Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

18 February 2005

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY 2005 AT 6:00 PM

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 14 TH DECEMBER, 2004.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 27TH JANUARY, 2005.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 15/2005 - WAIVING OF FEES - SOUTHSIDE ELIMINATIONS – SURFING NSW.

2

 

 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2005 - SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRE TENDER - OPERATION & MAINTENANCE - T027/04.

4

7.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2005 - DECEMBER QUARTER REVIEW - 2004/07 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

10

7.3                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2005 -  ESTATE LATE HARRIE SYLVIA MARETT (ALSO KNOWN AS TODDS BARRETT).

12

7.4                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 5/2005 -  AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

15

7.5                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 6/2005 -  PRECINCT COMMITTEES.

20

7.6                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 7/2005 - WITHDRAWAL OF CAVEAT

23

 

7.7                     

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 8/2005 - PRINCE HENRY AT LITTLE BAY

25


 

7.8                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 9/2005 -  COOGEE TENNIS CLUB

31

7.9                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 10/2005 -  2004/05 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT DECEMBER 2004

38

 

 

8           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 4/2005 - REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIVE ON FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.

40

8.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 5/2005 - FRENCHMANS BAY RESERVE TOILET BLOCK REFURBISHMENT.

43

8.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 6/2005 - CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL POSITION OF PROPOSED OFF RAMPS FROM SOUTHERN CROSS DRIVE TO GARDENERS ROAD. (DEFERRED)

61

8.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 7/2005 - RIGHT-OF-WAY AT REAR OF DUNDAS ST PROPERTIES - COUNCIL'S SEAL REQUIRED.

66

8.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 8/2005 -  PRINCE HENRY HOSPITAL SITE - STREET NAMING PROPOSAL.

70

8.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 9/2005 - PROPOSED POLICY ON "RESIDENT REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL VERGE CROSSINGS" AND "NATURE STRIP PLANTINGS".

77

8.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 10/2005 - TENDER T029/04 - SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF GPT'S.

82

8.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 11/2005 - FUTURE OF OLD BUS TERMINUS BUILDING, MARINE PARADE - MAROUBRA BEACH.

100

 

 

9           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 2/2005 - AMENDMENTS TO CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE.

105

9.2                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 6/2005 - CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE - TAPE RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS.

110

9.3                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 7/2005 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (DISCIPLINE) ACT 2004, INCLUDING REVISED CODE OF CONDUCT & COUNCILLOR MISBEHAVIOUR PROVISIONS.

137

9.4                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 8/2005 - DOUBTFUL DEBTS - APPROVAL TO WRITE-OFF.

144

9.5                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 9/2005 - REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BY HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL

146

9.6                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 10/2005 - POLICY ON PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AND PROVISION OF FACILITIES TO MAYOR, DEPUTY MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS.

148

 

 

10         Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

10.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 2/2005 - HARMONY DAY.

159

10.2                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 3/2005 - 52 RAGLAN STREET, MALABAR.

162

10.3                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 4/2005 - 68-76 WENTWORTH STREET, RANDWICK.

179

10.4                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 5/2005 - 8-10 GROSVENOR STREET, KENSINGTON.

210

10.5                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 6/2005 - 1599-1601 ANZAC PARADE, LA PEROUSE.

269

10.6                     

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 7/2005 - 1 DUKE STREET, KENSINGTON.

338

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1                        

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Sullivan, Tracey & White – Works Committee Meeting, Tuesday, 8th February, 2005 – Item 5.5 – Mayoral Minute No. 8/2005 Central Park, Maroubra - Invitation To Participate In The 2005 "Trees For Mum Program." 

348

12.2

By Councillor White – Charity Cycling Race.

348

12.3

By Councillor Nash – Unlawful Erection and Removal of Posters. 

348 & 349

12.4

By Councillor Sullivan – Civic Improvement Plan for Coogee.

350

12.5

By Councillor Sullivan – Improvements at The Spot.

350

12.6

By Councillor Sullivan – Graffiti Plan.

350

12.7

By Councillor Sullivan – Restructure – Models for Service Delivery.

350

12.8

By Councillor Sullivan – Annual Festival at The Spot.

350

12.9

By Councillors Bastic & Andrews – Coastal Walkway – Between Wilson & Undine Streets. 

350

12.10

By Councillor Procopiadis – Community Notice Boards.

350

12.11

By Councillors Bastic & Andrews – 2005/06 Council Budget Items. 

350

12.12

By Councillor Belleli – La Perouse Stannard Boat Shed & 1613 Anzac Parade, La Perouse.

351

12.13

By Councillor Belleli – Malabar Pool Long Term Solution.

351

12.14

By Councillor Belleli – Expressions of Interest for Maroubra Beach Tram Shelter.

351

12.15

By Councillor Belleli – Installation of Five (5) Rubbish Bins at Coral Sea Park.

351

12.16

By Councillor Kenny – Kerb and Guttering in Jane Lane, Clovelly.

351

12.17

By Councillor Kenny – Garbage Bins at Bus Stops.

351

12.18

By Councillor Kenny – Clovelly Beach Disability Access Ramp.

352

12.19

By Councillor Bastic – Bundock Street Site.

352

12.20

By Councillor Bastic – Mayoral Minutes.

352

12.21

By Councillor Nash – Planting in Anzac Parade/Alison Road/Abbotford Street/Day Avenue/Barker Street.

352

12.22

By Councillor Nash – Turfing and Garden Beds in median strips on Anzac Parade, Goodwood to Addison Streets.

352

12.23

By Councillor Nash – Improvements to Randwick Shopping Centre footpaths, road and streescape.

352

12.24

By Councillor Nash – Planting of trees, Gardeners Road between Tunstall and Leonard Avenues.

352

12.25

By Councillor Nash – Street Lighting – Houston Road.

353

12.26

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Captain Cook Statue.

353

12.27

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Resurfacing of Coogee Bay Road, Carrington to Perouse Roads.

353

12.28

By Councillor Notley-Smith –Upgrading of Bardon, Bangor and Baker Parks.

353

12.29

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Remarking of Pedestrian Crossings.

353

12.30

By Councillor Notley-Smith –Upgrading of Coogee Beach Toilets.

353

12.31

By Councillor Belleli – Toilets in Matraville.

354

12.32

By Councillor Belleli – Shadecloths in Playgrounds.

354

12.33

By Councillor Belleli – Bin Receptacle in Coral Sea Park.

354

12.34

By Councillor Belleli – Lexington Place Upgrade.

354

12.35

By Councillor Hughes – Call for NSW State Government to develop an integrated Regional Traffic and Transport Management Plan for the South-Eastern Region of Sydney.

354

12.36

By Councillor Notley-Smith –Pram Access to Coogee Ocean Pools.

355

12.37

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Budget and Management Plan Sub-Committee.

355

12.38

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Removal of Lamp Post at front of Randwick Town Hall.

355

12.39

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Maintenance of Alison Park.

355

12.40

By Councillor Daley – Shadecloth & Softfall at Playgrounds.

355

12.41

Councillor Notley-Smith – Footpaths and works at The Spot.

356

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Reports

 

14.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 11/2005 - REVIEW OF ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE.

 

14.2                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 12/2005 - 33 HAROLD ST, MATRAVILLE - RIGHT-OF-WAY.

 

 

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

…………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 15/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - SOUTHSIDE ELIMINATIONS - SURFING NSW

 

 

DATE:

15 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07550

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request has been received from Surfing New South Wales seeking Council’s assistance in waiving the associated fees relating to the above surfing event to be held at Maroubra Beach on 7th and 8th May, 2005.

 

ISSUES:

 

As this event is the stepping stone for “young up-and- coming” surfers from within our regions, Mr Mark Windon seeks the waiving of fees for the event on Maroubra Beach which amounts to  -

 

Application fee                         $  85.00

Beach Hire Fee (3 days)                       $770.00

           

TOTAL:                                               $855.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $855.00, which will be charged to the Contingency Fund 2004/05.  The current balance set aside in the fund provided in the 2004/05 Contingency Budget as at 17th February, 2005 is $12,522.00 and this sum of $855.00 can be accommodated within that vote.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as the event is of a non profit nature, Council could assist with the costs for the associated fees, subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.       That Council vote $855.00 to cover the fees associated with the Southside Eliminations Surfing event to be held at Maroubra Beach on the 7th and 8th May, 2005, and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2004/05.

 

2.       The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

.

3.       That the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRE TENDER - OPERATION & MAINTENANCE - T027/04

 

 

DATE:

9 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08360 xr 98/S/2734

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER        

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 August 2004, Council resolved to “approve the Snape Park Tennis Centre going to tender and to lease the Centre for a period of up to twenty years (10+5+5 years), with tenderers providing facility concepts and fully funding the capital investment.”

 

The facility is located in Snape Park, and is owned by Council as community land. The facility had previously been leased to a tenant, who gave notice and vacated the site on 30 September 2004. Since 1 October 2004 Randwick Council has taken over the running of the facility, pending the outcome of this Tender. Since assuming responsibility for the Centre, a number of issues have been resolved. There was a need to maintain interim public access to the facility, and access to the facility for existing tennis lessons and dance lessons has continued.

 

Tender No T027/04 was issued on 19 October 2004 and closed at 10am on 9 November 2004. The tender process was performed in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Tendering Regulation 1999 and Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Snape Park Tennis Centre is located within Snape Park at the corner of Snape Street and Hannan Street Maroubra and is owned by Randwick Council. The Centre covers an area of approximately 4,021 sqm and comprises six hardcourt tennis courts, twenty four court lights and a wooden building comprising club room and hall, kitchen office and office store, male and female change rooms and amenities.

 

The tennis facility at Snape Park is getting close to the end of its economic life as the major parts of the facility were built in the early 1960s. All courts require resurfacing, the building needs to be demolished and rebuilt, and the court lights and fencing also needs to be replaced.

TENDER ASSESSMENT

 

A Tender Evaluation Plan was developed and was approved by the Director Governance, Management and Information Services prior to the close of the Tender.

 

The following tender evaluation criteria were used to assess the value for money offered by the tenderers.

 

Mandatory Criteria

·    Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s)

·    Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this tender

 

Desirable Criteria

·    Cost benefit to Randwick Council. Includes rental, capital investment, value of the asset at the end of lease

·    Hire Fees and other charges

·    Financial capacity to carry out the refurbishment

·    Experience and ability to manage and operate a tennis centre

·    Compliance with the specification

·    Management of Risk

·    Facility concept complies with all planning rules, and fits within what is acceptable in the Snape Park area

Detailed evaluation criteria and weightings are outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan – Attachment 1

 

Tenders Received

 

Tenders were received from:

 

1.   Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association Inc

2.   Dean Toparis trading as St George Tennis

3.   John Giavis trading as Maroubra Tennis and Sports Centre

4.   Rosa Game Pty Ltd

 

Late Tenders

 

There were no late tenders received.

 

Non-Conforming Tenders

 

There were no non-conforming tenders.

 

Conforming Tenders

 

Four conforming tenders were received and were evaluated in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan.

 

Tender Evaluation

 

The tenders were assessed and scored against each criteria from the Tender Evaluation Plan, to determine the Total Weighted Quality Score. The rental and capital investment offered by each tenderer was totalled over twenty years and expressed in current prices. The values were weighted against each tenderer and the Total Rental Index was calculated. To determine which tenderer offered the best Value for Money, the Total Weighted Quality Score was multiplied by the Total Rental Index.  The quality scores, rental index and value for money are listed below.

 

TENDERER

TOTAL WEIGHTED QUALITY SCORE

Dean Toparis

53%

Rosa Game Pty Ltd

51%

Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association

42%

John Giavis

30%

 

 

TENDERER

TOTAL RENTAL INDEX

Rosa Game Pty Ltd

1.0

Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association

0.71

Dean Toparis

0.64

John Giavis

0.44

 

 

TENDERER

VALUE FOR MONEY

Rosa Game Pty Ltd

51%

Dean Toparis

34%

Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association

30%

John Giavis

14%

 

 

The two most competitive tenderers, Rosa Game and Dean Toparis, were short-listed for interview. Questions asked were based on the desirable criteria so as to further assess the tenderers’ ability to provide the requirements of the Tender.

 

Tenderer Submission Summaries

 

Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association Inc is a community organisation that already rents a tennis centre at Heffron Park from Council. The proposal provided for an adequate level of capital investment to rebuild the building, fencing and lights as well as new synthetic grass court surfaces, but did not provide for a court resurface at the end of the lease period. They did not identify the building concept or the level of funding for the building. The proposal did not address the proposed hours of operation nor the proposed court fees. The tenderer did not have any policies or procedures regarding occupational health and safety or equal employment opportunity. The tender was generally unsupported and was not able to demonstrate to the Committee that the E.S.T.A. could undertake the requirements of the Tender.

Dean Toparis trading as St George Tennis is a sole trader and has twenty years experience in coaching tennis. The proposal included a more than adequate capital investment and involved building new hard courts, but did not propose the resurfacing in the final year of the lease. Dean Toparis received the highest Quality Score and the second highest Value for Money score, and as a result he was asked to attend an interview. At the interview Mr Toparis raised some matters that seemed to be contrary to his original tender proposal and to the issued specifications, and as a result he was not able to fully support his original tender. Mr Toparis also indicated concerns over his tendered amount.

 

The facility concept from Mr Toparis was adequate but did not meet all the requirements and was unsubstantiated regarding public access during construction. The financial capacity and plan to undertake the capital investment during the term of the lease was not as competitive as the recommended tenderer. As a result Mr Toparis was not able to satisfy the committee that he would be able to undertake the requirements of the Tender.

 

John Giavis, trading as Maroubra Tennis and Sports Centre, is a sole trader and has current experience of being the President of the Hellenic Tennis Association. The facility concept involved resurfacing courts, new lighting and fencing. The concept involved demolition of the existing building in 2005 and its replacement with a portable building until 2015, when a new club house will be built, but no resurfacing of courts in the last year of the lease. There were also many conditions attached to the proposal that were unacceptable to Council. Audited financial statements or financial information were not provided, and it was impossible to establish the capacity of John Giavis to carry out the capital investment. The total financial offer of rent paid to Council and the total capital investment was well below that of the other tenderers. The proposal was well short of requirements and unsubstantiated, and therefore cannot be supported.

 

Rosa Game Pty Ltd is a newly formed company, and as an entity it does not have any experience in tennis centre building or operation. One director of the company is also a director of the company that currently leases the Latham Park Tennis Centre from Council. Another director has experience in the development and building industry. The facility concept presented was within what is considered acceptable within Snape Park. The courts are to be resurfaced with synthetic grass and again resurfaced in the last year of lease. Rosa Game received the second highest Weighted Quality Score and the highest Value for Money score and was invited to attend an interview. Rosa Game was able to demonstrate an ability and commitment to rebuilding and operating the Centre. Rosa Game appeared to be the most capable of the tenderers to finance the capital investment required to re-build the Centre. Rosa Game satisfied the Committee that the company would be able to undertake the requirements of the Tender.

 

Term of Lease.

 

The tender specification required the mandatory capital investment of two renewals of the court surfaces, new fencing and lighting and refurbishment of the building. All tenderers have proposed to demolish and rebuild the club house. The capital investment proposals range from $353,000 to $610,000. The risk to the tenderers in recovering this level of investment is high. Any loans (if taken out) from institutions would be unsecured because the institutions will not lend against land that is owned by a third party (ie Council). It was felt that because the facility is a community asset and because there is not a high level of value adding in the packaging of tennis court hire, that the capital investment of the successful tenderer should be recovered over the maximum period that Council has authorised.

 

It is proposed that Council offer the successful tenderer a lease of twenty years, in order to recover the significant level of capital investment.

 

Risks

 

Rosa Game Pty Ltd is a new private company and does not have any real assets, nor any long term operating experience regarding tennis centres. There is therefore, a risk to Council that the conditions of the Tender and Lease may not be fully carried out. The Directors of Rosa Game, however, have demonstrated experience in the running and building of a tennis centre through their current and previous involvement with other business ventures. Rosa Game has also demonstrated a desire to succeed with the rebuilding of the Centre and to run a successful tennis centre on behalf of the Council. Rosa Game Pty Ltd is considered to still be the best option for Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council enter into a lease with Rosa Game for twenty years there will be a net benefit to Council of $1,135,000, comprising capital investment of  $492,000 and net rental to Council of  $644,000 over 20 years, (expressed in current prices). The previous tenancy would have paid in total about $500,000 over twenty years.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Rosa Game Pty Ltd was the only tenderer that demonstrated an ability to undertake the requirements of this Tender. This is the second time that the Snape Park Tennis Centre has been offered for tender within twelve months. The offer from Rosa Game Pty Ltd is the only reasonable offer and it is recommended that the offer be accepted.

 

Tender Evaluation Committee

 

The Tender Evaluation Committee comprising Geoff Dunford, Performance Improvement Officer; Sharon Plunkett, Property Officer; and Kim Davis, Manager Contracts and Purchasing all endorse the recommendations of this Report.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)       The tender from Rosa Game Pty Ltd, for the operation of the Snape Park Tennis Centre be accepted and that Council enter into a lease for twenty years under s19 (1)(a) of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999;

b)       That authority is granted for the Common Seal of the Council to be affixed to the agreement between Council and Rosa Game Pty Ltd in relation to the Lease for a part of Snape Park Maroubra, known as the Snape Park Tennis Centre; and

c)       That the unsuccessful tenderers are advised of the Tender result.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         Tender Evaluation Plan

2.         Total Weighted Quality Scores

3.         Total Rental Index

 

all under separate cover

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

DEC QUARTER REVIEW - 2004/07 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

9 February, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2004/07 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the  December 2004 Quarterly Review of the 2004/07 Management Plan.

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Each Department has reviewed those targets not being achieved, and comments on those matters are included in the Report. Currently there are six Principal Activities being reported on.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the December 2005 Quarterly Review – 2004/07 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Dec 2004 Quarter Review – Management Plan 2004/07 all under separate cover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Estate Late Harrie Sylvia Marett (also known as Todds Barrett)

 

 

DATE:

22 February 2004

FILE NO:

P/008546

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

In her will the late Harrie Marett named the Randwick City Council as a beneficiary of her estate bequeathing to Council the right title and interest in her cottage at 6 Barrett Place, Randwick.

 

The distribution of the assets of this Estate has taken considerable time, but the process of transferring ownership is now ready for completion.

 

ISSUES:

Conditions of Devisement

This property was devised to Council on Council’s agreement to comply with the conditions on which the cottage is given. These being:

a)   That the cottage shall be known as “Barrett Cottage” and a plaque shall be erected on it at Council’s expense

b)   That any future buildings on the site be known as Barrett cottage with a plaque confirming its name

c)   That council will ensure that part of the cottage be maintained as a museum dedicated to the memory of the late Franklyn Barrett and the Australian Film Industry

d)   That the Museum shall be open to the public at least twice a year

e)   That subject to a number of conditions in relation to her dog, that council will permit Nola Morrison to occupy one flat in the cottage for the term of her life or as long as she is able to live there.

f)    That Council not dispose of the cottage nor the land unless absolutely necessary

 

Description of Property

The house has been internally divided into three separate residences or flats and there is a small garage abutting Frenchman’s Road. There does not appear to have been any development application lodged for the construction of the flats. At the rear of the property is a one bedroom flat with a separate lounge room, kitchen, bathroom and sitting room occupied by the tenant named in the will. It is in better condition than the rest of the house.

 

The front section of the house including the small bed-sit flat is vacant.

 

With the exception of the flat occupied by Ms Morrison, the rest of the house is in poor condition. The floors in the vacant section at the front are unstable and there may be damage from termites.

 

Historical Film Industry Memorabilia

At this stage it is not possible to determine whether there is sufficient memorabilia to constitute a separate museum collection dedicated to Franklyn Barrett and the Australian Film Industry. If this is the situation, it may be more appropriate to include the collection within another historical collection.

 

Provision of a life-time flat

Nola Morrison has the right under the conditions of the bequest to occupy one flat in the cottage for the term of her life. The Will does not stipulate which flat, nor does it provide Ms Morrison with the right to have sole use of the backyard. It should be noted that Ms Morrison’s life estate is not conditional upon the life of the deceased’s dog.

 

The implementation of this condition will be defined clearly in a Deed of Agreement that includes who has the right of occupation, the responsibilities of the occupant in terms of maintenance; the area of occupation, including the proportion of the backyard that the occupant may access; and any conditions under which the occupation rights may be forfeited.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The acquisition of this property represents an increase in the value of Council’s property portfolio. It is currently estimated to be worth in excess of $900,000.

 

Council will need to invest considerable funds in undertaking repairs to the front section of the house to bring it to an acceptable standard.

 

There will also be ongoing maintenance although the ‘Deed of Agreement’ with the life tenant will specify her responsibilities as per maintenance.

 

CONCLUSION:

Whilst this is a generous bequest to Council it does also bring a number of responsibilities for Council in relation to the implementation of the conditions. It is proposed that a report be brought back to Council outlining some options for meeting the conditions in relation to the display and exhibition of the memorabilia.

 

There would be the need to undertake major repairs to bring the building to an acceptable standard and once these are achieved an ongoing maintenance program to maintain that standard. The same report should provide an outline of the cost of repairs and ongoing maintenance.

 

The condition to provide a life long flat for Ms Morrison also places a substantial obligation on Council’s part. It is essential that the terms of this provision be clearly defined in a legal document.

 

Nevertheless, the building would represent a financial gain to Council’s property portfolio although the benefits may not be able to be realised for a number of years.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       Randwick City Council accepts the bequest of the cottage at 6 Barrett Place, Randwick from the estate of the late Harrie Marett;

b)       A legal agreement for occupation of the flat be prepared for Ms Morrison; and

c)       A report is brought back to Council outlining some options for the maintaining and public exhibition of the memorabilia, as well as an outline of the repairs and maintenance required.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 5/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

 DATE:

3 February, 2005

FILE NO:

P/015320, P/003813, P/015621, F2004/07593, P/000915, P/006575, P/004218, P/001615, P/011866, P/002020, P/004172, 98/S/2734, P/003987, P/014776, 98/S/1700, P/003175, P/09652, 98/S/5549

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER          

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the agreements between Council and –

 

1.         Mrs S Cranford (T/As Clodeli Fine Foods Pty Ltd) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 2/210-212 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

2.         Luke Mitchell (T/As Vino Vino) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 30 St. Pauls Street, Randwick.

3.         Peter R Cradock (T/As On the Bay Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 59 Bay Parade, Malabar.

4.         Ann Jackson (T/As Kenso Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 116 Todman Avenue, Kensington.

5.         Greg Butcher (T/As Marine Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 57 McKeon Street, Maroubra

6.         Q F Yan (T/As Hakata Japanese Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 51 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

7.         Tawar Ishaya (T/As Beach View Cafe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 53 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

8.         Khalil Musleh (T/As Maroubra Seafood) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 37 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

9.         Margaret Bellanto (T/As Zeebra Cafe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 39 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

10.       Qian Yu Luo in relation to a residential lease agreement for Unit 2, 32 Belmore Road, Randwick.

11.       Deruli Pty Limited (T/As Zellini’s) in relation to a commercial lease agreement for Shops 34-36 & 38 Belmore Road, Randwick.

12.       New South Wales Land and Housing Corporate in relation to a surrender of lease for 129 Boyce Road, Maroubra.

13.       Mr Waris Marsisno in relation to a residential lease agreement for Unit 2, 20 Silver Street, Randwick.

14.       Rodney Sen (T/As Barzura) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 62 Carr Street, Coogee.

15.       Leon Gritzalis (T/As Peter Hamburger Shop) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 59 Todman Avenue, Kensington.

16.       Vaat Schoonvirmoot (T/As Real Thai) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 170 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

17.       Rosa Game Pty Ltd in relation to a licence for part of Snape Park known as Snape Park Tennis Centre.

18.       South Eastern Junior Rugby League Football Club Inc. in relation to a licence for part of Malabar Junction Public Recreation Reserve No. 46319, more particularly known as part of Pioneers Park.

19.       Robert Tate (T/As The Clovelly Hotel) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 381 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

20.       Sam Papallo (T/As Swim Bar & Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 230 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

21.       The Sunnyfield Association in relation to a licence of part of the HACC facility situated at Suite 4, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library.

22.       The Benevolent Society in relation to a licence of part of the HACC facility situated at Suite 3, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library.

23.       Clovelly Child Care Centre Inc. in relation to a licence of part of the HACC facility situated at Suite 1, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library.

24.       Mr Apipu Jangdonpai (T/As Between Thai Noodle Bar) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 244 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

1.         The licence agreement with Mrs S Cranford (T/As Clodeli Fine Foods Pty Ltd) will generate an annual income of $4,081.46 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

2.         The licence agreement with Luke Mitchell (T/As Vino Vino) will generate an annual income of $1,474.02 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

3.         The licence agreement with Peter R Cradock (T/As On the Bay Café) will generate an annual income of $1,876.18 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

4.         The licence agreement with Ann Jackson (T/As Kenso Café) will generate an annual income of $526.64 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

5.         The licence agreement with Greg Butcher (T/As Marine Café) will generate an annual income of $2,422.64 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

6.         The licence agreement with Q F Yan (T/As Hakata Japanese Restaurant) will generate an annual income of $2,422.64 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

7.         The licence agreement with Tawar Ishaya (T/As Beach View Cafe) will generate an annual income of $897.43 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

8.         The licence agreement with Khalil Musleh (T/As Maroubra Seafood) will generate an annual income of $2,132.97 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

9.         The licence agreement with Margaret Bellanto (T/As Zeebra Cafe) will generate an annual income of $2,422.64 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

10.       The residential lease agreement with Qian Yu Luo will generate an annual income of $10,920.00.

11.       The commercial lease agreement with Deruli Pty Limited will generate an annual income of $120,640.00 + GST.

12.       There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

13.       The residential lease agreement with Mr Waris Marsisno will generate an annual income of $10,920.00.

14.       The licence agreement with Rodney Sen (T/As Barzura) will generate an annual income of $9,560.56 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

15.       The licence agreement with Leon Gritzalis (T/As Peter Hamburger Shop) will generate an annual income of $1,390.33 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

16.       The licence agreement with Vaat Schoonvirmoot (T/As Real Thai) will generate an annual income of $3,178.39 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

17.       The licence agreement with Rosa Game Pty Ltd will generate a rental of one  dollar ($1.00) + GST for three months.

18.       The licence agreement with South Eastern Junior Rugby League Football Club Inc. will generate an annual income of $70.00 + GST.

19.       The licence agreement with Robert Tate (T/As The Clovelly Hotel) will generate an annual income of $7,141.24 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

20.       The licence agreement with Sam Papallo (T/As Swim Bar & Restaurant) will generate an annual income of $4,712.53 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

21.       The licence agreement with The Sunnyfield Association will generate an annual income of $12,600.00 + GST per annum.

22.       The licence agreement with The Benevolent Society will generate an annual income of $2,160.00 + GST per annum.

23.       The licence agreement with Clovelly Child Care Centre Inc. will generate an annual income of $4,204.08 + GST per annum.

24.       The licence agreement with Mr Apipu Jangdonpai (T/As Between Thai Noodle Bar) will generate an annual income of $1708.94 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 48 of the Meetings Regulation required that the Council pass a resolution authorising the affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities being completed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements between Council and –

 

1.   Mrs S Cranford (T/As Clodeli Fine Foods Pty Ltd) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 2/210-212 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

2.   Luke Mitchell (T/As Vino Vino) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 30 St. Pauls Street, Randwick.

3.   Peter R Cradock (T/As On the Bay Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 59 Bay Parade, Malabar.

4.   Ann Jackson (T/As Kenso Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 116 Todman Avenue, Kensington.

5.   Greg Butcher (T/As Marine Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 57 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

6.   Q F Yan (T/As Hakata Japanese Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 51 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

7.   Tawar Ishaya (T/As Beach View Cafe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 53 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

8.   Khalil Musleh (T/As Maroubra Seafood) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 37 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

9.   Margaret Bellanto (T/As Zeebra Cafe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 39 McKeon Street, Maroubra.

10. Qian Yu Luo in relation to a residential lease agreement for Unit 2, 32 Belmore Road, Randwick.

11. Deruli Pty Limited (T/As Zellini’s) in relation to a commercial lease agreement for Shops 34-36 & 38 Belmore Road, Randwick.

12. New South Wales Land and Housing Corporate in relation to a surrender of lease for 129 Boyce Road, Maroubra.

13. Mr Waris Marsisno in relation to a residential lease agreement for Unit 2, 20 Silver Street, Randwick.

14. Rodney Sen (T/As Barzura) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 62 Carr Street, Coogee.

15. Leon Gritzalis (T/As Peter Hamburger Shop) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 59 Todman Avenue, Kensington.

16. Vaat Schoonvirmoot (T/As Real Thai) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 170 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

17. Rosa Game Pty Ltd in relation to a licence for part of Snape Park known as Snape Park Tennis Centre.

18. South Eastern Junior Rugby League Football Club Inc. in relation to a licence for part of Malabar Junction Public Recreation Reserve No. 46319, more particularly known as part of Pioneers Park.

19. Robert Tate (T/As The Clovelly Hotel) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 381 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

20. Sam Papallo (T/As Swim Bar & Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 230 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

21. The Sunnyfield Association in relation to a licence of part of the HACC facility situated at Suite 4, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library.

22. The Benevolent Society in relation to a licence of part of the HACC facility situated at Suite 3, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library.

23. Clovelly Child Care Centre Inc. in relation to a licence of part of the HACC facility situated at Suite 1, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library.

24. Mr Apipu Jangdonpai (T/As Between Thai Noodle Bar) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 244 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 6/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Precinct Committees

 

 

DATE:

16 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08214

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council currently has 10 operational Precinct Committees, with the majority meeting on a monthly basis to discuss local issues impacting upon their local suburbs.

 

The Committee members include residents, business owners and/or property owners within the specific Precinct Committee boundaries across the City. They are supported by Council through the work of the Community Consultation and Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as through the supply of paper, copying and printing services, waiving meeting room fees and expedited access to Council documents and files. Excluding staff costs this amounts to over $700 per Precinct Committee each year.

 

In addition, $250 is provided to each Precinct Committee each year for meeting other expenses incurred.

 

ISSUES:

 

To continue to improve the link between Council and the community and foster improved community engagement, Council resolved at their meeting on 27 April 2004 to establish a Precinct Coordination Committee (PCC). Council also requested a report on arrangements and costs to run the Precinct Coordination Committee.

 

The inaugural meeting of the PCC was held on 18 November 2004.

 

The PCC meeting was chaired by the General Manager, Mr Ray Brownlee.  The meeting was attended by the Mayor, Cr Murray Matson, 16 delegates representing 9 of the 10 Precincts and two staff members, Council’s Communications Officer and the Community Consultation and Liaison Officer, (CCLO).

 

The Draft Terms of Reference for the PCC and a set of draft Rules and Procedures for Precinct Committees were discussed at the meeting.

 

Comments from the Precinct Committee on the draft documents have been incorporated into the final drafts which are now presented to Council for approval.

 

The Precinct Coordination Committee will meet quarterly and the membership will comprise:

 

·    The Mayor or his/her representative

·    The General Manager or his/her representative as Chairperson

·    Council’s Community Consultation and Liaison Officer as Secretary, and

·    Two representatives from each Precinct Committee (currently 10 Precincts).

 

PCC OBJECTIVES:

 

Functions of the Precinct Coordination Committee will be:

 

·    The efficient coordination of Randwick City Council’s Precinct Committees

 

·    The establishment of a forum at which both City-wide issues and issues common to Precincts and Council can be raised

 

·    The improvement of Council’s consultation processes and the development of better community engagement practices

 

·    Improved Precinct communication with Councillors through a formal report to a following Council Meeting after each quarterly PCC meeting

 

·    Support for accountable decision making

 

·    The creation of a catalyst to assist, revitalise and improve the effectiveness of Precinct Committees.

 

The PCC meeting schedule for 2005 is:

 

Thursday 3 March 2005, 6.30 pm

Thursday 19 May 2005, 6.30 pm

Thursday 11 August 2005, 6.30 pm

Thursday 10 November 2005, 6.30 pm

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

Funds to operate the PCC were allocated in the 2004/05 budget.  No additional costs are expected this year.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is intended that the Precinct Coordination Committee will help in the coordination, revitalisation and improved effectiveness of Randwick City Council’s Precinct Committees and ensure broader community participation and engagement in Councils decision making process.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   The PCC minutes of 18 November 2004 be noted.

 

2.   That the draft Terms of Reference for the PCC be adopted.

 

3.   The draft Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. The Precinct Coordination Committee draft minutes of 18 November, 2004.

2. The draft Terms of Reference for the Precinct Coordination Committee.

3. The draft Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures-ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 7/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

WITHDRAWAL OF CAVEAT

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2005

FILE NO:

D00048663

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ form to remove a caveat number ‘K578931’ from the title of property at 29 Meagher Avenue, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 137/228875).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years from the date of its acquisition by the current registered proprietor, Douglas Paul Stolzenhein. 

 

As the date of the acquisition was 14 December 1964, the caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property to the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Douglas Paul Stolzenhein.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 48 of the Meeting Regulation required that the Council pass a resolution authorising the affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to comply with legal formalities set by the Land and Property Information Office. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority is granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ form relating to the property at 29 Meagher Avenue, Maroubra.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 8/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

PRINCE HENRY AT LITTLE BAY

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07970

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The current master plan for the former Prince Henry Hospital site, 1430 Anzac Parade, Little Bay was adopted with variations by Council at its meeting on 27 May 2003. Since that time an amendment to Randwick Local Environmental Plan has rezoned the site for residential, open space and environmental protection purposes. Concurrently with the LEP process, a site specific Development Control Plan has also been adopted by Council.

 

These plans have set the framework to deliver a model redevelopment of the 83.9 hectare site, which will exemplify sustainable development. This report builds upon this framework by seeking Council’s endorsement of the draft Deed of Agreement between Landcom and Randwick City Council. The Deed of Agreement seeks to formalise the major master plan commitments given in the master plan to deliver outcomes that are socially and environmentally as well as economically beneficial. In particular the Deed formalises the strategic framework for provision and embellishment, at no cost to Council, of significant community assets such as the parks, Little Bay Beach and the Prince Henry Community Centre.

 

The draft Deed of Agreement and the draft Performance Brief for the Prince Henry Community Centre can be found as attachments to this report.

 

ISSUES:

 

Prince Henry Deed of Agreement

 

Provision of the Deed of Agreement

The Deed has been prepared to address Council’s section 94 requirements for the site. It addresses:

·    provision of infrastructure and community facilities which will be provided;

·    time period for completion of community facilities and public domain; and

·    a guarantee to meet requirements, a default penalty for non provision or non completion of facilities.

 

Operation of the Deed

 

The Deed becomes operative and binding upon execution by both parties. It should be noted that the Deed does not fetter any statutory discretion of the Council. Council officers are currently assessing a development application for creation of 23 super lots. Landcom has been advised that prior to granting consent to the application it is required to sign the “Deed of agreement” with Council.

 

Positive Covenants

 

Upon execution of the Deed, Landcom must provide a bond to Council as a form of guarantee to perform its obligations under the Deed.

 

Landcom is also to construct Public Roads, Public Open Space, The Prince Henry Centre and Beach Facilities for the Little Bay Beach.  Once those improvements are variously constructed to Council's satisfaction, Council intends to accept dedication and take title to the lots comprising the Public Roads, 3 Parks, The Prince Henry Centre and Little Bay Beach.

 

The Deed provides that when the lots intended for dedication to Council are created by registration of the Proposed Plan of Subdivision, a Positive Covenant will be registered on each of the lots.  The Positive Covenant will state that the land is to be dedicated to Council.  The Positive Covenant will further state that prior to dedication the registered proprietor (Landcom) must construct improvements upon the land in accordance with the proposed development project to the satisfaction of Council.  The Positive Covenant will contain a further provision that, in the event that the registered proprietor (Landcom) does not complete the construction of the relevant improvements on the land to Council's satisfaction within a specified time, then Council may enter the land and carry out the construction and recover the cost from the registered proprietor (Landcom).

 

Registration of the Deed

 

The New South Wales Government is considering amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that would enable the registration of Planning Agreements on Title to the land.  The Deed contains an acknowledgement between the parties that if the law is changed to enable the Deed to be registered on title as a "Planning Agreement", the parties will, if appropriate, proceed to do so.

 

It is a recommendation of this report that Council note and agree that the General Manager sign the Prince Henry Deed of Agreement on behalf of Council in accordance with delegations (Policy 2.01.04 Ref RL003).

 

Performance Brief Prince Henry Community Centre

 

The attached Performance Brief is the result of comprehensive work undertaken by Council officers in a multi-disciplinary team, Landcom and specialised consultants. The aim of which for Council was two fold, firstly to provide a purpose-built facility meeting the cultural and social needs of the community both now and into the future and, secondly to provide a community centre building which exemplifies the new generation of sustainability initiatives, both in its design and practice. Examples of these initiatives which are proposed for the Centre are grey water reuse and the generation of its own electricity from photovoltaic technology, these and many others are detailed in the Brief.

 

The needs identified within the Centre are derived from the Randwick City Community Facilities Study (November 2003), community feedback from the Social Plan review process and the master plan development and its projected demographics. The results of which demonstrated a clear nexus for the provision of a cultural space, such as an auditorium with stage accommodating up to 250 users, together with other multifunctional spaces which would allow community related functions. Other needs were identified as a result of its location, such as a café and courtyard for up to 70 people to cater for beach goers and residents, extensive balconies from the auditorium and multipurpose rooms to capitalise on the extensive ocean views, a kitchen to allow catering for functions, a first aid room to service beach patrons and the provision of car parking meeting the needs of both the Centre and beach goers.

 

The Brief provides outcomes focused guidance for the design of the Centre, the final design of which will be chosen by Council in partnership with Landcom, following a design competition. A selection of leading architectural practices which have already expressed interest will be invited to submit a design and cost estimate based on the Brief and other relevant site controls. It is envisaged that this process will commence in late 2005, with design development in 2006 leading to DA lodgement in December 2006.

 

Based on the highly specific requirements of the brief, the indicative gross floor area of the Centre is approximately 1,550m2 with an additional 2,600 m2 of parking, this together with landscaping put the estimated cost of the Centre in excess of $5.2 million, on a parcel of land valued at $7.4 million. However, it should be noted that the final gross floor areas of the Centre will be dependent on the final design solution.

 

Although Council in adopting the master plan in 2003 made a variation requiring the provision of a 2,500 m2 community centre, the studies and consultation carried out since that time has enabled a focused and informed basis on which to develop the Brief. The indicative gross floor area figure in the Brief is a direct consequence of Council’s identified needs and all the other relevant provisions of the master plan, such as the need to provide a Centre which will provide for a range of activities and uses for various age groups. The Brief delivers on these requirements providing an auditorium with stage, kitchen and multi media space which be used for a variety of purposes such as performances, seminars and community events. In addition two large multi-purpose rooms separated by an operable wall can be used for a variety of uses, such as, playgroups, meetings, yoga classes and the like. Other spaces such as the café and car park provide for needs of the local community and beach goers.

 

Consequently, it is a recommendation of this report that Council endorse the Brief and recognise that a development in line with the Brief would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Prince Henry Master Plan. It is intended to append the Prince Henry Community Centre Performance Brief to the Deed of Agreement. Under the Deed both the community centre and its land will be provided at no cost to Council in lieu of s94 contributions.

 

Multi Purpose Street Light Poles

 

It is intended that Landcom will supply, install and commission 124 multi purpose poles throughout the site, 85 of which will be installed on Council land at no cost to Council, with the remainder being maintained by the Trust. Multi purpose street light poles are used extensively in Sydney CBD, they have flexibility of uses including potential revenue opportunities including banners, communications and adaptability for future technology. The multi purpose poles at Prince Henry will be fitted with mercury vapour lamps which will reduce operational costs.

 

Dedication of Little Bay Beach to Council

 

The primary goal set by the master plan for the beach zone, extending from the high water mark to the three metre contour, and the public right of way beach access across the golf course was to ensure that the Beach became a public beach, accessible to all Randwick City residents and visitors. In 2003 the master plan identified the beach as being managed by the Trust. At that time it was envisaged that beach management under the Trust would be via direct arm of State Government. It is now understood that the State Government has committed on-going financial support from Treasury to the Trust, which will also have to maintain many assets on the site such as Heritage buildings and bushland. However, the Trust will sit independent of Government working closely with the Prince Henry Community Association.

 

In all negotiations that lead to the preparation of the Master Plan one of Council’s main objectives has been to avoid the creation of a “gated suburb”. Therefore, measures have been put in place to ensure a high level of public accessibility to the site. During negotiations of the Deed further consideration to the status of Little Bay Beach was given. Having regard to the principle of public accessibility, it is more appropriate for Council to accept the dedication and management of Little Bay Beach. The annual operational cost will be approximately $64,000.

 

It is therefore appropriate that Little Bay Beach being a significant public asset be managed by Council as is the case with all the other public beaches within the City, excluding the National Park. This will guarantee a public beach status for Little Bay Beach to be enjoyed by the community and future generations. Consequently it is a recommendation of this report that Council agree to the future dedication of Little Bay Beach to Council and recognise that in doing so it would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Prince Henry Master Plan.

 

Affordable Housing

 

The Master Plan required 1% of all dwellings to be made Affordable Housing. The Deed makes specific provisions in this regard. In total 8 dwellings will be dedicated to Council. The mix will be as follows:

·    1 x one bedroom apartment

·    5 x two bedroom apartment

·    2 x three bedroom apartment

 

The Deed ensures that the internal and external finishes will be similar to the rest of the dwellings within the site and will be provided at no cost to Council.

 

Water Harvesting and Sharing

 

The Deed recognises the requirements of the Prince Henry DCP with regard to the Total Water Cycle management strategy for the site. At no cost to Council a comprehensive stormwater management and irrigation system to harvest treated run off water from the site is to be provided. The harvested water is to be stored in new and augmented storage facilities and then redistributed for irrigation purposes within the 83.9 hectare site. This system will exemplify sustainable water management, it is estimated that a 90% surety of supply to irrigate the landscape of the Prince Henry site with harvested stormwater can be achieved.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Open Space

Establishment cost

Land Value

2.68ha open space to be dedicated forming three parks.

$0.7m

(excl. infrastructure cost below)

$20.88

Little Bay Beach foreshore 0.89ha. Beach access works, toilet facility and tidy up (85% complete)

 

$0.8m

 

$7.01m

Community facility

Establishment cost

Land Value

Provision of Prince Henry Community Centre in accordance with performance brief

 

>$5.2m

 

$7.4m

Infrastructure

Establishment cost

Land Value

Roads and footpaths

$2.9m

-

Street trees

$0.9m

-

Stormwater

$2.6m

-

Irrigation

$0.25m

-

Multi purpose street light poles (85)

$0.8m

-

Affordable Housing

Establishment cost

Land Value

8 Dwellings

$2.26m

 

 

The land value and the establishment cost of the asset is to be provided at no cost to Council. All costs above are provided by Landcom based on QS estimates. Dedication of assets such as the Community Centre and Beach is estimated to be December 2008, subject to satisfactory completion. It should also be noted that the Deed and section 88B instrument indemnifies Council against all claims until dedication takes place.

 

All ongoing costs to Council will be met from Council’s normal rates base as with all other areas within the City and the necessary budgetary provisions will be made annually. It should be noted that rates revenue from the housing stock to be built on site will cover ongoing maintenance cost to Council following dedication.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Prince Henry Deed of Agreement will deliver outcomes that are socially and environmentally, as well as economically, beneficial. In particular the Deed formalises the strategic framework for provision and embellishment, at no cost to Council, of significant community assets such as the parks, Little Bay Beach and the Prince Henry Community Centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        Council note and agree that the General Manager be authorised to sign the Prince Henry Deed of Agreement on behalf of Council in accordance with delegations (Policy 2.01.04 Ref RL003);

 

(b)        Council endorse the Prince Henry Community Centre Performance Brief and recognise that a development in line with the Brief would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Prince Henry Master Plan; and

 

(c)        Council agree to the future dedication of Little Bay Beach to Council and recognise that in doing so it would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Prince Henry Master Plan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

under separate cover -

Prince Henry Deed of Agreement

Prince Henry Community Centre Performance Brief  

 

 

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 9/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Coogee Tennis Club

 

 

DATE:

22 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1246

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER     Revenue Models

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on the 21 September 2004 it was resolved that a report be prepared for Council on the proposed lease with the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club (ESTC) for the Coogee Tennis Centre.

 

The following paper outlines the history of the lease/licence arrangements between Randwick Council and the ESTC, the maintenance program, market rental and the critical issues relating to the new lease.

 

BACKGROUND

1.   History of the Site

In April 1944 the whole area bounded by Dolphin, Mount, Brook and Bream Streets was dedicated as lands for public purposes under the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913.

 

In 1965 the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club Limited Company obtained a Special Lease from the Department of Lands for the purpose of erecting a clubhouse on Lot 1502 in DP 752011. This land was held under Special Lease 1964/35 – Metropolitan.

 

Documentation in relation to the granting of the special lease on 2 March 1965 indicated that the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club had lodged an application to have the whole area, including the five tennis courts, the area to the north of the courts and some of the area to the south of the courts granted as a lease in perpetuity. However the Metropolitan Land Board only granted the area on which the club was to be built. The other part of the area remained as Crown Land with Randwick Council as the Reserve Trust manager.

 

In 1996 as a result of the change in legislation and the introduction of the Crown Lands Act 1989, the Department of Land and Water Conservation gave the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club approval to purchase the Crown Land Lease for Lot 1502. This is the site on which the Tennis Club is constructed

 
2. Previous Lease/Licence Agreements
Council’s records indicate that the following leases/licences were signed.

·      July 1948 –July 1953 with the Eastern Suburbs Hard Court Tennis Association

·      July 1953- July 1956 with the Eastern Suburbs Hard Court Tennis Association The annual rent was £450

·      July 1965 – July 1980 with the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club Limited Company and with an annual rent of £100

·      July 1980 – July 1990 with the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club Limited Company and with an annual rent of $2500

 

A draft lease for period 1990- 1995 was signed by Council and approval in principle was given by the Department of Land & Water (12 October 1993), however, it was not signed by the Tennis Club.

 

3. Most Recent Lease Agreement

In January 1997 Council called for expressions of interest for the operation of the tennis courts at Coogee and in their tender the ESTC set out a Capital Works Program, which was accepted as part of the tender. The Club committed to carrying out the following works

·    1997    Fences                                                                                     $10,000

·    1998    Relocate professional Shop                                                       $30,000

·    1998    Increase Car park & demolish section of existing building          $10,000

·    1999    Court resurfacing                                                                      $150,000

·    2004    replace lighting                                                              $150,000

 

The tender from the ESTC was the only one received and on 18 March 1997 Council resolved not to accept any of the submissions received and to call fresh expressions of interest. However, following a rescission motion on 25 March 1997 it was resolved that the tender from the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club be accepted.

 

The draft lease was sent to the solicitors for the ESTC in July 1998 and in October 1998 the ESTC’s solicitor wrote to Council’s solicitors requesting the inclusion of an option period in the licence as the Club would have to spend $100,000 on renewing the courts. This was not granted as the advertised tender had been for a 5 year period only and it was on a 5 year basis that the club submitted their tender with the capital works program.

 

The annual fee was $18,000. The lease was signed on 21 December 1999. There was no option for 5 years and the work as detailed in the tender and lease was not undertaken. The lease expired on 30 April 2002.

 

4. Proposed New Lease

In April 2003 it was agreed that Randwick Council would enter into a 5 year lease with the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club in relation to the Courts at J.V. Dick Reserve in Coogee.

Council prepared a draft lease agreement and this was sent to ESTC on the 11 July 2003.

 

 

 

 

ESTC submitted a capital works program that they intended to implement over a number of years and this included the following:

 

2003                Court resurfacing                                  $84,050

                        Fence Maintenance                               $6,000

2004                Upgrading of Court Lighting                  $47,616

Car Park Access fencing                       $2,000

Car Park lighting                                   $1,860

Wheel chair access                               $4,000

 

The total estimated cost is $145,526 though this may vary as the actual GST component was not clear. It was agreed that the rent could be discounted by the level of the Club’s investment capital program which averages at a discount of $29,000 per year against the market rent of $79,000.  However, the Club, as detailed in the lease will have ongoing maintenance responsibilities as is the norm for all Council leases.

 

Council also agreed to provide an option for an additional 5 years that was conditional on the club achieving its agreed performance measures including the completion of the capital works.

 

During 2003 there was ongoing correspondence and a number of meetings were held in relation to the matter of the new lease. At a meeting on 29 July 2004 the President of ESTC agreed to the conditions in the draft lease but this lease was not finalised following the Council resolution of 21 September 2004.

 

Since September 2004 meetings have been held with Phil Condon who is the president of both the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club and the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association.

 

Following the discussions with representatives of both clubs, all parties agreed that as the Tennis Club is largely focused on the operation of the licensed club, it was more desirable for the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association (representing the players) to be the party to the lease with Randwick City Council.

 

The issues of concern have been discussed in detail with all involved parties and a resolution reached.

 

ISSUES:

The major issues of concern in negotiating the new licence relate to:

 

1. Lack of Differentiation between the operations of the Licensed Club, the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club and the running of the Tennis Centre:

Despite numerous requests, the ESTC had not been able to provide Council with any financial records that related solely to the running of the Tennis Centre and in a letter dated 26 May 2004 the ESTC stated that the operations of the Tennis Centre and the Licensed Club have always been one business. Council, however, requires audited detailed annual financial statements in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.

 

This concern will be addressed by making the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association the lessee.

 

2. Market Rental Valuation

In September 1999 the State Valuation Office undertook a valuation of the Coogee Tennis Centre at Council’s request. The valuation advice they provided was based on the rents for other council owned but privately operated tennis courts in the eastern suburbs. This valuation report considered that the current rental value of the J. V. Dick Tennis Complex, Coogee was $15,800 per court per annum.

 

The lease that has been prepared provides for a total market rental of $79,000 with an allowance for an average annual reduction of $29,000 based on the program of works that was submitted by ESTC. The actual rent payable would directly relate to the value of the works undertaken and the Club would need to submit invoices for the work carried out so that the value of the discount can be calculated each year. If the Club does not put the money into the works program then the market rental will be charged and Council will invest the money in the maintenance.

 

The market valuation is fair and as it was undertaken over 6 years ago it is likely that a current valuation would return an even higher figure. In 2003 the Latham Park Tennis Centre was tendered and the process provided a current view on the market value. While the rent charged for the Latham Park courts is $52,000, they are not in such an accessible location as Coogee.

 

3. Occupancy Rates: The occupancy rates of the tennis courts were reviewed. The ESTC estimated an occupancy rate of about 50%, while industry research provided a different perspective with the four centres Council contacted showing much higher occupancy rates in the 70% to 80% level

 

It is suggested that the low occupancy rates may be due to the lack of promotion of the facilities to the community, lack of access due to restrictive exclusive use periods and the fact that the courts are not being fully utilized in periods set aside for exclusive occupancy.

 

4. Exclusive Use: Currently the ESTA has exclusive use of the tennis courts for extensive periods including most late afternoons/evenings and weekends. While it is recognised that the ESTA membership consists of many local residents, the extensive exclusive booking of the courts by the ESTA allows very few opportunities for members of the public who do not belong to the Tennis Association to use the courts. Unless the designated exclusive use period is fully utilised, the Club may be limiting their ability to raise revenue from the courts.

 

5. Private Coach: Currently the ESTC sublets the courts, when not required for use by the ESTA, to a private coach for an annual fee of $20,000.  (This roughly equates to a court hire cost of $1.22 per hour). With 20% occupancy the return on the casual hire (based on $16.50 per hour) should be $56,550 while a 50% occupancy rate should return $141,377. The revenue from the casual hire is returned to the coach and not the ESTC. It is likely that the coach is returning a higher rate per hour when actually running classes.

 

It was agreed in the discussions that the Club could renegotiate that hire fee charged to the private coach and this would increase the financial return on the courts. The coaches who hire courts at Council’s other Tennis Centres are charged between $10 and $15.40 per hour.

 

6. Promotional strategies: Council has suggested that more focused promotional and advertising strategies could impact positively on the low occupancy rates. There are also opportunities for increased revenue from the kiosk, food and drink machines.

 

7. Parking

A condition of approval for the operation of the Licensed Tennis Club requires the use of 30 parking spaces that are located in the area covered by the lease for the Tennis Centre. Perhaps consideration needs to be given to a separate licence with the Licensed Club for the use of the parking area.

 

8. Maintenance

In 2003 Council initiated a review of the courts’ condition and in the report prepared by A & B Tennis Construction Pty Ltd it was recommended that all five courts require renewal and that the chain wire fences dividing the courts be renewed and the nets be repaired or replaced.

 

The ESTC have recently spent funds on renewing the courts as part of the works program detailed in the current works program.

 

9. Financial Returns for the Tennis Centre

The hourly rental rate for a court is $16.50 although this is discounted to $13 per hour for the members of the Tennis Club.

 

A revenue model has been prepared in relation to the operation of the Tennis Centre. This includes the revenue that should be generated by the hiring to club members as well as possible revenue from casual hiring. The casual hiring figures provide for a 10%, 20%, 40%, 50% and 60% occupancies. The revenue model is provided as Attachment 1.

 

There are two versions of this model with one showing the hourly court rental for club members as $13 per hour (which is the discount provided to Club members). The second version uses a court rental fee of $16.50 per hour for the club members, which is the same fee charged to all other members of the community. If the ESTC wishes to provide the court hire at a subsidised rate for their club members then this subsidy should be covered by the club.

 

There is a potential income of $253,676 based on

·    Court hire to club members at $13 per hour for the exclusive periods

·    A 40% casual occupancy rate for all other times

 

 It is recognised that the ability of the club to achieve higher occupancy rates is limited by the weather but a 50% occupancy rate should be achievable.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

The lease agreement with the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association will generate an annual income of $79,000 plus GST less an annual allowance of up to $29,000 plus GST for capital works as agreed in the program carried out by the ESTA.

 

CONCLUSION:

The financial analysis clearly demonstrates that the facility has the capacity to deliver substantial revenue to ESTA and therefore a market rent of $79,000 with the option to write off all capital investment is very reasonable. Any expenditure on capital improvements over $29,000 can be carried over against the following year’s rent.

 

Randwick Council acknowledges that the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club and the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association are long term local sporting groups that provide opportunities for local children and adults to learn and play tennis. The clubs have a long association with the tennis courts at Coogee and it is reasonable to offer the club a lease for the facility.

 

If the ESTA is to be offered a lease (for 5 years with an option of 5 years) it is essential that a Capital Works program be submitted and included in the lease as a schedule. At the expiration of the lease the ESTA would have the option to renew the lease, but this would be dependent on the lessee meeting all conditions and covenants of the lease.

 

As Clause 48 of the Meetings regulation requires that Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities being completed,

 

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that:

1.       The Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association be offered a lease for 5 years with a 5 year option for the Tennis Centre at Coogee;

2.       The rent is to be set at the market rental with the option to offset maintenance against rent;

3.       The lease includes an option for the lessee to take a renewed lease for a further term of the same duration if the lessee meets all conditions and covenants of the lease and the Minister approves the renewed lease; and

4.       Authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements between Council and the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association in relation to a lease for the purpose of operating the Coogee Tennis Centre.

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

Revenue Models-under separate cover

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 10/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

2004/05 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT DECEMBER 2004

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/5310-2

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2004/2005 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2004/2005.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

Part 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 requires that at the close of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2004/2005 year, based on current trends.  The statement must be prepared on an accrual basis and must also show the original estimates as adopted in the Management Plan.

 

The regulation also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

I.          A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

 

II.         If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

b).        DECEMBER  2004 QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

Subject to Council’s formal adoption of the changes contained in this report, the following table summarises the projected budget position for 2004/2005 as at 31 December 2004 :

 

 

 

 

Original Budget

Current budget

Proposed

Revised 04/05

 

Full Year

Full Year

Variation

Budget

Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL & BUILT ASSETS

12,430,549

12,430,549

258,603

12,689,152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTE SERVICES

2,177,642

2,177,642

(258,603)

1,919,039

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY SERVICES

5,619,280

5,619,280

122,410

5,741,690

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY PLANNING

4,033,282

4,033,282

(147,354)

3,885,928

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE STRATEGY

2,715,526

2,715,526

18,954

2,734,480

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

(34,502,096)

(34,502,096)

(310,154)

(34,812,250)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS

7,525,817

7,525,817

0

7,525,817

 

 

 

 

 

Transfer to reserves for future works

 

 

316,144

316,144

 

 

 

 

 

GRAND TOTAL

0

0

0

0

 

Details of the budget variations, comments on the variations, and reserve funds balances as at 31 December 2004 are tabled.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager as the responsible accounting officer, advises that  the projected financial position is considered  satisfactory.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the report in relation to the December 2004 budget review be received and noted.

 

(b)        That the budget variations referred in paragraph (b) in this report be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 4/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Request for Representative on Flood Plain Management Committee

 

 

DATE:

16 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/07209

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

With an extensive history of flooding in the area, a drainage/flood study of the Centennial Park, Kensington, and Green Square areas (City of Sydney) was proposed. Some studies have been performed, in parts of the catchment area, in the past.  However, these have been done in a piecemeal fashion and may not accurately reflect the stormwater behaviour of the whole area.  Further, many of these studies are old and no longer valid.

Stormwater from the City of Sydney Council’s area drain into Randwick City Council (RCC) area and vice versa.  Thus commissioning a single flood study that spans across two council areas (encompassing the whole catchment area), will provide a much more accurate representation of flood behaviour, than would be possible by assessing flooding through a number of smaller flood studies.

 

This joint study has commenced to identify flood prone areas, develop a comprehensive program of strategies to reduce regional flooding in the area, and to allow for opportunities to develop a management plan for Council’s infrastructure so that the overland flow paths and stormwater system will be well maintained and reduce flooding.  Within the City of Sydney Area, this study will be used to support a regional floodplain management plan for the Green Square redevelopment area.

 

The portion of the catchment, within the RCC LGA, is generally bounded by Frenchmans Road and Avoca Street to the east, Centennial Park to the north, Gardeners Road to the south, and South Dowling Street to the west.  The study covers an area of approximately 410 Ha of the Randwick LGA. The majority of this catchment is within the West Ward with a smaller section within the North Ward.

 

ISSUES:

Prior to the joint study commencing, an application for funding under the 2004-2005 Natural Disaster Risk Management Studies Programme was submitted to supplement the cost of conducting the study.

 

A letter from the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources was received on 11th October 2004 stating that the grant application was successful subject to a number of conditions, offering $20,000 of funding.  Conversations with officers within the Department for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) have indicated additional funding may be granted if the project progresses well.

 

A condition of accepting this grant is to comply with the Floodplain Management Manual guidelines for conducting flood studies.  This includes the formation of a Floodplain Management Committee. 

 

A Floodplain Management Committee acts as both a focus and a forum for the discussion of technical, social, economic, ecological and cultural issues and for the distillation of viewpoints on these issues into a floodplain risk management plan. 

 

The Floodplain Management Committee is proposed to consist of, but not limited to, the following members:

 

·    A Councillor representing the West Ward

·    An appropriate Council officer

·    Members of the local precinct groups (2)

·    A representative from DIPNR

·    Council’s drainage study consultant.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

A letter of acceptance for the grant funding was sent to DIPNR dated 20 December 2004, outlining the costs to perform the study in accordance with the Flood Plain Management Manual.  The cost was estimated to be $220,561.  Provided the project progresses well, the grant funding may be increased from $20,000 to 2/3 of this cost ($147,000 approx.).

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In the formation of a Floodplain Management Committee for this flood study, it is requested that one appropriate member of Council be nominated to represent Council on this Floodplain Management Committee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council nominate one (1) appropriate Councillor representing the West Ward to be a member of the Floodplain Management Committee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

·    Letter from the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Minister for Natural Resources offering Funding subject to conditions attached.

·    Letter of acceptance of funding subject to the conditions.

·    ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK LEONG

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS ENGINEER DRAINAGE


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 5/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

FRENCHMANS BAY RESERVE TOILET BLOCK REFURBISHMENT  

 

 

DATE:

15 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08315

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In December 2004, Lump Sum Tenders were invited from suitably qualified Contractors to submit a tender for the Frenchmans Bay Reserve Toilet Block Refurbishment (Tender No T030/04.) The refurbishment of the toilets is an important part of the upgrade recommended in the Frenchmans Bay Reserve-Plan of Management. Randwick City Council undertook an extensive landscape upgrade of the reserve in 2003/2004.

 

ISSUES:

 

The objective of this Tender assessment process is to ensure the Council selects the tenderer offering the best value for money, capable of constructing the project within time and budget.

 

The major items of work under this Tender included:

 

1.         Site security, demolition works, erosion and sediment control, earthworks and regrading  and planting bed improvements;

2.         Vegetation clearing and grubbing;

3.         Minor demolition works;

4.         Repair and refurbishment of existing toilet blocks, including new roof;

5.         Construction of concrete footpath;

6.         Supply, laying and establishment of turf areas;

7.         Supply and planting of plant material; and

8.         Maintenance of works for 26 weeks as specified.

TENDER PROCESS

 

Evaluation Criteria

Mandatory and general evaluation criteria were provided to the tenderers in the Tender document.

 

The Mandatory evaluation criteria for this Tender were:

a)   Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s)

b)   Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this Tender.

 

The general evaluation criteria for this Tender were:

a)   Price

b)   Time period to complete the Work

c)   Financial capacity to carry out the Work

d)   Experience in work of a similar nature

e)   Compliance with the Specification

f)    Quality Management System of the Tenderer

g)   Occupational Health and Safety.

Tenders Received

The request for Tender was issued on Tuesday 21st December 2004. After a 5-week tendering period the Tender closed on Tuesday 25th January 2005.  At the close of Tenders, two (2) Tenders had been received, consisting of the following: 

 

                        1. KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

2. AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

Tender Evaluation Plan

A Tender Evaluation Plan was developed for this project and endorsed by the Manager, Purchasing and Contracts. The relevant roles and responsibilities of members of the Evaluation Committee (EC), and Council are fully described in this document (Refer Attachment 1).

 

The Evaluation Plan details the process that was followed in the assessment of the Tenders including scoring, weightings, qualitative assessment and consideration of the lump sum cost.

 

The Evaluation Committee is responsible for formulating and making recommendations on the selection of the successful tenderer for referral to Randwick City Council (Council).

 

TENDER ASSESSMENT

 

The Evaluation Committee undertook a thorough Tender evaluation in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Tendering Regulation 1999, Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures and the Evaluation Plan.  The following describes the major components of the evaluation process.

 

 Culling of Tenders

The Condition of Tendering supplied to tenderers states:

 

            “…….. Tenderers must meet the Mandatory Criteria. Tenderers unable to              fulfill the Mandatory Criteria will be automatically excluded from the       evaluation process.”

When assessed by the EC both Tenders were deemed to meet the mandatory criteria and therefore no tenderers were culled from this tender.

 

Qualitative Scoring of Tenders

Following completion of Stage 1- the initial cull, Tenders were assessed in line with the weighted quality criteria in the Evaluation Plan. 

 

EC scored each Tender submission against the qualitative criteria in accordance with the Evaluation Plan. 

 

The accumulated scores of the EC were calculated by applying the raw scores to each of the weighted criteria (refer Attachment A- Selection Criteria and Weightings) to produce the accumulated qualitative score for each tenderer.

 

Lump Sum Prices Offered

Each tenderer provided a lump sum offer in the Tender submission including a detailed break down of prices. The lump sum was calculated to establish a cost index.

 

Value for Money

This Tender was assessed on a “value for money” basis. “Value for money” does not automatically mean the lowest price.  It is determined by considering all factors relevant to a particular purpose. It includes the cost of the deliverables, experience, innovation and value adding components.

 

OUTCOME OF TENDER ASSESSMENT

 

The following describes the outcome of the tender assessment for this project.

 

Stage 1 - Accumulated Qualitative Scores

The accumulated qualitative scores in order of merit are as set out in Table 1 below. In the qualitative assessment, the highest score infers the highest qualitative assessment as evidenced by the Tender submission excluding Referee scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1 – QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TENDER

 

Rank

Tenderer

Quality Score (%)

1

KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

69

2

AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

41

 

Stage 2 - Lump Sum Price

Value for money calculation requires the computation of a cost index based on the best (cheapest overall) financial offer compared to all other prices offered.

 

Table 3 below sets out the lump sum prices (excluding GST) offered by the tenderers in apparent order of cost. It also calculates the relevant cost index that is used for the ‘value for money” computation:

 

TABLE 3 – LUMP SUM PRICE /COST INDEX

 

Rank

Tenderer

Price

Cost Index

1.

KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

$ 135 165.00

1

2.

AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

$144 195.00

1.066

 

Stage 3 - Final Value for Money Score

The accumulated value for money scores as outlined in the Evaluation Plan, are in order of merit as set out in Table 4 below. These scores rank the tenderers in order of value for money when quality and price have been taken into account. The higher the score the greater “value for money”.

 

TABLE 4 – FINAL VALUE FOR MONEY SCORE

Tenderers

Value For Money Scores

1. KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

69

2. AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

37.38

 

Evaluation of Tenders against the specified evaluation criteria indicates that Kingsley Constructions Pty Ltd has submitted the Tender representing the best value for money to Council; they were assessed by the EC as capable of completing the project to a high standard at a reasonable cost.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The funding required for this project is as follows;

 

 

Construction costs                                                        $ 135 165

Construction contingency                                              $   13 500

Project Management Services-                                     $   11 335       

 

Total Project Costs                                                    $160 000                    

 

Funds for this project of $160 000 are available from the 2004/5 RCC Capital Works Budget.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

a)   The Tender from KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ABN 68 097 716 937 for Tender No T030/04 Frenchmans Bay Reserve Toilet Block Refurbishment– be accepted under s19 (1) (a) of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999;

 

b)   That it be noted a sum of $160 000 excl GST is provided for the completion of this project;

 

c)   That authority is granted for the General Manager and the Mayor, to sign Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the Agreement for Tender No T030/04 Frenchmans Bay Reserve Toilet Block Refurbishment; and

 

d)   The unsuccessful tenderers are notified of the Tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Tender Evaluation Plan.

2.  Tender Evaluation Report. 

 

 

 

JORDE FRANGOPLES

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

KERRY COLQUHOUN

LANDSCAPE DESIGN

CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

                  

ATTACHMENT 1.

 

 

 

 

 

Tender Evaluation Plan

 

FRENCHMANS BAY RESERVE                           

TOILET BLOCK REFURBISHMENT

 

Tender No.:  T 030/04

Issue Date: tuesday 21st December 2004

Closing Date:  tuesday 25th january 2005

 

Index

 

1.         Introduction

2.         Management of the Evaluation Process

3.         The Tender Evaluation Process

4.         Execution of Formal Agreement

 


Introduction

 

Purpose

The purpose of this Plan is to specify the process to be used to evaluate tenders submitted for the FRENCHMANS BAY RESERVE TOILET BLOCK REFURBISHMENT Tender Number T 030/04.

 

Scope

The Plan identifies the:

 

(a)   management arrangements to apply to the evaluation;

(b)   processes to be used to evaluate tenders and to identify recommended tenderer(s);

(c)   process to apply to the execution of a formal agreement; and

(d)   timing and sequence of the evaluation tasks.

 

Management of the Evaluation Process

The tender evaluation plan and methodology were developed by Kerry Colquhoun, Landscape Design Coordinator and endorsed by the Manager Contracts and Purchasing.

 

Evaluation Committee

An Evaluation Committee (EC) was formed comprising representatives of Randwick City Council.  A list of the representatives on the EC may be found at Appendix A.

The Committee may require technical advice from the Consultant Architect if any technical issues arise during the course of the tender evaluation process.

 

Evaluation Committee Roles and Responsibilities:

The role and responsibilities of an Evaluation Committee are to evaluate all responses in a fair and ethical manner, maintaining confidentiality of all commercial in confidence information submitted.  Where an Evaluation Committee member may have a conflict of interest, it is their duty to advise the Manager Contracts and Purchasing.

The EC may refer to additional external specialists to provide assistance in the technical or financial analysis of the tender submissions. 

The EC will be responsible for formulating and making recommendations on the selection of the successful tenderer(s) for referral to Randwick City Council (Council).  In formulating its recommendations the EC is to:

·     consider rejection of any seriously non-conforming tenders or acceptance in extenuating circumstances

·     evaluate offers using the evaluation criteria listed in the tender document and taking purchasing policies and procedures into consideration

·     conducting a detailed analysis of tenders

·     arrange for further technical appraisal, where necessary

·     formulate recommendations for acceptance of the tender(s) most suited both technically and economically

·     consider any other matters relevant to the selection of tender(s).


 

Randwick City Council Roles and Responsibilities:

The responsibility of the Manager Contracts and Purchasing is to:

 

·     Conduct a final review of the EC's recommendations.

 

The responsibilities of Council are to:

 

·     Consider approval of the EC's recommendation(s) after ensuring that the tender process has been conducted in a manner that satisfies the Regulations made under the Local Government Act (1993). 

 

Tender Evaluation Process

 

Evaluation Objectives

The objectives of the evaluation are to:

·     select the Tenderer(s) offering the best value for money

·     select the successful tender in a rational and defensible way which is fair to all Tenderers.

 

Evaluation Criteria and Criteria Weightings

The evaluation criteria and criteria weightings were determined prior to the closing of tenders.

The evaluation criteria and criteria weightings to apply to this evaluation process are shown in Appendix B.

 

Tender Evaluation Process

The evaluation will be conducted in four stages:

 

Stage One:     Initial Cull

This phase commences with tender opening on the Closing date specified on the Request for Tender by a (3) person panel from Randwick City Council.  A report will be prepared by the panel, which identifies the tenders received and/or those received late.  Any reasons for late tenders will be noted and details forwarded to the EC.

An initial review will be conducted by the EC to identify any seriously non-conforming Tenders.  Tenders not following the instructions set out in the Tender or Tenders which clearly are not of an acceptable standard to warrant further detailed evaluation will be recommended for rejection by the EC.

 

Stage Two:     Detailed Evaluation - Value for Money Methodology

This stage of the evaluation will require detailed analysis of tenders and preparation of appropriate documentation by the EC.

The main steps in the detailed evaluation will be an analysis of:

 

Mandatory Criteria

Tenderers must meet the Mandatory Criteria.  Tenderers unable to fulfill the Mandatory Criteria will be automatically excluded from the evaluation process.  The mandatory criteria include:

1.   Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s);

2.   Capacity to fulfill the requirements of this tender.

 

Desirable Criteria

a)   Price

b)   Time period to complete the Work

c)   Financial capacity to carry out the Work

d)   Experience in work of a similar nature

e)   Compliance with the Specification

f)    Quality Management System of the Tenderer

g)   Occupational Health and Safety.

 

Weightings have been placed on each of the evaluation criteria (refer Appendix B). 

(1)        Value for Money Method

This evaluation method is based on value for money evaluation principles.

 

Step 1:

Score each response against each evaluation criteria using the following 0-5 rating scale.

 

 

Score

Description

 

0

Nil response or unacceptable - fails to satisfy the requirement.

 

1

Poor response; well short of requirements or unsubstantiated.

 

2

Mostly adequate but will not meet all requirements, or is poorly substantiated.

 

3

Satisfactory response; adequate to requirements, and adequately substantiated.

 

4

Satisfactory response; more than adequate to requirements, and well substantiated.

 

5

Excellent response; surpasses all requirements, and fully substantiated.

 

Step 2:

Calculate a Weighted Total Quality Score for each tender response by applying the relevant weighting applied to each criterion rating, as outlined in Appendix B.

Step 3:

Estimate the cost of each tender taking into consideration:

 

(a)     Prices for the Goods/Services;

(b)     Prices for travel, where applicable;

(c)     Discounts offered, where applicable;

(d)     Any other charges forming part of the tender.

 

Calculate a Total Cost Index for each response.

Step 4:

For each tender, calculate the following “Value” ratio using the following formula:

 

Value = Total Quality Score

Total Cost Index

Step 5:

Prepare lists in:

 

(a)   Descending order of quality; and

(b)   Ascending order of cost index.

 

Prepare a short list of Tenderers in descending order of Value-For-Money, based on the two lists developed in (a) & (b).

Step 6:

Prepare a short list of recommended Respondents in descending order of merit as assessed by the EC.

 

Value for Money

Value for money does not automatically mean the lowest price.  It is determined by considering all factors relevant to a particular purpose.  It includes the quality and cost of the deliverables, geographic coverage, whole of life costs, innovation and value adding components, such as meeting this Council’s economic, social development and environmental policy objectives.

The total weights for Stage Two and Stage Three will be compiled to form a value for money score out of 100%.

 

 Stage Three: Referee Checks

Three referee checks will be conducted by telephone on the three highest scoring tenderers.  The nominated referees will be asked a series of questions relating to the tenderers capacity to provide the goods/services as required in the Request for Tender.  This component of the evaluation has been weighted as outlined in Appendix B.

 

Stage Four:     Reporting

The evaluation will conclude with the submission of Tender Evaluation Report from the EC to Council detailing the benefits and risks, of each ranked Short-listed tenderer, with a recommendation for the preferred Tenderer(s).

 

Execution of Formal Agreement

 

A formal instrument of agreement is to be executed by the Contractor(s) within 21 days of being required to do so in writing by the Council.

 

Appendix A:       Evaluation Committee Members

 

Name

Title

Employer

Ms Kerry Colquhoun

Landscape Design Coordinator

Randwick City Council

Mr. Don Mann

Supply Coordinator

Randwick City Council

Ms Hayley Segedin

Landscape Architect

Randwick City Council

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix B:       Evaluation Criteria & Weightings

 

Evaluation Criteria

RELEVANT

Tender Schedules

Weighted Criteria

STAGE 1 – MANDATORY CRITERIA

 

 

 

Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s)

 

 

All criteria must be met

Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this tender

 

 

All criteria must be met

STAGE 2 – DESIRABLE CRITERIA

 

 

TIME PERIOD  TO COMPLETE THE WORK

 

 

 

Evaluation of the Tenders Program for the Work (comprehensiveness and relevance)

13

10%

Date of Practical completion offered

2

5%

FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT THE WORK

12

10%

EXPERIENCE IN WORK OF A SIMILAR NATURE

 

 

Does the Tenderer employ sufficient human resources to undertake the works

15

 

5%

Experience in similar projects &

comprehension of scope of works

13

16

20%

 

 

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION

 

 

Compliance with the Schedules

 

All Schedules

5%

Required Insurances

18

10%

 

 

 

Compliance with Local Government procurement policy

 

 

Occupational Health and Safety

20

10%

Quality Assurance

19

5%

Environmental

21

10%

 

 

 

STAGE 3

 

 

REFEREE CHECKS

 

 

Referee answers to questions

 

10%

TOTAL

 

100%

 


            ATTACHMENT 2.

 

 

 

TENDER EVALUATION REPORT

 

FRENCHMANS BAY RESERVE

TOILET BLOCK REFURBISHMENT

 

TENDER NO.:          T030/04

ISSUE DATE:            TUESDAY 21ST DECEMBER

CLOSING DATE:     TUESDAY 25TH JANUARY 2005

 

 


DETAILS OF CONTRACT

 

Contract Number:

 

T030/04

Contract Title:

FRENCHMANS BAY RESERVE

TOILET BLOCK REFURBISHMENT

 

Contract Value:

$160 000

 

Contact Officer:

Ms Kerry Colquhoun

 

Closing Date:

Tuesday 21st December

 

Number of Tenders Received

2

 

Number of Late submissions:

0

 

 


BACKGROUND

 

Project Description

Randwick City Council identified the refurbishment of a Toilet Block in Frenchmans Bay Reserve in the 2004-2005 Capital Works budget. Council has allocated $160,000 for the completion of this project.

 

Competitive Process

The Tender for the Lump Sum Tender Price for refurbishment of the Toilet Block at Frenchmans Bay Reserve was advertised on Tuesday 21st December 2004, Tuesday 11th January 2005 & Tuesday 18th January 2005.The Tender closed on Tuesday 25th January 2005. 

 

Five (5) requests for Tender documentation were purchased by Contractors.

 

Number Of Tenders Received:

At the close of tenders (10 a.m. on Tuesday 25th January 2005), two (2) tenders were received.

 

The tenders were received from:

·    KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

·    AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

The following tenders were deemed by the Evaluation Committee to have met the mandatory criteria and therefore would be assessed:

 

Table of Tenderers Meeting Mandatory Requirements

Tender Price
(excluding GST)

1. KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

$135 165

2. AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

$144 195

 

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

 

Tenders were evaluated strictly in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures, the approved Evaluation Plan, and in compliance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and Tendering Regulation 1999.

 

Evaluation Plan

A Tender Evaluation Plan was developed and approved by the Manager of Contracts & Purchasing prior to the close of tenders. Tenders were evaluated using the best value for money methodology.

 

Evaluation Committee

In the Evaluation Plan the roles and responsibilities of the Evaluation Committee members are summarized in the following table:

 

Members Name

 

Position Title

Council Department

Specific Responsibilities

Kerry Colquhoun

Landscape Design Coordinator

Asset & Infrastructure Services

Create tender documents and evaluation plan, and evaluate tender submissions.

 

Hayley Segedin

Landscape Architect

Asset & Infrastructure Services

Evaluate tender submissions.

Don Mann

Supply Coordinator

Governance Management & Information Services

Evaluate tender submissions.

 

Evaluation Criteria And Methodology

The evaluation criteria were issued in the tender document, and detailed in the Evaluation Plan. (Refer Attachment A for evaluation criteria and weightings)

 

FINANCIAL

 

The funding required for this project is as follows;

 

Construction costs                                                        $ 135 165

Construction contingency                                              $   13 500

Project Management Services-                                     $   11 335       

 

Total Project Costs                                                       $160 000                    

 

Funds for this project of $160 000 are available from 2004/5 RCC Capital Works Budget and existing carry over funds.

 

EVALUATION PROCESS

 

A tender evaluation plan and methodology were developed by Kerry Colquhoun, Landscape Design Coordinator and endorsed by the Manager Contracts and Purchasing for this tender. The processes described in this document were followed in the evaluation process.

 

 A tender evaluation meeting was held by the EC on Friday 4th February 2005 to assess the tenders. Subsequent to this meeting referee checks were undertaken by Kerry Colquhoun, Landscape Design Coordinator.

 

The Evaluation Committee evaluated the two tenders submitted in a fair and ethical manner, maintaining confidentiality of all commercial in confidence information submitted. Both tenders were deemed to meet the mandatory criteria of the tender and therefore both were evaluated.

 

The EC evaluated the offers using the evaluation criteria listed in the tender document and taking purchasing policies and procedures into consideration. The EC conducted a detailed analysis of tenders to formulate recommendations for acceptance of the tender most suited both technically and economically.

 

EVALUATION FINDINGS

 

Review Of The Desirable Non‑Cost / Qualitative Criteria

The Evaluation Committee’s scoring against each of the non‑cost / qualitative evaluation criteria are shown in Appendix B.

 

Rank

Tenderer

Quality Score (%)

1

KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

69

2

AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

40

 

The following describes further details of the tender submissions.

 

KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

This company has excellent construction experience. It provided a comprehensive submission often submitting information above the requirements of the Tender specification. The Construction programme submitted was comprehensive and well resolved.

 

This company also offered the lowest tender price being $135 165 (excl GST).This was $9030.00 below the other tender submitted and within the available budget.

 

This company received satisfactory references from the Clients contacted.

 

AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

This company has good construction experience. It provided a satisfactory submission however some schedules lacked detail and therefore received a low score.

 

This tender offered the highest tender price being $144 195 (excl GST)

 

The referees for this company were generally satisfied with the service provided.

 

Review Of The Cost

The following table describes the fixed lump sum tender prices submitted:

 

Rank

Tenderer

Tendered Lump Sum Price

Cost Index

1.

KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

$ 135 165.00

1

2.

AMFM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

 

$ $144 195.00

1.066

 

Value For Money Assessment

Kingsley Constructions Pty Ltd provided the most comprehensive and highest quality submission therefore scoring the highest qualitative score. They also offered the lowest fixed tender price for this project. Therefore this company received the highest value for money score.

 

AMFM Constructions Pty Ltd provided a tender submission that was satisfactory in most areas; it did however lack details in some schedules; therefore the Evaluation Committee scored it lower in some areas of the qualitative assessment. This company also offered the highest fixed tender price for this project. Therefore this company received the lowest value for money score.

 

The following shows the Value for Money scores. The higher the score the greater value for money:

Rank

Tenderer

Quality Score (%)

Cost Index

Value for Money Score

1

Kingsley Constructions Pty Ltd

 

69

1

69

2

Amfm Constructions Pty Ltd

 

41

1.066

37.38

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

The Evaluation Committee makes the following recommendations:  

 

That:

1.   The Tender from KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ABN 68 097 716 937 for the Tender No T030/04 Frenchmans Bay Reserve Toilet Block Refurbishment– be accepted under s19 (1) (a) of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999.

 

2.   That a sum of $160 000 excl GST is provided for the completion of this project.

 

3.   That authority is granted for Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the Agreement for the Tender No T030/04 Frenchmans Bay Reserve Toilet Block Refurbishment

 

4.   The unsuccessful Tenderers are notified of the Tender result.

 

 

 

 

 

Kerry Colquhoun

Landscape Design Coordinator 

Hayley Segedin

Senior Landscape Architect

Don Mann

Supply Coordinator

 



ATTACHMENT A:      EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTINGS

 

The following table outlines which tender schedules were utilized in the assessment of the evaluation criteria:

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

RELEVANT

TENDER SCHEDULES

WEIGHTED CRITERIA

STAGE 1 – MANDATORY CRITERIA

 

 

Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s)

 

All criteria must be met

Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this tender

 

All criteria must be met

STAGE 2 – DESIRABLE CRITERIA

 

 

TIME PERIOD  TO COMPLETE THE WORK

 

 

 

 

 Evaluation of the Tenders Program for the Work comprehensiveness and relevance)

13

10%

Date of Practical completion offered

2

 

5%

FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT THE WORK

12

10%

EXPERIENCE IN WORK OF A SIMILAR NATURE

 

 

Does the Tenderer employ sufficient human resources to undertake the works

15

 

5%

Experience in similar projects & comprehension of scope of works

13

16

20%

 

 

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION

 

 

Compliance with the Schedules

All Schedules

5%

Required Insurances

18

10%

 

 

 

Compliance with Local Government procurement policy

 

 

Occupational Health and Safety

20

10%

Quality Assurance

19

5%

Environmental

21

10%

 

 

 

STAGE 3

 

 

REFEREE CHECKS

 

 

Referee answers to questions

 

10%

TOTAL

 

100%

 


Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 6/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL POSITION OF PROPOSED OFF RAMPS FROM SOUTHERN CROSS DRIVE TO GARDENERS ROAD.

 

 

DATE:

16 February, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/5326

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting held on 8 February, 2005 considered a Mayor’s Minute recommending that Council suspend its earlier support for the concept of the Gardeners Road ramps until there is greater clarification on the RTA’s response to Council’s conditions, and resolved:

 

“that this matter be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting so the Councillors can be furnished with all the proper information on this matter in order to make an informed decision.”

 

ISSUES:

 

A.

Council at its meeting held on 23 November, 2004, resolved that it would support the concept of the Gardeners Road access ramps with Southern Cross Drive and attached several conditions to its support.

 

Details of the resolution of Council are shown on “Attachment A”.

 

Subsequently the General Manager advised the RTA, the Member for Heffron, Ms Kristina Keneally, and Lord Mayor of City of Sydney, Ms Clover Moore, of details of Council’s resolution.

 

B. 

In December 2004, the Mayor wrote to the then Minister for Roads, Mr Carl Scully, expressing his personal concerns regarding:

 

o The lack of an EIS;

 

o The capacity of the Kingsford roundabout to cope with the extra traffic;

 

o Clarification on the consideration that the RTA had given to the option of ‘No Left Turns’ on Gardeners Road at the intersections of Tunstall, Cottenham, Eastern Maitland and Aboud Avenues; and

 

o The possible benefits of reopening Dalmeny Avenue.

 

The Mayor concluded the letter by stating that -

 

“I must advise you that I will find it difficult to maintain my support for the proposed off ramps in the absence of clarification on these issues.”

 

C.

The Mayor arranged a meeting on 27 January, 2005, with representatives of the RTA, Council’s General Manager, Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, Councillor Bradley Hughes and himself to further discuss the following main areas of concern:

 

1)   Preparation of an EIS;

 

2)   Proper public consultation for the project;

 

3)   That the residential amenity of the residents of West Kingsford be protected;

 

4)   The RTA further investigates the operation of the Nine Ways roundabout at Kingsford.

 

D.

RTA’s Regional Manager, Sydney Client Services, Mr Mike Veysey’s response to a number of matters raised in Council’s resolution in regard to the project is shown on “Attachment B.”

 

E.

The response from the Minister for Roads, Mr Michael Costa, to the Mayor is shown on “Attachment C.”

 

In summary, the Minister has given the following undertakings:

 

·    A public meeting will be conducted by the end of February, 2005 (it is understood that the Member for Heffron, Ms. Kristina Keneally, has arranged a public meeting to be held on Thursday 24 February, 2005 at 7.00pm at St. Martins Church, Cnr. Todman Avenue and Balfour Road);

 

·    An EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) will be carried out if  the REF (Review of Environmental factors) indicated that it is required;

 

·    An EIA/REF display of the preferred option(s) will be carried out in April/May 2005 with a display period of no less than 30 days and wide publicity during the display period to encourage and facilitate public input;

·    The Minister has asked the RTA to further investigate the operation of the Kingsford roundabout and suggest any appropriate changes to simplify this complex intersection;

 

·    The RTA is investigating possible “No left turn” bans from Gardeners Road into residential streets of West Kingsford; and

 

·    The RTA is prepared to seriously consider appropriate traffic management measures in West Kensington, provided bus routes and emergency vehicle access can be accommodated.

 

F.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act)

 

The RTA has a statutory responsibility under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to consider the impacts of its activities on the environment.

 

The RTA has developed EIA guidelines to ensure that all RTA environmental impact assessments meet both legal requirements and community expectations.

 

Under Section 6 of the guidelines, the RTA must examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reasons of that activity and establish whether or not an EIS is required for that activity.

 

To fulfil these general objections, under Part 5 of the Act, the RTA usually prepares a review of environmental factors (REF); assesses the REF; and decides on the basis of the assessment whether or not an EIS is required. The attached memo (Attachment D) which was distributed to all Councillors on 15 February 2005 explains the processes of REF/EIS.

 

A REF is not a public document and need not be exhibited. However, if there is considerable community interest in the project, the RTA or the Minister may decide to publicly exhibit the REF.

 

Responsibility for the preparation of a REF rests usually with the RTA’s Project Manager. However, the guidelines require that no REF should ever be assessed by the person under whose responsibility the REF was prepared. Responsibility for assessment of a REF rests with the RTA’s Regional Environmental Manager.

 

In assessing the REF, the RTA’s Regional Environmental Manager must ensure that:

·    the results of any community involvement have been properly included and considered in the REF;

§ determine whether an EIS is required; and

§ the proposed activity includes mitigation and compensatory / offset measures arrived at ameliorating the impact of the proposed activity on the environment.

 

Council is advised that the construction of the ramp at Gardeners Road is an activity of the RTA. The ramp does not constitute a designated development as described by Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

It is therefore considered that the Minister’s proposal to undertake a REF display to facilitate the community input would be an acceptable process under the provisions of EP&A Act.

 

However, Council may consider the engagement of the services of a specialist advisor, to appropriately monitor, liaise and facilitate the environmental impact assessment to ensure that the process satisfies both legal requirements and community expectations.

 

As stated in the original resolution of Council on 23 November, 2004, a primary objective of Council is to ensure that the RTA be responsible for the funding and prior implementation of traffic calming measures in the West Kingsford Precinct with a local area traffic management scheme to discourage cross traffic movements taking shortcuts through these local residential streets.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

An approximate cost of $50,000 will be incurred should Council wish to engage the services of a specialist advisor as recommended in this report.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As the result of further negotiations with the RTA and representations with the Minister for Roads, Council has now received commitments from the RTA ensuring open public consultation with a view to incorporating mitigation and compensatory/offset measures to ameliorate the impact of the proposed ramps on the residential amenity of the West Kingsford/West Kensington areas.

 

The following recommendation is therefore submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

A.

The RTA be notified that Council will continue its in principle support for the concept of the Gardeners Road access ramps with Southern Cross Drive on the basis of the following undertaking given by the Minister for Roads:

 

a)   The RTA will conduct public meeting by the end of February 2005 to demonstrate the ramification of these ramps on local roads;

 

b)   The RTA will carry out a full REF (Review of Environmental Factors) and commit to publicly exhibit the REF as soon as possible with a display period of no less than 30 days and wide publicity prior to and during the display period to encourage and facilitate public input;

 

c)   The RTA will investigate the operation of the Kingsford Roundabout and consider implementation of measures to simplify this complex intersection;

 

d)   The RTA will investigate the possible introduction of “No Left Turn” restrictions from Gardeners Road into the West Kingsford local area.; and

 

B.

A Specialist Advisor be engaged to monitor and liaise with the RTA and the community groups, and ensure that the environmental impact assessment process meet both legal requirements and community expectations.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment A

Attachment B

Attachment C

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

……………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


  

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 7/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

RIGHT-OF-WAY AT REAR OF DUNDAS ST PROPERTIES - COUNCIL'S SEAL REQUIRED.

 

 

DATE:

15 February, 2005

FILE NO:

P/015449-01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

  

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council place its Seal on the documents associated with granting a right-of-way located at the rear of 10-20 Dundas St, Coogee.

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

At its meeting held on 24 August, 2004 Council considered a Confidential Mayoral Minute in relation to the access way to Nos.10-18 Dundas Street, Coogee and resolved that:

 

(a)        The beneficiaries of the “right-of-carriageway” are responsible for maintenance and any improvements or proposed reconstruction of the access way;

 

(b)        Each of the residents be equally entitled to use the access way and that no owner will do anything which may hinder other users’ rights and ability to use the access way at all times;

 

(c)        The beneficiaries of the “right-of-carriageway” will be responsible to ensure that public liability insurance is maintained for this “right-of-carriageway”;

 

(d)        Council retains the right to enter upon and use the subject land as and when it becomes necessary;

 

(e)        All owners benefiting from this “right-of-carriageway” shall contribute equally towards the payment of compensation and that this level of compensation be determined by a recent valuation by an independent valuer negotiated between Council’s Property Section and the beneficiaries of the “right-of-carriageway”;

 

(f)         Each of the owners agree to pay the Council’s costs associated with the granting of the “right-of-carriageway”; and

 

(g)        The owners of 10 and 12 Dundas Street be advised that the willingness of Council to grant the “right-of-carriageway” shall not be construed as an approval of their off-street access and that any application for this off-street access shall be the subject of a Development Application which will be considered on its merits in accordance with the relevant legislation.

 

The above resolution enabled Council Officers and legal representatives to attend a mediation in respect to this matter.  The mediation was successfully held on 7 September, 2004, generally in compliance with Council’s resolution.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council officers and legal representatives are in the process of f… the Right-of-Way at this location.  However, Mr Suchard is not prepared to agree to a discontinuance or dismissal of the Court proceedings until the matter of the Right-of-Way is finalised.

 

The following letter dated 14 February, 2005 has been received from Bowen & Gerathy and is self explanatory.

 

“We refer to the Heads of Agreement between the Council and the proprietors of 10-18 Dundas Street, Coogee made on 7 September, 2004.

 

The agreement was entered into in order to settle proceedings instituted in the Supreme Court of New Soutb Wales by Mr Sidney Suchard the owner of property 14 Dundas Street, Coogee.  The proceedings arose because Mr Suchard wished to legally enforce an informal arrangement which had been in place for many years whereby he and other residents of Dundas Street have been allowed to use a section of Blenheim Park to gain access to the rear of their properties.

 

On 1 July, 2002 the Council’s Health Building and Planning Committee considered a report on the reclassification of the relevant section of Blenheim Park from public community land to operation land.   On 17 July, 2002 Randwick LEP 1998 was varied by Amendment No.12 which reclassified the section of the park to operation land for the purposes of an access way to provide access to numbers 10-18 Dundas Street, Coogee.

 

In the proceedings Mr Suchard is asking the Court to make an order granting him either an easement or a perpetual licence to use and permit his invitees to use the subject land.  The proceedings were listed for mediation before a Registrar of the Court.

 

On 24 august, 2004 Council resolved for the purpose of the mediation to agree to certain terms upon which it was prepared to grant a right of a right of carriageway.   Although the owners of 10, 12, 16 and 18 were not parties to the Court proceedings, we invited them to attend the mediation to prevent any dispute arising and any further litigation.

 

The mediation occurred on 7 September, 2004.  At the mediation the parties agreed to Heads of Agreement whereby the Council agreed to grant a right of carriageway under certain conditons.  In order to implement the terms of the agreement we instructed  John Holt Surveyors Pty Ltd to prepare a survey plan defining the access way and we have prepared a s88B instruction which sets out the terms of the easement.  We have previously provided you with a copy of this document.  Both the plan and the s88B instruction will need to be executed under the Council’s seal.

 

Mr Suchard is not prepared to agree to a discontinuance or dismissal of the Court proceedings until the right-of-way has been registered with the Land and Property Information.  The proceedings were listed before His honour Justice Nicholas on 11 February, 2005 and have been stood over until 4 March, 2005.

 

We note that Council’s Seal can only be affixed by resolution and that a Council meeting is to take place this Tuesday.  We requested that you request the Council to resolve to affix the seal so that the matter can be resolved prior to 4 March, 2005.”

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As indicated above Mr Suchard will discontinue the proceedings once the Right-of-Way is registered with the Land Titles Office.  As Clause 48 of the Meetings Regulation required that the Council pass a resolution authorising the affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities being completed.  Since this matter is again due before the court on 4 March, 2005, the Seal of the Council must be placed on the appropriate documentation prior to this date.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the documentation necessary to create the Right-of-Way at the rear of properties 10-20 Dundas Street, Coogee, for the usage of properties 10-18 Dundas Street, Coogee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 8/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Prince Henry Hospital Site - Street Naming Proposal

 

 

DATE:

10 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07140

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At Council’s meeting in December 2004 a proposal for the consideration of road and park names was considered for the Prince Henry Hospital site at Little Bay.  At this meeting, it was resolved that:

 

a)      Council propose to adopt the current private road names for all existing and realigned roads;

b)      Council propose to adopt “Newton Street” in place of “New Road 2” as this name reflects its original name;

c)       Council propose to adopt “Gubbuteh Road” in place of “New Road 1”;

d)      Council propose to adopt “Murra Murra Place” in place of “New Road 5”;

e)       Council propose to adopt “Macartney Oval” in place of “Public Park 1”;

f)       Council propose to adopt “Six Track Park” in place of “Public Park 2”;

g)      Council propose to adopt “Bob-a-Day Park” in place of “Public Park 3”;

h)      The proposals made in point 1 to 7 be advertised in the local newspaper;

i)       Council notify Australia Post, the Registrar General and the Surveyor General regarding the proposed street and park names. 

 

Hence the sixteen (16) road names that were proposed to be adopted were Brodie Avenue, Coast Hospital Road, Curie Avenue, Darwin Avenue, Ewing Avenue, Fleming Street, Gubbuteh Road, Gull Street, Harvey Street, Jenner Street, Lister Avenue, Mayo Street, Murra Murra Place, Newton Street, Pavilion Drive and Pine Avenue.

 

These road names were advertised in the Southern Courier paper to invite public submissions.  

 

It should be noted that the location of the proposed roads Curie Avenue”, “Darwin Avenue”, “Ewing Avenue” and “Fleming Street are intended by Landcom to remain vested in the Prince Henry Community Title as private driveways/ pedestrian ways. These private driveways/ pedestrian ways have heritage significance.  These historical paths do not meet Austroads guidelines or Council’s specifications to become public roads.

 

As these paths remain under private ownership Council has no authority to name these paths but may object to the Geographical Names Board if the Council finds the names offensive or inappropriate. 

 

ISSUES:

 

The guidelines of the Geographical Names Board require Council to consider any submissions received.

 

The closing date for the receipt of public submissions was on the 4th of February 2005.  Council received a total of three (3) submissions including the NSW Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC), the Prince Henry Hospital Trained Nurses Association (PHHTNA) and an independent submission from a resident of the Little Bay area. 

 

In addition, a letter was received from the Department of Lands objecting to the use of Pine Avenue, based on “1.1 Uniqueness” in the GNB Guidelines for the Naming of Roads, as there is a Pine Street at Randwick.  The objection of the guidelines was to ensure that no confusion would arise in the case of emergency where communication may not convey full names or suburb locations.  In accordance with the GNB Guidelines, Council may not proceed with a proposal to name roads should an objection be raised by the Department of Lands. 

 

Pine Avenue has been found published in hospital maps from late 1960s and in Sydney street directories and is used as an address today.  It can be justified that whilst Pine Avenue is in the City of Randwick, it is not in the suburb of Randwick.  Pine Avenue, Little Bay is well established and known by locals and visitors to the site and should not be confused with Pine Street, Randwick, especially given that Pine Street is located at the opposite end of the Local Government area boundary.

 

It should be noted that if an objection is raised by the Registrar General or Surveyor General and Council as the governing road authority intends to use the same name on the grounds that the duplicate name appears in an entirely separate suburb within the LGA, a letter should be forwarded to the Board for redetermination.

Aboriginal Health & Medical Research AH&MRC

 

The submission from the AH&MRC request the following:

 

1.   “That the newly formed street on the southern most border of the site, where the Aboriginal Health College will be located, which Landcom recommends to be called Harvey Street, be given an appropriate Aboriginal name.

 

2.   That the park adjacent to the Aboriginal Health College, which Landcom recommends to be called Bob-a-Day Park, be also given an appropriate Aboriginal name.

 

3.   That in the event that either of the above recommendations is unacceptable to the Council, the road / cul de sac immediately in front of the Aboriginal Health College site is to be given an appropriate Aboriginal name, enabling an Aboriginal street address.

 

4.   That the AH&MRC be allowed to submit appropriate Aboriginal names to Council reflecting local Aboriginal language, culture and history as it relates to Aboriginal health.”

 

This submission was made so that the street and park names reflect the traditional Aboriginal owners and their occupation of the site.  The AM&MRC places emphasis on using aboriginal names as a means of respecting the Aboriginal people and their connection to the land and to convey Aboriginal health and well being and its relationship to the site.  The latter is considered important by the AH&MRC due to the association of the Aboriginal Health College with the Prince Henry development site.

 

The submission forwarded by AH&MRC aims to rename the road along the southern border of the site (current proposed named “Harvey Street”) and “Bob-A-Day Park” using aboriginal names, due to the proximity to the Aboriginal Health Centre site.  During its historical research, Landcom claims that many aboriginal community members recall Harvey Street as being significant as it was one of the streets where they walked on their way to the laundry where many of themselves and family members worked.

 

AH&MRC indicated preference towards Aboriginal names for the two realigned roads.  It should be noted that the current proposed names have been made with input from local indigenous people.  Two of the three realigned roads that need naming have been assigned aboriginal names “Murra Murra Place” and “Gubbuteh Road”.  The introduction of aboriginal names as part of the remaining road system ensures that there is acknowledgement towards the aboriginal significance of the site.

 

It should be noted that Aboriginal names were not included as part of the AH&MRC submission for the purposes of identifying potential alternative road or park names to replace either “Harvey Street” or “Bob-a-Day Park”.

 

Prince Henry Hospital Trained Nurses Association (PHHTNA)

 

The submission by PHHTNA indicated objections to the use of the proposed road names.  The reasons behind their objections are based on the following beliefs and understandings:

 

·    These names were listed by Landcom for the purpose of identifying streets on the building site in 1996.

·    These names do not relate to any streets on the Prince Henry Hospital site prior to this time.

·    Areas were formerly identified by buildings and not these proposed street names.

·    The names chosen and re-submitted by Landcom do not relate to the history of the site.

 

The PHHTNA submission has forwarded the following list of names.  They have noted that their suggestion of these names is based on the GNB guidelines for naming roads, in particular “Source 2.1. Aboriginal names, local history, other eminent people and war/casualty lists”.  The names of roads as submitted by the PHHTNA are presented below:

 

1.   “Coast Hospital Road” in place of “Pine Avenue”

2.   “Meyler Avenue” in place of “Brodie Avenue”

3.   “Symington Street” in place of “Gull Street”

4.   “Cawood Place” in place of “Fleming Street”

5.   “Gubbeteh (Ochre) Road” in place of “Gubbuteh Road”

6.   “Doherty Drive” in place of “Newton Street”

7.   “Prince Henry Hospital Crescent” in place of “Jenner Street”

8.   “Pharmacy Road” in place of “Mayo Street”

9.   “McNevin Road” in place of “Pavilion Drive”

10. “Stanley Close” in place of “Lister Avenue”

11. “Quarantine Road” in place of “Sea Mullet Place”

12. “Laundry Road” in place of “Coast Hospital Road”

 

It should be noted that there were two issues raised by the PHHTNA, firstly that the currently proposed street names did not exist.  There is evidence to indicate that the proposed names did exist and were in place from at least the mid to late 1960s.  This evidence includes hospital administration documents, large directional signs which were previously located at the entrance of the site and survey plans obtained by the heritage architects for the Prince Henry development, Godden Mackay Logan.

 

Secondly PHHTNA suggested that the proposed names have no specific meaning to Prince Henry hospital.  The currently proposed names do not nominate specific individuals associated with the hospital.  The names are associated with broader medical personalities that made history centuries prior.  It is further noted that the alphabetical names of individuals reflects the names of people whose work and discoveries were extremely significant and relevant to the work and research conducted at Prince Henry hospital.  The key rationale driving the proposal to retain these names recognises that the individual names were part of a larger system.

 

Independent Submission

 

A submission was received by Council on 11th February 2005 regarding the proposed names.  This independent submission suggested the name of a former well-known identity “Marjorie Timbery” also remembered as “Aunty Marj”.  Marjorie lived among the Aboriginal Community in La Perouse. She was known for her efforts in reconciliation and unity between the black and white communities and her protest against the closure of the Prince Henry Hospital.  There is currently a plaque commemorating Marjorie Timbery near the Snake Pit in La Perouse. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The process of naming streets undoubtedly provides an opportunity to commemorate and associate the local history and culture of a site.  The heritage significance of the Prince Henry Hospital site should be well reflected through the naming of the roads within the site.  The Prince Henry site has an abundant heritage encompassing its medical significance, the past and present Aboriginal association and its relationship to the local community.  Hence it is ideal that the recommended names be derived from these sources.

 

The Landcom proposal, on which the proposed names are based, includes a comprehensive assessment of the issues and historical account of the road names and general Aboriginal and European site history. 

 

All of the submissions aim to commemorate either particular historical figures and/or the historical cultural significance of the site.  It is emphasised that there is a multitude of road names that could be applicable to this site, provided they fit within the guidelines of the GNB.  The names originally proposed and subsequently considered at the Council meeting in December 2004 are considered well researched and applicable to the historical and heritage significance of the site.

 

It is considered that the original proposed names as provided by Landcom comply with the naming requirements as established by the Geographical Names board.  However it is recommended that the names Curie Avenue”, “Darwin Avenue”, “Ewing AvenueandFleming Streetbe removed from Council’s proposal and that Landcom be advised that these private driveways/pedestrian walkways remain under private jurisdiction, hence Council is unauthorised to name the above nominated private roads. 

 

The Geographical Names Board at its meeting in March 2005, will consider the approval of the three proposed park names resolved at Council’s meeting in December 2004 namely “Macartney Oval”, “Six Track Park” and “Bob-a-Day Park”, after which if no objections are raised, these names will be advertised in the NSW Government Gazette.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)   Council approve the adoption of Brodie Avenue, Coast Hospital Road, Gubbuteh Road, Gull Street, Harvey Street, Jenner Street, Lister Avenue, Mayo Street, Murra Murra Place, Newton Street, Pavilion Drive and Pine Avenue for the Prince Henry site, at Little Bay;

b)   Council notify Landcom, Australia Post, the Registrar General and the Surveyor General regarNilding the adopted road names;

c)   Council notify the Registrar General and the Surveyor General regarding its intention to adopt Pine Avenue on the basis that Pine Avenue is in Little Bay and the existing Pine Street is in Randwick;

d)   Council publish these names in the Southern Courier and; and the NSW Government Gazette; and

e)   AH&MRC, PHHTNA and other interested parties be advised of Council’s resolution.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

·    •           Street Layout map – Prince Henry development site

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ANCILLARY ASSETS ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 9/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed Policy on "Resident Requests for Special Verge Crossings" and "Nature Strip Plantings"

 

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07364

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council meeting held 24th August 2004 a report was considered whereby the resident of 29 French Street, Maroubra, made a request for the construction of stairs to provide a paved connection between the French Street roadside kerb and the respective private property boundary.

 

At this meeting Council resolved that:

 

“a report be prepared for the Works Committee Meeting on 7th September 2004 on the construction of stairs outside 29 French Street, Maroubra, which will enable the infirmed residents access to the property.”

 

Consequently, Report 63/2004 was presented at the Works Committee meeting  held on 7th September 2004.  In this report, the Access Committee noted that it was neither a Council responsibility nor a priority to spend the funds that solely benefit the residents of one property and that any spare unallocated funds should be allocated towards resolving outstanding access issues within the Randwick LGA.  At this meeting, it was resolved that:

 

“this matter be deferred to the Access Committee to get their view on the matter, assess the potential design of these works and to formulate a clear policy for Council to use in cases like this. The report from the Access Committee to be tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 21st September, 2004.”

 

More recently, Report 66/2004 was presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 21st September 2004 and it was resolved that:

 

[1] A property allotment within the context of this report refers to an existing lot whose boundaries are shown in a crown plan or registered plan.  

(a)        Council notes the Access Committee’s recommendation that it does not support the allocation of funds to a one off specific project;

(b)        the property owners be advised that Council is prepared to construct the requested stairs at the owner’s cost; and

(c)        Council note that the Access Committee will formulate a clear policy for Council to use in cases similar to this.

 

Following the Council resolutions on this matter, it was considered appropriate that a policy be formulated by Council’s Asset Management Section in consultation with the Access Committee and the Risk Section.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council has for many years received requests for the construction of stairs to service single residential dwellings.  (Herein the report, a property access footway will be referenced as a “special verge crossing”.)  In certain areas of the Randwick City area, property boundaries are either considerably higher or lower than the adjacent roadway and some existing property access stairs are not constructed to Council standards. 

 

In the past, residents have made requests to Council to either construct a new special verge crossing; to reconstruct an existing special verge crossing; or to construct a special verge crossing for mobility impaired access, so that a connection is made between adjoining property boundaries and the roadside kerb or footpath. 

 

Council receives a number of requests to improve footpath infrastructure within the Randwick LGA.  Given the number of requests and the footpath funding allocated each year, requests must be prioritised to ensure that improvements benefit the wider community.

 

The goals of the proposed “Resident Requests for Special Verge Crossings and Nature Strip Planting policy to service property allotments[1] are as follows:

 

1)   To provide consistency in the management of residents’ requests for the construction of special verge crossings;

2)   To ensure that footpath budgetary spending benefits the wider community;

3)   To process these requests as a Pre-Paid Works application;

4)   To specify that future applicants of special verge crossings are to bear the full costs of such works; and

5)   To ensure that the construction of future special verge crossings satisfy Council standards.

 

It is proposed as a policy that special verge crossings that service a maximum of three adjoining property allotments should be considered as a Pre-Paid Works application, due to the footway request being for the benefit of a low number of residents.  For example, a resident may lodge a request for the construction of a special verge crossing across the road verge, to allow the residents from up to three separate residential property allotments to access the roadside kerb area and the respective property boundary, by foot. 

 

For any requests for special verge crossings that service more than three adjoining property allotments, Council will consider these requests individually based on the merits of each case and the availability of funding. 

 

Resident Requests for Special Verge Crossings

 

Council owes a duty of care to ensure that its existing footpaths are maintained to a serviceable condition.  At the same time, Council has limited resources and should prioritise requests based on a risk management approach where consideration is given towards footpath usage levels, pavement condition and the availability of alternate property access such as rear lane access, as some of the major factors. 

 

Special verge crossings that would service up to three adjoining residential property allotments only and/or have alternate access to the respective properties are generally for the sole benefit of the adjoining residents.  These requests expose Council to a comparatively lower level of public risk and consequently receive low priority for the expenditure of funds. 

 

The proposed policy will provide Council with a tool to enable a consistent approach towards managing “single-use” [2] or better described “low-use” requests.  Due to Council’s footpath capital works budget, it is vital that programming of footpath rehabilitation considers those footpaths that are in high pedestrian traffic areas.  

 

It is proposed that future requests for special verge crossings be managed in the form of a Council Pre-Paid Works application. 

 

Resident requests for Nature Strip Plantings

 

Council to date does not have an adopted policy in relation to nature strip plantings.  A large number of requests are received by Council for the planting of nature strips and garden beds. Owing to the extensive number of nature strips throughout the Council LGA and due to limited Council resources, Council has encouraged property owners to maintain adjoining nature strips.  It is anticipated that through the development of a policy on this matter, the method of handling these enquiries will be standardised across the Council.

 

Council does not support nature strip plantings (eg: garden beds or any other permanent structure), unless the nature strip has been deemed unsuitable for turf maintenance.  For enquiries where the nature strip does not represent a turf maintenance problem, i.e. the nature strip is accessible, does not have excessive grades or does not pose a traffic hazard, the applicant should be informed that Council does not approve of their request for a nature strip planting.

 

Council will only endorse the planting of nature strips if the requested area poses a significant public risk i.e. the slope of the verge is too steep or is inaccessible.  Any such requests will be managed by Council in the form of a Pre-Paid Works Application. Residents will be required to meet all the associated costs for the design and planting of the nature strip and will be responsible for the continual maintenance and upkeep of this area. 

 

Council encourages resident participation in the beautification of streets in Randwick.  Should a resident request planting of a street tree, prior to any planting works, Council will carry out an assessment on the designated site, to determine the site suitability.  The planting of street tree species will be in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

The planting of anything other than a Council approved street tree is not permitted by Council.  Any unauthorised planting may pose as a potential hazard for both pedestrians and motorists, and may become an obstruction for pedestrians and introduce visibility problems for motorists.  Residents should further be advised that any unapproved planting activity on nature strips that pose as a significant pedestrian or traffic hazard will result in the plantings being removed by Council and the area replaced with turf at the owner’s expense.

 

Council’s Duty of Care

 

Council, as owner of the nature strip, has a "duty of care" with regards to any works approved on Council land.  Council should ensure that any works approved are safe for its intended use and that they are regularly and appropriately maintained, in accordance with Council’s risk management policies and procedures.

 

One of the conditions of protection as required by Council's Public Liability Insurer, Statewide is "Reasonable Care":

 

6.         The Member shall as far as reasonably practicable:

a.   Exercise reasonable care that only competent employees are employed and take reasonable measures to maintain all premises, fittings and plant in safe and sound condition;

b.   take all reasonable precautions to:

i. prevent Personal Injury and Damage to Property;

ii.      prevent the manufacture, sale or supply of defective products;

iii.     comply and ensure that its employees, servants and agents comply with all statutory obligations, by-laws or regulations imposed by any                     public authority for the safety of persons or property;…." Emphasis added.

 

In addition, Council should also ensure that any items constructed meet the required building codes, Australian Standards and/or any applicable legislation.

 

The management of any Council asset should be in accordance with the normal operations of Council and form part of the overall risk management strategy of Council, taking into account the financial, physical and human resources available to Council. 

 

As a result, Council will be required to maintain any approved works and review the condition of these works as part of an ongoing footpath inspection programme.  Any such approved works will be maintained and managed by Council, to demonstrate Council’s duty of care. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.  However, for any works approved by Council, under the requirements of this policy, there will be some indirect impact on Council’s maintenance resources for the purpose of routine maintenance and to incorporate these assets as part of future ongoing inspection and renewal programmes.  

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed policy will greatly simplify the management of all resident requests for special verge crossings and nature strip plantings.  Following consideration by the Access Committee, the Risk and Insurance section and the Asset Management section, it is determined that neither requests for special verge crossings nor requests for nature strip plantings are a priority for Council due to limited resources and the lower levels of risk exposure. 

 

It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the “Residents’ Request for Special Verge Crossings or Nature Strip Planting” policy.  Residents who make these requests in future should be advised of Council’s policy and be notified of the Pre-Paid works application process, whereby the full costs of the works are borne by the applicant.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)  Council adopt the Policy on “Residents’ Requests for Special Verge Crossings and Nature Strip Planting” (see attachment 1); and

(b)  Council’s Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Draft Policy on "Residents' Requests for Special Verge Crossings and Nature Strip Planting"

Draft Procedure guidelines for the implementation of "Residents' for Special Verge Crossings and Nature Strip Planting Policy"

Updated Pre-Paid Application form - all under separate cover 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ANCILLARY ASSETS ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 10/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Tender T029/04 - Supply and Installation of GPT's

 

 

DATE:

15 February, 2005

FILE NO:

f2004/08314

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In April 1998, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) directed all Sydney Councils to prepare Stormwater Management Plans on a catchment basis.  The purpose of these plans was to provide a more effective management of urban stormwater thereby contributing to environmental protection.

 

In June 1999 the Eastern Coastal Catchment, consisting of areas from Randwick City Council (RCC), Waverley Council and Woollahra Council, completed its Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) which was adopted by Council and subsequently submitted to the EPA.

 

Since then Council has implemented a number of the management strategies including the installation of several Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT’s), which have made a significant improvement to the water quality of the beaches within the eastern coastal catchment.

 

Whilst RCC has not implemented all the proposed management strategies, Council is still committed to the objectives of the SMP and, in particular, the improving of water quality, general ecology and social aspects of Sydney’s beaches.

 

In July 2004, Randwick City Council introduced an environmental levy, that applies for the next five years. A budget allocation has been given to the installation of Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT’s) in the RCC Local Government Area.

 

Tenders were invited for the provision and installation of Gross Pollutant Traps over a period of five (5) years under a standing offer panel contract.  Tenders were called on the 7th December 2004 and closed on 18th January 2005.  Seven (7) tenders were received.

 

The objectives of the tender were to:

·    Obtain prices to supply and install GPT’s at three specified sites over the next 6 months;

·    Obtain prices to supply and install GPT’s at various sites, as directed, commencing from the date of award of contract for a period of 5 years;

·    Obtain rates to supply and install GPT’s on an “as required” basis commencing from the date of award of contract for a period of 5 years;

·    To appoint a panel of providers to supply and install GPT’s as directed, commencing from the date of award of contract for a period of 5 years.

 

ISSUES:

 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Evaluation Plan was developed and was approved by the Manager Contracts and Purchasing prior to tenders closing.

 

The following criteria were used to assess the value for money offered by the tenderers:

 

Mandatory Criteria

·    Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s);

·    Capacity to fulfill the requirements of this tender.

Desirable Criteria

·    References

·    Quality

·    Occupational Health and Safety

·    Environmental Policies & Procedures

·    Tenderers’ capacity, Qualifications and previous experience

·    Tenderers’ financial capacity/stability

·    Time required for installation

·    Life Cycle Costs associated with the GPT (including cleaning and maintenance)

·    Pollutant removal and effectiveness

·    Pollutant holding capacity

·    Ease of cleaning of GPT

Detailed evaluation Criteria and weightings are outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan – Attachment B.

 

Tenders Received

Tenders were received from:

·    Roan Environmental & Civil Construction Pty Ltd (using Humes Product);

·    CDS Technologies Pty Ltd;

·    Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd;

·    Ecosol Pty Ltd;

·    Antoun Civil engineering Pty Ltd (using Humes Product);

·    Environmental Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd; and

·    Stormwater Systems Pty Ltd.

 

Late Tenders

There were no late tenders received.

 

Non-Conforming Tenders

The tender submitted by Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd was deemed to be non-conforming, as no tender amounts were supplied as required by the conditions of tendering.

 

Conforming Tenders

Six conforming tenders were received and were evaluated in accordance with the tender evaluation plan.

 

Tender Evaluation

The GPT’s offered by the tenderers can be grouped into two main types.  These being:

·    Concrete In-ground Structures,

o Roan Environmental & Civil Construction Pty Ltd (using Humes Product);

o CDS Technologies Pty Ltd;

o Ecosol Pty Ltd;

o Antoun Civil engineering Pty Ltd (using Humes Product);

·    Net Structures

o Environmental Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd; and

o Stormwater Systems Pty Ltd.

 

These two types or GPT’s are generally suitable for different situations.

 

Concrete In-ground Structural GPT’s are generally utilised in larger catchments and where it is desirable to capture all manner of gross pollutants down to the size of fine sand.  These types of GPT’s are mostly installed in areas that can be accessed by trucks and heavy equipment in order to be maintained.

 

Net type GPT’s are generally installed in small catchments, where it may not be desirable to collect all gross pollutants down to the size of fine sand or may not be accessible by trucks and heavy equipment in order to be maintained. 

 

As both these types of GPT’s are suitable for Council’s use but differ in areas of application, the tenders were assessed in the groups according to the type of GPT offered.  This was done to provide an opportunity to place at least one of each type of GPT provider, on the panel of providers.

 

Council evaluated the technical performance of the tenderer’s proposed GPT’s using:

·    Pollutant Removal Efficiency,

·    Life Cycle Costs including

o Maintenance Costs

o Pollutant Holding Capacity and

o Cleaning Frequency

as outlined in the evaluation plan.

 

Comparison tables are presented in Attachment A.

 

It should be noted that identical Humes products have been proposed by Roan and Antoun Civil.

 

From these tables it can be seen that of the Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT’s:

·    Ecosol has the highest Life Cycle Costs whilst Roan+ Humes (same product as Antoun +Humes) have the lowest. (Life Cycle Cost = Total cost to Council over the life of the GPT)

·    CDS has the smallest pollutant holding capacity and highest cleaning frequencies whilst Roan+ Humes (same product as Antoun +Humes) have the highest pollutant holding capacity and lowest cleaning frequencies.

·    CDS has the greatest Pollutant Removal Efficiency and Roan+ Humes (same product as Antoun +Humes) have the lowest.

 

The Humes product proposed by Roan and Antoun has by far the largest pollutant holding capacities and require the least amount of cleaning.  This significantly lowers the maintenance cost and ultimately the life cycle costs.  Despite the offer of larger holding capacities and a less frequent cleaning regime, a number of the tenderers referees have stated the most appropriate cleaning frequency is in the order of every 3 months.  These referees have noted that longer cleaning frequencies have led to smells emitting from these GPT’s and they should be cleaned well before the capacity of the units are fully utilised.  In addition to the smells, the referees did mentioned there are arguments that holding pollutants for long periods of time, in a wet sump, may lead to further environmental degradation as the water in the unit has all of its oxygen depleted, thus the quality of the discharged water during low flow times can be affected.  This opposes objectives of installing GPT’s (to improve water quality and minimise degradation to the stormwater) and is not ideal.

 

With these comments in mind, the low frequency in cleaning is considered not ideal and unrealistic.  Most referees for all types of “wet-sump” units (including Ecosol and CDS) have recommended cleaning frequencies of around 3 months as more ideal, as it strikes a balance between increase in capital costs and appropriate cleaning frequencies to prevent smells emitting from the GPT and maintain the health of the GPT itself.

 

CDS has the highest claimed figures for pollutant removal.  However, its cost of installation is the highest.  Despite having high installation costs, the life cycle costs are competitive.

 

Based on a cleaning frequency of 3-4 months, the assessment of lifecycle costs for Roan and Antoun, would increase significantly.  Using this basis for calculating Life Cycle Costs, CDS has the lowest Life Cycle Costs of the Concrete In-ground Structural GPT’s.

 

Of the Net Structure Type GPT’s Environmental Systems and Stormwater Systems have very similar products.  However, Environmental Systems has submitted a tender that provides better value and the assessment latter indicates that it would be the preferred company to provide this type of GPT.

 

Tender Amounts

The prices presented in the submissions received from the above companies are summarised in attachment A.

 

Examining the supply and installation prices of the first three GPT’s as a point of comparison indicates that the lowest cost option of the Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT’s is Antoun (Supplying the Humes Product).  The highest cost option of the Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT’s is Ecosol.  However, it should be noted that only Ecosol’s submission exceeds Council’s budget of $420,000, by $196,820 for the supply and installation of GPT’s for 2.1 of Tender T029/04.

 

Of the Net Structure Type GPT’s, Stormwater Systems decline to submit a price for the GPT’s at specific sites and Environmental Systems only quoted prices for a limited number of GPT’s at specific sites.

 

 

Tender Evaluation

The tenders were assessed and scored against each criteria from the Tender Evaluation Plan, to determine the Total Weighted Quality Score. The estimated Whole of Life Costs offered by each tenderer was calculated over fifty years and expressed in current prices. To determine which tenderer offered the best Value for Money, the Total Weighted Quality Score was divided by the estimated Whole of Life Costs for the first three specified GPT sites.  The quality scores and value for money are listed below

 

Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT’s

Tenderer

Total Weighted Quality Score

As %

CDS

4.46

89%

Roan+ Humes

3.69

74%

Antoun+ Humes

3.58

72%

ECOSOL

3.57

71%

Net Structure Type GPT’s

Environmental Solutions

2.6

52%

Stormwater Systems

2.35

47%

 

Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT’s

Tenderer

Whole of Life Cost  (Schedule 2.1)

Cost index

CDS

$1,170,010

1.70

Roan+ Humes

$1,006,564

1.46

Antoun+ Humes

$991,298

1.44

ECOSOL

$2,191,013

3.18

Net Structure Type GPT’s

Environmental Solutions

$721,200*

1.05

Stormwater Systems

$690,000*

1.00

* As Environmental Solutions and Stormwater Systems only submitted rates and not Lump Sum prices for the GPT’s of Schedule 2.1, (as net Structure may not be suitable for those sites), the Whole of Life Costs were estimated from the rates submitted in Schedules 2.2 and 4 so that a fair cost index could be determined to calculate a Value for Money score.

 

Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT’s

Tenderer

Cost index

Value for M

CDS

1.70

2.63

Roan+ Humes

1.46

2.53

Antoun+ Humes

1.44

2.50

ECOSOL

3.18

1.12

Net Structure Type GPT’s

Environmental Solutions

1.05

2.49

Stormwater Systems

1.00

2.35

 

The Value for Money Scores indicate CDS offers the best value for money option followed by Roan, Antoun, and Environmental Solutions.  Ecosol provided the least value for money.

 

Of the two Net Structure Type GPT submissions Environmental Solutions has provided the greater value for money.

 

Tender Submissions Summaries

Antoun Civil Engineering

Antoun Civil Engineering is a construction company experienced in wide and varied civil projects including drainage works and the installation of GPT’s.  Referees have stated its experience in the installation of GPT’s is limited but it has completed its work with good results.  However, its works were subject to price variations.  It proposes to install proprietary products produced by Humes Pty Ltd.

 

The tender submitted by Antoun is reasonable providing a lump sum cost for the first three specified sites, supply costs for the other specified sites, a list of rates to assess costs for the specified and unspecified sites, and detail of cleaning frequencies expected to help in the determination of life cycle costs.  Only supply prices were submitted for Schedule 2.2 and installation costs were not provided for those GPT’s, leaving opportunity for price variations.

CDS Technologies

CDS is a company that designs, supplies and installs its own proprietary product. Most referees agree that CDS produce one of the most effective GPT on the market.  However they are also said to be relatively expensive.

 

The tender submitted by CDS is comprehensive, providing a lump sum cost for all of the specified sites, a complete list of rates to assess costs for unspecified sites, and detailed determination of life cycle costs including cleaning frequencies, cleaning costs and GPT maintenance costs, full design drawings for the 3 initial sites and detailed investigations of all other specified sites.

Ecosol

Ecosol is a company that designs, supplies and installs its own proprietary products. Referees considered Ecosol, to produce very effective GPT’s.

 

The tender submitted by Ecosol is detailed, providing a lump sum cost for all of the specified sites, a complete list of rates to assess costs for unspecified sites. The submission also detailed cleaning frequencies, cleaning costs and GPT maintenance costs, to determine life cycle costs.

Roan Environmental & Civil Construction

Roan Environmental & Civil Construction is a construction company experienced in varied civil projects including drainage works.  Referees state that its experience in the installation of GPT’s is limited but has produced work of a high standard.  It proposes to install proprietary products produced by Humes Pty Ltd.

 

The tender submitted by Roan is detailed, providing a lump sum cost for half of the specified sites and a complete list of rates to assess costs for unspecified sites. The submission also detailed cleaning frequencies, cleaning costs and GPT maintenance costs, and life cycle costs.  Roan submitted firm prices for the supply and installation of GPT’s, a clearer cost structure to that offered by Antoun.

Environmental Solutions (Australia)

Environmental Solutions is a company that designs supplies and installs its own proprietary product. It is known in the industry to produce the Net Tech GPT that is a low cost, end of line alternative to in-ground GPT’s. 

Net type GPT’s are generally installed in small catchments, where it may not be desirable to collect all gross pollutants down to the size of fine sand or may not be accessible by trucks and heavy equipment in order to be maintained.  This type of GPT is generally not as effective as the in-ground type of GPT but is more appropriate under situations as described.

 

The tender submitted by Environmental Solutions is satisfactory, providing a lump sum cost for a few of the specified sites, a list of rates to supply various sizes of GPT’s.  Installation rates were not provided.  The submission also detailed cleaning frequencies, cleaning costs and GPT maintenance costs, to determine life cycle costs.

Stormwater Systems

Stormwater Systems is a company that designs supplies and installs its own proprietary product. It is known in the industry to produce Net Tech type GPT’s that are a low cost, end of line alternative to in-ground GPT’s.

 

This type of GPT is generally not as effective as the in-ground type of GPT but is more appropriate under situations as described previously.

 

The tender submitted by Stormwater Systems is minimal providing a list of rates to supply various sizes of GPT’s.  Installation rates were not provided.  The submission also detailed cleaning frequencies and replacement frequencies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost of the installation of all proposed GPT’s will be funded under the environmental levy.  The budget allocation for the installation of GPT’s in the 2004-2005 financial year is $420,000.  No additional funds will be required.

 

However, there will be additional cost associated with maintenance of any of the GPT’s Council decides to install.  Maintenance costs are estimated to vary between $2,000 to $14,000/year/GPT depending on the size and location of the GPT installed.

 

The financial benefit of the installation of these will be a reduction in cost of cleaning Council beaches.  The value of the benefit can not been determined prior to the installation of theses GPT’s.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The technical assessment of the two categories of GPT’s indicate that, of the Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT’s, CDS provided the best value for money for the community.

 

CDS have also provided a solution that is most cost effective over the life of the GPT, despite having higher installation costs. 

 

Antoun and Roan have proposed the use of the Humes product.  They provide a lower cost Concrete In-ground Structure Type GPT. However, Roan offered firm supply and installation rates and overall offered better value for money.

 

Environmental Solutions and Stormwater Systems have proposed Net Structure Type GPT’s that are comparable to each other.  However, Environmental Solutions has provided the better value for money tender for this GPT type.

 

Tender Evaluation Committee

The Tender Evaluation Committee comprising Mark Leong, Assets Engineer Drainage; John Earls, Co-ordinator Assets; and Don Mann, Supply Co-ordinator all endorse the recommendations of this Report.

 

 

Mark Leong

 

 

John Earls

 

 

Don Mann

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the tenders from Roan Environmental & Civil Construction Pty Ltd, CDS Technologies Pty Ltd and Environmental Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd for a 5 year term, be accepted for the Supply & Installation Of Gross Pollutant Traps Within Randwick LGA - T029/04 and that Council enter into a contract under clause 19 of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999;

 

(b)        authority is granted for the General Manager and the Mayor to sign and affix Council’s Common Seal to enter into contracts on behalf of Council with the recommended tenderers for the Supply & Installation Of Gross Pollutant Traps Within Randwick LGA - T029/04; and

(c)        the unsuccessful tenderers be advised of the tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

(a)     Evaluation Tables

(b)     Evaluation Weightings.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK LEONG

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER-DRAINAGE

 


Attachment A:        Evaluation Tables

Prices of GPT’s at Specified Locations

GPT Reference

Catchment Size  ha

Pipe size mm

Roan+ Humes

CDS

Ecosol

Antoun+ Humes

Environmental Solutions

Stormwater Systems

MA8 - Byrne Cres - Maroubra Beach

23.9

1050

$ 75,735

$115,920

 $226,686

$ 76,950

$ 22,900

 

Malabar RoadLurline Bay

12.4

1050

$ 82,472

$123,920

$143,188

$ 98,750

$24,480.40**

 

Fisherman’s Road – Long Bay

80

1050

$162,555

$128,520

$246,946

$132,340

$49,151.77**

 

CL2 – Donnellan CCT –Clovelly

75.1

1800

$182,500*

$196,780

 

 

 

 

CL3 – Eastbourne Ave –Clovelly

5.7

525

$44,769

$  81,440

$27,444

$ 15,000*

 

 

LB7 – Pearce St – Lurline Bay

24.6

600

$73,722

$106,690

$ 40,572

$ 29,480*

 

 

C9 – Beach St – Coogee Beach

5.9

600

$47,669

$ 89,830

$ 38,246

$ 15,000*

 

 

LT1 – Bilga Cres – Little Bay

32.8

1200

$124,878

$131,210

 

$ 52,250*

$ 21,900

 

CS2 – Neptune StCoogee Beach

30.9

1050

$75,735

$133,710

$244,546

$ 37,950*

$ 49,400

 

MA6 - Maroubra Rd – Maroubra Beach

6.9

600

$55,544

$  89,660

$ 42,996

$ 20,900*

 

 

Maroubra Seals - Maroubra Beach

132.2

2.44x1.73

$300,000*

$332,020

 

 

 

 

MA10 – The Corso - Maroubra Bay

11.1

?

 

$ 73,090

$ 29,044

$ 20,900*

 

 

ML3 – Fox St - Long Bay

4.3

450

 

$ 55,250

$ 31,070

$ 15,000*

$10,750

 

ML4 – Napier St - Long Bay

4.85

375

 

$ 52,790

$ 22,704

$ 15,000*

 

 

ML5 – Howe St - Long Bay

2.1

450

 

$ 48,730

$ 26,944

$ 11,550*

$ 9,750

 

ML8 – Prince Edward St - Long Bay

5.45

450

 

$ 57,960

$ 26,944

$ 15,000*

 

 

ML2 – Dacre St – Long Bay

8.61

525

 

$ 89,270

$ 31,070

$ 20,900*

 

 

MA5 – Coral Sea Park - Maroubra Beach

15.9

 

 

$102,650

$ 42,996

$ 29,480*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Estimate subtotal

 

Subtotal of 1st 3 GPT's

$320,762

$368,360

$616,820

$308,040

$ 96,532

 

* Supply Price only

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Estimate for evaluation purposes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rates for Construction of GPT’s at Non-Specified Locations

 

 

Roan+ Humes

CDS

Ecosol

Antoun+ Humes

Environmental Solutions

Stormwater Systems

DESCRIPTION

UNIT

Rate GST excl

Rate GST excl

Rate GST excl

Rate GST excl

Rate GST excl

Rate GST excl

Delivery

Each

 

$ 5,00

 

$400

 

 

Site Establishment/Disestablishment

Per

 

$ 3,000

$ 450

$2,000

 

 

Signage

/wk each

 

 

$ 200

$ 60

 

 

Excavation (Normal Conditions)

Per m3

 $  110

 $ 30

$  50

$  60

 

 

Excavation (Rock)

Per m3

 $  300

 $ 220

$ 220

$  80

 

 

Shoring

Per m

 $  220

 $ 240

$10,000

$  280

 

 

Dewatering (Pump <50mm sump pump)

Per hr

 $  80

 $ -

$  20

$  20

 

 

Dewatering (Pump >50mm sump pump, of spears)

Per hr

 $  150

 $ 89

 

$  35

 

 

Reinstatement of turf

Per m2

 $  27

 $ 10

$  25

$  6

 

 

Reinstatement of road pavement (Asphaltic Concrete)

Per m2

 $  83

 $ 250

$ 100

$  87

 

 

Reinstatement of road pavement (Concrete)

Per m2

 $  185

 $ 250

$ 100

$  70

 

 

Reinstatement of foot path

Per m2

 $  72

 $ 100

$ 100

$  50

 

 

Reinstatement of Concrete Kerb and Gutter

Per m

 $  147

 $ 150

 

$  44

 

 

Disposal of fill.

Per m3

 $  85

 $ 60

$  45

$  44

 

 

Disposal of contaminated fill.

Per m3

 

 

$ 100

$  150

 

 

Fitting of GPT to conduit/structure

Each

$ 3,000

 

 

$  1,200

 

 

Works as Executed plans after completion

Per Set

$ 1,680

 $  1,000

 

$  1,500

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 0.5 m3/s max flow**

Each

$ 21,875

 $ 18,000

 

 

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 1.0 m3/s max flow**

Each

$ 40,625

 $ 29,000

 

 

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 2.0 m3/s max flow**

Each

$112,500

 $ 60,000

 

 

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 3.0 m3/s max flow**

Each

$250,000

 $ 70,000

 

 

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 4.0 m3/s max flow**

Each

$375,000

 $ 75,000

 

 

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 5.0 m3/s max flow**

Each

 

 $ 85,000

 

 

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 6.0 m3/s max flow**

Each

 

 $ 87,500

 

 

 

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 375 mm max pipe size***

Each

$10,625

$ 10,450

 

 

$ 7,250

$ 2,200

Supply of GPT unit* for 450 mm max pipe size***

Each

$11,250

 $ 13,000

 

 

 $  7,250

 $ 3,000

Supply of GPT unit* for 525 mm max pipe size***

Each

$11,875

 $ 18,000

 

 

 $  8,650

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 600 mm max pipe size***

Each

$27,875

 $ 18,000

 

 

 $  8,650

 $ 4,500

Supply of GPT unit* for 750 mm max pipe size***

Each

$31,875

 $ 23,500

 

 

 $  11,650

 $ 5,000

Supply of GPT unit* for 900 mm max pipe size***

Each

$43,125

 $ 29,000

 

 

 $  13,900

 $ 5,500

Supply of GPT unit* for 1050 mm max pipe size***

Each

$43,125

 $ 40,000

 

 

 $  16,900

 $ 6,250

Supply of GPT unit* for 1200 mm max pipe size***

Each

$ 56,250

 $ 50,000

 

 

 $  16,900

 $ 7,500

Supply of GPT unit* for 1500 mm max pipe size***

Each

$112,500

 $ 70,000

 

 

 $  20,400

 $ 8,250

Supply of GPT unit* for 1800 mm max pipe size***

Each

$250,000

 $ 80,000

 

 

 $  21,650

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 2150 mm max pipe size***

Each

$375,000

 $ 87,500

 

 

 $  26,900

 

Supply of GPT unit* for 4mx1m max pipe size***

Each

 

 

 

 

 $  30,000

 

 


 

Life Cycle Costs (Initial Cost+Cleaning*50yrs+replacements required)

 

 

GPT Reference

Roan+ Humes

CDS

Ecosol

Antoun+ Humes

Environmental Solutions

Stormwater Systems

MA8 - Byrne Cres – Maroubra Beach

$253,632

$371,920

$835,810

$255,090

$ 240,400

Replace

Malabar RoadLurline Bay

$184,216

$303,920

$473,605

$203,750

 

net/5yrs

Fisherman’s Road – Long Bay

$568,716

$494,170

$881,598

$532,458

 

Cleaning

CL2 – Donnellan CCT –Clovelly

$587,000

$651,780

$600,000*

$600,000*

 

Fortnightly

CL3 – Eastbourne Ave –Clovelly

$116,723

$231,940

$131,823

$104,940*

 

< $500

LB7 – Pearce St – Lurline Bay

$247,916

$360,690

$174,093

$241,876*

 

/clean

C9 – Beach St – Coogee Beach

$120,203

$240,330

$168,836

$104,940*

 

 

LT1 – Bilga Cres – Little Bay

$350,454

$500,210

$400,000*

$346,691*

$239,400

 

CS2 – Neptune StCoogee Beach

$307,882

$502,710

$876,174

$323,108*

$266,900

 

MA6 - Maroubra Rd - Maroubra Beach

$128,653

$242,160

$179,571

$120,436*

 

 

Maroubra Seals - Maroubra Beach

$1,011,000

$1,016,020

$1,000,000*

$1,000,000*

 

 

MA10 – The Corso - Maroubra Bay

$62,000

$276,590

$135,439

$120,436*

 

 

ML3 – Fox St - Long Bay

$49,000

$201,750

$140,018

$90,940*

$228,250

 

ML4 – Napier St - Long Bay

$55,100

$200,290

$112,811

$97,040*

 

 

ML5 – Howe StLong Bay

$35,750

$146,230

$130,693

$68,044*

$227,250

 

ML8 – Prince Edward St - Long Bay

$63,000

$251,860

$130,693

$104,940*

 

 

ML2 – Dacre St – Long Bay

$62,000

$288,770

$140,018

$120,436*

 

 

MA5 – Coral Sea Park - Maroubra Beach

$111,600

$240,650

$179,571

$194,026*

 

 

Average

$239,714

$362,333

$371,709

$257,175

 

 

Years

50 years

 

10-15y for screens @42% cost

 

*Estimate for evaluation purposes

 


 

Pollutant Collection Capacity

 

(m3)

(m3)

 

 

 

GPT Reference

Roan+ Humes

CDS

Ecosol

Antoun+ Humes

Environmental Solutions

Stormwater Systems

MA8 - Byrne Cres – Maroubra Beach

14

8.1

19.52

14

 

 

Malabar RoadLurline Bay

11

4.1

8.3

11

 

 

Fisherman’s Road – Long Bay

53

16

19.52

52

 

 

CL2 – Donnellan CCT –Clovelly

80

 

 

 

 

 

CL3 – Eastbourne Ave –Clovelly

3

 

1.03

3

 

 

LB7 – Pearce St – Lurline Bay

12

 

2.43

12

 

 

C9 – Beach St – Coogee Beach

3

 

2.43

3

 

 

LT1 – Bilga Cres – Little Bay

19

 

 

19

 

 

CS2 – Neptune StCoogee Beach

14

 

19.52

14

 

 

MA6 - Maroubra Rd - Maroubra Beach

8

 

2.43

8

 

 

Maroubra Seals - Maroubra Beach

156

 

 

 

 

 

MA10 – The Corso - Maroubra Bay

8

 

1.03

8

 

 

ML3 – Fox St - Long Bay

3

 

1.03

3

 

 

ML4 – Napier St - Long Bay

3

 

0.32

3

 

 

ML5 – Howe St - Long Bay

2.7

 

1.03

2.7

 

 

ML8 – Prince Edward St - Long Bay

3

 

1.03

3

 

 

ML2 – Dacre St – Long Bay

8

 

1.03

8

 

 

MA5 – Coral Sea Park - Maroubra Beach

12

 

2.43

12

 

 

 


 

Cleaning Frequency (Est)

 

(No/year)

(Months)

 

(Months)

(Months)

GPT Reference

Roan+ Humes

CDS

Ecosol

Antoun+ Humes

Environmental Solutions

Stormwater Systems

MA8 - Byrne Cres – Maroubra Beach

8

4

6

7

0.5

0.5

Malabar RoadLurline Bay

12

3

6

11

0.5

0.5

Fisherman’s Road – Long Bay

9

5

6

8

0.5

0.5

CL2 – Donnellan CCT –Clovelly

14

4

 

 

0.5

0.5

CL3 – Eastbourne Ave –Clovelly

7

3

6

6

0.5

0.5

LB7 – Pearce St – Lurline Bay

7

4

6

6

0.5

0.5

C9 – Beach St – Coogee Beach

7

3

6

6

0.5

0.5

LT1 – Bilga Cres – Little Bay

8

4

 

7

0.5

0.5

CS2 – Neptune StCoogee Beach

6

4

6

6

0.5

0.5

MA6 - Maroubra Rd - Maroubra Beach

15

3

6

14

0.5

0.5

Maroubra Seals - Maroubra Beach

16

5

 

 

0.5

0.5

MA10 – The Corso - Maroubra Bay

12

4

6

11

0.5

0.5

ML3 – Fox St - Long Bay

9

3

6

8

0.5

0.5

ML4 – Napier St - Long Bay

8

3

6

7

0.5

0.5

ML5 – Howe St - Long Bay

17

2

6

15

0.5

0.5

ML8 – Prince Edward St - Long Bay

7

4

6

7

0.5

0.5

ML2 – Dacre St – Long Bay

12

4

6

11

0.5

0.5

MA5 – Coral Sea Park - Maroubra Beach

10

2

6

9

0.5

0.5

 


 


Costs/Cleaning

(/year)

(/year)

(/clean)

(/year)

(/year)

(/year)

GPT Reference

Roan+ Humes

CDS

Ecosol

Antoun+ Humes

Environmental Solutions

Stormwater Systems

MA8 - Byrne Cres – Maroubra Beach

$3,255

$5,000

$3,235

$3,255*

$4,000

$4,000

Malabar RoadLurline Bay

$1,705

$3,480

$1,500

$1,705*

$4,000

$4,000

Fisherman’s Road – Long Bay

$7,473

$7,133

$3,235

$7,473*

$4,000

$4,000

CL2 – Donnellan CCT –Clovelly

$7,360

$8,900

 

$7,360*

$4,000

$4,000

CL3 – Eastbourne Ave –Clovelly

$1,260

$2,940

$698

$1,260*

$4,000

$4,000

LB7 – Pearce St – Lurline Bay

$3,189

$4,960

$824

$3,189*

$4,000

$4,000

C9 – Beach St – Coogee Beach

$1,260

$2,940

$824

$1,260*

$4,000

$4,000

LT1 – Bilga Cres – Little Bay

$4,012

$7,200

 

$4,012*

$4,000

$4,000

CS2 – Neptune StCoogee Beach

$4,340

$7,200

$3,235

$4,340*

$4,000

$4,000

MA6 - Maroubra Rd - Maroubra Beach

$1,240

$2,980

$824

$1,240*

$4,000

$4,000

Maroubra Seals - Maroubra Beach

$13,020

$13,480

 

$3,020*

$4,000

$4,000

MA10 – The Corso - Maroubra Bay

$1,240

$4,000

$698

$1,240*

$4,000

$4,000

ML3 – Fox St - Long Bay

$980

$2,860

$698

$980*

$4,000

$4,000

ML4 – Napier St - Long Bay

$1,102

$2,880

$615

$1,102*

$4,000

$4,000

ML5 – Howe St - Long Bay

$715

$1,880

$698

$715*

$4,000

$4,000

ML8 – Prince Edward StLong Bay

$1,260

$3,808

$698

$1,260*

$4,000

$4,000

ML2 – Dacre St – Long Bay

$1,240

$3,920

$698

$1,240*

$4,000

$4,000

MA5 – Coral Sea Park - Maroubra Beach

$ 2,232

$2,640

$824

$ 2,232*

$4,000

$4,000

*Estimate for evaluation purposes


Claimed Pollutant Removal Efficiency

 

Roan+ Humes

CDS

Ecosol

Antoun+ Humes

Environmental Solutions

Stormwater Systems

Coarse Sediment

70%

98%

98%

70%

95%

>50%

Litter

95%

98%

98%

95%

95%

>75%

Debris Organic

95%

98%

98%

95%

95%

>75%

TSS

0%

70%

50%

0%

0%

0%

Oil Grease

significant

95%

90%

significant

0%

0%

Nutrients

0%

30%

25%

0%

0%

0%

 

 


Attachment B:        Evaluation Criteria & Weightings

Evaluation Criteria

Tender Questions

Weighted Criteria

Total Weight

STAGE 1 – MANDATORY CRITERIA

 

 

 

Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s)

 

 

All criteria must be met

Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this tender

 

 

All criteria must be met

STAGE 2 – DESIRABLE CRITERIA

 

 

 

(a)      Tenderer’s capacity, compliance

B14, B15

5%

 

(b)      Qualifications and previous experience

B1, B16

10%

 

(c)      Tenderer’s financial capacity/stability

B12

5%

 

(d)      Time required for installation

B2.1, B13

5%

 

(e)      Life Cycle Costs associated with the GPT (including cleaning and maintenance)

B22-Q6

30%

 

(f)       Pollutant removal and effectiveness

B22-Q1, 2, 4

10%

 

(g)      Pollutant holding capacity

B22-Q5

15%

 

(h)      Ease of cleaning of GPT

B22-Q5

15%

 

(i)       Warranties

B22-Q7

2.5%

 

(j)       Insurance