BID into a more efficient and impactful model while also retaining its goodwill, independence from Council and board expertise.


9 November 2016

Page 18

It is recommended that the details of that alternate model be explored collaboratively with the existing BID board and the Chamber of Commerce. Without wishing to pre-empt the outcome of that exercise, the options that Officers are aware of include:

A. A hybrid of the current BID and the old differential rate working group. The group could meet as needed to make decisions to award contracts for major activities (e.g. major events, additional place marketing via a marketing agency, Renew Newcastle type project to fill empty retail shops). This option could be administratively supported by City Officers and/or Chamber of Commerce staff. This option ensures that minimal funding is spent on administrative overheads.

B. Democratic budgeting: a shortlist of projects is developed based on surveys to

date including the two BID surveys, the community perceptions survey and other workshops. Businesses within the BID area are invited to vote on their preferred project which is delivered by a contractor.

Recommendation It is recommended that Council do not accept the BID’s request for a further five-year term due to concerns about the appropriateness of the proposed business plan. It is recommended that Council continue to support the concept of empowering the business community to determine how best to use the funds. However, it is likely that this can be delivered more efficiently and effectively with improved governance. Therefore, it is recommended that Officers work with the Chamber and the current BID board to explore adjustments to the BID model based on a set of principles intended to more clearly define the scope of responsibility. The recommendation in this report does not reconcile with some of the high level responses to the 2014 and 2016 survey of businesses. In 2014, 55% of respondents stated that the City of Fremantle should continue to provide funding to the BID beyond its five year agreement. Additionally, 42% of respondents were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the BID’s performance in 2014, a figure that increased to 57% in 2016. However, this suggests that there remains sufficient goodwill towards the BID board so that the brand can continue in an adjusted governance model.


Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION


1. Does not support the BID’s current request for an additional five year funding agreement.


9 November 2016

Page 19

2. Continue to support the principle of empowering the business community to determine, independent of Council, the best use of the differential rate funding in a democratic, transparent and effective way.

3. Authorise officers to consult with the business community to explore alternative

governance models for the future use of the differential rate and report back to Council in time to input into the 2017/18 financial year budget process.

4. Identify and evaluate alternative governance model(s) for the future use of the

differential rate funding based on the following set of principles:

a) The scope of activities are clearly and narrowly defined and are based on strategies and priorities identified by the collective business community and Council.

b) Proposed activities do not duplicate Council activities or activities of other organisations.

c) Proposed activities have appropriate performance measures. d) The Fremantle business community is empowered to engage in decision

making. e) Proposed actions are clearly defined and agreed upon by the business

community in advance of each financial year. f) Costs of overheads are minimised to enable greatest possible return on

investment. g) A reasonable level of administrative support is provided by City of Fremantle

staff (e.g. assistance with tender processes or awarding of contracts).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Cr D Coggin MOVED the following alternative recommendation: That Council:

1. Confirms its support for the principle of empowering the business community to determine, independent of Council, the best use of the differential rate funding in a democratic, transparent and effective way.

2. Does not support the BID’s current request for an additional five year

funding agreement. 3. Offers in principle support for the BID continuing in a modified from beyond

the end of the 2016/17 financial year.

4. Authorise officers to work with the BID and key business stakeholders to:

a. develop a more targeted business plan for delivery of the differential rate;

b. explore alternative governance models for the BID that will provide increased collaboration and engagement with Council and the Chamber of Commerce; and


9 November 2016

Page 20

c. present a proposal for Council approval by February 2017.

5. That the models and business programs investigated at (4) above are based on the following set of principles:

a. The scope of activities are clearly and narrowly defined and are based

on strategies and priorities identified by the collective business community and Council.

b. Proposed activities do not duplicate Council activities or activities of other organisations.

c. Proposed activities have appropriate performance measures. d. The Fremantle business community is empowered to engage in

decision-making. e. Proposed actions are clearly defined and agreed upon by the

business community in advance of each financial year. f. Costs of overheads are minimised to enable greatest possible return

on investment. g. A reasonable level of administrative support is provided by City of

Fremantle staff (e.g. assistance with tender processes or awarding of contracts).

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION To consider a modified version of the BID beyond 2017.


9 November 2016

Page 21

FPOL1611-3 BUSTER THE FUN BUS SERVICE AGREEMENT

ECM Reference: 106/011 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 November 2016 Previous Item: SGS1411-6 – 19 November 2014 Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle has a service agreement with the Department of Local Government and Communities to provide parenting services to parents and children aged 0 to 5 years. The Department has informed the City that funding will cease from 31 December 2016. This change impacts the delivery of Buster the Fun Bus mobile parenting program within the Fremantle area. This report recommends advocating for continuing funding for the fun bus and negotiate with the new service provider to continue to deliver this service from 1 January 2017.

BACKGROUND

The Buster program is an inclusive and friendly outreach program, offering a non-judgemental and safe environment for young families to develop a healthy relationship between parent and child. Buster the Fun Bus was created just over thirty years ago as an extension of the City’s primary child care service to provide a mobile parenting program. The mobile program is a free parenting support service for families with children aged 0-5 years that travels to community parks and venues within the City of Fremantle and allows parents to meet, relax, socialise in their local area. During a session, parents have access to resources to enhance their parenting skills and interact with their children using games, toys and craft activities. The unique mobile nature of the service allows the City to provide convenient and free access to parenting services in neighbourhood areas that some families may not otherwise have access to. Parenting Services are provided by other service providers; however mobile services are not common. It is unknown how the community will be impacted from the cessation of the current State Government funding program and potential impacts resulting from discontinuation of funding for the Buster mobile program. Feedback to date from users is positive, including that the environment is non-threatening to many isolated parents who are not comfortable attending Child Health Clinics. The current service provides opportunities for parents to link to existing support networks and other resources within the local


9 November 2016

Page 22

community, e.g. library, leisure centre, cultural centre, women’s health centre and multicultural centre. The City of Fremantle may wish to advocate to the State Government regarding the cessation of the grant funding and subsequent impact on the benefits from a mobile parenting program, as this is not dissimilar to other recent cessation of State Government grant funding for financial counselling and the Freo club recreational program for people with a disability.

COMMENT

The Department of Local Government and Communities advertised a new tender proposal for Parenting Services across Western Australia. It is seeking services to assist parents to manage the challenges of parenting; build knowledge, skills and confidence; understand children’s development; and identify local community supports and other relevant networks. These universal parenting services will target parents with children aged 0 to 8 years and specific areas of focus include Aboriginal families, culturally and linguistically diverse families, fathers/male caregivers and young parents. This new parenting model would have required the City to deliver Parenting Services to children aged 0 to 18 years across four other local government areas (Perth Metro 4 – South West). The total funding available for the (Perth Metro 4 – South West) area is $565,000, covering a residential population of 419,747 and represents an overall reduction in funding based on previous allocations in those areas. It is generally not the role for local Governments to provide direct service provision across other local Government boundaries. There is limited capacity for the City to undertake this type of service delivery and it would have been a significant change in demographics from the current age group of 0 to 5 years to the expanded age group of 0 to 18 years. Due to these requirements, as well as the need to form a consortium to deliver across multiple areas, the City was not in a position to submit a tender to this new Parenting Services program. The Department has indicated that preference will be given to proposals that reflect a partnership approach including those that demonstrate strong connections and relationships with other providers of parenting and related services. To date the City has been approached by two consortia, however it is not known until the successful tenderer is appointed in December 2016 what services would be provided within the Fremantle area. Neither of the two consortia has given a commitment to provide a mobile parenting program in the current form of Buster the Fun Bus, due to the significant changes in the age grouping for program delivery from 0 to 5 years to 0 to 18 years. Community expectations may want Buster to continue as a local mobile outreach parenting program for 0 to 5 years, however this has yet to be identified. It is intended that the City will seek to enter into dialogue and negotiation with the successful tenderer once they are


9 November 2016

Page 23

announced in regard to their proposed program, including the opportunity for continuation of Buster the Fun Bus as part of their expanded program.


Financial The City was receiving annual funding of $69,977 from the Department of Local Government and Communities to provide Buster the Fun Bus. The funding has now been reduced by half due to the cessation of services as at the 31 December 2016. Legal Advice has been received that the current tender for Parenting Services across Western Australia will cease from 31 December 2016. The new Tender DLGC028116R was advertised on 7 September 2016, with the closing date being the 27 October 2016. Operational Buster the Fun Bus mobile parenting program is funded by the Department of Local Government and Communities at the City of Fremantle for three mornings per week. The City was successful in obtaining Lotterywest grant funding in 2014 to replace the van. The van is utilised to transport staff and program materials. Staff employment is aligned with the City‘s contracted service until 31 December 2016. Organisational The Buster the Fun Bus program is an inclusive and friendly outreach program, offering a non-judgmental and safe environment for young families to develop a healthy relationship between parent and child. Whilst the City negotiates the service model with the successful tenderer, Council may wish to consider interim support for the current mobile program at a cost of $35,000 for the six month period up to 30 June 2017. This expenditure and loss of income will be included as part of the budget review process in the current financial year for consideration.


Alignment with the Strategic Community Plan 2015 – 2025; Health and Happiness Creating an environment, where it is easy for people to lead safe, healthy and happy lives.


9 November 2016

Page 24


The 2016-17, State Budget included a number of significant announcements including a change in the Department of Local Government and Communities focus in the parenting sector from direct service provision to a more strategic coordination and facilitation role. As part of this, the Department has commenced establishing a centre for parenting excellence which will support the parenting sector by encouraging best practice parenting services, monitoring parent support needs and evaluating and advising the State Government on parenting services. The Department of Local Government and Communities conducted a non-mandatory briefing session to current Parenting Services providers in September 2016.

CONCLUSION

The City values children and their families as important members of our community who have an important role to play in the development of our City, now and for many years to come. The mobile parenting program is a service that has been well utilised - on average around 60 to 80 families attending each week per school term. The program is an inclusive and friendly outreach program, offering a non-judgmental and safe environment for young families to develop a healthy relationship between parent and child. At this stage it is unclear when the tender is awarded as to whether the mobile parenting program will continue in its current form in the Fremantle area.



OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Advocate to the State Government regarding the loss of grant funding and service

provision within the Fremantle area and seek continuation of funding for Buster the Fun Bus mobile parenting program.

2. Authorises Director Community Development and Manager Community

Development to engage with the successful tenderer of the new parenting services program to seek a continuation of Buster the Fun Bus mobile parenting program from 1 January 2017.


9 November 2016

Page 25

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:


9 November 2016

Page 26

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Advocate to the State Government regarding the loss of grant funding and

service provision within the Fremantle area and seek continuation of funding for Buster the Fun Bus mobile parenting program.

2. Authorise Chief Executive Officer to engage with the successful tenderer of

the new parenting services program to seek a continuation of Buster the Fun Bus mobile parenting program from 1 January 2017.

3. Authorise Chief Executive Officer to seek alternative funding sources or models

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



9 November 2016

Page 27

FPOL1611-4 PARKING INFRINGEMENT APPEALS POLICY

ECM Reference: 122/003, 030/018 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 November 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Manager Field Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Parking Infringement Appeals Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present a Parking Infringement Appeals Policy to Council for consideration and adoption. The Chief Executive Officer has requested officers prepare a Council policy that provides a consistent approach to the review of parking infringement notices issued under the City of Fremantle’s Parking Local Law and a clear framework for assessing parking infringement notice appeals.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle’s Integrated Patrol Officers monitor compliance with parking restrictions throughout the locality. In the event that non-compliant parking behaviour is observed, an authorised officer may issue a parking infringement notice in accordance with the City of Fremantle Parking Local Law. The Chief Executive Officer appoints authorized officers to adjudicate on appeals against parking infringement notices. There are occasions when a customer is unable to comply with parking restrictions due to a significant circumstance that is out of their control. In these instances it is reasonable for the City to withdraw a parking infringement notice.

COMMENT

The following general principles are considered by authorized officers when determining the outcome of appeals against parking infringement notices:

Were the elements of the offence met?

Was the customer unable to comply with the relevant provisions of the law for a reason or due to a significant circumstance that was out of their control?

All parking infringement appeals are assessed on their individual merit. In the 2015/16 financial year, 24,186 parking infringements were paid in full and 2,785 parking infringements were withdrawn. The most frequent reasons for parking infringement notice withdrawal were medical emergency, vehicle break down, leniency on compassionate grounds or infringement issued in error or to the wrong person.


9 November 2016

Page 28

The Parking Infringement Appeals Policy presented for consideration and adoption by Council outlines the circumstances under which parking infringement notices that are subject to an appeal will, may be or will not be withdrawn by authorized officers.


Financial

There is an impact on the City’s revenue when parking infringement notices are withdrawn. Parking infringement notice penalties are $50 for offences such as “exceed time limit” and “failure to display unexpired ticket” or $80 for offences where public safety may be compromised such as “stop or park in a No Stopping area” and “cause obstruction to private driveway”. Legal

The issue and withdrawal of parking infringement notices shall be performed in accordance with the Local Government Act and subsidiary legislation. Operational

The proposed policy will provide a greater level of consistency and uniformity. Officers authorized by the Chief Executive Officer to adjudicate on appeals against parking infringement notices will benefit from the adoption of a Council policy that clearly and concisely outlines the circumstances under which parking infringement notices will, may be or will not be withdrawn. Organisational

Internal procedures will be amended by officers to align with the intent of the policy.


Adoption of the proposed policy aligns with the City’s strategic focus area of “Capability – a transparent and responsive organisation” as listed in the Strategic Community Plan 2015-25.


Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council adopt the Parking Infringement Appeals Policy.


Simple Majority Required


9 November 2016

Page 29

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION


1. Adopt the Parking Infringement Appeals policy as set out below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE Council Policy Parking Infringement Appeals Policy statement The objectives of this policy are to provide:

1. A consistent approach to the review of parking infringement notices issued under City of Fremantle Parking Local Law 2006; and,

2. A clear framework for assessing parking infringement notice appeals. Policy scope The following general principles will be considered when determining the outcome of appeals against parking infringement notices:

Were the elements of the offence met?

Was the customer unable to comply with the relevant provisions of the law for a reason or due to a significant circumstance that was out of their control?

All parking infringement appeals will be assessed on their individual merit. Officers will apply a 5 minute leniency prior to issuing a parking infringement notice for exceeding a time limit. In exceptional circumstances or in circumstances of repetitive offences by the same person, it may be appropriate for officers to make a decision that varies from the position outlined in this policy. The following tables outline the circumstances under which parking infringement notices that are subject to an appeal will, may be or will not be withdrawn: Table 1. Circumstances under which an infringement will be withdrawn

Circumstance Evidence required

Vehicle breakdown due to mechanical fault

Statutory declaration outlining the nature of the breakdown, why the vehicle couldn’t be moved and how the vehicle was moved; or

Receipts from a reputable mechanic


9 November 2016

Page 30

Medical emergency Doctors certificate; or

Correspondence from a hospital/surgery/doctor; or

Statutory declaration

Infringement issued in error or to the wrong person

Evidence demonstrating the error such as a valid ticket or photograph of correctly parked vehicle; or

Proof that the vehicle did not belong to nominated driver/owner at the time the infringement was issued; or

Registration papers; or

Statutory declaration

City of Fremantle ticket machine, pay by phone software or equipment fault

Instructions to report a fault were followed; eg evidence of phone call or reference number from technical services

Evidence demonstrating the City of Fremantle ticket machine, pay by phone software or equipment was faulty; eg. photograph or screenshot

Person is not the driver at the time of the offence

Correctly filled out nomination form submitted within 28 days of the infringement date

First infringement issued to a City of Fremantle resident

Proof of residency within the City boundaries

Proof of valid driver’s licence

Non-repetitive infringement issued to a person with a valid ACROD permit

Proof of ACROD permit

Proof of valid driver’s licence

Table 2. Circumstances under which an infringement may be withdrawn

Circumstance Evidence required

A valid ticket was purchased

A copy of the valid ticket that relates to the parking infringement notice under appeal

Compassionate grounds; including but not limited to family bereavement, genuine financial hardship and diagnosed mental illness

Evidence specific to the matter at hand which may include, but not be limited to, a Statutory declaration, Centrelink documentation, Health care card, Doctors certificate, letter from a hospital/surgery/doctor

The signage in the area was missing, obscure or damaged to the point where it could not be read

Photographic evidence of missing, obscure or damaged sign at the time of the offence

Table 3. Circumstances under which an infringement will not be withdrawn

Circumstance

Exceeding a time limit


9 November 2016

Page 31

Forgot to purchase and display a valid parking ticket

Lack of available parking bays

Arranging payment or getting change

Appointment or a meeting ran over time

Transport services were late

Had to make or take an important phone call

Did not see or did not understand the parking restrictions

Did not see or did not understand how to use a ticket machine

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



9 November 2016

Page 32

FPOL1611-5 GRAFFITI VANDALISM ACT 2016

ECM Reference: 122/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 November 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Business Support Actioning Officer: Governance Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Form 1 – Objection

Form 2 – Warrant Form 3 – Notice Graffiti Act Delegation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016 (the Act) came into effect on 7 October 2016 and includes specific provisions for private property entry and graffiti removal powers for local government, previously available through the Local Government Act 1995. In response to the Act coming into effect, this report recommends that Council formally adopt the relevant forms and delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), to ensure the City can continue to provide an appropriate graffiti removal service to the community.

BACKGROUND

The proclamation of the Local Government Amendment Act 2009 saw specific graffiti related powers made available in the Local Government Act 1995 for the first time. With the Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016 now in effect, it removes provisions relating to graffiti from the Local Government Act 1995 and places them in the Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016. The new legislation includes the following elements:

Creation of the new offence of damaging property by graffiti (Section 5).

Requirement for graffiti offenders whom are found guilty to be sentenced to a minimum of a community based order involving, where practicable, graffiti clean-up activities (Section 5).

Allows for the costs of removing graffiti to be awarded against the offender (Section 8).

Allows local governments to issue notices requiring the removal of graffiti (Section 18) and to enter properties under warrant to remove graffiti themselves (Section 26).

The Act provides those persons issued with a notice the right to seek review of that decision with the State Administrative Tribunal or to object to the notice (Section 23).


9 November 2016

Page 33

The property entry, issuing of notices and graffiti removal powers as provided for in the Graffiti Act, are only applicable where graffiti:

has been applied with or without the consent of the property owner;

is visible from a public place; or

is considered by the City to be unsightly or offensive. The Department of Local Government and Communities has recommended that local governments take steps to ensure relevant delegated authorities and forms are formally adopted, prior to any action being taken in line with the powers of the Act available to local governments.

COMMENT

In accordance with Council policy, the City aims to remove graffiti that is visible from a public road or public open space and in doing so, provides the local community with a graffiti removal service that offers ‘removal’ or ‘paint out’ of graffiti from public or private property. Graffiti is usually removed within 2 working days of it being reported, with priority given to offensive graffiti. In order for the City to use the powers and functions available to local government under the Act, the following forms and delegation are required to put in place the necessary mechanisms that may be used by the City to manage graffiti related issues and support good local graffiti control. The purpose of the proposed forms and delegation is as follows;

Adoption of Form 1, Objection - Objections to a notice may be lodge by an

affected person in the approved form (formally adopted by Council), as provided for in Section 22 of the Act. An objection will be treated as though it were an objection to the decision of a local government under Part 9 of the Local Government Act.

Adoption of Form 2, Warrant - A warrant in the approved form (formally adopted by Council) is completed by a Justice of the Peace, where they are satisfied that the entry is reasonably required by the local government for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act. The warrant is issued to the occupant of the property as a warrant to enter the property, as provided for in Section 29 of the Act.

Adoption of Form 3, Notice - A notice in the approved form (formally adopted by Council) may be issued to a property owner as a notice to remove graffiti, as provided for in Section 18 of the Act.

Delegated authority by Council to the Chief Executive Officer – gives delegated authority to the CEO to exercise of any of the powers or the discharge of any of the local government duties under the Act as provided for in Section 16. The CEO may sub-delegate powers or duties to an appropriate officer (other than the power to delegate) as provided for in Section 17 of the Act.


9 November 2016

Page 34


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Officers will be given appropriate authorisations and training on the provisions of the new Act and internal processes will be reviewed to ensure officers are acting in compliance with the Act. Organisational

In response to the Graffiti Act coming into effect and removal of provisions under the Local Government Act, the City will review any applicable policies and procedures in accordance with the new Act.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

Adoption of the attached forms and delegation to the CEO will enable officers to effectively manage graffiti related issues within the Fremantle municipality.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: 1 Notes the implementation of the Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016 as of 7 October

2016 and its impact on local government graffiti operations; 2 Adopts the following forms:


9 November 2016

Page 35

2.1 Form 1 - Objection to a notice, for the purposes of section 22 of the Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016, as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report;

2.2 Form 2 - Warrant to enter, for the purposes of section 29 of the Graffiti

Vandalism Act 2016, as detailed in Attachment 2 to this Report; 2.3 Form 3 - Notice to remove (obliterate) graffiti, for the purposes of

section 18(2) of the Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016, as detailed in Attachment 3 of this report;

3 Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to exercise its powers

and the discharge of its duties under the Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016, in accordance with section 16 of the Act.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



9 November 2016

Page 36

FPOL1611-6 RATE CONCESSION COUNCIL SUBMISSION - 7 STRANG COURT BEACONSFIELD - MIRCO AND AMENTI

ECM Reference: 152/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 November 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Business Support Actioning Officer: Team Leader - Rates Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The owners of 7 Strang Court, Beaconsfield have requested a change in the differential rate applied to this property from the commercial/industrial vacant rate to the lower commercial/industrial rate. This change is considered appropriate as the owners of the property deferred development due to the absence of an approved structure plan for the area and a potential resumption of their property. This report reccomends that Council:

1. Approve a change in the differential rate for 7 Strang Court, Beaconsfield from vacant commercial/industrial rate to commercial/industrial general rate as a concession under section 6.12 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995.

2. Apply this change effective from the 1 July 2013 until the 30 June 2018

subject to the property owners being informed in writing that the vacant commercial/industrial rate would apply from the 1 July 2018 if the property remains vacant.

BACKGROUND

The property at 7 Strang Court, Beaconsfield is located within the Strang Street Structure Plan that was adopted by Council in February 2005 to guide future land use and development. Part of this plan, which was not endorsed by the WAPC, was the proposed resumption of 7 Strang Court to enable the extension and linking of Strang Court to Hampton Road via a new access road. In December 2011 Council endorsed the Strang Court Development Area (DA14) scheme amendment no 43 that in addition to rezoning also removed the possibility of land resumptions.


9 November 2016

Page 37

In August 2015 scheme no 43 was gazetted following its approval by the Minister for Planning. Letters were sent in September 2015 to owners and occupiers of properties within the area advising them of this approval and gazettal. The potential land resumption and lack of an approved development plan resulted in the owners of 7 Strang Court deferring development of the property pending receipt of ownership and development assurances. From the 1July 2013 rates on 7 Strang Court were raised using the vacant commercial/industrial differential rate. The owners of the property consider this to be unfair given the unusual development circumstances associated with the property.

COMMENT

The development of 7 Strang Court has been impacted by the potential property resumption and the time taken to finalise a development plan for the area. It is now proposed to change the differential rate to the commercial/industrial general rate from the 1 July 2013 to the 30 June 2018 so as to allow development of the property.


Financial

The reduction in rate income will be $4,464.62 for the period 1 July 2013 to the 30 June 2016 and which will be reflected within the 2016/2017 interim rate budget. For the period 1 July 2017 to the 30 June 2018 it is estimated that there will be a $1,112.00+ reduction in the 2017/2018 rating income budget. Legal

Granting a rate concession would be in accordance with 6.12 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1995 Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil as this rate concession will be a once only concession.


Nil


9 November 2016

Page 38

CONCLUSION

That the differential rate for 7 Strange Court, Beaconsfield be amended from vacant commercial/industrial rate to commercial/industrial general rate effective from the 1 July 2013 to the 30 June 2018, as a once only rate concession.





1. Approve a change in the differential rate for 7 Strang Court, Beaconsfield from vacant commercial/industrial rate to commercial/industrial general rate as a concession under section 6.12 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995.

2. Apply this change effective from the 1 July 2013 until the 30 June 2018 subject to the property owners being informed in writing that the vacant commercial/industrial rate would apply from the 1 July 2018 if the property remains vacant.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



9 November 2016

Page 39

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

The following item was withdrawn from Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee.

FPOL1611-7 ITEM WITHDRAWN CONFIDENTIAL REPORT – MAJOR EVENT SUPPORT

ECM Reference: 010/002, 154/016 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 November 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Manager Arts and Culture Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Letter of Commitment – Major Event support

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23(1a) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971


9 November 2016

Page 40

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.06 PM.


9 November 2016

Page 41

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION

The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.


9 November 2016

Page 42


Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10. City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11. The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12. As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.


9 November 2016

Page 43


Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13. The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16. Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


9 November 2016

Page 44

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


9 November 2016

Page 45


9 November 2016

Page 46

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee

Wednesday, 9 November 2016, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee

9 November 2016

Page 2

Documents

Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee · Minutes - Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee 9 November 2016 Page 1 FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION