Agenda of Council Meeting - Tuesday, 13 September 2022

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 9 August 2022 at Ashfield Service Centre

Meeting commenced at 6.31pm

Present:
Jessica D’Arienzo Liz Atkins Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury Dylan Griffiths Mathew Howard Justine Langford Pauline Lockie Philippa Scott Kobi Shetty Chloe Smith John Stamolis Timothy Stephens Zoi Tsardoulias Peter Gainsford Simone Plummer	Acting Mayor (Chairperson) Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor (Attended remotely) Councillor Councillor General Manager Director Planning
Manod Wickramasinghe	Acting Director Infrastructure
Ruth Callaghan Kelly Loveridge Matthew Pearce Beau-Jane De Costa Daniel East Scott Mullen	Director Community Director Corporate General Counsel Senior Manager Governance and Risk Manager Strategic Planning Manager Strategic Investments and Property
Katherine Paixao	Business Paper Coordinator

APOLOGIES:

Motion: (Scott/Da Cruz)

That apologies from the Mayor, Councillor Byrne be accepted and Council accept Councillor Stamolis’ request to attend tonight’s Council Meeting via audio visual link, due to personal reasons.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D’Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Councillor Howard declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 Local Traffic Committee Meeting – June and July 2022 as he works in the Office of the State Member who has a representative on the Local Traffic Committee. He will remain in the meeting during discussion and voting as the vote of the State Member is exercised through a representative.

Councillor Scott declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 34 Update – MOD/2021/0376 at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe (Bunnings Tempe), as she is a member of the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) which is the approval body for the Bunnings Tempe projects. She will leave the meeting during discussion and voting for this item.

Councillor Lockie declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 8 General Manager's Delegation as she works at the City of Sydney which is used as one of the points of reference for the staff recommendation. She will remain in the meeting during discussion and voting as this will not affect her capacity to vote.

Motion: (Stephens/Griffiths)

That Council note the disclosures of interest.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

**The vote for noting the disclosures was recommitted later in the meeting.**

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Motion: (Howard/Da Cruz)

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

- The Da Cruz/Shetty amendment in item 2 Councillor Facilities and Expenses Policy, be reworded to the below:

That clause 2. d is amended to:

‘Understanding the variety and volume of events and initiatives at council, it is not a requirement for publication that all Councillors or representatives from all political groupings be included in individual photographs, videos or communications on any policy or initiative; but that every effort should be made to ensure a diversity of elected Councillors and political groupings is included in published communications, where there is mention of the political persuasions that it also mentions ward councillors’.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

PUBLIC FORUM

The registered speakers were asked to address the meeting. The list of speakers is available on the last page of these minutes.

Procedural Motion (Stephens/Scott)

That Council recommit the vote on the Disclosures of Interest including the clarification from Councillor Scott that her disclosure also includes Item 7.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Councillor Scott declared a significant and non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 Local Traffic Committee Meeting - June and July 2022 and Item 34 Update – MOD/2021/0376 at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe (Bunnings Tempe), as she is a member of the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) which is the approval body for the Bunnings Tempe projects. She will leave the meeting during discussion and voting for this item.

Procedural Motion (Stephens/Scott)

That an extension of time of one (1) minute for Councillor Howard to speak on the motion in Item 1 be granted.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 1 Condolence Motion: Jarrod Mills

Motion: (Howard/Tsardoulias)

That Council write to the family of Jarrod Mills expressing deep condolence for his loss and recognising his commitment to social justice, local democracy and the Australian Labor Party.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 2 Condolence Motion: Francesco (Frank) Fiorenza

Motion: (Drury/D’Arienzo)

That Council notes the passing of Haberfield Resident Francesco (Frank) Fiorenza and expresses our condolences to his family.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 3 Condolence Motion: (James) Kevin Little

Motion: (Drury/D’Arienzo)

That Council write a letter of condolence to the daughters of (James) Kevin Little, expressing our condolences at the passing of their parents, Evelyn and Kevin Little, and acknowledging and thanking them for Kevin Little’s service as former Councillor and Deputy Mayor of Marrickville.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Procedural Motion (Scott/Lockie)

That Council suspend Standing Orders to bring Items 5, 6, 11 and 15 forward to be dealt with at this time.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Procedural Motion (Scott/Lockie)

That items 5, 6, 11 and 15 be moved in globo and the recommendations contained within the report be adopted.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 5 Employment Zones Reform - Submission

Motion: (Scott/Lockie)

That:

1. Council endorses the Inner West Council Submission to the exhibited Employment Zones Reform.

2. The Inner West Council Submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for consideration.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 6 1-5 Chester Street Annandale - Voluntary Planning Agreement

Motion: (Scott/Lockie)

That the amended Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for 1-5 Chester Street, Annandale be:

1. Placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days;

2. Reported back to Council after public exhibition; and

3. Authorises the General Manager to approve any amendments to the amended VPA prior to public exhibition.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 11 Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting
Held on 23 February 2022

Motion: (Scott/Lockie)

That Council adopts the minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 23 February 2022.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 15 Pedestrian Safety Hazards in High Traffic Areas

Motion: (Scott/Lockie)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Procedural Motion (Lockie/Atkins)

That an Urgency motion on Food Security be considered at this Council meeting.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

The Acting Mayor, Councillor D’Arienzo declared this matter was urgent and will be dealt with at the end of the meeting.

C0822(1) Item 4 Henson Park Plan of Management- Amendments to Leasing and
Licensing Provisions

Motion: (Howard/Drury)

That:

1. Council notes the need to amend the leasing and licencing provisions of the adopted 2021 Plan of Management for Henson Park. These changes will enable future leasing and licensing for sport and recreational use of the Park, including the future use by the AFL and the Newtown Jets and for the upgrade of the King George V Memorial Grandstand and development of the new Multipurpose Building;

2. Council notes the proposed clarifications and amendments which will be made to the Plan of Management in relation to ensuring that public access arrangements in relation to the Amy Street Footpath are safeguarded and strengthened in the Plan of Management and master plan for the park;

3. Council publicly exhibit the proposed amendments to the Henson Park Plan of Management (Attachment 1) for no less than 28 days with a 42-day period for public submissions;

4. At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, an amended Plan of Management for Henson Park is brought back to Council for discussion on the public exhibition outcomes and for Council to resolve the adoption of an amended Plan of Management for Henson Park; and

5. Council staff consult broadly and thoroughly on the modified Plan of Management and master plan for Henson Park, ensuring the consultation and opportunity for submissions by residents is promoted across all Council platforms, including social media and website, letter box drops to residents in the immediate vicinity and poster displays at Henson Park Oval.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Councillor Scott left the Meeting at 7:04 pm as she declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 Local Traffic Committee Meeting - June and July 2022 as she is a member of the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) which is the approval body for the Bunnings Tempe projects.

C0822(1) Item 7 Local Traffic Committee Meeting - June and July 2022

Motion: (Drury/Griffiths)

That:

1. The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 20 June 2022 and 18 July 2022 be received and the recommendations be adopted; and

2. The Traffic Committee have Frederick Street as a standing item in general business until real safety improvements occur.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr Scott

Councillor Scott returned to the Meeting at 7:08 pm.

C0822(1) Item 8 General Manager's Delegation

Motion: (Drury/Scott)

That Council adopt the General Manager Delegations, as outlined and attached to the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Lockie, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Shetty and Stamolis

Procedural motion (Da Cruz/Atkins)

That Council vote on amendments below in seriatum

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Lockie, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Amendment (Da Cruz/Shetty)

That:

1. Council receive reports of tenders including policy they progress, scope and budget;

2. The General Manager have no financial delegation to write off debts or rates, these should all be reported to council for determination;

3. The General Manager expenditure delegation be set at $500,000 and that any expenditure above that be determined by Council; and

4. Annual premiums for insurance etc be included in the determination of the original contract and variations determined by Council.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Lockie, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

C0822(1) Item 9 Local Government NSW Conference 2022

Motion: (Scott/Lockie)

That Council nominate the following Councillors to attend the 2022 Local Government NSW Conference:

a) Clr Byrne;

b) Clr D'Arienzo;

c) Clr Drury;

d) Clr Griffiths;

e) Clr Langford;

f) Clr Atkins;

g) Clr Shetty; and

h) Clr Lockie.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 10 Councillor Facilities and Expenses Policy

Motion: (Drury/Scott)

That Council adopts the amended draft Councillor Facilities and Expenses Policy subject to replacing the words “Christmas and Festive Cards” with “Greeting Cards” in the table identified on page 3 of the policy and in clause 9.4 point 3.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 12 Investment Report at 31 May 2022

Motion: (Drury/Lockie)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 13 Investment Report at 30 June 2022

Motion: (Drury/Lockie)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 14 Engagement for Inner West Local Environmental Plan Phase 2B

Motion: (D’Arienzo/Howard)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 16 Railway Parade, Annandale - cleaning and resheeting

Motion: (Scott/Shetty)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 17 Notice of Motion: Rates Hardship and Rates Deferral: Councillor
Briefing

Motion: (Stamolis/Langford)

That Council:

1. Receive a Councillor briefing on:

a) its rates hardship policy and any other rates deferral policies used by Inner West Council;

b) the reasons for rates deferral policies by way of agreement with Council, which are outside its hardship policy;

c) the numbers of persons who have accessed Councils rates hardship and rates deferral agreements for each of the past 3 years and the amounts deferred; and

d) any rates recovery action (including legal) for each of the past 3 years undertaken by Council as a result of hardship, a deferral agreement or other reason.

2. Officers provide regular 12-monthly briefings to Councillors on any outstanding rates owing, rates subject to recovery, rates that have been written off and any rates deferral agreements.

Motion Tied

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

The Chairperson used her Casting Vote against the MOTION and the MOTION was lost.

Procedural Motion (Howard/Scott)

That the motion for item 18 be considered in seriatum

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 18 Notice of Motion: Tenders for Out of School Hours Care

Motion: (Griffiths/Howard)

That:

1. Council call upon the State Government to reverse its recent policy change whereby Out of School Hours Care services run by not-for-profits (including local government) must be put to tender upon the expiry of each licence to operate, and express this in writing to the relevant Minister and Shadow Minister;

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Motion: (Griffiths/Howard)

2. If tenders are called, submit tenders for all current Out of School Hours Care services it currently operates;

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Motion: (Griffiths/Langford)

3. Council consider any decision not to tender for an Out of School Hours Care service that it currently operates at a meeting of the Council; and

Motion Tied

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

The Chairperson used her Casting Vote against the MOTION and the MOTION was lost.

Motion: (Griffiths/Da Cruz)

4. Council seek strategic opportunities to expand Council run Out of School Hours Care services.

Motion Tied

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

The Chairperson used her Casting Vote against the MOTION and the MOTION was lost.

C0822(1) Item 19 Notice of Motion: Marrickville Road and Buckley Street,
Marrickville

Motion: (Howard/Langford)

That Council:

1. Notes the dangerous intersection at Marrickville Road and Buckley Street, Marrickville;

2. Notes pedestrian traffic is likely to increase significantly when the planned upgrade of Sydenham Station is complete;

3. Notes the $2.8 million upgrade of Marrickville Road East planned to commence shortly, which will improve safety at intersections along Marrickville Road East by prioritising pedestrians over traffic by installing ‘threshold treatments’ at crossings and intersections and enlarging kerbs at street intersections with planting areas;

4. As part of the design phase for the upgrades, considers further ways Council can improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists at the intersection; and

5. Urgently writes to the Minister for Metropolitan Roads and Minister for Women’s Safety and the Prevention of Domestic Violence asking that Transport for NSW investigate pedestrian and cyclist safety at the intersection and commit funds to improve safety at Buckley Street and Marrickville Road.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 20 Notice of Motion: Defibrillators in the Inner West Local
Government Area

Motion: (Tsardoulias/Da Cruz)

That Council receive a report on public access to Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) across the Inner West Local Government Area no later than the December Council 2022 meeting including:

1. An audit of access, use, storage, and maintenance of AEDs at Council facilities, venues and sportsgrounds;

2. A register and map of publicly accessible AEDs across the Inner West Local Government Area, including at council facilities, venues and sportsgrounds as well as identifying optimal locations for placement of additional AEDs in the community;

3. Opportunities to expand public access to AEDs, including at Council owned venues and areas of intensive sports participation with recommendations and costings to do so; and

4. Opportunities to expand training of how to use AEDs at Council-owned venues.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 21 Notice of Motion: Enhancing Active Transport Infrastructure

Motion: (Stephens/Shetty)

That Council

1. Notes that active transport, including walking and cycling, reduces congestion on our roads, improves public health, reduces carbon emissions and provides a cost-effective and safe way for people to travel;

2. Notes that to support greater uptake in active transport participation, cycling infrastructure needs to be connected, direct, attractive and comfortable, for the safety of people who cycle and walk in the inner west;

3. Acknowledges and thanks Council officers for developing the draft Inner West Cycling Strategy and Action Plan (IWCSAP) which has been informed by community feedback and will be released for community feedback later in 2022 and for adoption by Council in early 2023;

4. Undertakes, to complement the IWCSAP:

a) an audit of shovel-ready projects currently in development by Council to ensure there is an active pipeline of projects available for State and Federal Government funding rounds;

b) an audit of existing cycling infrastructure, and planning of a program of works, to bringing existing cycling infrastructure up to standard;

c) to enrol additional Council engineers in the Transport for NSW Designing for Pedestrians and Bicycle Riders;

d) to reinstate quarterly meetings between Council engineers and representatives of the Inner West Bicycle Coalition to allow for vital cycling safety issues to be identified and addressed in a timely manner; and

e) the preparation of a communications campaign to encourage greater cycling participation across our communities.

f) Explores the feasibility of a dedicated engineer within Council to focus on active transport infrastructure.

5. Investigates the use of appropriate measurable targets eg. Kilometres of cycleways installed to track Council’s year on year progress.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Councillor Howard left the Meeting at 8:06 pm.

Councillor Griffiths left the Meeting at 8:07 pm.

Councillor Howard returned to the Meeting at 8:08 pm.

Councillor Griffiths returned to the Meeting at 8:09 pm.

C0822(1) Item 22 Notice of Motion: Deliberative Democracy

Motion: (D’Arienzo/Scott)

That Council:

1. Is committed to community engagement giving the community an opportunity to participate in and influence Council’s decision-making;

2. In revising our draft community engagement policy and framework, will incorporate deliberative engagement practices to undertake quality community engagement based on a set of key democratic principles aimed at placing our community closer to our decision-making; and

3. Notes the principles of deliberative democracy can be applied to a range of contexts and formats and can include People’s Panels, Citizens’ Juries, participatory budgeting, deliberative panels and forums and Citizens’ Assemblies.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 23 Notice of Motion: Supporting Responsible Dog Ownership

Motion: (Smith/Lockie)

That Council:

1. Notes the rise in dog ownership across the Inner West Local Government Area (LGA), Council’s significant investment in local dog parks and infrastructure, and the role of local government in facilitating responsible dog ownership;

2. Acknowledges the risk that untrained or poorly socialised dogs can present to the community, including attacks on other dogs or people, and that cost can be a barrier to accessing dog training;

3. Agrees to implement a trial of free puppy classes for dog owners in this Council term to encourage responsible dog ownership and activate our local dog parks;

4. Investigates the feasibility, including cost, of providing this service in partnership with authorised local dog training providers;

6. Undertakes an audit of:

a) signage that provides information on designated on and off leash zones, dog prohibited zones, and instructions on off leash dog etiquette and dog safety including their location and condition; and

b) patrolling for education and enforcement purposes, at all parks and dog parks across the LGA.

7. Where signs are not in place in areas frequented by dogs, or are in places of low visibility or poor condition, Council agrees to resource their implementation or replacement;

8. Where patrolling is not in place at parks where dog owners could benefit from education or ranger visibility, that patrolling is considered; and

9. Provide a briefing note to Councillors that investigates opportunities for the introduction of free, regular information seminars across the LGA for residents who are considering acquiring a companion animal (dog or cat). Seminars could inform prospective owners about obligations of responsible pet ownership. Topics could include socialisation, training, cost of ownership, registration, regulations, off-leash exercise areas, and other relevant items in the Companion Animal Act & the Council's Companion Animal Action Plan.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 24 Notice of Motion: BayRun Event Funding 21 August 2022

Motion: (Scott/Drury)

That Council donate $2,000 to the BayRun event to be held on 21 August 2022 to ensure a successful event.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Councillor Stamolis left the Meeting at 8:21 pm.

C0822(1) Item 25 Notice of Motion: Inner West Council Procurement to one of the
Leading Councils in NSW

Motion: (Drury/Stephens)

That Council acknowledge and thank staff for the significant work and progress made in making Inner West Council one of the Leading NSW councils in Procurement.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith,, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr Stamolis

Procedural Motion (Lockie/Griffiths)

That Council suspend Standing Orders to bring Item 34 and the Urgency Motion forward to be dealt with at this time.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr Stamolis

Councillor Scott left the Meeting at 8:24 pm as she declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 34 Update - MOD/2021/0376 at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe
(Bunnings Tempe) as she is a member of the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) which is the approval body for the Bunnings Tempe projects.

Councillor Stamolis returned to the Meeting at 8:24 pm.

C0822(1) Item 34 Update - MOD/2021/0376 at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe
(Bunnings Tempe)

Motion: (Howard/Langford)

That:

1. Council receive and note the report; and

2. In the interest of keeping community informed, Council staff facilitate a face-to-face meeting with the community at a local venue prior to the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel determination.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr Scott

Councillor Scott returned to the Meeting at 8:28 pm.

Urgency Motion: Food Security

Motion: (Lockie/Atkins)

That Council:

1. Notes the advice received from Inner West Police Area Command (IWPAC) about the increase in retail theft, particularly of food items, in the Inner West;

2. Notes the advice received from Addison Road Community Organisation about the rise in people seeking access to its food relief services;

3. Urgently investigates opportunities to:

a) Work in partnership with IWPAC, local food relief services, local shopping centres, and other relevant stakeholders to raise awareness of the supports available across the Inner West local government area (LGA), and help connect people to these services;

b) Promote support services available to residents through Council’s communication channels;

c) Provide additional funding to local food relief organisations to help them deliver these services to residents, including through Council’s grants program;

d) Work with South Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) on developing a coordinated response on this issue;

4. Writes to the Prime Minister, the Premier and relevant Ministers to express our concern about this emerging issue, and request that they provide urgent funding to organisations that provide food relief in our local government area; and

5. Provides a report back to the September Council meeting on actions taken, as well as any further recommendations.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Confidential Session

Motion: (Stephens/Scott)

That Council enter into Confidential session.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

That in accordance with Section 10A(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, the following matters be considered in Closed Session of Council for the reasons provided:

C0822(1) Item 32 King George Park & Easton Park Upgrades Tender Report (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business

C0822(1) Item 33 Update on Acquisition of Investment Properties (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature (Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; AND commercial information of a confidential nature (Section 10A(2)(d)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.

The Acting Mayor, Councillor D’Arienzo asked members of the public to leave the chambers.

Motion: (Griffiths/Scott)

That Council move back into the Open Session of the Council Meeting.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

resolutions passed during closed session

C0822(1) Item 32 King George Park & Easton Park Upgrades Tender Report

Motion: (Drury/Smith)

That Council:

1. Accept the tender submitted by Romba, of Unit 3/17 Bromley Rd, Emu Heights NSW 2750 for the King George Park & Easton Park Upgrades for a lump sum price of $1,732,801.38 excluding GST; and

2. Approves a 15% contingency of $ 259,920.20 excluding GST over the tendered amount, for a total cost of $1,992,721.58 excluding GST

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0822(1) Item 33 Update on Acquisition of Investment Properties

Motion: (Drury/Scott)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Meeting closed at 8.45 pm.

Public Speakers:

Item #	Speaker	Suburb
Item 1:	Jeff Mills	Marrickville
Item 18:	Roxana Zulfacar	Petersham
Item 21:	Neil Tonkin	Lilyfield

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Item No: C0922(1) Item 1

Subject: Election of Deputy Mayor

Prepared By: Beau-Jane De Costa - Senior Manager Governance and Risk

Authorised By: Kelly Loveridge - Director Corporate

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Determine to elect a Deputy Mayor, and if agreed, determine the length of term for the Deputy Mayor;

2. Determine the method of voting for the election of the Deputy Mayor (if more than one nomination is received); and

3. Write to the Secretary and the Chief Executive Officer of Local Government NSW advising of the of the result of the election.

DISCUSSION

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act), section 231, Councillors may elect a person among their number to be the Deputy Mayor. The term of the Deputy Mayor may be elected for the mayoral term or for a shorter term, usually one year.

The decision to have a Deputy Mayor is a decision for the Council and is recommended in this report based on the current practice of Council. It also provides clarity in process if the Mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise from exercising the function or if there is a casual vacancy in the office of Mayor.

The Deputy Mayor may, under Section 231(3) of the Act, exercise any function of the Mayor for any of the following reasons:

1. at the request of the Mayor;

2. if the Mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise from exercising the function; and

3. if there is a casual vacancy in the office of the Mayor.

If councillors do not proceed with the election of a Deputy Mayor for the ensuing year they reserve the right to elect a Deputy Mayor at another time if the Mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise prevented from exercising their role. In the event that the Deputy Mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise from exercising their role the councillors may elect another councillor from within their ranks to act as the Deputy Mayor.

Traditionally, councils conduct elections for the Deputy Mayor by open voting. It is also the least bureaucratic method and reflects normal Council voting methods. If Council resolves to conduct the election by preferential or ordinary ballot, then the General Manager will conduct the election as outlined in the Regulations below.

Nomination Process

The General Manager is designated as the Returning Officer for the election of the Deputy Mayor.

Nominations for the position of Deputy Mayor must be in writing and signed by two or more councillors, one of whom may be the nominee.

A standard nomination form has been prepared for this purpose and provided to all councillors (see Attachment 2).

Each nominee must confirm their consent to the nomination in writing.

Nominations are to be provided to the Returning Officer before or at the meeting of Council at which the election is scheduled to be conducted. The Returning Officer will announce details of the nominations at that meeting. If there is only one nominee they are to be declared elected.

If there is more than one nominee, Council is to determine the preferred method of voting and proceed accordingly.

Procedures for Deputy Mayor Election

1. The Mayor will open the meeting and announce the item of business being the election of the Deputy Mayor. The General Manager being the Returning Officer for the election of the Deputy Mayor will proceed to conduct the election.

2. The Returning Officer reads out the names of the nominees and seeks confirmation that the nominee has accepted the nomination. If only one councillor has been nominated for the position of the Deputy Mayor, the nominee is elected.

3. If more than one candidate has been nominated, Council must determine by resolution the method of voting to be used for the election of the Deputy Mayor by way of one of the following methods:

a) Open voting – i.e. by show of hands.

b) Ordinary ballot – i.e. a secret ballot (place an “X” against the candidate of their choice);

c) Preferential ballot – i.e. place 1, 2, 3 etc. against each candidate;

4. The Returning Officer must ask for a motion to be put to the meeting by one of the councillors on the preferred method of voting for the election of a Deputy Mayor.

Method of Voting – Open voting

1. Each Councillor in entitled to vote for only one candidate in each round of voting. The Returning Officer will write down each candidate’s name on a piece of paper and deposit it in the hat to be chosen by lot. The first name out of the hat will be written first on the tally sheet, with the second name out being written on the tally sheet etc.

2. When all candidates’ names have been written on a tally sheet, the Returning Officer announces the names of the candidates, and starts the voting for each candidate and asks councillors to raise their hands for the candidate they are voting for.

3. The Returning Officer announces the number of votes received for each candidate. The minute taker also records the vote for each councillor.

4. The Returning Officer checks with the minute taker that each councillor has voted. If a councillor has not voted it should be confirmed that they are abstaining (an informal vote).

5. If there are only two candidates for the position of Deputy Mayor and the voting is higher for one candidate than another (number of formal votes recorded on the tally sheet), the Returning Officer then announces the result.

6. In the event of a tied vote, the Returning Officer will advise the meeting that in accordance with clause 12 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, the Returning Officer will write the names of the candidates on similar slips of paper, folds them and places them in a hat to be chosen by lot and requests a staff member to shake the hat. The candidates whose name is drawn out will be declared Deputy Mayor.

7. If there are three or more candidates, the candidate with the lowest number of votes for the position of Deputy Mayor is excluded. The voting continues as above until there are only two candidates remaining. In the event that the lowest number of votes are tied, the Returning Officer advises the meeting in accordance with clause 12 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, the Returning Officer will write the names of the candidates on similar slips of paper, fold them and place them in a hat to be chosen by lot and requests a staff member to shake the hat. The candidate whose name is drawn out will be excluded.

Method of Voting – Ordinary ballot

1. The Returning Officer announces the names of the candidates for Deputy Mayor and writes each name on a slip of paper and deposits it in a hat to be chosen by lot. The Returning Officer requests that a staff member shakes the hat and advises that the order in which the names will appear on the ballot paper will be determined by a draw out of the hat, i.e. first name out of the hat is written first on the ballot papers and so on.

2. The Returning Officer writes the names on one set of the ballot papers and initials the front of each ballot paper. A staff member distributes the ballot papers and collects them into the ballot box when completed and gives it to the Returning Officer who counts the votes and records them on the tally sheet. The Returning Officer announces the results.

3. In the event that the lowest number of votes are tied, the Returning Officer advises the meeting in accordance with clause 12 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, the Returning Officer will write the names of the candidates on similar slips of paper, fold them and place them in a hat to be chosen by lot and requests a staff member to shake the hat. The candidate whose name is drawn out will be excluded.

4. The Returning Officer writes the names of the remaining candidates on a further set of the ballot papers and initials the front of each ballot paper. The staff member distributes ballot papers listing the remaining candidates and collects them into the ballot box when completed and gives it to the Returning Officer who again counts the votes and records them on the tally sheet and announces the results. The process continues until two candidates remain, where a final vote takes place.

5. In the event of a tied vote between the two remaining candidates, the Returning Officer announces to the meeting in accordance with clause 12 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, the Returning Officer will write the names of the candidates on similar slips of paper, fold them and place them in a hat to be chosen by lot and requests a staff member to shake the hat. The candidate whose name is drawn out will be declared as Deputy Mayor.

Method of Voting – Preferential ballot

2. The Returning Officer writes the names on the ballot papers and initials the front of each ballot paper. This method of voting requires only one set of ballot papers. A staff member distributes the ballot papers and collects them when completed and gives them to the Returning Officer who counts the first preference votes and records them on the tally sheet. If a candidate has an absolute majority of first preference votes (more than half), the Returning Officer declares the outcome.

3. If no candidate has the absolute majority of first preference votes, the Returning Officer excludes the candidate with the lowest number of first preference votes. The preferences from the excluded candidate are distributed. This process continues until one candidate has received an absolute majority of votes at which time the Returning Officer announces the result.

4. In the event of a tied vote where there are only two candidates remaining in the election, the Returning Officer explains to the meeting in accordance with clause 12 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, the Returning Officer will write the names of the candidates on similar slips of paper, fold them and place them in a hat to be chosen by lot and requests a staff member to shake the hat. The candidate whose name is drawn out will be declared as Deputy Mayor.

Results

The results of the election (including the name of the candidate elected as Deputy Mayor) will be declared to the Councillors at the Council meeting at which the election is held by the Returning Officer and will be provided to the Secretary and the Chief Executive Officer of Local Government NSW.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Local Government (General Regulation 2021 (NSW) Schedule 7 Election of mayor by councillors
2.⇩	Deputy Mayor Nomination Form
3.⇩	OLG Fact Sheet - Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor by Councillors

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Item No: C0922(1) Item 2

Subject: De-amalgamation Business Case for Inner West Council

Prepared By: Beau-Jane De Costa - Senior Manager Governance and Risk

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - General Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the Business Case for Inner West De-Amalgamation be tabled for consideration by Council.

BACKGROUND

At the Council election held on 4 December 2021, a non-binding poll was held regarding the potential demerger of the Inner West Council.

Citizens were asked the following:

In May 2016, Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville councils were amalgamated into one local government area by the State Government. Do you support the Inner West local government area being de-amalgamated, so as to restore the former local government areas of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville?

The results of the above poll were 62.49% in favour of a demerger.

Following the election of the Mayor on 29 December 2021, the Mayor wrote to the Minister of Local Government informing her of the results of the Poll and the results of the poll were sent to every household in February via Council’s publication Inner West News.

At the 8 February 2022 Ordinary Council Meeting, Council considered a Mayoral Minute and resolved as follows:

That Council:

1. Commences the preparation of a business case for demerger and notifies the NSW

Government of the commencement of the development of a business case for

demerger;

2. Notes the concerns expressed by Council officers through the resolution of the

Joint Consultative Committee about the impact of demerger on morale and

productivity within the organisation and commits to engaging with Council staff and

their representatives throughout the development of the business case;

3. Notes the overwhelming majority vote of the Inner West Community to demerge;

and

4. Involve the community in the preparation of the business case.

On 4 March 2022, the Minister for Local Government met with the Mayor and General Manager.

Following the Council resolution of 8 February 2022, as outlined above, Council engaged Morrison Low, in accordance with Council’s procurement framework, to prepare a business case in accordance with the NSW Government guidelines. Morrison Low had undertaken substantial work for Council in 2021 developing a high level cost benefit analysis which:

· Reviewed former Council’s 2014/15 Long Term Financial Plans

· Re-established previous financial models of the former council’s undertaken in 2015 and previous modelling to 19/20.

· Validated the models against the Council’s that didn't merge (Burwood, Canada Bay, Strathfield).

· Compared 19/20 actual results of Inner West with the aggregated modelled position of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville.

· Added changes in service levels and new industry compliance requirements, new assets, COVID-19 impacts to these models with a start date of July 2022

In light of having undertaken the work outlined above Morrison Low were identified as the most appropriate firm to assist with the next stage of the De-amalgamation process being the draft De-amalgamation business case (draft business case).

The initial draft business case was presented to the Councillors at a Councillor workshop on 7 June 2022 and reported to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee on 8 June 2022.

The initial draft business case with a plan for community engagement was then reported to the Council meeting on 14 June 2022 where Council resolved as follows:

That Council:

1. Resolve to place the draft De-amalgamation Business Case for Inner West Council on public exhibition for 28 days;

2. Endorse the public engagement activities, as outlined in the report, being undertaken, including:

a. that the flyer referenced in the report be letterboxed to all households and include the known tangible, financial costs, including the costs of senior staff salary and politician costs; and non-financial risks, such as a period of anti-democratic administration; and any benefits as identified by the report and by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee;

b. that this information also be prepared as a summary introduction to the Morrison Low business case when it appears on exhibition, where it is promoted through Council’s communication channels, and as an introduction to the survey activity; and

c. that an additional online public forum be held to be Chaired by the General Manager and that Morrison Low attend the forum;

3. Notes that the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee:

a. resolved that if Council does de-amalgamate that the risks associated with staff retention and engagement, loss of corporate/local knowledge, service disruption and inconsistency during the transition and IT security and controls risk in demerging systems will require significant management throughout the process and an agreed transition approach will also be critical

b. requested that a comprehensive risk analysis of the de-amalgamation process and its subsequent impacts is undertaken and reported back to ARIC

c. recommended that the communication to the community in relation to the de-amalgamation process clearly identifies the known non-financial risk and benefits to the community; and

d. endorsed the recommendations of the ARIC meeting of 8 June 2022, in relation to the item ‘Draft de-amalgamation business case for Inner West Council’ being provided to the Council meeting on 14 June 2022, as part of the item considering the de-amalgamation business case in the Ordinary Council agenda;

4. Approve the Mayor to write to the Minister for Local Government asking for a commitment that the state government pay the full costs of de-amalgamation should it occur, and that they commit to not sacking the Council and installing an administrator; and

5. Officers prepare a further report to the August Council meeting, outlining the outcomes of the community engagement process along with the final business case for Council's consideration

Subsequently Council had an independent copywriter prepare the de-amalgamation flyer which was distributed to all households across the Inner West in July 2022 that outlined the draft business case and included the known tangible, financial costs, including the costs of senior staff salary and politician costs; and non-financial risks, such as a period of anti-democratic administration. Additionally, this information was also provided on Councils communication channels to compliment the draft business case, whilst on exhibition, as requested.

The Mayor has written to the Minister for Local Government asking for a commitment that the NSW Government pay the full costs of de-amalgamation should it occur, and that they commit to not sacking the Council and installing an administrator.

Council also engaged Micromex Research to conduct a statistically valid phone survey to seek community feedback. Micromex also hosted a survey which the entire community could participate in, using the same questions. The survey was available online and in hard copy, with accessibility supported through the TIS and voice relay services.

The engagement for the draft business case was promoted via the following communication channels:

· Council’s website

· Social media

· Media release

· Council e-news

· Your Say Inner West;

· Inner West Newsletter; and

· Council column in local newspaper.

DISCUSSION

Council committed to providing the outcomes of the community engagement process along with the final business case to Council for consideration and ultimate determination.

The key community engagement outcomes are summarised as follows.

A telephone survey was conducted to 601 residents, 138 via landline and 463 via mobile phone. The greatest margin of error is +/- 4% based on this sample size, which was weighted by age and gender to be representative of the Inner West population.

The survey was conducted from 30 June to 6 July 2022.

An online survey was hosted on the Micromex platform from 1–31 July 2022. Over 1400 people completed the online survey, or posted in paper copies (which were entered by staff – note that a small number of paper surveys were not able to be entered due to respondents not providing valid responses). The survey was open to all so unlike the phone survey, the results are not statistically valid. However, the data is still important as it highlights the views of people who have a high interest in the issue.

Priorities

Respondents were asked to nominate their key priorities for Council in the local area. Answers were unprompted. Results were compared to the 2021 Community Satisfaction Survey conducted by Micromex (available on Council’s website).

The key priorities were ‘improving the road infrastructure/maintenance of roads’ and ‘environmental protection/managing climate change/maintaining and provision of green open spaces’.

Respondents were then asked to rate a list of 11 priorities from ‘not at all important’ to ‘very important’. De-amalgamation was the lowest rated of the 11 priorities. Of these respondents, ratepayers consider ‘managing planning and development’ and ‘traffic management/congestion’ significantly more important while residents aged 65+ rated the importance of de-amalgamating Inner West Council significantly higher.

As with the phone survey, de-amalgamation was the lowest priority for Council to focus on in the local area.

Overall satisfaction

A total of 87% of people in the phone survey were at least somewhat satisfied with the performance of Council over the last 12 months. Satisfaction levels are highest amongst those aged 18-34, non-ratepayers and those who have lived in the area for fewer than five years.

2021 Poll on de-amalgamation

Residents were asked what they voted in 2021. In the phone survey 40% of residents indicated that they voted to support de-amalgamation. Residents aged 65+ were significantly more likely to have voted in support of de-amalgamation. Thirty percent voted against de-amalgamation, while 24% couldn’t remember and 4% were not a resident of Inner West at the time. The online survey was completed by a higher proportion of people who voted against de-amalgamation (62%).

The graph below compares phone and online results to the question.

For residents who supported de-amalgamation in the 2021 poll, their primary reasons centred on the diversity of the three previous LGAs and their differing local priorities, as well as a perceived decline/lack of improvement in services/facilities in the area since the amalgamation. The primary reasons for not supporting the de-amalgamation included cost considerations/financial implications, as well as perceived improvements in services and efficiencies within the Inner West Council.

Support for options

Respondents were asked for their levels of support for three options as outlined in the draft Business case, should de-amalgamation proceed.

Option A De-amalgamate and return to the service levels provided prior to amalgamation

Option B De-amalgamate and maintain the service levels provided by the current Inner West Council

Option C De-amalgamate and reduce to below pre-amalgamation Council service levels

The graph below shows the highest support from the phone survey was for Option A whereas the online survey respondents preferred Option B, and the lowest support was for Option C.

Respondents were asked: Considering everything now, is your preference that Council submit a business case to the Minister supporting a de-amalgamation, or should Council remain as Inner West Council?

The graph below shows the phone survey respondents were slightly more supportive of remaining (53%) than submitting the business case (47%). Note that the margin of error of 4% means that the range of these results is 49-57% for remain, and 43-51% for submit. Online respondents were strongly in favour of remaining (69%) compared to 31% for submit. There is no margin of error for the online results as the survey was not statistically representative of community opinion.

Phone survey respondents were asked if prior to the call, they were aware that Council was exploring community sentiment to a de-amalgamation. Forty-eight percent of respondents were previously aware. The most common ways residents were advised were:

· Voting in December 2021 (34%)

· Social media (17%)

· Mail out from Council (16%)

Council has provided all data and feedback obtained throughout the exhibition period for the De-amalgamation to Morrison Low to analyse and incorporate into the final iteration of the Business Case which has now been provided to Council, refer attachment 1

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The financial implications of the draft business case are articulated in detail within the attached draft business case, refer Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

IWC - Demerger Business Case

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Item No: C0922(1) Item 4

Subject: Endorsement of Ashfield Park Plan of Management

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Parks and Recreation Planning Manager

Authorised By: Simone Plummer - Director Planning

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as land manager of Ashfield Reserve (Lot 2 DP607316);

1. Endorse the Draft Plan of Management and refer this to the Minister for Water, Housing and Property for owners consent; and

2. On receipt of owner’s consent place the Draft Plan of Management for Ashfield Park on public exhibition for 28 days and the Plan be brought back to Council for adoption.

DISCUSSION

At its Ordinary Council meeting on Tuesday 14 June 2022 Council resolved in part:

That the matter be deferred to the August Council Meeting for further consideration to allow for additional in person consultation.

Council has now completed the development of a 10-year draft plan of management and master plan for Ashfield Park (refer to Attachment 1). Additional onsite community engagement was held at the park on Saturday 30^th July 2022. Approximately 70 local residents attended this engagement session. In addition, specific on site engagement has also been undertaken with each of the sporting clubs which utilise the park. The draft Master Plan has been revised as a direct result of the additional community engagement.

Community Engagement

Council has undertaken extensive community engagement as part of the development of the draft plan of management and master plan. The purpose of engagement was to establish key issues that the community may have in relation to Ashfield Park, as well as highlighting aspects of the park which are highly valued. Contributors were encouraged to include ideas, comments and suggestions to assist in prioritising the focus of key strategies and outcomes for the future.

The full community engagement report on the outcomes of community engagement and exhibition to date can be found at: Planning for Ashfield Park | Your Say Inner West (nsw.gov.au)

In summary Council has undertaken the following community engagement:

Stage 1 -March 2021

Council sought community input/feedback on how to care for and manage and improve Ashfield Park over the next 10 years. Feedback received has been combined with planning and landscape advice along with legal expertise to assist with the development of a draft Plan of Management and Master Plan (PoM) refer to Attachment 1.

Key Master Plan Proposals (Developed from Stage 1)

· A new interpretation strategy to highlight significant historic aspects of the park

· New park furniture in selected shaded locations

· Establishing a biodiversity area to the southern corner of the park

· Continue to maintain the practice of cutting the parks’ shrubs into ornamental shapes and keep the name ‘Ashfield Park’.

· Install two table tennis tables with concrete pads, accessible path and spectator seating.

· Extend and improve the community garden.

· Upgrade of one of the grass bowling greens to a synthetic green

· An off-leash dog area in the north-east corner of the park

· Upgrade the existing playground

· Provision of cricket nets

· Extend existing BBQ area and include additional natural play elements

Stage 2- July 2021

Draft Plan of Management exhibited for public feedback for a period of 42 days (closed 24th August 2021).

Key Master Plan proposals (Developed from Stage 2)

· Heritage themes and existing park elements were highly valued by park users and these are referenced in the Plan of Management.

· Park users and residents expressed concerns about intensification of park usage through the introduction of additional recreation opportunities and the need to maintain passive recreational uses.

· 64% supported the provision of a Dog Off Leash Area

· The synthetic bowling green was not supported by respondents with the community preferring to retain the natural turf. This has been maintained in the master plan to allow for consideration in the future. The current turf bowling green will however be retained.

· Requests for Ping Pong Tables, Netball/Basketball Hoops-Not included with respect to requests not to overly develop the park and intensify its use.

· Cricket nets were not supported by most respondents. Key safety issues were highlighted with the existing path network. The cricket nets were removed from the master plan.

· Council received a petition with 122 signatures requesting additional swings within the park. The petition requests an additional swing set within the existing playground and an additional swing set outside the existing playground. Additional swings will be considered as part of a future playground upgrade for the park however it is recommended that these be retained within the existing playground footprint.

· Community support was evident for maintaining the community garden and support for additional garden beds.

Stage 3-Additonal Community Engagement July 2022

On Wednesday 6^th July 2022 Council officers met separately with the Ashfield Pirates Football Club, the APIA Leichhardt Football Club and the Ashfield Bowling club. Additional community engagement was held in July 2022 with onsite community engagement held at the park on Saturday 30^th July 2022. A revised park master plan has been developed with the following inclusions:

Additional Master Plan Proposals (July 2022)

Ashfield Park Amenities Block

1. Full refurbishment & upgrade of interior of amenities building to include the following:

· Co-design with seasonal hirers new interior layout

· Inclusion of canteen amenities

· Redesigned gender neutral changerooms with toilets

· Improved storage space within the two levels of building (former public toilets and outdoor staff space converted into storage areas)

· Synthetic Apron between the Pavilion and Sporting ground (to address significant sporting ground wear and tear issues)

2. Fence netting - poles extended on existing metal fence that runs along sideline on Pembroke St side. This will be full height of fence + net = 4 metres. This is to address a safety issue with soccer balls easily going over existing fence and reaching the road. There is a high degree of risk with junior players and car interactions in retrieving balls.

3. Ashfield Bowling Club

· Synthetic Green – potential to replace one or both bowling greens with synthetic turf

· Future Café access to Park

· Decking on side and wraparound front of clubhouse to allow for future café access and use (Park facing as well as bowling green)

· Shelter above internal bowling green pathways

· Upgraded toilets and changerooms to become accessible

· Accessible assessment to incorporate into designs and plans

· Deck around kitchen/café side and across front of club house to create indoor and outdoor access

Council officers have undertaken an extensive review of the draft Plan of Management and are presenting the plan to Council for endorsement and recommending that the Plan of Management is referred to the to the Minister for Land and Waters for owners’ consent for the purposes of reserve classification confirmation and exhibition. Formal correspondence from the relevant sporting clubs is attached as Attachments 2 and 3. An additional submission is also provided from the Ashfield Community Garden Committee, Attachment 4. Importantly It is noted that while Council supports community gardens, its role is to enable the activity of community gardens and encourage community participation, not provide maintenance.

Companion Animals Off Leash Area

The additional onsite community engagement held on Saturday 30^th July 2022 noted significant community support for an off-leash companion animal exercise area to be established in the northeastern park of Ashfield Park adjacent to Ormond Street (note Option A zone- figure 1.0). Community support was evident in establishing a partial L shaped chain wire mesh fence (900mm high) to be installed (in Option A Zone) along Ormond Street up to and including a small portion of Paramatta Road. The fence is also to be landscaped. The space advocated by the community for a future off leash companion animal exercise area is not a fully enclosed dog park and will remain as a shared space for community recreation within the park. The fencing proposed is to act as a barrier to the road and does not negate the legal responsibility that companion animals must always be under the effective control of their owners. Costings to undertake this work have been estimated at 170lm which equates to $35k. There is currently no budget for such works hence subject to future adoption of a Plan of Management for the park, budget estimates for this work will need to be considered in future years.

It is noted that there were a range of additional submissions received from the community on the proposed dog off leash area, a number of which were opposed to the establishment of an off-leash area in the park. Attachment 3 includes a summary of all new submissions which were collated as part of the additional community engagement.

Fig.1.0 Community Feedback Support for an Off Leash Companion Animal Access Area

Next Steps

The Draft Plan of Management must be referred to the Minister for Lands and Water for formal endorsement of owner’s consent. On receipt of owners’ consent, the plan of management will be exhibited for a further 28 days and then brought back to Council for adoption. The Crown Land Management Act also requires that as part of the park plan of management planning process that Council seek and provide a copy of Native Title Managers Advice as per Section 8.7. This advice has been attached as Attachment 4.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Once endorsed by Council the Ashfield Park Plan of Management and Masterplan will be independently assessed and costed by a registered Quantity Surveyor. Key master plan proposals will then be worked into Council Capital works program for park improvements over the next ten years.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Ashfield Park Plan of Management and Master Plan
2.⇩	Formal Submission Ashfield Bowling Club
3.⇩	Formal Submission Ashfield Pirates
4.⇩	Ashfield Community Garden Submission
5.⇩	Additional Community Submissions
6.⇩	Native Title Advice

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Item No: C0922(1) Item 5

Subject: License Agreement for Community Access: Graham Green-Dulwich Hill High School of Visual Arts.

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Parks and Recreation Planning Manager

Authorised By: Simone Plummer - Director Planning

RECOMMENDATION

That Council formally writes to both the Secretary of the NSW Department of Education and the Minister of Education in relation to the proposed license terms for Graham Green, seeking an urgent meeting and intervention by the Minister to address Council’s concerns, namely:

a) Proposed Cost Shifting arrangement by the NSW Department of Education requiring that Council pay an annual license fee of $10,000 per year for community access to the Green as well ongoing maintenance responsibilities in the region of $14,000 annually;

b) Ongoing Water costs for irrigation of the Green (previously a Department of Education responsibility); and

c) Significant reduction in Community access reduced from seven days per week (outside of school hours) to two days access per week only (outside of school holidays).

DISCUSSION

Graham Green is located within the grounds of the Dulwich Hill High School of Visual Arts.

The playing field has enjoyed shared community use since 1993. In 1993, the former Marrickville Council and the Department of Education (the Department) worked collaboratively together on the formation of Graham Green. The former Marrickville Council provided a contribution of $25,000 toward its establishment and supported the required road closures. As part of negotiations with Council, the Department agreed that Graham Green would be made available to the public for recreational purposes outside of school hours (This agreement did not include an off leash companion animal exercise area).

As part of the Development Application consent granted by Marrickville Council in April 1993 for Graham Green, Marrickville Council and the Department were required to enter into a formal agreement in relation to community use, maintenance and public liability.

In 2007, Marrickville Council and the Department entered into a license agreement regarding the community use of Graham Green and in 2017 Inner West Council and the Department entered into a further license agreement for the community use of Graham Green.

Council has maintained a good working relationship with the school up until 2019 when restrictions on public access commenced without any demonstrated or documented advice from the school. This has created significant concern within the local community and there has been ongoing representation to Council and the Local State member on this issue. In 2020 the school removed all signage on the school grounds relating to community access to Graham Green. Following representation from local residents, Council at its own cost reinstated the original Graham Green Signage in road reserve areas managed by Council.

Graham Green has been shared by the school and community since an agreement between the local council and Department of Education in 1993.

Fig 1.0 Graham Green

Council staff have been liaising with the NSW Department of Education in relation to negotiations for a new license agreement for community access to Graham Green. The Department has formally replied to Council with a draft heads of agreement (HoA).

In terms of future community access to the Graham Green, the draft heads of agreement (HoA) has been extensively scaled back from previous agreements in terms of community access arrangements. Access is no longer provided on normal weekdays outside of school hours and is restricted to weekends and school holidays only. Companion animals are not permitted to access the Green.

Council has also been requested to contribute financially to the ongoing maintenance of the Green. Maintenance costs have been assessed by Council’s Parks Operational team at an annual cost to Council of $14,000 per year. In addition to the ongoing maintenance and cleaning requirements, the draft heads of agreement (HoA) also proposes an annual license fee of $10,000 per year on top of full maintenance responsibilities. The total cost to Council is estimated in the region of $24,000 annually.

At the same time the Department is proposing this additional cost to Council, the Dulwich Hill High School of Visual Arts and Design has continued free access to Council sporting ground facilities. Marrickville Oval is utilised by the school on Tuesday mornings and afternoons during the school terms for 2 hours per week.

Table 1.0 provides a summary of the draft heads of agreement (HoA) in comparison to previous agreements.

Table 1.0 Comparison of Proposed License Agreement in relation to Previous Community Access Arrangements-Graham Green

Terms	2021 Proposed Heads of Agreement	2017 Licence	2007 Licence
Length of Licence	3 years	3 years + 2 year option at Departments absolute discretion	5 years + 5 year option
Permitted Use	Community recreation and informal games. Not Permitted are unlawful purposes. Unlawful purpose means any improper, illegal, unapproved or unsafe activity or nuisance that may cause harm to the Department, the playing fields or any wildlife residing on the playing fields, including but not limited to: carrying onto the playing fields any illicit drug, alcohol, cigarette(s) or weaponry of any kind, use, consumption and/or disposal of any illicit drug, alcohol and cigarette(s), disposal of or leaving behind weapons or animal faeces, causing property damage of any kind (including but not limited to damage to the turf, plants, garden, goal posts, school buildings and school fixtures, and any graffiti), causing injury to any animal or person on the playing fields, lighting fires, dumping or leaving any rubbish of any kind, and permitting pets or any animals access to the playing fields unless it’s a companion animal.	Community recreation and informal games by members of the community authorised by Council. Not to cause a nuisance or inconvenience No damage to fixtures, structures or installations. No offensive behaviour, dogs, alcohol, rubbish or broken glass. Not sell food or drinks without consent of Principal. Obtain consents of relevant authorities for the conduct of sport.	Community, recreation, sporting activities and organised sporting activity Not to allow any use that is for an illegal purpose or activity. No riotous, disorderly, offensive or improper behaviour. No drunk or disorderly behaviour No immoral, obscene, offensive behaviour.
Licence Fee	$10K +GST with 3% annual increase	$10K + GST with 3% increase	$1.00 on demand
Access Times*	Sat/ Sun 7am- 7pm, Public Holidays 7am-7pm and School Holidays 7am-7pm , except staff development day Open and close the gates after use.	6am -8am and 4.30pm to end of daylight hours during school term Weekend and Public Holidays – unrestricted access hours Vacation periods – unrestricted days and access hours. Access via Fairfowl St only. Not to walk thru or access any other part of the school. Principal responsible for opening and closing gates. No access to toilets or change rooms.	Before 8am and after 4.30pm school days Saturday / Sunday / public holidays and other days when school is not open and other days or times approved by the Principal.
Maintenance of playing fields	Council to mow, water, maintain turf, fertilise grass, keep playing fields clean and safe	Department to mow, water and fertilise grass, keep clean and tidy and carry out inspections after each weekend	Council to mow, top dress, fertilise, sow and plant lawn. Council undertook renovation works, field improvements, fencing and general landscape maintenance.
Water Usage	Council to pay water usage for the licensed area	No contribution to water usage	Not required
Terminate	For breach of licence	For breach of licence	6 months’ notice if required Breach of licence
Additional Obligations	Council, after its hours of use but prior to the school resuming after weekend or school holidays use carry out an inspection of the playing fields, clean, safely remove and dispose of all rubbish (including but not limited to faecal matter, bodily fluids, broken glass, drug paraphernalia, dead animals, waste, alcohol, cigarette(s), weaponry, hazardous materials) and any other material left by its invitees from the playing fields and its surrounds, make good all damage caused by its invitees, and upon leaving, ensure all access to the playing fields are closed. If Council is unable to complete its obligations as above, Council must do so by 10:00am on the day that the school use resumes. * If Council doesn’t complete its obligations by 10:00am, the Department will, at its discretion and at Council’s cost do what Council should have done. * Council is to pay all of the Departments costs incurred (incl. but not limited to transport costs, additional supervision if required, use or hire fee of an alternative premises and insurance required for the alternative premises) to allow its students to be able to use an alternative playing field for learning and recreation.	Council to provide and maintain rubbish bins outside of playing fields No motor vehicles except emergency motor vehicles Department to ensure at the commencement of the access the playing fields are free from rubbish and dog excrement is removed. Accidents during access are to be notified to the Principal and a report provided.	Keep the playing fields clean and free from rubbish & waste and dog excrement, remove and dispose of all refuse and garbage. Put up signage regarding obligations Keep the playing fields in a proper, safe and reputable manner. Ensure activities are supervised and remove equipment. Comply with directions of the Department and Principal. Not to bring onto the playing fields any dangerous, poisonous or inflammable substance. No alcohol, gambling, smoking or auctions. No motor vehicles. Repair or replace structures, fixtures, fittings if missing or damaged.
Reduction of Hours of Use	If Council doesn’t fulfil its obligations on 5 occasions during a 12 month period then the hours of use will be reduced to 12 noon on a Sunday to allow for cleaning and waste removal and will be in place for 3 months and will be extended for a further 3 months if Council continues not to fulfil its obligations	Not addressed	Not addressed
Department Reservations	The Department: close the playing fields if there is an emergency or required by law erect additional facilities or other structures on the playing fields * use the playing fields during Council’s use if required for Election Day polling place.	Not addressed	Not addressed
Hire	Not addressed	No Hire	Can make arrangements with invitees for future use and charge a fee.
Security	Not addressed	Not addressed	Council responsible for security during access hours

* The draft heads of agreement (HoA) only permits weekend community use during the school term (2 days per week). Outside the school term community access is permissible.

Inequities of Proposal

Table 1.1 below highlights current public and private school access to parks, sporting grounds and open spaces in the Inner West LGA. Presently, forty-one public schools access Council’s parks and open spaces. A total of thirty private schools also utilise Council’s open space areas. If Council was to apply a use charge of $10,000 per year per public school use of parks and open space areas this would equate to $410,000 per year in revenue.

Table 1.1 Inner West School Use of Parks and Sporting Grounds

	Public School		Park		Park Planning Notes
	Annandale PS		King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
			Cohen Park		The sporting ground is use for weekly sport on Fridays. No fee charged.
	Annandale North PS		Cohen Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly sport and lunch play. No fees are charged for school access
			King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
			Whites Creek Valley		The Park is used for lunch play on Fridays. No fees are charged.
	Balmain Public PS		Gladstone Park including basketball courts		Park is utilised as the school playground and physical exercise area. No fees are charged for school access
			Mort Bay Park		Park is utilised for annual Cross Country carnival. No fees are charged.
			Birchgrove Oval		Sporting ground is used for annual Athletics Carnival at a cost of $332.60.
	Belmore Boys High		Leichhardt Oval #3		Sporting ground is used for annual Bay Run Cross Country event at no cost.
	Birchgrove PS		Birchgrove Oval		Sporting ground used for weekly sport Thursdays and Fridays at no cost. The annual Cross Country Carnival has no cost, however the Athletics Carnival is charged at $332.60
	Dobroyd Point PS		Robson Park		The park is booked for end of year picnic at no cost.
			Leichhardt Oval #3		Annual Bay Run Major Event. A fee waiver is approval annually.
	Drummoyne PS		King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
	Fort Street PS		Leichhardt Park (sensory garden)		Has been booked for a Charity Day and sports event during COVID – 19 11/12/20
	Glebe PS		King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
	Haberfield PS		Algie Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
	Hunters Hill PS		King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
	Kegworth PS		Richard Murden Reserve		Park is used for annual Cross Country Carnival as not cost.
			King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
	Leichhardt PS		King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
			Pioneers Memorial Park		Park used for annual Walkathon at no cost.
	Nicholson Street PS		Birchgrove Park		Sporting ground is used for annual Athletics Carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking. Plus annual Cross Country Carnival is at no cost.
	Orange Grove PS		Glover Street Oval		Sporting ground is used for weekly sport Fridays at no cost.
			King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival at $332.60. Plus annual Cross Country Carnival is at no cost.
			Balmain Road		Sporting ground used for weekly sport Fridays at no cost.
	Rozelle PS		King George Park		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival at $332.60. Plus annual Cross Country Carnival is at no cost.
	Stanmore PS (PSSA Sport)		Glover Street Oval		Sporting ground is used for inter-school sport competitions on Fridays.
			Leichhardt Oval #2		Sporting ground is used for inter-school sport competitions on Fridays at no cost.
			Leichhardt Oval #3		Sporting ground is used for inter-school sport competitions on Fridays at no cost.
			Blackmore Oval		Sporting ground is used for inter-school sport competitions on Fridays at no costs
			Waterfront Drive		Sporting ground is used for inter-school sport competitions on Fridays at no costs
			Richard Murden Netball & Multi-purpose courts		Sporting ground is used for inter-school sport competitions on Fridays at no costs
	Sydney Secondary College Balmain		Balmain Road		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Birchgrove Oval		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Bridgewater Park		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			King George Park		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
	Sydney Secondary College Leichhardt		Blackmore Oval		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Cohen Park		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Easton Park		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Glover Street Oval		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Leichhardt Oval #2		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Leichhardt Oval #3		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Pioneer Memorial Park		Park is used for annual Cross Country event around exterior boundary at no cost
			Richard Murden Reserve Netball & Multi-purpose courts		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Waterfront Drive		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
			Whites Creek Valley Basketball courts		Sporting ground booked for Tuesday sport at no cost.
Ashfield Boys High		Ashfield Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Wednesday. No fees are charged for school access
		Centenary East		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Wednesday. No fees are charged for school access
		Centenary West		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Wednesday. No fees are charged for school access
		Hammond Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Wednesday. No fees are charged for school access
Ashfield Public		Ashfield Park		The sporting ground is use for games in the morning and weekly sport on Fridays. Annual Walkathon. No fee charged.
Balmain PSSSA (Stanmore Public)		Tempe Reserve		Sporting ground is used for PSSA sport competitions on Fridays. (Note not use this year to Tempe Renovations
		H.J Mahoney Reserve		Sporting ground is used for PSSA sport competitions on Fridays. No fees are charged for school access.
Burwood Girls		Centenary West		Sporting ground is used for weekly Games and Fitness on Tuesday. No fees are charged for school access
Croydon Public		Centenary East		Annual Cross Country Carnival. No fees are charged for school access
		Centenary West		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport PSSA on Friday. Annual Cross Country Carnival No fees are charged for school access.
Camperdown Sunshine Kids		Camperdown Park		Sporting ground is use on Tuesday for sports program. No fees charged for school access.
Dulwich High		Marrickville Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Tuesday. No fees are charged for school access
Dulwich Public School		H.J. Mahoney Reserve		Annual Athletics Carnival There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
		Johnson Park		Annual year picnic. No fees are charged for school access
Infant Home		Ashfield Park		Park is used for Playgroup. No fees area charged for school access.
Ferncourt Public		Mackey Park		The sporting ground is use for weekly sport on Fridays. No fees are charged for school access
		Steel Park		Annual Cross Country Carnival. No fees are charged for school access
Fort Street High		Petersham Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Tuesday. Cross Country Carnival. No fees are charged for school access
		Ashfield Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Tuesday. No fees are charged for school access
		Arlington Reserve		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Tuesday. No fees are charged for school access
Lewisham Public		Johnson Park		Cross Country Carnival. No fees are charged for school access
		Petersham Park		Cross Country Carnival. No fees are charged for school access
Marrickville Public		H.J Mahoney Reserve		Sporting ground is used for annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
Marrickville West Public		H.J Mahoney Reserve		Sporting ground is used for Cross Country No Charge. Annual athletics carnival. There is a cost of $332.60 for this usage to cover line marking.
Petersham Public		Petersham Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Friday. Annual Cross Country No fees are charged for school access
Share OOSH		DJ Gardens		Park is use on Monday to Friday for before and after school and in school holidays foe outdoor activities. No fees are charged for access.
South Sydney PSSA (Newtown public		Tempe Reserve		Sporting ground is used for PSSA sport competitions on Fridays. (Note not use this year to Tempe Renovations
Stanmore Public		Petersham Park		Park is used for Annual Cross Country No fees are charged for school access
Summer Hill Public		Pratten Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly PSSA Sport on Friday. No fees are charged for school access
		Centenary Park East		Sporting ground is used for weekly PSSA Sport on Friday. No fees are charged for school access
		Hammond Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly PSSA Sport on Friday. No fees are charged for school access
		DJ Gardens		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Friday. No fees are charged for school access
		Johnson Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Friday. No fees are charged for school access
		Yeo Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly Sport on Friday. No fees are charged for school access
Sydney East School Sport Ass		Tempe Reserve		Sporting ground is used on Wednesday for Primary School Gala Days. No cost. Didn’t access ground this year due to Tempe Reserve been closed for renovations
Tempe High School		Mackey Park		Sporting ground is used for Weekly Sport on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday. Annual Cross Country and Gala days at no cost.
		Steel Park		Sporting ground is used for weekly sport on Tuesday. Annual Cross Country and Gala Day at no cost.
		H,J Mahoney		Sporting ground is used for weekly sport on Tuesday. Gala Days at no cost.
		Marrickville Park		Sporting ground used Wednesday for Gala Days at no cost.
Wilkins Public		Marrickville Park		Park used for annual End of year picnic at no cost.

Catholic & Independent schools

Bethlehem College	Algie Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
Father John Terry	Gladstone Park	Park is utilised as the school playground and physical exercise area. No fees are charged for school access
	Birrung Park	Park is used Mon – Fri for weekly recess and lunch at no cost.
	Birchgrove Park	Annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60. Cross Country at no cost.
Inner Montessori School	Punch Park	Park is used for recess and lunch play M,T,W & F at no cost.
Inner Montessori School	King George Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
Lilyfield Wombats (Early Childhood Centre)	Pioneers Memorial Park	Park is used Mon, Wed & Fri for Bush Kinder program at no cost.
Marist Sisters College Woolwich	King George Park	Sporting ground is used for annual 400m races only. No cost.
Metropolitan Catholic Colleges	King George Park	Sporting ground is used for annual Cross Country Championships incorporating The Bay Run as the course route. Start and finish at KGP. No cost.
My Steppingstones Early Childcare Centre	War Memorial Park	Park used for play Monday afternoons at no cost.
SCEGGS	King George Park	Sporting ground has been booked occasionally for athletic training, 4 dates only per year at casual hire rates.
St Columba’s Primary	King George Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
St Fiacres	King George Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
St Fiacres	War Memorial Park	Annual Feast Day event booked annually at no cost
St James Catholic Primary	King George Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
St Joan of Arc Catholic Primary	Algie Park	Sporting ground used Tuesdays for weekend sport at no cost. Annual Cross Country Carnival at no cost.
St Marks Catholic Primary	King George Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
St Mary’s Cathedral	King George Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
The Conservatorium High	King George Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
Bethlehem College	Pratten Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
Bethlehem College	Ashfield Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
Casimir College	H.J Mahoney Reserve	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
	Steel Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
	Mackey Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
Christian Brothers Lewisham high School	Marrickville Oval	Sporting ground is used Wednesday and Thursday for weekly sport in school hours at no cost. They also access sporting ground after school hours and charge apply. They use Turf wicket for sport and charges apply
	Arlington Oval	Sporting ground is used Wednesday and Thursday for weekly sport at no cost. Ground is also access for after school hours and charges apply.
	Petersham Oval	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
	Camperdown	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost. Ground is also access for after school hours and charges apply.
Christian Brother Lewisham Primary School	Marrickville Oval	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly PE lessons at no cost.
De La Salle College	Ashfield Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
	Centenary East	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
	Centenary West	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
	Hammond Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly sport at no cost.
	Pratten Park	Sporting ground is used Thursday for weekly Rep sport at no cost.
Eileen O’Connor School	Petersham Park	Sport Day
Newington College	Arlington Reserve	Sporting ground is use Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday out of school hours and fee and charges apply
	Marrickville Oval	Sporting ground is use for weekend sport and fee and charges apply
	Tempe Reserve	Sporting ground is use Tuesday and Thursday out of school hours fee and charges apply (SPECIAL NOTE HAVE ADVISE NOT NEED THIS YEAR DUE COVID
PLC	Centenary East	Sporting ground is used for Annual Cross Country Carnival. No fees are charged for school access Also book throughout the year for out of school hours fees and charges apply
PLC	Centenary West	Sporting ground is used for Annual Cross Country Carnival. No fees are charged for school access Also book throughout the year for out of school hour fees and charges apply
St Maroun’s College	Marrickville Park	Annual Fun Run. No fees are charge for school access.
St Joan of Arc	Pratten Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Athletics Carnival at $332.60
St Michaels	Weekley Park	Park is used Monday to Friday for lunch time play at no cost.
St Paul’s of the Cross	JF Laxton Reserve	Park is used Monday to Friday for lunch time play at no cost.
St Vincent’s Catholic Primary	Ashfield Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Cross County and St Vincent’s Day. No fees are charged for school access.
Trinity Grammar	Yeo Park	The sporting ground is booked for weekly sport training Tuesday to Saturday. No fees are charged for school access the ground within school hours. Fee and Charges apply for outer school usage and weekends
Trinity Grammar	Hammond Park	The sporting ground is booked for Cricket on Saturday. Fees are charged apply.
The Athena School	Camperdown Park	The sporting ground is booked for annual Jogathon. No fees are charged for school access

Summary

The draft heads of agreement (HoA) for Graham Green is heavily weighted in favour of the NSW Department of Education and offers very little community benefit moving forward. The proposal in its current form represents a cost shifting exercise by the NSW Department of Education. Council has been requested to meet the full ongoing maintenance costs for access to The Green and pay an annual license agreement. Significantly, Council and the community are only being offered 2 days a week access outside of school holidays. The draft heads of agreement (HoA) places onerous obligations on Council and the users of the Graham Green. It is recommended that Council resolve to formally write to both the Secretary of the NSW Department of Education and the Minister of Education in relation to the proposed draft heads of agreement (HoA) and seek an urgent meeting and intervention by the Minister to address Council’s concerns.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

In its current form the proposed license agreement represents an annual cost to Council of $24,000 per year. A total of $14,000 for ongoing maintenance and cleaning requirements and an annual license fee of $10,000 per year with a 3% annual increase on top of full maintenance responsibilities.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Item No: C0922(1) Item 7

Subject: Henson Park - Private Public Partnership

Prepared By: Matthew Pearce - General Counsel

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - General Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Confirms that the outcomes and deliverables of the Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project as outlined in the Henson Park PPP Initial Assessment are acceptable;

2. Proceed with the Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project as a Public Private Partnership with the AFL (NSW/ACT) Commission Limited;

3. Authorise the General Manager to:

a) certify that all documentation, as part of the Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project, has been prepared in accordance with the Public Private Partnership Guidelines 2022; and

b) submit all documentation to the Office of Local Government for assessment of the Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project as a Public Private Partnership.

4. Delegate to the General Manager the authority to negotiate and execute a Heads of Agreement with the commercial terms to be reported back to Council.

DISCUSSION

Background

Last year Council has received a proposal from the AFL (NSW/ACT) Commission Limited (the AFL) for the redevelopment of the grandstand known as the King George V Memorial Grandstand at Henson Park, Marrickville which also includes the construction of a multipurpose building (the Project).

The AFL proposes to fund, construct and procure the redevelopment of Henson Park through State and Federal grants as well as committing an additional $2.5M in exchange for a non-exclusive licence to use parts of Henson Park for match play games and training sessions in respect of the AFL Women’s League. Such an arrangement satisfies the definition of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) under section 400B of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). As such, the Project is required to be considered under the Public Private Guidelines 2022 (the Guidelines) and assessed by the Office of Local Government (OLG).

At the Council Ordinary meeting in August 2021, the Henson Park Plan of Management (PoM) was adopted. A key concept of the PoM included the future upgrade of the King George V Grandstand and the provision of support amenities to allow for future AFL and Rugby League content at the Park.

On 26 October 2021, the Council considered the redevelopment of Henson Park and resolved the following:

1. Council endorse the proposed redevelopment of the Henson Park Grandstand and supporting amenities;

2. Council Officers consult with the Office of Local Government about the appropriate type of agreement for the implementation of the project and report back to Council;

3. Council endorse the provision of Owner’s Consent for lodgment of the Development Application;

4. Council staff work with AFL and the Jets to enable the lodgment of the Development Application;

5. Council endorse the Heads of Agreement Principles as outlined in the report;

6. Council staff work with AFL and the Jets to assist in the lodgment of any applicable grant applications;

7. Council staff work with AFL and the Jets to prepare an Agreement to Lease and Lease documents, which includes ongoing community access to Henson Park;

8. Any future Heads of Agreement include a key principle on the continuation, promotion and facilitation of junior rugby league and AFL sporting activities at Henson Park;

9. To provide security and clarity around future use for both sporting codes and the general community, Council cap future ticketed games at 20 ticketed games per sporting season per sporting code;

10. Given Council’s recent $2.6 million dollar investment in the Henson Park sporting ground upgrade program it is recommended that Council cap its contribution to any future construction project to $500K for this particular project;

11. Any request by the relevant clubs for additional hours of exclusive use be referred to Councillors for consideration. That this condition be noted in the Heads of Agreement and lease agreements;

12. Council welcome the announcement by the AFL that the Sydney Swans will be admitted to the AFLW league;

13. Council recommit to hosting the Newtown Jets and Sydney Swans Women's professional sporting teams at Henson Park and seek to make the ground an official home ground for the Swans Women's team;

14. Council work with the Newtown Jets and Sydney Swans to prepare a development application and submit a grant application to the NSW Government for the upgrade of facilities to allow both teams to play elite sport at Henson Park into the future;

15. Council commit to maintaining ongoing, public access to Henson Park for the community as occurs currently; and

16. The development incorporate energy and water efficiency.

On 9 August 2022, Council resolved at its Ordinary meeting, to exhibit an amended PoM for Henson Park. The amended PoM is currently on exhibition in relation to terms of the licence concerning the use of Henson Park and the public accessibility of the Amy Street Footpath. The exhibition period closes on 22 September 2022 with a report back to Council in relation to the re-adoption of the PoM at its October meeting.

The Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project (the Project)

The Project consists of the following construction work at Henson Park:

(a) Grandstand – provide DDA lift access to upper levels and complete upgrades to meet access requirements.

(b) Player amenities in Grandstand – upgrade and reconfigure, providing for change areas, with wheelchair access and facilities suitable for female players, increase storage areas for sporting and park maintenance equipment.

(c) Multipurpose building – construct a new building providing public amenities, including a baby change facilities, accessible toilets, game day canteen, coaches boxes and media broadcast facilities.

(d) Upgrade the areas surrounding the grandstand, including paving and drainage requirements.

(e) Reconfigure back of house areas and service access to improve presentation.

The Project, subject to a Development Application (DA), was independently assessed by an external planning consultant. An assessment report was prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Panel for determination of the Project. The Panel approved the DA on 5 September 2022.

The Project Funding

The AFL is to fund the majority of the Project. The total cost of the Project is estimated to be $12,174,121. The current funding of the Project by the AFL is based on the following funding sources:

a) NSW State Government funding grant of $2.5M with the AFL contributing $2.5M as part of the terms of the grant funding;

b) a Federal Government election commitment estimated at $2.5M to fund the redevelopment of Henson Park;

c) The AFL contributing an additional $2.5M from its own finances; and

d) Council contributing $500,000 (capped) to the construction of the Project based on Council’s resolution of 26 October 2021.

At present there is a funding gap. The AFL are committed to fund this shortfall through committing their own monies and further grant funding.

Heads of Agreement (HoA)

A Heads of Agreement (HoA) between Council and AFL is an initial agreement that outlines the core commercial terms for the Project construction and the terms of the Licence to use Henson Park. It should be noted that the Newtown Jets (Jets) are not a party to the HoA as the Jets are not contributing any funding to the Project. In any event, the Council, at the appropriate time, will enter into discussions with the Jets for the future sporting use of Henson Park.

The AFL Licence

The core commercial terms of the Licence Agreement between Council and the AFL are as follows:

a) Term - 21 years (this is the maximum period for a Licence of Community Land under the Act);

b) Licence - A non-exclusive annual seasonal licence to use Henson Park for the following specified number of days/hours during the term of the licence agreement:

(i) Up to 10 days for ticketed match games (limited to 5 hours per day) in the summer season for the Women's Competition;

(ii) Up to 10 days for ticketed match games (limited to 5 hours per day) in the winter season; and

(iii) Non-ticketed match games and training will be booked in accordance with the with Council's adopted Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy.

c) Licence Fee – The fee will be charged in accordance with Council’s Annual fees and charges for Henson Park:

d) Mandatory Use - The licence to use Henson Park will be subject to the following ongoing mandatory use:

(i) use by the Newtown Jets;

(ii) a minimum amount of community use of the facilities;

(iii) the facilitation of junior sports; and

(iv) public access outside the playing surface during non-ticketed community match days that includes but is not limited to local residents and dog walkers.

The HoA which is being negotiate with the AFL is a preliminary agreement between the parties where the agreed core terms are to be imported into Development and Licence Agreements for the Project’s construction and the non-exclusive sporting use of Henson Park. At present, the HoA remains in draft with ongoing discussions with the AFL.

Matters which remain to be resolved between the parties include the extent of Council’s involvement, if any, in the Project works, oversight of Council’s Project Manager in respect of key milestones of the Project during design and construction, engagement of an Independent Certifier to certify compliance with construction standards and clarity around the Project if it fails to meet Practical Completion.

Another unresolved issue is the terms of the Licence agreement as to the number of ticketed games required by the AFL. At present, the Council has resolved, at its 26 October 2021 meeting, to allow the AFL to host 20 ticketed games for the Women’s League during the summer season at Henson Park. The AFL are seeking 40 ticketed games (20 ticketed games in the summer season and 20 ticketed games in the winter season) in respect of the Licence.

Council staff are not proposing to increase the number of ticketed games to AFL.

Despite the need to continue to negotiate, the HoA in its draft form is ready for initial submission to and assessment by the OLG.

The Guidelines and assessment by the OLG (two steps)

The Guidelines outline the requirements for Local Government PPP proposals. As the Project is deemed to be a PPP due to the AFL’s further financial contribution of $2.5M separate to Council and Government funding, the Council must not enter into such an arrangement to provide public infrastructure unless it has complied with the Guidelines. The OLG have confirmed that it considers the Project to be a PPP. Council therefore must submit a PPP proposal to the OLG for initial assessment, and thereafter, for full assessment, before entering into any formal arrangement with a private party such as the AFL.

First Step - Initial Assessment

The requirements for the initial assessment of the Project by the OLG involves Council undertaking the following assessment tasks in accordance with the Guidelines:

Assessment Task 1 - completing a self-assessment questionnaire;

Assessment Task 2 - preparing various strategic documents including:

(i) a statement of the Project relationship with Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting regimen (IPR documents);

(ii) a statement of outcomes and deliverable of the Project; and

(iii) an outline of the proposed management and governance structure for the delivery of the Project.

Assessment Task 3 - preparing various business case documents including:

(i) a justification of public private partnership as a delivery model;

(ii) an estimation of the total project costs and sources of funding;

(iii) a breakdown of the contributions made by the AFL and Council; and

(iv) an assessment of Council’s financial contribution in relation to the annual revenue available for such infrastructure projects.

Assessment Task 4 - preparing a Risk Management Plan for the Project and an Evaluation Plan for Expressions of Interest from other parties.

Assessment Task 5- preparing contract documents - Heads of Agreement.

Second Step - Final Assessment

The final assessment of the Project will involve the Council undertaking the last assessment task:

Assessment Task 6 – receiving and assessing pre-expression of interest responses from other sporting associations under the Evaluation Plan.

The final assessment will involve Council submitting to the OLG a complete package of Council’s Public Private Partnership Documentation which addresses any clarification sought by the OLG, as a consequence of the initial submission, and assessment of the remaining EOI assessment task.

Council’s Public Private Partnership Documentation (Initial Assessment)

Council has prepared documentation in accordance with the Guidelines for the initial submission to and assessment by the OLG. This is summarised as follows:

(a) Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project Initial Assessment – Assessment Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4; and

(b) Heads of Agreement – Assessment Task 5.

The Project, as a PPP between Council and the AFL, aligns with the Council’s IPR documents including the Community Strategic Plan, Local Strategic Plan and Plan of Management and Master Plan for Henson Park. The outcomes and deliverables of the Project, as a business case, are outlined in the Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project Initial Assessment.

Governance matters are supported by a Probity Plan appointing an external probity advisor for the Project, a Risk Management Plan to identify and manage threats and opportunities during the Project and an Evaluation Plan for the EOI documentation.

The Council’s PPP Documentation has been prepared in accordance with the Guidelines and is ready for submission to the OLG for its initial assessment. The PPP Documentation provides justification that the Project can be delivered as a PPP with clear outcomes and deliverables.

Certification by the General Manager and Council Resolutions required by the Guidelines

The Guidelines mandate the requirement that the General Manager must certify that Council’s PPP Documentation has been prepared in accordance with the Guidelines prior to being submitted to the OLG for assessment. Further, the Guidelines require that such certification can only be authorised by Council resolution. The certification is to read:

“I, Peter Gainsford, General Manager of Inner West Council, hereby certify that the Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project Initial Assessment put forward by the Inner West Council to the Office of the Local Government for its initial assessment of the proposed Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment PPP has been prepared in accordance with the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Guidelines (January 2022).”

In addition, the Guidelines require a resolution that Council proceed with the Project as a PPP and that Council agrees that the outcomes and deliverables of the Project are acceptable.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council has resolved on 26 October 2021 to contribute $500,000 towards the construction costs of the Project.

The costs associated with the engagement of a Project Manager ($487,000 excl. GST) and a Probity Advisor ($10,000 excl. GST) is to be funded from Council’s quarterly budget revenue.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Henson Park Grandstand Redevelopment Project Initial Assessment
2.⇩	Draft Heads of Agreement

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Item No: C0922(1) Item 18

Subject: Investment Report at 31 July 2022

Prepared By: Daryl Jackson - Chief Financial Officer

Authorised By: Kelly Loveridge - Director Corporate

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the report.

BACKGROUND

A monthly investment report is provided to Council detailing the investment portfolio in terms of performance, percentage exposure of total portfolio, maturity date and changes in market value.

The monthly investment report includes details of the current proportion of investments that are non-fossil fuel investments and include details of progress in meeting the prevailing performance benchmark in respect of non-fossil fuel investments.

The investing of Council’s funds at the most favourable return available to it at the time whilst having due consideration of risk and security for that investment type and ensuring that its liquidity requirements are being met while exercising the power to invest, consideration is to be given to the preservation of capital, liquidity, and the return on investment.

Preservation of capital is the principal objective of the investment portfolio. Investments are placed in a manner that seeks to ensure security and safeguarding the investment portfolio. This includes managing credit and interest rate risk within identified thresholds and parameters.

Council determined to proactively invest in a non-fossil fuel investment portfolio.

Legislative Requirements

All investments are to comply with the following:

§ Local Government Act 1993;

§ Local Government (General) Regulation 2021;

§ Ministerial Investment Order dated 17 February 2011;

§ Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;

§ Australian Accounting Standards; and

§ Division of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines May 2010

Council’s Socially Responsible Investments consist of Green Term Deposits from otherwise fossil fuel lending banks, such as CBA and Westpac and also long dated bond issues from a range of institutions and government agencies. These investments provide targeted funding to a wide range of green and socially responsible projects and initiatives. Council also utilises these investments to remain within the credit rating policy guidelines imposed by the NSW TCorp loan covenant requirements.

Council’s portfolio is in full compliance with the NSW TCorp requirements while continuing to adhere to Council’s socially responsible investment goals.

DISCUSSION

Council’s investments are held in various investment categories which are listed in the table below. Council’s investment portfolio size is $256.2m. All Socially Responsible Investments (SRI’s) are investments that comply with the Non-Fossil Fuel standards. Council’s return for July is above the bank bill index benchmark on a marked-to-market basis. Council’s portfolio had a return 4.21%, against the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.45%) on a marked-to-market basis. For the past 12 months, the portfolio has returned -0.70% on a marked-to-market basis

Without marked-to-market influences, Council’s investment portfolio yielded 1.68%pa for the month, up from 1.35%pa in June. This is based on the actual interest rates being received on existing investments and excludes market value changes of the securities/deposits.

The investment performance reflects the downward trend in interest rate markets over recent years accelerated by pandemic related interest rate cuts. With inflation pressures continue to build, interest rates have increased sharply over the past month which has started flowing through to the portfolio in the form of higher TD rates and higher interest rate resets on floating rate notes.

The sharply rising interest environment has been detrimental to the marked-to-market valuations of the fixed rate bonds and floating rate notes in Council’s portfolio. As interest rates rise the dollar valuations of existing bonds fall in the market.

While a bond’s (or FRN’s) market value may drop below its face value (or par value) during the life a security, providing Council does not sell the security and the issuer is sound (which all of Council’s holdings are) then the bond’s market value will come back to the face value by the time it matures.

The upside to the rising trend in interest rates is that new TDs and bonds that Council invests in will be paying a much higher rate of interest than what has been available over the past couple of years. This is evident in the rising yield on the portfolio noted above.

Change in the value of our portfolio

During July, Council had $20.0m among a range of 3, 6, 12 and 36 month term deposits mature which had an average weighted yield of 0.72%pa. No new investments were made during the month.

· Matured

o Suncorp $6.5m

o CBA (Green) $7.0m

o Westpac Group (Green TD) $6.5m

The investment market had limited non-fossil fuel products available in the month. Those available were offered with low interest rates.

Council’s entire investment portfolio remains invested in non-fossil fuel lending ADIs (57% of portfolio) and socially responsible investments (43% of portfolio).

The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 31 July 2022.

The Current Market value is required to be accounted for. The Current Market Value is a likely outcome if Council were to consider recalling the investment prior to its due date.

All investments made for the month July 2022 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Local Government Regulations and the Inner West Council Investment Policy.

The 2020/21 Financial Year End process is in progress. The split between the External and Internal Restrictions are not available at this time.

The performance chart below shows Council’s rolling 12 monthly return versus benchmark over the past 5 years. Each data point is the 12 month return for the stated month end:

Council’s investment performance has reflected the downward trend in interest rate markets over recent years accelerated by pandemic related interest rate cuts. With inflation pressures building, interest rates have increased sharply over the past few months, causing negative marked-to-market returns on existing bonds and FRNs, but providing opportunities for new TDs and bond issues at levels not seen in over 2 years.

Domestic issues

Inflation data came in slightly below market expectations, at +6.1% for the year ending June. Behind the headline figure, underlying price pressures among a wide breadth of sectors are still rising with the trimmed mean rate, which excludes extreme changes, rising to 4.9%, its highest since 1990.

Australian economists expect inflation to remain manageable over the next 1-2 years with inflation expected to fall back to the mid-3% area in a year and mid-2% area in 2 years. Similarly, the Federal Treasurer’s statement on the economy forecasted inflation to fall inside the 2-3% target in 2024 after hitting a peak of 7.75% at the end of 2022.

Other domestic economic releases were mixed:

· a strong jobs report showed employment up far more than expected with unemployment falling to 3.5% its lowest level since 1974;

· the June quarter NAB business survey showed a drop in confidence for the second quarter in a row;

· retail sales growth slowed to 0.2% likely reflecting the drag from cost of living pressures and rising mortgage rates.

Interest Rates

The RBA increased the official cash rate another 50 basis points, from 0.85% to 1.35% at its July meeting with the Board noting that the level of interest rates was still very low for an economy with a tight labour market and facing a period of higher inflation. The Board agreed that further rate hikes would be needed over the months ahead to normalise monetary conditions in Australia.

The market lowered its cash rate expectations over the past month, pricing in a 3.25% cash rate by the end of the 2022/23 Financial Year, down from an expected 3.50% in June:

In July, term deposit rates were steadier than recent months rising slightly across the 1-7 month range and dipping across the 2-5 year area:

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	IWC Investment Report - July 2022
2.⇩	IWC Economic & Investment Portfolio Commentary - July 2022

Council Meeting

13 September 2022

Item No: C0922(1) Item 34

Subject: Question on Notice: Outdoor Synthetic Sports Surfaces

From: Councillor Marghanita Da Cruz

With regard to Tempe Synthetic Turf Field and noting:

(a) Football NSW Limited report, which says in 2017: "The process of planning and construction of synthetic fields can be complicated and while this is not a “howto” Guide it is designed to streamline the procedure and help clubs engage with councils to choose the most appropriate synthetic surface for their particular needs and appoint the most suitable contractor for construction and ongoing maintenance.
This Guide was compiled by Football NSW and Northern NSW Football in association with Synthetic Field expert Martin Sheppard, Managing Director of Smart Connection Consultancy." SYNTHETIC FIELDS A guide to synthetic surfaces for Football(2017) Football NSW Limited https://footballfacilities.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/10/SyntheticFields-v2-2017.pdf

(b) Smart Connection Consultancy has produced a number of volumes of the Smart Guide to Synthetic Sports Surfaces available via www.smartconnection.net.au

(c) Smart Guide 1.Synthetic Sports Surfaces, Surfaces and Standards.
Martin Sheppard, Managing Director, Smart Connection Consultancy
ISBN: 978-0-9942880-2-8

The volumes of the Smart Guides to Synthetic Sports Surfaces are:
• Volume 1: Surfaces and Standards (2021)
• Volume 2: Football Turf – Synthetic and Hybrid Technology (2021)
• Volume 3: Environmental and Sustainability Considerations (2021)
• Volume 4: Challenges, Perceptions and Reality (2021)
• Volume 5: Maintenance of Synthetic Long Pile Turf (2021)
• Volume 6: Multi-Sports Areas for Schools and Local Communities (2021)
• Volume 7: Minimising the Impact of Microplastics on the Environment (2021)

Question

What is it a mixture of cork and organic materials installed in the infill at Tempe

Answer

The organic materials at Tempe Reserve are a mix of sand and cork. Roughly at a ratio of 5 parts sand to 1 part cork.

Question

Where does the cork originate and who supplies it?

Answer

Cork comes from the cork trees in Europe and there are a number of suppliers in Australia. The cork at Tempe Reserve was supplied by TurfOne through Fieldturf in Botany.

Question

How often does the cork have to be replaced?

Answer

Replacement is linked to the amount of usage, the weather (as sun can break down cork faster) and the level of cork in the field, It has been suggested that 1-2 tonnes annually would be required in replacement cork.

Question

How much is budgeted to maintain the cork infill cost per annum?

Answer

The cost to replace cork per year would be around $3,000, around half the cost of top dressing a natural turf field.

Question

Has the cork been pre-treated to stop mould and other vegetation growing on it?

Answer

Investigation shows no evidence of pre-treatment of the cork used synthetic turf fields which is not to say that it is not. In the wine industry cork is steam treated and sometimes treated to prevent mould and other contaminates from growing.

Question

If the cork has not been pre-treated what products are used to stop weed growth on the oval?

Answer

None. When weeds do appear, they are treated in the same manner as weeds in all of Council parks.

Question

What anti - static or surfactant products used on your cork infill fields as advised by the manufacturer?

Answer

Surfactant products can be used on all infill types if static becomes an issue. Research shows that around 3 of 100 fields may become static which can be overcome with a mix of water and detergent. No such product has been used at Tempe Reserve.

Question

What is the composition of cleaning products are specified by the manufacture

Answer

There are no cleaning products specified for the cork.

Question

Did cork infill have to be topped up after the recent heavy rains in Sydney?

Answer

Yes, cork was recovered from outside of the field but not all of this could be reused as it was mixed with other materials and vegetation and was disposed of. More infill was required to be brought in to replace the material that was disposed.

Question

Industry expert Martin Sheppard in November 2019, found organic infills “are light and with heavy rain, cause floating effects.” Given this why was organic infill subsequently installed at Tempe Reserve, in an area known to be flood affected

Answer

It is true that certain areas around the Reserve are prone to flooding however IWC Flood mapping does not show the field area to be affected by flooding for floods up to 1:100years. Cork was chosen as it is a more sustainable choice than rubber and it has better heat properties than alternative infills.

Question

What investigations did Council undertake as to the need for water cannons to keep the infill moist?

Answer

Council found that water cannons are not traditionally used on synthetic fields outside of water based hockey surfaces. When they are used on synthetic surfaces the water evaporates causing the surfaces to become hotter. It was found there was no need for water cannons.

Question

As Martin Sheppard report advised against the use of organic infill (cork/coconut and cork combined) in ‘open fields’ or outdoor fields "will not be appropriate.", why did Council proceed with the installation of the material?

Answer

Martin Sheppard defines open fields as fields that do not have a lip or raised edge on the perimeter of the field which would help to prevent the infill from migrating. Tempe has raised edge and is considered a ‘closed field’ and therefore cork was considered a suitable infill.

Question

Martin Sheppard states “The breakdown of organic fibres, increased likelihood of weeds and need for substantial watering means a big question mark remains over this option for Australian Local governments.” how will this be managed at Tempe.

Answer

No watering will be required at Tempe Reserve as it is not recommended for the reasons stated above. Weeds will be managed in the same manner as they are in all of Council parks.

Question

What whole of life costings have been undertaken by IWC re the cost implications of cork infill given that these synthetic turf fields require greater maintenance, earlier renewal of infill (3-7 years) and an inability for cork infilled fields to be recycled due to organic material contamination with inorganic materials.

Answer

In addressing this question it needs to be confirmed that synthetic turf fields require less maintenance than a natural turf field. The second clarification is that the organic materials are not contaminated with inorganic materials. Recycling of the carpet is not affected by the infill. The cork and sand infill can be separated with a machine and can be reused as garden mulch or components of garden soil. It is true that cork breaks down faster than rubber infill at a rate of around 10% due to drying and Council would allow around $3K a year over ten years to manage this, compared to topdressing a natural turf field at $5K a year.

Question

Given the initial costings for Tempe Recreation Reserve involved the use of crumb rubber infill how was the budget revised to install and maintain cork instead.

Answer

The original budget for Tempe Reserve was costed for a Premium or virgin rubber infill like that used at Arlington Reserve. The cost of cork was less than the premium rubber.

Question

Martin Sheppard advises that cork infill in the fields may become very dry and show harsh effects such as being rough on the skin and become dusty as the cork dries out and breaks down. What actions do Council intend to undertake to mitigate this?

Answer

Council will manage the issue the same way it manages the dryness of natural turf fields. IWC has dedicated staff in the Parks Planning team including the role of Coordinator of Sporting Partnerships who is in regular communications with sporting clubs. Any feedback received by sporting clubs, or the public will be assessed and acted up accordingly. Further to this Council receives fortnightly maintenance reports from industry maintenance specialists which provide recommendations for further maintenance beyond the fortnightly works. These reports will advise IWC if the cork needs to be topped up due to dryness to maintain the surface playing standards.

Question

Martin Sheppard also advised "the cork also needs additional maintenance and replacement will be a higher cost and more frequent than rubber. Add $10,000 p.a." Has the additional cost been reflected in increased usage and fees charged for use of the field?

Answer

Cork will break down faster than rubber infills and will need to be replaced at a higher rate, approximately 10% more than rubber. IWC estimates a cost of $3K per year as stated above and does not consider them an additional cost as the question implies due as they are more cost effective than the maintenance of a natural turf surface and less than the cost of premium/virgin rubber infill.

Question

Given that the cork infill has been rearranged when the fields were flooded, leaving the cork unevenly distributed, what testing has been undertaken to ensure that risk of injury and damage to the surface have been mitigated?

Answer

The fields were retested after the event against the FIFA certification/accreditation criteria and have been passed.

Question

What is council's operating and capital budget for synthetic turf over the next 10 years

Answer

There are currently no capital budgets for synthetic sports fields over the next 10yrs. Councils current operating expenditure on the two synthetic fields (Tempe Reserve and Alington Reserve is approx. $50k in total per annum.

Question

What does the operating budget include in the short(4yr) and long-term(10yr)?

Answer

Councils current operating expenditure on the two synthetic fields (Tempe Reserve and Arlington Reserve is approx. $50k in total per annum.

Question

What does the capital budget include in the short(4yr) and long-term(10yr)?

Answer

There are currently no capital budgets for synthetic sports fields in the short (4yr) and long term (10yr).

Question

What happened at Tempe, in February 2022, with the newly installed synthetic turf which caused the spillage of the underlay into nearby vegetation and waterway

Answer

The February incident is still being investigated.

Question

What is the operating and capital budget for grass playing fields?

Answer

The Recreation Strategy currently being prepared will provide a basis for a prioritised sporting ground upgrade strategy to inform the 2023-2024 and subsequent capital budget processes. The sporting ground upgrade strategy will refer to the results of the natural turf Sporting Ground Condition report, as well as assessments for sports lighting and other facilities to be completed in the coming months.

Question

What are the specifications for materials and installation in our existing synthetic fields?

Answer

Refer to Councillor Briefing note sent out on 6 September 2022.

Question

What are the specifications for the materials and installation of the planned synthetic fields?

Answer

Council completed a synthetic feasibility study which identified Tempe Reserve and Leichhardt Oval No2. There are no approved future plans to build a synthetic surface in the LGA. No specifications or materials are finalised for any future synthetic fields and so no information is available to answer this question.

Question

What is the contribution to synthetic fields in terms of fees and co-contributions by sporting clubs?

Answer

No contributions were received by sporting clubs towards the building of synthetic surface at Tempe Reserve.

Question

What grants have been received from State and Federal Government for synthetic fields and natural turf fields.

Answer

None. Grants from Cricket NSW and the T20 Legacy Fund were received by IWC for upgrading the cricket nets and the cricket fields and pitches at Tempe Reserve.

Question

How is the Heat effect of Synthetic fields to be reduced in summer?

Answer

The use of cork infill helps to reduce the heat of synthetic fields compared to traditional rubber infills. Like natural turf fields, local sporting teams are responsible for deciding if conditions are unsuitable for their players due to the temperature.

Question

What are the disposal costs of our synthetic fields material?

Answer

Currently this cannot be quantified as it depends on the type of field, when it was developed and if the components are recyclable. The Victorian Government has funded a recycling plant planned to be built close to the NSW border expected to come online in 2 years’ time. The costs associated with recycling a cork infill surface are lower than those of rubber infill surface.

Question

How many hours are our each of our synthetic fields used?

Answer

Tempe Reserve Avg 50hrs/week, Arlington Reserve: Avg 41hrs/week, Lambert Park is leased to APIA Leichhardt Tigers FC with Avg hrs per week unknown.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Additional Clauses	Reason
E) General authority of Council during a Recess Period	Included to provide Council with a clear and transparent process to follow when in the recess period
F) Excluding those function:	Included to clearly identify the functions excluded from the Delegation of the Mayor
3) These delegations and authorities are subject to, and are to be exercised in accordance with:	Included to outline the responsibilities when exercising functions
4) These delegations and authorities should be construed as:	Included to provide assurance around Council operating in a manner that is valid and to not limit any legislative functions of the Mayor or Council resolved functions to the Mayor
5) These delegations and authorities are effective from the date of the Resolution of the Council and remain in force until amended or revoked by a resolution of the Council.	Included to provide clarity regarding the implementation and process of amendment
6) In this delegation:	Included to align with Council’s delegation template (and advise the reader of acronyms and definitions used throughout)

Ward	Item
Baludarri (Balmain)	Rozelle North LATM Final Report
	Beattie Street at Harris Street, Balmain - Proposed kerb blister island
	Cameron Street, Balmain (between Mort Street and Clayton Street) -Proposed kerb indentation
	27-29 Percy Street Rozelle - Temporary full road closure
	School crossing supervisor for Darling Street, Balmain
Gulgadya (Leichhardt)	Update on improvements to the Frederick Street, Ashfield crossing
Midjuburi (Marrickville)	Dudley Street, Dulwich Hill; Illawarra Road, Marrickville; Burrows Avenue, Railway Road, Gleeson Avenue and (lower) Railway Parade, Sydenham - Temporary parking changes during major rail shutdown of T3 Line for Sydney Metro Upgrade Works - Bus replacements – 24 September 2022 to 9 October 2022 and 26 December 2022 to 15 January 2023
	Holbeach Avenue, Tempe – Temporary full road closures for MS Sydney to the Gong Bike Ride on Sunday 6 November 2022
	Bunnings Tempe Traffic Signal Feasibility Study
Djarrawunang (Ashfield)	Nil.
Damun (Stanmore)	Nil.
All Wards	Nil.

1.	Council Report - RFQ 153-22 Local Road Asphalt Mill and Fill Contract FY22-23 - Confidential This attachment is confidential in accordance to information (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
2.	Appendix 1 Evaluation Spreadsheet 1-8 - Confidential This attachment is confidential in accordance to information (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
3.	Appendix 1 Justification Spreadsheet - Confidential This attachment is confidential in accordance to information (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
4.	RFQ153-22 Evaluation Plan - Confidential This attachment is confidential in accordance to information (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
5.	Appendix 4 Referee check log - Confidential This attachment is confidential in accordance to information (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
6.	Appendix 4 OZPAVE_(AUST)_PTY_LIMITED_Standard_Financial_Assessment_-_Procurement_368462 - Confidential This attachment is confidential in accordance to information (Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.