Minutes of Ordinary Meeting - Thursday, 29 April 2021

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 29 April 2021 Page 1 of 2

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting of Council OF THE SHIRE OF BROOME,

HELD IN THE Council Chambers, Corner Weld and Haas Streets, Broome, ON Thursday 29 April 2021, COMMENCING AT 5:00 PM.

1. Official Opening

The Chairperson welcomed Councillors, officers and members of the public and declared the meeting open at 5.01PM.

2. Attendance and Apologies

ATTENDANCE

Councillors:	Cr D Male	Deputy Shire President
	Cr E Foy
	Cr C Mitchell
	Cr B Rudeforth
	Cr P Taylor
	Cr F West
	Cr N Wevers



Apologies:	Nil


Leave of Absence:	Cr H Tracey
	Cr P Matsumoto	To be decided on at Item 4

Officers:	Mr S Mastrolembo	Chief Executive Officer
	Mr J Watt	Acting Director Development and Community Services
	Mr A Graffen	Director Infrastructure
	Mr D Kennedy	Acting Director Corporate Services
	Mr G McKnight	Marketing & Communications Coordinator
	Mr J Carpenter	Senior Procurement & Risk Officer
	Ms J Welshman	Manager Works
	Mr A Santiago	Manager Financial Services
	Mr M Condiman	Depot Supervisor

Media:


Public Gallery:	Brendan Renkin
	John Geappen
	Matthew Hartlieb

3. Announcements By President Without Discussion

Nil

4. Declarations Of Interest

FINANCIAL INTERESTS (s5.60A)

Councillor

Item No

Item

Nature of Interest

Cr B Rudeforth

9.2.1

Regional Resource Recovery Park Site Selection Community Engagement Report and Implementation Process

Director of Narli Walami Pty Ltd – Subsidiary of Nyamba Buru Yawuru (NBY)

Employer has commercial agreements with NBY

INDIRECT FINANCIAL INTERESTS (s5.61)
Councillor	Item No	Item	Nature of Interest
Cr P Taylor	9.2.1	Regional Resource Recovery Park Site Selection Community Engagement Report and Implementation Process	Closely associated person to me would have a financial interest in this item if they were present.

Due to the significant nature of Item 9.2.1 Regional Resource Recovery Park Site Selection Community Engagement Report and Implementation Process Report, Ministerial Exemption was granted under section 5.69(3)(b) for Cr Taylor to fully participate and vote on the item. The following Ministerial approval letter was circulated to Councillors prior to the meeting

5. Public Question Time

The following question was received from John Geappen prior to the meeting:

Question One (1)

Following a serious attack by a dog on a camel train, Sunday 25th of April, resulting in two passengers being thrown from the camel and requiring emergency response from Broome Ambulance Paramedics, will the Shire of Broome reconsider the request put before Council in April 2017 to relocate camel tours south of the Surf Club area on Cable Beach before we end up in front of the coroner to explain the Shire's decision to incorporate the passive iconic camel tours of Broome with 4WD vehicles, out of control dogs, various recreational activities enjoyed by large groups/families and other risks when a safe alternative clearly exits?

Response provided by James Watt – Acting Director Development and Community Services

At its ordinary meeting of 27 April 2017, Council resolved to refuse a request to move the area where camel tours are permitted to operate to the south of the Surf Club.

It is not proposed that this position be reconsidered as there has not been a significant change to the type and scale of different activities or uses in the area. There are also potentially conflicting uses and activities that exist in the area proposed by Mr Geappen that exist in the currently approved area.

Camel tours are undertaken as commercial trading activities on public land. They are an additional activity that is not afforded exclusive use of the particular area. Dogs on leads are permitted to traverse the area of Cable Beach that extends from 400m south of the Surf Club to 700m north of the Cable Beach vehicle access ramp. The beach to the north and south of this area is regarded as off-leash for dogs.

Moving camel operations south of the Surf Club will not resolve the issue of operators having to manage interactions with dogs given both on-leash and off-leash areas exist on the beach south of the Surf Club.

It should be noted that the Shire of Broome Trading, Outdoor Dining and Street Entertainment Local Law 2016 and associated Trading in Public Places Policy states that camel operators are responsible for the effective control of their respective camel trains at all times. It is a requirement of the license to manage interactions with people, vehicles, animals and other commercial operators while traversing to and using the space.

The following questions were raised by Brendan Renkin at the meeting. All six (6) questions were taken on notice. A response will be provided in the Agenda of the next Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held 27 May 2021.

Question One (1)

On 28 June 2018 the Shire of Broome entered into an agreement with Broome Futures and handed over $100,000 to Broome Futures pursuant to a “Non-Binding Memorandum of Understanding”.

Clause 2 says the agreement does not give rise to any rights or obligations, yet clause 9 says Broome Futures can only use the funds directly associated with the Broome Growth Plan, and if it doesn’t it must return the money.

Can the Shire explain why it choose a non-enforceable agreement when it gave $100,000 to a third party? And can the Shire give an example of another time it has given a third party with no experience in implementing agreements money without an enforceable agreement?

Question Two (2)

Can the Shire detail when the last time it consulted with the public about the proposed Cable Beach redevelopment? In the May 2020 minutes of the Broome Future’s Board it states “ Harold Tracey advised that the Shire was engaging with the environmental group to address potential issues connected to the project”.

Can the Shire confirm that this is correct, and what the outcomes of the engagement was?

Question Three (3)

Item 9.3.2 Tourism Administration Policy – Was there any industry consultation, including local tourism businesses etc? Why did the Shire choose to exclude local tourism businesses in the consultation phase? And on what basis were only ANW, Cruise Broome and the Visitors Centre chosen?

Question Four (4)

At the March 2021 OMC the Acting Chairperson interrupted my question to suggest I was making a statement rather than asking a question. I am unable to find any guidance in the Standing Orders/ Meeting Rules / Local Government Act that shows the distinction between the two. Could the Acting Shire President direct me to the relevant authority that provides guidance on what is and isn’t permitted when asking a question?

Question Five (5)

At the February 2021 OMC I asked a question about the newly constructed roundabout on Saville and Herbert Street. Since that time the Shire has completed its landscaping in the centre of the roundabout however on the surrounding kerbs the pindan level is about the kerb level, so its likely that more reactive sweeping with the Scarab Mistral Streetsweeper will continue to be required, costing local ratepayers the additional street sweeping time.

Can the Shire explain why the roundabout kerbing was constructed in a way that facilitates pindan being deposited on the road every time it rains?

Is this the standard design approach for roundabouts in Broome? And if so, how many roundabouts can the Scarab Mistral Streetsweeper sweep before an additional streetsweeper is required?

Question Six (6)

Can the Shire provide figures on its staff turnover rate for the relevant periods it collects data (Calendar or Financial year) for the last two complete periods? (2020 and 2019)

6. Applications for Leave of Absence

Leave of Absence:

Minute No. C/0421/001

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr F West

That Council grant Cr P Matsumoto a Leave of Absence from Councillor duties inclusive of 29 April 2021 through to 1 May 2021.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

7. Confirmation Of Minutes

Council Resolution:

(Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/002

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr F West

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 March 2021, as published and circulated, be confirmed as a true and accurate record of that meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

8. Presentations / Petitions / Deputations

Nil

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 29 April 2021 Page 1 of 2

9. Reports From Officers

9.1 People

There are no reports in this section.

9.2 Place

The Chief Executive has advised that an error has been identified under the financial implications section of this report and has been updated in addition to some minor amendment/typographical errors rectified within Attachment 10. These changes have been updated for the purposes of the minutes.

Cr B Rudeforth declared a Financial Interest in item 9.2.1, the reason being ‘Director of Narli Walami Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of NBY. Employer has commercial agreements with NBY.’

Cr P Taylor declared an Indirect Financial Interest in item 9.2.1, the reason being ‘Closely Associated Person to Cr Tracey. Gave a notifiable gift in 2017.’

Ministerial exemption was granted for Cr Taylor to fully participate and vote on the item under section 5.69(3)(b).

Cr B Rudeforth left the Chambers at 5:13 pm.

9.2.1 REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK SITE SELECTION COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

LOCATION/ADDRESS: Nil

APPLICANT: Nil

FILE: PLA71

AUTHOR: Special Projects Coordinator

CONTRIBUTOR/S: Nil

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Chief Executive Officer

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: Nil

SUMMARY:

This report presents Council an update on progress made on the Regional Resource Recovery Park Project (RRRP) since the December 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC). A 6-week community engagement process has now concluded, and a Community Survey Report has been drafted and is now presented for Council’s information to inform the decision-making process for a preferred development option and site selection for the RRRP. Council is requested to formally endorse Development option 1, which includes co-location of all RRRP components on Site D2 in accordance with the Site Selection Report and authorise the next steps to progress the RRRP project.

BACKGROUND

Previous Considerations

OMC 15 March 2012 Item 9.2.9

OMC 29 November 2012 Item 9.3.2

OMC 21 February 2013 Item 9.3.1

OMC 17 October 2013 Item 9.3.1

OMC 25 September 2014 Item 9.3.1

OMC 30 July 2015 Item 9.2.5

SMC 10 September 2015 Item 6.2.2

SMC 19 January 2016 Item 6.1.3

OMC 31 March 2016 Item 9.1.1

OMC 28 July 2016 Item 9.4.5

OMC 27 October 2016 Item 12.2

OMC 29 June 2017 Item 9.4.8

OMC 22 February 2018 Item 12.1

OMC 13 December 2018 Item 9.2.11

OMC 27 June 2019 Item 9.3.1

OMC 26 September 2019 Item 9.3.1

OMC 10 December 2020 Item 14.2

Investigations relating to a new landfill site have been underway for almost a decade. The Regional Resource Recovery Park Project (RRRP) is the name that has historically been given to the new waste management facility being progressed by the Shire of Broome. This project has a long history, including extensive site selection processes and site investigations that have occurred on multiple sites. What follows is a chronological summary of the RRRP project since 2012.

Council appointed Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd to undertake a site investigation and approvals process for the RRRP at its meeting on 15 March 2012. The initial steps of this undertaking were for the progression of a Preliminary Site Investigation and Approvals Path Mapping for a site adjacent to the Water Corp’s Wastewater Treatment Plant on Crab Creek Road. The site was Crown land vested with the Water Corp, however following identification of a bird strike risk, it was decided that an alternative site for the RRRP should also be investigated.

Cardno were subsequently instructed to also undertake a Preliminary Site Investigation and Approvals Path Mapping for Lot 351 McGuigan Rd. The decision to undertake detailed investigation of this site was deferred at the 21 February 2013 OMC to a workshop as Council requested more information prior to making a decision.

Following a RRRP Site Selection workshop with Councillors held 3 April 2013 it was recommended that a third alternative site be investigated. In response and further to extensive discussions in-house and with the Department of Lands, Lot 512 Broome Rd, Skuthorpe was proposed and included into preliminary site investigations for the RRRP.

At the OMC held on 17 October 2013, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr J Bloom

That Council:

1. Request the Chief Executive Officer to seek confirmation from the Department of Lands of the availability of Lot 512 Broome Rd as a Regional Resource Recovery Park site.

2. The Shire President and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to engross the deed of Licence issued in terms of Section 91 of the Lands and Administrations Act 1997 for the new Regional Resource Recovery Park located on Lot 512 Broome Rd Skuthorpe.

3. Request the Chief Executive Officer to terminate the existing RRRP Site Investigation consultancy with Cardno.

4. Request the Chief Executive Officer to call quotations to

a. Undertake a Preliminary Site Investigation and Approval Path Mapping of Lot 512 Broome Rd Skuthorpe for the purpose of developing a Regional Resource Recovery Park.

b. Develop typical site master plans for the 3 proposed RRRP Sites (Crab Creek Rd, McGuigan Rd and Broome Rd)

c. Undertake community consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Framework on all three identified RRRP sites.

5. Request the CEO report back to Council on the outcomes of the community Consultation and the preferred location for the RRRP.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0

Following this decision, it was later confirmed through the Department of Lands that Lot 512 Broome Rd, Skuthorpe was governed by a ‘Skuthorpe Land Agreement’, which restricted the use of the land for ‘Horticultural Purposes’ only. It was therefore not suitable as a site for the RRRP and in June 2014 Council through a Workshop highlighted the need to identify other site options to de-risk the project.

A scope of works was developed for a consultant to undertake a Site Selection Study which included constraints mapping, a RRRP master plan and community consultation. Talis Consultants were subsequently engaged to investigate all sites within a 60km radius of Broome and to utilise a Multi Criteria Analysis to assist in determining sites of preference.

A Community Engagement Strategy was tabled at the OMC held on 25 September 2014. Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr P Matsumoto

That Council:

1. Endorses the Community Engagement Plan and Consultation Documents as attached to this report.

2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to implement the Community Engagement Plan.

3. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to report back to Council to seek endorsement of the preferred site(s) prior to undertaking detailed site investigation.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

Consultation was undertaken in 2014-15 with Federal and State Government Departments, Native Title Holders/Aboriginal Corporations, Large Commercial Landholders, Environmental/Heritage Conservation Groups and Community Groups.

Talis Consultants prepared a RRRP Sites of Interest Report that included findings from the engagement and the Multi Criteria Analysis process.

The Report identified 11 sites of interest as outlined below:

Site	Lot Details	MCA Score	Rank
D1	351 McGuigan Road & Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (NW of intersection)	256.5	1
H1	270 Great Northern Highway, Broome Road (immediately southeast of intersection)	248.3	Equal 2
F3	270 Great Northern Highway, Broome Road (south of Broome Rd)	248.3	Equal 2
G1	270 Great Northern Highway, Broome Road (northeast of intersection)	244.3	4
F1	270 Great Northern Highway, Broome Road (south of Broome Rd)	241.8	5
F2	270 Great Northern Highway, Broome Road (south of Broome Rd)	232.3	6
C1	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (western side)	228.5	7
A1	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (western side)	227.2	8
A2	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (western side)	221.7	9
J1	270 Great Northern Highway (southern side)	218.8	10
B1	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (eastern side)	170.5	11

Attachment 1 to this report outlines the location of all of these sites.

As the report identified potential RRRP Sites within the Roebuck Plains Pastoral Station (Nyamba Buru Yawuru (NBY) land), there was a need for a preliminary heritage assessment to be undertaken.

At the OMC held on 30 July 2015, Council therefore resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr D Male Seconded: Cr C Mitchell

That Council:

1. Notes:

(a) The Regional Resource Recovery Park Sites of Interest Report has identified potential Sites on the Roebuck Plains Pastoral Station.

(b) That Native Title on the Roebuck Plains Pastoral Station has been determined to be held exclusively by the Yawuru Community.

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to:

(a) Negotiate with Yawuru on the scope and cost to undertake a preliminary heritage assessment for potential Regional Resource Recovery Park Sites on the Roebuck Plains Pastoral Station.

(b) Engage Yawuru to undertake a preliminary heritage assessment to identify acceptable sites for the Regional Resource Recovery Park on the Roebuck Plains Pastoral Station, following successful negotiations on scope and cost.

3. Acknowledge the importance of progressing the Regional Resource Recovery Park Site selection process and identifying potential sites for detailed site investigations.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0

Following consultation with NBY, other stakeholders and in consideration of community feedback, Council, removed top ranked Site D1 and third ranked Site F3 from further consideration.

Feedback from the Department of Water advised that G1 was preferred over F3 and H1 from a water resource management perspective. Yawuru advised that sites F1, F2 and F3 could impact the operations of their pastoral lease. Site D1 was tabled as the highest-ranking site however was removed by Council in consideration of community concerns raised with regard to potential risks to groundwater for Coconut Well.

At the Special Meeting of Council (SMC) held on 10 September 2015, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr G Campbell Seconded: Cr M Manado

That Council:

1. Receives the Site Selection Study for the Broome Regional Resource Recovery Park

2. Adopts Site G1 and Site H1 as the Preferred Sites for the RRRP

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to undertake the required detailed site investigation studies for Site G1 and Site H1.

4. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to:

a) report back to Council on the results of the detailed site investigations;

b) obtain Council endorsement of the preferred site prior to seeking the required approvals for the RRRP construction; and

c) respond to the comments and questions received from members of the public and stakeholders who made submissions to the Draft RRRP Sites Selection Study Report and inform them of the decision of Council.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0

On 24 November 2015, noting that at the time both preferred sites were located on Roebuck Plains Station, NBY advised that Site G1 was the only location they believed was suitable as a potential RRRP site.

At the SMC held on 19 January 2016, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr M Croft

That Council:

1. Note that;

(a) Yawuru have advised that on Roebuck Plains Pastoral Station only Site G1 is considered to be potentially suitable as a Regional Resource Recovery Park site;

(b) Detailed site investigations on two potential Regional Resource Recovery Park Sites is recommended to reduce the Shire of Broome’s risk;

2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to;

(a) revisit the outcomes of the site selection study document as a result of Yawuru’s advice in relation to site selection and investigate options for a second preferred site to Site G1; and

(b) report back to Council to seek endorsement to investigate a second site.

3. Endorse, as Council’s position, the draft Regional Resource Recovery Park Phase 2 Agreement for Site G1 with the following amendments;

(i) Clause 8.3 (c) an anthropologist, to be jointly agreed upon by the Shire and Yawuru RNTBC.

(ii) Clause 8.6 Within 14 days of the date of the Survey, Yawuru RNTBC must prepare a report (“the Survey Report”) setting out the results of the Survey. The Survey Report must state whether the Preferred Site is cleared or not cleared, including “no go” areas and any conditions which are recommended if a particular Preferred Site is selected. The Survey Report may also indicate which, if any, Preferred Site is preferred by the Yawuru Cultural Advisors. The Survey Report must include maps marked up accordingly and be provided to the Shire of Broome by the Yawuru RNTBC within 7 days of the Commencement Date.

(iii) new Clause 8.7 “Should the Survey Report not be provided within 14 days the Shire may assume there are no heritage issues.”

(iv) Clause 10.1 (c) the Monitored Activity involves disturbance of previously undisturbed ground and/or the initial clearing of native vegetation.

(v) Schedule 2.1 The following rates are current as at 1 January 2014 and costs may only be increased by CPI.

(vi) Schedule 2.3 (f) A 15% administrative surcharge will be applied to all disbursements, capped at $1,000 (excluding GST).

4. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer and Shire President to execute the final Regional Resource Recovery Park Phase 2 Agreement for Site G1 with Yawuru;

5. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to;

(a) report back to Council if the Regional Resource Recovery Park Phase 2 Agreement for Site G1 is unable to be executed within 42 days;

(b) report back to Council on the results of the detailed site investigations for Site G1;

(c) obtain Council endorsement of the Preferred Site prior to proceeding to the approvals phase of the Regional Resource Recovery Park project.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0

Following NBY advice, the Shire was back to only having one potential site to take forward for future investigation. An additional site needed to be identified to meet Council’s resolution to conduct detailed site investigations on two sites to de-risk the project.

A second preferred RRRP site was determined based on an update of the RRRP Sites of Interest Report Site Rankings. This is outlined in the table below:

Site	Lot Details	MCA Score	Rank
A1	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (western side)	250.0	1
G1	270 Great Northern Highway, Broome Road (northeast of intersection)	244.3	2
A2	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (western side)	235.0	3
C1	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (western side)	228.5	4
B1	259 Broome - Cape Leveque Rd (eastern side)	170.5	5

Site A1 was adopted as the top-ranking site and the second preferred site for detailed site investigations. The rise in the ranking of Site A1 to previous assessment was due to advice from Main Roads WA that the environmental approvals had been issued for the sealing of Cape Leveque Rd.

At the OMC held on 31 March 2016, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr D Male Seconded: Cr C Mitchell

That Council:

1. Notes the Revised Regional Resource Recovery Park Site Rankings;

2. Adopts Site A1 as one of the Preferred Sites for the Regional Resource Recovery Park;

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to apply to the Department of Lands for a Licence to undertake the required site investigations on Site A1;

4. Indemnifies the Minister for Lands against any claims for compensation arising from the site investigation activities on Site A1;

5. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to:

a. Undertake site investigations on Site A1

b. Report back to Council on the results of the site investigations;

c. Obtain Council endorsement of the preferred site prior to seeking the required approvals for the RRRP construction.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 8/0

To ensure that Site A1 was suitable for the RRRP, preliminary site investigations were carried out to confirm the groundwater, surface water, topographic, flora and fauna characteristics of the site. The investigations required the creation of approximately four kilometres of access tracks off the Broome - Cape Leveque Road and the installation of five groundwater monitoring bores. This necessitated the Shire obtaining a section 91 License from the Department of Lands to occupy Site A1 for the purpose of undertaking environmental assessments associated with the RRRP. This license required execution by the CEO and endorsement by Council.

At the OMC held on 28 July 2016, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr B Rudeforth Seconded: Cr W Fryer

That Council:

1. Authorises the Shire President and Chief Executive Officer to engross the Licence to Occupy Crown Land 00303/2016_A5726334;

2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to initiate discussions with the current claimants over Site A1 to inform them of the Shire’s approach and aspirations for the project; and

3. Authorises the Shire President and Chief Executive Officer to engross a new Licence to occupy crown land if the Native Title considerations are not determined by 6 February 2017.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 9/0

With a section 91 License in place for Site A1, the Shire sought to clarify the conditions of access to Site G1 as set out by NBY and sought authorisation to proceed with the detailed site investigations for both Sites A1 and G1.

At the OMC held on 27 October 2016, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr H Tracey Seconded: Cr M Fairborn

That Council:

1. Notes that the Regional Resource Recovery Park Phase 2 Agreement for Site G1 will not be progressed as it is not required for access to Site G1 for the purposes of the detailed site investigations;

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to undertake the detailed site investigations in accordance with the conditions of the attached Yawuru letter received 26 October 2016;

3. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to;

a. Report back to Council on the results of the detailed site investigations for Site G1;

b. Obtain Council endorsement of the Preferred Site prior to proceeding to the approvals phase of the Regional Resource Recovery Park project.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 9/0

An update was provided to Council on the site investigations and recommended that both sites be carried through to the next phase of the site selection process.

At the OMC held on 29 June 2017, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr H Tracey Seconded: Cr C Mitchell

That Council:

1. Notes that Site A1 and Site G1 are suitable sites for the Regional Resource Recovery Park; and

2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to:

a. initiate discussions with Yawuru Registered Native Title Holders Body Corporate to develop the terms for Site G1;

b. initiate discussions with the native title claimants to develop the terms for Site A1; and

3. Report back to Council on the outcomes of the discussions with Yawuru Registered Native Title Holders Body Corporate and the native title claimants to seek endorsement of a preferred site and to seek approval to enter into an appropriate arrangement to secure the land for the preferred site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

Based on Phase One investigations at Sites A1 and G1, Talis Consultants concluded that both the sites would be suitable for the RRRP. Initial negotiations were held with Proponents for both A1 and G1, with G1 being selected based on having an established PBC and organisational structure. Council’s endorsement was sought to negotiate terms and legal instruments required to secure long term tenure of the site.

At the OMC held on 22 February 2018, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr B Rudeforth

That Council:

1. Acknowledges the negotiations that have occurred with both Nyamba Buru Yawuru Ltd on site G1 and the native title claimant Jabirr Jabirr on site A1 in regard to a preferred site for the Regional Resource Recovery Park.

2. Endorse G1 as the preferred site for the Regional Resource Recovery Park.

3. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to:

a. Accept the lease terms as set out in Attachment 7 and the lease offer as offered in Attachment 1.

b. Progress the Lease Agreement and Indigenous Land Use Agreement with Nyamba Buru Yawuru Ltd for site G1.

c. Carry out any additional studies required to complete design and obtain licenses on the G1 site; and

4. Note that the negotiated Lease Agreement and Indigenous Land Use Agreement will be presented to Council for consideration.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

It is noted that Council’s endorsement of Site G1 was based on a tabled lease offer that was subsequently withdrawn by NBY as it was deemed inadequate and did not appropriately compensate the Yawuru community for the loss of Native Title rights on the site.

In June 2018, it was formally determined that an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) would be required. As a result, negotiations reset from this point with an ILUA in mind.

Due to the increasing length of negotiations for land tenure and the Buckley’s Road Waste Management Facility approaching capacity, Talis Consultants were engaged to undertake the Waste Disposal Strategy, November 2018, including the investigation of a short-term waste disposal strategy and contingency plans to ensure that waste disposal services could continue in the Shire until the opening of the RRRP. An update on tenure and future site investigations was provided to Council, with further site investigations set for January 2019.

At the OMC held on 13 December 2018, Council resolved the following:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr B Rudeforth

That Council:

1. Notes the status and progress of the Regional Resource Recovery Park land tenure negotiations with Nyamba Yawuru Buru Ltd;

2. Receives the Waste Disposal Strategy, November 2018 as attached and endorses the following recommendations contained within the report for the Shire to:

a. Continue to investigate initiatives for C&D waste processing;

b. Continue to investigate initiatives for greenwaste mulching;

c. Continue to investigate a long-term liquid waste disposal solution to ensure that the current Buckleys Road Waste Management Facility maximises its current footprint;

d. Consider site investigations and design of a separate site for a Community Recycling Centre and waste processing and storage functions;

e. Consider expanding the landfill into the area of the current Community Recycling Centre as a short-term option while the longer-term solutions are resolved; and

f. Consider other options to expand the current Buckleys Road Waste Management Facility;

3. Requests that the Chief Executive Officer consider opportunities for separating and relocating parts of the current Buckleys Road Waste Management Facility to other land.

4. Requests that the Chief Executive Officer consider opportunities to expand waste disposal at the current Buckleys Road Waste Management Facility;

5. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to execute documents or make requests to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage as required to secure land to guarantee continuation of appropriate waste disposal services in Broome.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

At the 27 June 2019 OMC a report was tabled with Council providing an update on land access and tenure for the RRRP in addition to an update on the implementation of the aforementioned recommendations from the Waste Disposal Strategy.

A key update provided at this meeting was in regard to one component of the project relating to the Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Facility. In pursuit of opportunities to extend the life of the Buckley’s Rd Waste Facility, research was undertaken into an option of staging relocation of this component of the RRRP in the first instance. Lot 544 Crab Creek Road was investigated for this purpose given its location and noting that the Management Order was with the Shire of Broome. In consultation with the WaterCorp it became evident they held a strategic interest in this site for future expansion of the Waste Water Treatment Ponds.

Discussion ensued with WaterCorp and a proposed land exchange became a possible opportunity in the interest of both parties. This said parcel of land is located on the south western corner of Cape Leveque Rd and McGuigan Rd and was referred to as site D2. A subsequent Desktop Review of site D2 was undertaken and tabled for Council consideration. Although originally earmarked for just the siting of the Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Facility, Desktop review highlighted its potential suitability for co-location of the landfill component.

Two options were subsequently derived and proposed for the development of the RRRP:

· Option 1: Development of one Waste Management Facility at D2 including landfill, CRC and WTS.

· Option 2: Develop two waste management facilities over two sites, namely,

o Site G1 as landfill

o Site D2 as CRC and WTS.

The illustration below summarises the development options:

Council resolved the following at the 27 June 2019 OMC meeting:

Council Resolution:

(Report Recommendation)

Moved: Cr M Fairborn Seconded: Cr B Rudeforth

That Council:

1. Notes the status and progress of the Regional Resource Recovery Park land tenure negotiations with Nyamba Yawuru Buru Pty Ltd for Site G1;

2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to:

(a) request Nyamba Buru Yawuru Pty Ltd’s G1 Site Valuation Reports, and;

(b) Continue the negotiation of final terms of the In-Principle Agreement for future Council consideration.

3. Receives and endorses the recommendations contained in the Broome Regional Resource Recovery Park Site Selection Desktop Review of Site D2 Report;

4. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to:

(a) Commence negotiations with Proponent of Site D2;

(b) Upon approval from the Proponent, undertake site investigations for Site D2, and;

(c) Undertake comparative financial modelling for operations located at Sites G1 and D2.

5. Notes the progress of the Satellite Waste Facility Project and acknowledges that the schematic planning undertaken can be transferred to another site.

6. Acknowledges a Community Engagement process will need to be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Framework prior to final site selection.

7. Approve an amendment to the 2019/20 budget up to a maximum of $425,000 to undertake investigations at Site D2, noting that the identification of any fatal flaw will result in investigations being ceased.

8. Transfer $425,000 from Regional Resource Recovery Park Reserve BANK MUN to Account 101080010 New Refuse Site Exp - Op Exp - Regional Resource Recovery Park MUN.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY6/0

A Request for Quotation to appoint a suitable Consultant to manage all the required project planning, site investigations and monitoring tasks required to confirm the suitability for sites under review for Broome’s waste facilities was subsequently undertaken.

A report was provided to Council seeking endorsement of a preferred consultant and a further update was also provided on land access negotiations.

Council resolved the following at the 26 September 2019 OMC:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr B Rudeforth

That Council:

1. Accepts the Quotation submitted by Talis Consultants as the most advantageous quotation from which to form a contract for RFQ 19-72 ‘Broome Waste Facilities Site Investigations and Planning’.

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate any minor variations with Talis Consultants.

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to award and sign contract documentation on Council’s behalf up to the value of $865,000 ex GST for RFQ 19-72.

4. Approve an amendment to the 2019/20 budget up to a maximum of $440,000 ex GST.

5. Transfer $440,000 ex GST from Regional Resource Recovery Park Reserve BANK MUN to Account 101080010 New Refuse Site Exp - Op Exp - Regional Resource Recovery Park MUN.

6. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to further negotiate and execute the In-Principle Agreement with Nyamba Buru Yawuru and facilitate all terms and conditions pursuant to the agreement in attachment 10.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

Further to this decision, it is noted that in November 2019, WaterCorp provided consent to access Site D2 to undertake feasibility studies (Aboriginal heritage, flora and fauna surveys).

In December 2020 a report was tabled to Council providing an update on the site investigations which had been undertaken on the two preferred locations for the siting of the proposed Regional Resource Recovery Park (RRRP). It also provided an update on progress made more broadly on the project and presented a Site Comparison Report for Council’s consideration. The report essentially compared the technical suitability and financial implications of each site Development Option, recommending site D2 as the preferred site for co-location of all components of the RRRP. This was primarily based upon Site D2 being able to exceed in the needs for material balance, groundwater distance, separation distance as well as having lower capital, operating and logistical costs.

The below diagram illustrates the analysis process used to assess site investigation findings from both sites. A traffic light system was developed to assist with comparative assessment.

In brief, Site D2 was determined to be a technically superior site to Site G1 for the development of a landfill due to findings relating to groundwater, soils, flooding, downstream receptors, social attributes, compliance with guideline recommendations and capital and operating costs. Co-locating both the CRC and landfill at Site D2 was also deemed more cost effective and a beneficial solution for the delivery of the Shire’s waste management services.

A Community Engagement Plan was also tabled that outlined the engagement process proposed for the RRRP. Council resolved the following at the 10 December 2020 OMC:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Moved: Cr N Wevers Seconded: Cr C Mitchell

That Council:

1. Endorses the Site Comparison Report as set out in Attachment 3 for the purposes of commencing community engagement and authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make minor amendments and continue to update the Report as further site data is obtained;

2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to undertake a peer review of the Site Comparison Report;

3. Endorses the Community Engagement Plan for the Regional Resource Recovery Park Project as set out in Attachment 5; and authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make minor changes to the plan as required during implementation;

4. Notes the proposed community consultation is at the ‘involve’ level and includes a 6-week public submission period on the Site Comparison Report commencing on 15 February 2021;

5. Notes that Council consideration of the preferred site for the Regional Resource Recovery Park will occur post consideration of community feedback;

6. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to revoke Management Order for Reserve 53301 (Lot 544 Crab Creek Rd) in favour of the Water Corporation; and

7. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to accept the Management Order for a portion of Reserve 25716, being portion of Lot 990 on Deposited Plan 414194 and portion of Lots 593 and 595 on Deposited Plan 71791 (currently vested with the Water Corporation) for the future purpose of ‘waste management’ with power to lease.

CARRIED 6/1

This report now presents the results and feedback garnered through the public submission period for Council consideration and requests a formal decision be made to determine the preferred site for the progression of the RRRP.

COMMENT

Since the OMC held December 2020, project activities have been continuing, including the following items that form the outline and structure of the comments section of this report:

· Broome Waste Facilities Site Investigations Project Peer Review

· Community Engagement & Communication Consultant and Services Provided

· Community Engagement Activities and Process

· Tony Laws Engagement

· Community Survey Report Findings Overview

· Further Groundwater Monitoring Data

· Planning Direction

· Land Exchange Progress and Liaison

Broome Waste Facilities Site Investigations Project Peer Review

Industry expert consultancy firm Golder and Associates were engaged in December 2020. Golder’s role was to undertake an independent Peer Review of the detailed site investigations and findings undertaken by the Project Consultancy Team as part of RFQ19-72 Broome Waste Facility Site Investigations Project. This has been a critical body of work to provide confidence in the work undertaken to date for both Council and the community.

General findings concluded that there were no fatal flaws in any of the deliverables developed as part of RFQ 19-72 (including Site Investigation Reports for both Sites G1 & D2 as well as the Site Comparison Report). The report also provided several recommendations in regard to how future detailed design should be undertaken in line with best practice standards. A copy of the Site Comparison Report is on the project website and found as Attachment 2. A copy of the Peer Review Report, including responses from the Project Team is on the project website and found as Attachment 3.

Community Engagement & Communication Consultant and Services Provided

An RFQ process was progressed for Communications and Community Engagement Services in December 2020. The RFQ was deliberately structured towards Consultancy teams with high levels of experience in large scale capital projects, waste projects and innovative consultancy, facilitation and communications. Aha! Consulting (Aha!) were engaged as the preferred respondent based on meeting needs, timeframes and proposed methodology. Aha! refined and developed Community Engagement and Communication Planning Strategies and assisted with the creation of engagement materials. Most importantly, Aha! independently facilitated the engagement activities with Key Stakeholders ensuring all key concerns were addressed and responded to. The role of Aha! ended upon the completion of facilitation services.

Community Engagement Activities and Process

Council endorsed the Community Engagement Plan (Attachment 4) at the December 2020 OMC.

Engagement Materials

The following materials were developed to assist in summarising the technical and extensive project deliverables and reports. Materials created included:

• Information Pack: a synthesis of the Site Comparison Report.

• Fact Sheets: based on key areas of interest or concern such as ground water, landfill requirements and the Community Recycling Centre.

• Story Boards: Large stand-alone design documentation that focused on key areas of interest.

• Website: project hub for all project information, community access and communications.

• Online Survey: a detailed survey was created to give all Broome community members the opportunity to respond to the project and 'get involved’. March 4 2021 – March 27 2021

• Pop Up Survey: A simplified Survey was developed to quickly gauge public opinion during community information sessions or pop-up sessions. March 4 2021 – March 27 2021

• Post Cards: A take home flyer to ‘put on the fridge’, aiming to entice other interested householders to take part in the engagement activities.

Community Engagement Activities

As a summary, the engagement activities outlined below were undertaken to actively communicate with the community:

• Letters sent out to Coconut Well residents on 15 February 2021 to request involvement and attendance in the Community Engagement Process.

• RRRP Project website (www.rrrp.com.au) launched on 15 February 2021. The website was established to act as a ‘project hub’ housing all project information including background documents, engagement findings and engagement event details.

• Community Information Sessions were held at the Shire of Broome Administration Centre with the following key Stakeholders:

o Environs Kimberley – March 3 (12 attendees, a copy of this Information Session Report, including responses from the Project Team is on the project website and can be found in Attachment 5)

o Coconut Wells residents – March 4 (22 attendees, including Councillors Foy and Wevers. A copy of this Information Session Report, including responses from the Project Team is on the project website and can be found in Attachment 6)

o General community – March 5 (15 attendees, including Councillor Wevers. A copy of this Information Session Report, including responses from the Project Team is on the project website and can be found in Attachment 7)

• Sessions were set to provide a full briefing on the projects including:

o historic project background;

o statement of key project objectives and messaging;

o presentation of recent project activities;

o an overview of the information found and described in the Site Investigations and Comparison Reports;

• One on One with Key Stakeholders and Interest Groups:

o Tony Laws 25 February 2021.

o NBY Exec and PBC 12 and 24 February 2021.

o Water Corp Teams 12, 15 and 25 February 2021.

• Pop-up stalls were established to held at:

o Paspaley Plaza Shopping Centre – 5 March 2021

o Broome Courthouse Markets – 6 and 20 March 2021

o Broome Boulevard Shopping Centre – March 6

• Unmanned content stall at Shire Admin foyer from March 15 – March 29.

• E-newsletters were sent to the Shire of Broome database on 18 February 18 and 19 and 26 March 2021.

Community Engagement Snap Shot

Results of the six-week Community Review process are summarised below:

• Online Survey: 97 completed and submitted.

• Pop-up Surveys: 103 completed and submitted.

• Written Submissions: 3 written submissions were received from:

· James and Lynda Hagan: concerns relating to location of RRRP on Site D2 due to proximity to coast, potential residential growth pathways and concerns regarding littering.

· Environs Kimberley: Regarding management of waste and illegal dumping, groundwater concerns, proximity to Cape Leveque Road, waste acceptance and EPA referral pathways.

· Broome International Airport: Regarding flight paths and bird strikes of the future Broome International Airport (construction of which is yet to be forecast or determined).

A Schedule of the Submissions and response from Officers is included at Attachment 8.

• Facebook Posts: 28 Facebook posts created and launched between February 15 and March 26. Reached 34,626 people and caused 1512 ‘engagements’ on the Shire’s content.

• Shire News: RRRP project promoted in ‘Shire News’ advertorial in Broome Advertiser on three occasions – February 25, March 11 and March 25.

• Additional content advertised in the Broome Advertiser on March 4.

• Advertisement: Additional content advertised in the Broome Advertiser on March 4. Recurring RRRP advert on Triple M and Hit FM from February 25 until March 29.

• E-newsletters: Three e-newsletters sent to 2893 people, with 1056 recipients opening the e-mail. 36.5% open rate.

• Website: RRRP website visits: 1852 during Community Review period

• Media coverage:

• Stories in the Broome Advertiser on 18 February and 4March 2021.

• ABC Kimberley radio interviews on 15 February and 5 March 2021.

• Goolarri Radio interview on 16 February 2021.

• Triple M radio interview on 23February 2021.

• Two promotional videos released on YouTube and social media on February 15 and March 17 2021.

Tony Laws Engagement

Tony Laws is a now retired, renowned hydrogeologist. Most importantly to the Project, he was engaged by the Coconut Well Residents whose response to desktop analysis findings was influential in Council calling off detailed site investigations on Site D1 (Cape Leveque Road, northern side of McGuigan Road) in 2015.

Based on the Shire’s desire to maintain transparency and to mitigate risks, Shire Staff and the CEO held a workshop on 25 February 2021 with Tony Laws, WaterCorp and the Principal Consultant on RFQ19-72 Talis Consultants. This was established to discuss and walk through the Project deliverables after sending them through for review some weeks prior. The workshop was a collegial exercise whereby Tony Laws outlined that he saw no risks in the works undertaken as part of The Project, nor any risks developing the RRRP at Site D2.

Tony Laws amicably outlined his intentions to assist in presenting his findings to Coconut Well residents and would aim to support them to understand the documentation provided. A copy of this Information Session Report, including responses from the Project Team is on the project website and can be found in Attachment 9.

Community Survey Report Findings Overview

Shire officer’s have reviewed all the written survey responses. The responses have been divided into key themes and a detailed Community Survey Report prepared Attachment 10.

The seven key themes identified in the Community Survey Report are listed in the table below were defined as frequently raised commentary of perceived critical impacts.

Key Theme 1	Importance of recycling / Community Recycling Centre
Key Theme 2	Protection of Flora and fauna
Key Theme 3	Groundwater concerns
Key Theme 4	Proximity to housing, visual amenity and odour
Key Theme 5	Increase in illegal dumping due to distance of facility from Broome town center
Key Theme 6	Cost to ratepayers and commercial operators
Key Theme 7	The future of the current Buckleys Road site

Minor Themes were also captured through the process that were based upon receipt of not as numerous and not as critical queries and are listed below:

Minor Theme 1	Ability of the new site to manage extreme weather events
Minor Theme 2	Gas emissions
Minor Theme 3	Cultural considerations
Minor Theme 4	Access and surrounding infrastructure
Minor Theme 5	Capabilities of Class III landfill
Minor Theme 6	Employment

Detailed responses for each theme are provided in Attachment 10.

Through the Community Review, the overwhelming public sentiment from survey respondents and attendees at information sessions mirrored the opinion that Site D2 was a better option for the landfill siting than Site G1.

This has been confirmed by the fact that:

· 65% of survey respondents were happy with the investigation criteria used by the Shire in relation to site selection – criteria and investigations that show Site D2 is a better option for the landfill.

· 68% of survey respondents were extremely, very or moderately confident in the Shire’s investigations related to the landfill component of the RRRP – which show Site D2 is a better option for the landfill.

· 77% of Pop-Up Survey respondents said they were feeling positive or very positive about the RRRP project.

· The vast majority of comments in relation to Site D2 from survey respondents stated that it was a better option for the landfill component.

· The vast majority of comments in relation to Site G1 from survey respondents raised concerns about the location, additional cost and reduced distance to groundwater, as compared to Site D2.

· The Shire met with respected hydrogeologist Tony Laws on February 25, who had been critical of plans to establish a landfill at Site D1 in 2015. Mr Laws indicated no major concerns about Site D2 in relation to the landfill component.

As with any new landfill facility or major infrastructure project, concerns were raised and a level of dispute was witnessed. In relation to Site D2, this was predominantly from Coconut Well residents, who raised concerns over the proximity of the site to their properties.

However, following a constructive Information Session with Coconut Well residents, all concerns have been answered in a fashion Shire officers feel should allay these fears and all questions about the potential use of Site D2 as a landfill have been answered comprehensively by the Project Team.

The main concerns raised by Coconut Well residents and the wider community are covered in this document in Key Themes 1-7. The corresponding conclusions to each Key Theme show that the Project Team has undertaken the required scientific investigations and peer-reviewed research to allay these concerns. While the Themes raised are pertinent, they are not reason for either Site D2 or Site G1 to be ruled out as an option for landfill.

The overarching community sentiment, as can be seen in the survey responses and when garnering feedback from the community at engagement sessions, mirrors the Project Team’s investigations and subsequent prognosis – that Site D2 is a superior option for the RRRP’s landfill component. It should also be acknowledged that option 1 will require only site D2 to be cleared, of native vegetation as opposed to option 2 which requires both G1 and D2 to be cleared.

It is the view of officers that all submissions and concerns raised have adequately been responded to and/or have been addressed or mitigated through the design of the facility. There have been no fatal flaws or critical areas of concern identified through the community engagement process and as such Council is requested to proceed with D2 as the preferred site.

Further Groundwater Monitoring Data

Since the finalisation of the Site Comparison Report, further, additional water sampling results have been provided by the Project Team. Data loggers (pressure transducers) have been installed within the bores at both Sites which record groundwater levels on a daily basis. Groundwater monitoring data was then compared to rainfall data during the period between 14 December 2020 to 30 March 2021. Groundwater levels have slightly increased at both sites with ranges of 0.1 – 0.5m at Site D2 and 0.2 – 0.4m at Site G1. These results are as expected due to the rainfall influences on groundwater during the wet season. However, importantly all levels are less than the estimated highest groundwater level modelled for both Sites by the Project Team to date. A copy of the Groundwater Monitoring Data Reports from this period can be found in Attachment 11.

Planning Direction

The development of a Regional Resource Recovery Park is considered public works and is therefore exempt from requiring development approval from the Shire of Broome.

The preferred site (Site D2) is located on land classified under the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme No. 6 (LPS6) as a Local Reserve for ‘Public Purposes: Water Supply’. The site is also located within Special Control Area No. 2 ‘Future Broome International Airport Environs’.

It is recommended that the scheme be amended to change the intent of the Public Purpose Reserve from ‘Public Purpose: Water Supply’ to ‘Public Purpose: Refuse Site’. This is to ensure that the Local Reserve adequately reflects the intended use of the site as a Regional Resource Recovery Park. This process should be undertaken to ensure that the scheme adequately reflects the ultimate intended use. However, this is not a prerequisite for the development to proceed.

The appropriate Reservation of the site is therefore proposed to be addressed in the current review of Local Planning Scheme No. 6.

Land Exchange Progress and Liaison

Following tenure progress outlined in December 2020, a site survey and creation of Deposited Plan of the D2 area to be excised from Reserve 25716 (Water Corporation) was progressed and has now been completed and lodged with Landgate 19 April 2021. Land Tenure is expected to be finalised within 2-3 months, however is not a hindrance to progression of the next stages of the Works Approval process.

Next Steps

The proposed immediate next steps for the project are defined in the table below, outlining major actions relating to the current project plan for planning and detail design.

Planning/Detail Design
Milestones	Deliverable	Forecast Due Date
Preparation and Submission of CRC Works Approval Documentation & EPA Referrals	CRC Works Approvals & EPA Referrals	May 2021
Commence Procurement Process for Detail Design Consultancy Services	RFT Documents to Tender	June 2021
Detail Design Consultancy Services Contract Award	Executed Contract	August 2021

CONSULTATION

Consultation activities and process have ben outlined in the commentary section and exceed the requirements from the December 2020 endorsed Community Engagement Plan. It must be recognised that an engagement process has been undertaken with a site selections lens, aligned with the current development stage of the project. Engagement and Stakeholder liaison will continue. Engagement planning, activities and reporting will take place for each future phase of the project.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Planning & Development Act 2005

Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme’s) Regulations 2015

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Shire of Broome Policy 3.4.6: Community Engagement

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Development Option 1 is a far more cost-effective solution for the delivery of the Shire’s waste management services. Over the 40-year financial modelling works undertaken, Development Option 1 results in a cost saving of $62.02M (NPV $22.4M). The key reasons associated with the cost savings are:

The large capital investment required for the landfill at Site G1;

Less void space gain across the landfill resulting in the requirement to develop additional landfill cells earlier than Site D2;

No soils revenue generation due to the low separation distance to groundwater;

Additional labour and plant requirements due to the requirement to have two isolated facilities; and

Additional haulage costs associated with the 29km additional distance to Site G1.

Financial Implications for the RRRP Project from a capital, operational and logistics considerations are best defined within the Financial Review and Assessment component of the Site Comparison Report. Further development of the RRRP project is to be funded by Shire of Broome Reserves, accumulated from Waste Management functions. Account ‘101080010 New Refuse Site Exp - Op Exp - Regional Resource Recovery Park’ has been used for this project through site investigations process and will continue through future project phases.

The forecast balance of the RRRP reserve on 30 June 2021 is $13,168,564.

Following Council endorsement of the preferred development option it is recommended project delivery timeframes be reviewed and a funding strategy be developed for inclusion in the next review of the Shire’s Long-Term Financial Plan.

It should also be noted, that on 3 September 2020, the Shire, NBY and Yawuru PBC entered into an escrow agreement, with an agreed figure deposited into an escrow account on 20 October 2020. if Development Option One is endorsed and Site G1 is not to be used, funds held in the Escrow Agreement will be returned as per the conditions of the Escrow Agreement. These funds are included in the forecast RRRP Reserve balance above.

Alternatively, if Development option 2 is progressed, $3,373,278 will be required to be formally transferred to NBY for provision of access and limited tenure of G1.

RISK

Risks associated with this item have been presented in the following table, developed following a Waste TAG team-based risk assessment held 8 March 2021.

Risk	Type (Health, Financial Impact, Service Interruption, Compliance, Reputational, Property Environment)	Rank (based on measures of consequence and likelihood)	Mitigation
Run out of space at Buckley’s Road landfill prior to new transfer station and landfill being constructed. Based on 2014 waste tonnages, it is estimated that annual cost to transport waste to Port Hedland is approximately $7M. This equates to an increase in tipping fees of approximately 400% and kerbside collection fees of approximately 210%.	Reputational Financial	High	Undertake actions as outlined in the Waste Disposal Strategy (2018) to ensure maximum landfilling time is secured at Buckley’s Road. Ensure DWER and EPA are aware of the RRRP Project and can assist in expediting the process on the grounds of essential public works.
Yawuru Community ILUA (G1 Site) is delayed (timeframe potentially 1-5years)	Service Interruption Financial Reputational	High	In principle agreement and ongoing engagement with Yawuru
EPA Landfill and CRC Referral and approval delays	Service Interruption Financial Reputational	High	Quarterly meetings with Environs Kimberley, continue to liaise with DWER, Specialist Waste Consultant engaged.
Community concerns relating to environmental impact on Broome landscape and business impact relating to distance to landfill.	Reputational	Low	Ensure Engagement and Communications activities continue to be undertaken with sound information and data and in a timely manner to mitigate any community concerns through active engagement.
Special Interest Groups remain unhappy and either site is removed from consideration	Reputational Financial Service Interruption	High	Ensure communication with Proponents for alternate sites continue and that Site Investigations findings are available and transparent to community.
Break down in negotiations with Nyamba Buru Yawuru caused by progressing with D2 may lose any future access to G1.	Reputational	High	Maintain open and transparent discussions in good faith with NBY, ensuring channels of communication are clear.
Council fails to make or delays a decision	Reputational	Medium	Provision of sufficient information and community feedback to make an informed decision
Section 18 Process is required to alleviate any heritage issues though is a long process that may withhold construction timeframes	Reputational Financial Service Interruption	High	Engagement with DPLH to commence immediately.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Our People Goal – Foster a community environment that is accessible, affordable, inclusive, healthy and safe:

Affordable services and initiatives to satisfy community need

Effective communication

Our Place Goal – Help to protect the nature and built environment and cultural heritage of Broome whilst recognising the unique sense of the place:

Core asset management to optimise the Shire’s infrastructure whilst minimising life cycle costs.

Our Prosperity Goal – Create the means to enable local jobs creation and lifestyle affordability for the current and future population:

Affordable and equitable services and infrastructure

Effective community engagement

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority

Council Resolution

(Report Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/003

Moved: Cr N Wevers Seconded: Cr C Mitchell

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the Regional Resource Recovery Park (RRRP) Site Selection Community Engagement Report (Attachment 10);

2. Endorses Development Option One on Site D2 as the preferred option to progress the RRRP as detailed in the Site Comparison Report (Attachment 2);

3. Requests the Chief Executive Officer advise WaterCorp of the above and thank them for their involvement throughout the process;

4. Request the Chief Executive Officer advise Nyamba Buru Yawuru and Yawuru Native Title Holders Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC of the outcome of the site selection of the RRRP and thank them for their involvement throughout the project to date and in an ongoing capacity;

5. Request the Chief Executive Officer to commence all the relevant environmental approvals for the RRRP at Site D2.

6. Acknowledges the RRRP is deemed a ‘public works’ and requests the Chief Executive Officer to include and progress the amendment of the Reservation of site D2 through the review of Local Planning Scheme No.6 with the intent to change the Reservation from Public Purpose: Water Supply to Public Purpose: Refuse Site.

7. Request the Chief Executive to review RRRP project delivery timeframes and develop a draft funding strategy for inclusion in the next review of the Shire’s Long-Term Financial Plan.

CARRIED 4/2

For: Cr N Wevers, Cr C Mitchell, Cr P Taylor and Cr D Male

Against: Cr F West and Cr E Foy

Cr B Rudeforth returned to the Chambers at 5:37 pm.

Attachments

1.	Sites of Interest Report 2015
2.	Site Comparison Report
3.	RRRP Peer Review Report
4.	RRRP Site Selection Community Engagement Plan
5.	RRRP Info Session Minutes Environs Kimberley
6.	RRRP Info Session Minutes Coconut Well Residents
7.	RRRP Info Session Minutes Broome Community
8.	RRRP Schedule of Submissions from Public Comment Period
9.	Tony Laws Meeting Minutes
10.	RRRP Community Survey Report
11.	Groundwater Monitoring Data Reports

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 29 April 2021 Page 1 of 2

9.2.2 DAMPIER PENINSULA WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

LOCATION/ADDRESS: Nil

APPLICANT: Nil

FILE: PLA99

AUTHOR: Waste Coordinator

CONTRIBUTOR/S: Nil

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Director Infrastructure

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: Nil

SUMMARY:

The Dampier Peninsula Waste Management Plan (DPWMP) was undertaken by the Shire of Broome in response to a request from the Senior Officer Working Group (SOWG) regarding the concern over the perceived increase in waste and litter with the recent sealing of the Cape Leveque Road.

The DPWMP concluded that existing waste infrastructure and practices are not meeting legislative requirements and that there is a resulting potential negative impact on the environment and health of the communities on the Dampier Peninsula. An action plan was developed within the DPWMP and it is recommended that the Shire of Broome advocate the State government to ensure the action plan is implemented.

It is further recommended that the DPWMP is provided to the Dampier Peninsula Working Group (DPWG)through the SOWG and added as a reference document to the draft Shire of Broome Waste Strategy 2020 -2030.

BACKGROUND

Previous Considerations

Nil

COMMENT

The Dampier Peninsula Project was established in mid-2019 to maximise the social and economic opportunities for Aboriginal communities on the Dampier Peninsula in the Kimberley region.

The project leverages off the $65 million Commonwealth-State investment to fully seal the Cape Leveque road.

The intended outcomes of the Dampier Peninsula Project were to:

• Implement strategies to protect the unique environmental and cultural heritage values of the Dampier Peninsula and mitigate negative impacts on communities.

• Leverage economic opportunities for Aboriginal people on the Dampier Peninsula by improving the overall tourism experience and financial returns for operators, identifying economic opportunities across other sectors, and building local skills and enterprise capacity

The DPWG guides the project’s implementation and ensures local needs and aspirations are prioritised.

DPWG members include representatives from the four largest Aboriginal communities on the Dampier Peninsula, as well as representatives from outstations, Aboriginal rangers and native title groups.

At the West Australian (WA) Government level, the project is jointly led by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and the Kimberley Development Commission (KDC). It is being delivered collaboratively across 19 local, State and Commonwealth government agencies.

The Senior Officer Working Group is chaired by the KDC and coordinates government effort and project implementation

The DPWG identified 14 priority projects to work with government. In response, a project delivery program was developed through the SOWG with a lead government agency under four inter‑linking project work streams as listed below:

- Visitor access management

- Community support

- Economic opportunities

- Project coordination

The Waste Management upgrade was led by the Shire of Broome under the Project Coordination work stream (Diagram 1).

Diagram 1: Dampier Peninsula Project Governance

Dampier Peninsula Waste Management Plan

ASK Waste Management were contracted by the Shire of Broome to complete the Shire of Broome Waste Strategy 2020-2030. As part of this project, ASK was also engaged to complete the Dampier Peninsula Waste Management Plan (DPWMP). An engagement strategy was undertaken for both documents. Information was collated and stakeholders’ recommendations reviewed. Solutions for delivery of sustainable waste management services on the Dampier Peninsula were compiled in the document. It should be noted that the Shire of Broome does not currently provide waste services on the Dampier Peninsula. The DPWMP was undertaken as a visioning tool for the current residents/communities/businesses of the Dampier Peninsula.

The engagement plan was developed to include:

- Major communities

- Tourism/commercial operators

- Out stations

- Other stakeholders such as Dept of Communities, Main Roads etc.

The engagement process was delayed due to COVID19 restrictions and occurred in October 2020.

The stakeholder information gathered included;

- Current waste infrastructure, waste generation information, practices and issues

- Concerns around the future increase in visitor numbers and subsequent increase in waste

- Views about waste recovery and recycling

- Solutions for future waste /recycling services

- Business opportunities

Specifically, the investigations of the DPWMP conclude:

Landfill Operations

The landfills visited were generally well operated. However, they do not meet the minimum legislative requirements, the waste is regularly burnt including hazardous materials.

There is little or no guidance available, or training for the operators of the landfills.

There is a lack of process or system for the management of bulk waste streams, recyclable material or hazardous waste streams.

Litter Management

There is a litter problem on the Peninsula and there is concern that this will get worse with the road sealing.

Addressing local litter attitudes and practices and legacy litter issues (roadside litter on the Cape Leveque Road) was deemed a priority by many stakeholders.

Future Waste Management Preferences

There was a general preference for waste to be taken off the Dampier Peninsula for disposal at a better practice facility.

Community preferences for future waste management systems include the need to be community led, look after Country, and create training, education, employment and income opportunities within communities.

Future options must consider the needs of smaller settlements and outstations.

Concerns were expressed that whilst an improvement is required, the high unit cost of waste management operations in remote areas mean that it may be prohibitive for commercial operators to meet best practice standards.

Future options must consider the needs of smaller settlements and outstations.

Tourism Waste and Litter

Increasing tourism due to the sealed road will increase the responsibilities and costs for tourism providers and commercial operators to manage the waste.

Current public place waste and litter disposal is inadequate to meet the needs and expectations of visitors.

Construction and Demolition Waste

The significant amount of construction waste illegally dumped in the region indicates that a significant quantity of construction and commercial waste is not being managed in line with the regulatory requirements.

Better Practice Management of Small Rural Landfills

Many stakeholders indicated the need for better practice guidance for landfill management.

The Dampier Peninsula landfills that are within the scope of the Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations, are in breach of many conditions within the regulations.

Stakeholder Collaboration

Responsibility for the management of waste and litter in the region is spread across many stakeholders and dependent on land ownership/vesting.

There is little collaboration between the numerous stakeholders relating to waste management on the Peninsula.

Actions

Actions from the findings of the DPWMP include:

- Undertake a hydrogeological investigation of existing community landfills to ascertain the impacts on groundwater and potable water sources:

- Closure of illegal landfills and address legacy waste and litter issues

- Undertake a waste data collection project for waste generated on the Dampier Peninsula

- Develop and introduce a coordinated waste collection and disposal system

- Undertake a feasibility study for the establishment of waste and recovery centres

- Close and rehabilitate community landfills

- Develop a multi stakeholder waste and litter working group to implement outcomes of the DPWMP

- Develop and implement a multi stakeholder litter strategy for the Dampier Peninsula

- Implement improved practices for management of tourist waste

- Develop a set of operating guidelines in relation to the disposal of waste products, construction waste and demolition debris from construction and demolition projects within communities on the Dampier Peninsula.

- Ensure landfills that fall within the scope of the Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations 2002 are appropriately managed.

- Development of better practice guidance for small settlements in relation to the management of waste

- Develop an Emergency Waste Management Plan or protocol for the communities of the Dampier Peninsula

The actions are listed in priority of urgent to low, with no associated timeline. It is recommended that the DPWMP is provided to the Dampier Peninsula Working Group (DPWG) through the SOWG and that the CEO on behalf of the Council, advocates State Government to ensure the actions are undertaken as a priority. It should be noted that the DPWMP actions are the responsibility of numerous external agencies.

CONSULTATION

ASK Waste Management

DWER

Stakeholders on and relating to the Dampier Peninsula (Table 1).

Councillors at a Council workshop.

Table 1: Stakeholders on the Dampier Peninsula and type of consultation undertaken.

Stakeholder	Consultation method
Beagle Bay Community	Visit
Lombadina Community	Visit
Djarindjin Community	Visit
Ardyaloon Community	Visit
Kooljaman Resort	Phone and visit
Cygnet Bay Pearls	Phone
Embalgun (Smithy Seaside Adventures)	Phone
Gumbarnun (Gumbanan Wilderness Retreat)	Phone
Goombaragin (Goombaragin Eco Retreat)	Phone and visit
Gnylmarung	Phone and visit
Banana Wells (Banana Wells Getaway)	Phone
Arrow Pearls	Phone
Mercedes Cove	Phone
Willie Creek Pearls	Phone
Department of Communities	Phone
Department of Water and Environmental Regulation	Phone
Department of Fire and Emergency Services	Phone
Shire of Broome (Environmental Health & Rangers)	Phone
Main Roads Western Australia	Phone
Roadwise (WALGA)	Phone
Kimberley Regional Service providers	Phone
Cleanaway	Phone
Broome Visitor Centre	Phone

The main Communities on the Dampier Peninsula and the Department of Communities were given the opportunity to comment on the draft DPWMP prior to tabling with the Shire of Broome.

After the endorsement at the Shire of Broome OMC, it is recommended that the DPWMP be provided to the Dampier Peninsula Working Group for reference and action. Further, that the DPWMP also be referenced in the draft Shire of Broome Waste Strategy 2020-2030.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Regulations 2008

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications from the recommended actions. The actions from the DPWMP are for external agencies to undertake.

RISK

There is a potential reputational risk to the Shire if the actions in the DPWMP are not addressed. It may be perceived that the management of the health and environmental issues are Council’s responsibility and that by not addressing the actions, Council is irresponsible.

Further, if State Government changes the management responsibilities of the services on the Dampier Peninsula without appropriate funding, Council may be responsible for the legacy management issues, including undertaking actions from the DPWMP.

The management agencies on the Dampier Peninsula may also undertake the action of closing the larger community landfills prior to the building of the Regional Resource Recovery Park (new landfill and CRC) in Broome. There is a risk of filling up the old landfill in Broome prior to its anticipated closure time with the additional waste form the Dampier Peninsula.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

People – We will continue to enjoy Broome-time, our special way of life. It’s laid-back but bursting with energy, inclusive, safe and healthy, for everyone:

Effective communication

Affordable services and initiatives to satisfy community need

Accessible and safe community spaces

A healthy and safe environment

Place – We will grow and develop responsibly, caring for our natural, cultural and built heritage, for everyone:

A natural environment for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations

Prosperity – Together, we will build a strong, diversified and growing economy with work opportunities for everyone:

Key economic development strategies for the Shire which are aligned to regional outcomes working through recognised planning and development groups/committees

Performance - We will deliver excellent governance, service and value, for everyone.:

Sustainable and integrated strategic and operational plans

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority

Council Resolution:

(Report Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/004

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr N Wevers

That Council:

1. Endorse the Dampier Peninsula Waste Management Plan;

2. Provide this document to the Dampier Peninsula working group through the Senior Officer Working Group;

3. Acknowledge the Dampier Peninsula Waste Management Plan is referenced in the draft Shire of Broome Waste Strategy 2020-2030 as a reference document; and

4. Endorse the Shire Chief Executive Officer to advocate state ministers to ensure the health of the communities on the Dampier Peninsula and address as a priority, the actions outlined in the Dampier Peninsula Waste Management Plan.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 - Dampier Peninsula Waste Management Plan

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 29 April 2021 Page 1 of 2

9.3 Prosperity

9.3.1 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IMPOSE 2021/22 DIFFERENTIAL RATES

LOCATION/ADDRESS: Nil

APPLICANT: Nil

FILE:

AUTHOR: Manager Financial Services

CONTRIBUTOR/S: Nil

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Acting Director Corporate Services

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: Nil

SUMMARY:

As part of the 2021/22 budget process, Council is required to endorse the proposed differential rates for local public notice seeking public comment for not less than 21 days. The local public notice provides an opportunity to consider public submissions before the final adoption of rates.

In summary, the proposed rates for the 2021/22 financial year required a general rate increase of 1.83% to balance the draft budget for 2021/22. The UV Mining rating category is proposed to have a lesser minimum payment of $500 consistent with 2020/21. Minimum payments on all other properties are proposed to remain at $1,220.

BACKGROUND

Previous Considerations

The purpose of levying rates is to meet Council’s budget requirements to deliver services and community infrastructure in each financial year. The rates levied on properties is equal to the applicable property valuation multiplied by the rate in the dollar. The Minister determines the methods of land valuation for Local Government and Communities (the Minister), and the actual amount of property valuation is provided by the Valuer General’s Office (VGO).

The application of differential rates considers section 6.33 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA), enabling rating the properties differentially based on zoning and/or land use as determined by the local government.

Section 6.35 of the LGA also provides the ability to impose a minimum payment higher than the general rate that would otherwise be payable on that land. The application of differential rating based on land use and/or zoning results in a rate in the dollar and minimum payment amounts for each rating category.

Under section 6.36 of the LGA, a local government must give local public notice of imposing general differential rates or a minimum payment.

The application of differential rates and minimum payments maintains equity in the rating of properties across the Shire of Broome (the Shire), enabling Council to provide facilities, infrastructure and services to the entire community and visitors.

This report has been developed to present to Council:

· The 2021/22 budget process to date including revenue required to be raised from rates as per the 2021/22 draft budget;

· The proposed rating categories and corresponding valuations;

· The proposed rate in the dollar for each rating category reflecting a 1.83% increase from the preceding year;

· The proposed minimum payments for each rating category, which remained the same as the preceding year. Once again UV Mining category is set at a lower level to ensure compliance with section 6.35 of the LGA;

· An illustration of the proposed differential rates and minimum payments required to be raised to balance the 2021/22 budget;

· The requirement to advertise certain rating information through public notice; and

· The requirement to consider submissions received concerning the proposed rates.

Recommendations are also included in this report for Council’s consideration.

COMMENT

Summary of the Budget Process to Date and Revenue Required to be Raised from Rates

Several Council presentations and workshops have been held to date, including:

24 November 2020	Finalised Corporate Business Plan and Long Term Financial Plan; 4 Year Balanced Long Term Financial Plan
18 March 2021	Draft Fees and Charges and Operating Budget (including Engineering Works Resource Budget)
30 March 2021 and 13 April 2021	Capital Budget and Project Briefs, Plant Replacement, and Rates Information

The Draft Operations Budget was discussed at the 18 March 2021 workshop, which identified a deficit of a $17.9M operating deficit.

Capital and other special projects were discussed at the 30 March 20201 workshop. Council’s adopted Corporate Business Plan (CBP), Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and Asset Management Plans (AMP’s) were considered when developing the capital budget. Several project briefs submitted by staff and Councillors were also tabled with Council for consideration through the above workshops.

Following the Budget Workshop’s deliberations and feedback on 30 March 2021, minor amendments have been made to the draft budget documents. As part of the budget workshops, which considered both the operating and capital requirements, it was identified that $23.94M of rate revenue was required to achieve a balanced budget in 2021/22, and this could be achieved through a 1.83% rates increase.

Preparation of the 2021/22 budget was particularly challenging due to the following:

· At the end of the salary freeze in 2020/21, employee costs which accounted for nearly $17M, would increase by at least 2% as per the applicable enterprise agreements;

· Power tariffs are expected to increase by up to 10%;

· Insurance premiums are expected to increase by up to 10%;

· Reduced interest rates resulting in a $500K loss in investment revenue;

· Officers still anticipate conservative growth in population and, therefore, minimal growth in most user-paid services; and

· Increased mandatory superannuation guarantee contributions under the Super Guarantee Act.

Key achievements in this year’s budget include:

· Zero-based budgeting – all operational account budgets start at 0 not based on historical figures;

· Operational revenues, expenses and net results in line with the 2021/22 LTFP;

· A continued focus by officers in leveraging Council funds to attract significant grant funding;

· $110K additional “In The House” grant funding for the Broome Civic Centre

· $1.9M commercial leases or 2% increase from increased tenancies

· $5.7M revenue from the waste management facility or 10% increase from last year due to anticipated growth in construction and taking back on some caravan parks

These factors have resulted in rates being contained within the 1.83% increase across differential rating categories. This 1.83% increase is lower than the indicative figure of 1.85% included within the Shire’s LTFP.

A minimum rate of $1,220 is recommended to all rating categories except for the UV-Mining category, which has been maintained at $500 to ensure compliance with section 6.35 of the LGA, whereby not more than half of the properties pay the minimum rates.

Despite the minimal 1.83% change in rates, the Shire is aiming to deliver the following critical capital and special projects:

Projects		Amount
Asset Renewal Expenditure as per various Asset Management Plans		$5.24M
Skate Park Redevelopment		$1.5M
Off Street Carpark and Infrastructure in Frederick Street and port Drive		$1.13M
Cable Beach Foreshore Revitalisation Project – Design Costs	$867K
Sanctuary Road Caravan Park Consultancy	$ 70K
Cable Beach Shoreline Monitoring	$ 10K
Buckley’s Road Waste Facility Capping		$700K
Review of ICT Digital Strategy and ICT Renewals		$559K
Conti Foreshore Shared Path Development (Connecting the Guy Street and Hamersley Street Shared Paths)		$472K
Community Recycling Centre Detailed Design		$420K
BRAC Parking Improvements		$315K
Implementation of Cemetery Master Plan		$310K
BRAC Grid Solar Connection		$231K
Broome Lighting Upgrades		$150K
Place Activations Plan		$97K
Cape Leveque Tourist Bay and Signage		$92K
Footbridge		$84K
Old Broome and Cable Beach Precinct Plans		$75K
Reconciliation Week, Christmas Decorations and Various Community Events		$66K
Local Planning Scheme and Local Planning Strategy Review		$65K
Various Improvements in BRAC (WiFi, Self-Scanning, Floorball Rink)		$53K
Review of Sport & Recreation Plan and BRAC Master Plan		$50K
Broome Air Raid 80th Anniversary		$35K
Implement the Youth Plan		$32K
New Public Open Space Strategy		$30K
New Radar Speed Display Signs		$30K
New Corporate Communications Strategy		$25K
Access and Inclusion		$15K
Neighbourhood Engagement Program		$15K

The basis of the proposed rates modelling to achieve these capital projects and operational services are outlined below.

2021/22 Rating Categories and Corresponding Valuation Amounts

Gross Rental Value (GRV)

The LGA prescribes that properties with a non-rural purpose be rated using GRV as the basis of calculation of annual rates. The Valuer General’s Office (VGO) determines the GRV for all properties within the Shire. As per section 22 of the Valuation of Land Act 1978, the VGO determines the frequency of general valuations, although historically, a GRV revaluation has occurred every three to five years. In October 2018, the VGO commenced reviewing all GRV properties within the Shire, with revised valuations becoming effective from 1 July 2019. The next GRV valuation is expected to happen in 2021/22, with the revised valuations taking effect from 1 July 2022.

Properties rated based on GRV are categorised as follows:

· GRV – Residential – This rating category consists of properties located within the townsite boundaries with predominant residential use. This category is the base rate by which all other GRV rated properties are assessed. The reason is that the different GRV rating categories have a higher demand for Shire resources, and vacant land is encouraged to be developed.

· GRV – Vacant – This rating category consists of vacant properties located within the townsite boundaries, including land zoned as Tourist, Commercial or Industrial. The object of the rate for this category is designed to encourage landowners to develop vacant land, discourage land banking and reflect the different methods used for the valuation of vacant land compared to the GRV-Residential rate category. The reason is that excessive vacant land leaves subdivisions and various parts of the Shire appearing barren and unsightly to the detriment of the aesthetics of the area. The rate in the dollar for this category is 83% higher than the GRV-Residential base rate.

· GRV – Commercial – This rating category consists of properties used for Commercial, Town Centre or Industrial purposes, excluding properties with tourism use. The object of the rate for this category is to raise additional revenue to fund the costs associated with the higher level of service provided to properties in this category. The reason is that the Shire incurs higher costs to service these areas, including car park infrastructure, landscaping, and other amenities. Also, extra charges are associated with economic development activities that have a benefit to these ratepayers. The rate in the dollar for this category is 3.6% higher than the GRV–Residential base rate.

· GRV – Tourism – This rating category consists of properties with tourism use. The object of the rate for this category is to raise additional revenue to fund the costs associated with the higher reliance on Shire resources and the higher level of service provided to properties in this category. This category is rated higher than the base rate for GRV to fund costs associated with the more significant use of infrastructure and other Council assets and services and contribution towards tourism promotion activities. The rate in the dollar for this category is 35.5% higher than the GRV–Residential base rate.

Unimproved Value (UV) Revaluations

UV properties are updated and re-valued by the VGO on an annual basis, with the most recent valuations taking effect from 1 July 2020. UV-Rural revaluations have yet to be received from the VGO at the date of this report. However, historically, UV properties did not change significantly, and therefore the rateable value of UV properties in 2021/22 is expected to remain the same as 2020/21. UV-Mining revaluations had not been received as of the date of this report and expected to be available in late May. Council will be consulted should these valuations affect the rate model as presented. Should the adopted differential rates vary from the advertised due to significant changes in valuations, certain disclosures would be made to comply with the requirements of FMR 23(b).

· UV – Rural – This rating category consists of properties that are exclusively for rural use. This category is the base rate by which all other UV rated properties are assessed. The reason is that the different UV rating categories have a higher demand for Shire resources.

· UV - Commercial Rural – This rating category consists of properties with commercial use outside of the townsite and inclusive of:

i. Pearling Leases;

ii. Pastoral leases or Pastoral use;

This category raises revenue to fund the additional costs of servicing these properties. The reason is that the Shire incurs higher costs in infrastructure maintenance due to extra vehicle movements on the Shire’s road network due to the activities associated with these properties.

· UV – Mining – This rating category consists of properties used for mining, exploration or prospecting purposes. This category raises additional revenue to fund the other cost impacts to the Shire. This category is rated higher than UV-Commercial to reflect the higher road infrastructure maintenance costs to Council as a result of frequent heavy vehicle use over extensive lengths of Shire roads throughout the year.

The Proposed Rate in the Dollar

The draft budget documents reflect a 1.83% general rate change for all differential rating categories. Rates modelling has been undertaken, and adjustments in the proposed general rates in the dollar and minimum payments have been made with consideration to achieving a minimal rate increase given the current economic climate.

Differential Rate Category	Minimum Payment Proposed	Rate in the $ (Cents) Proposed
GRV – Residential	$1,220	11.0204
GRV – Vacant	$1,220	20.1729
GRV – Commercial/Industrial	$1,220	11.4171
GRV – Tourism	$1,220	14.9349
UV – Rural	$1,220	0.7763
UV – Mining	$500	11.9883
UV – Commercial Rural	$1,220	3.2458

The proposed rate in the dollar for each rating category is summarised in the table above and reflects a 1.83% change from the preceding year.

Proposed Minimum Payments

As part of the annual budget process, the Council must determine the minimum payment for differential rating categories in the 2021/22 financial year.

The setting of minimum rates within rating categories recognises that every property receives some minimum level of benefit from the Shire’s works and services, which is shared by all properties regardless of size, value, and use. A proposed minimum rate of $1,220 has been applied to all rating categories except for the UV-Mining category, set at $500.

UV of the 57 mining tenements ranges from $198 to $448,000 with an average UV of $20,415. The minimum rate for the UV-Mining category is set at a lower level than the other rating categories to ensure that the rate burden is distributed equitably between all other property owners paying the minimum amount. A lower minimum payment will also ensure that less than 50% of the properties in this category are on the minimum rate and comply with section 6.35 of the LGA.

Rates from Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments Making up the 2021/22 Budget Deficiency

Applying the rate in the dollar to the rateable value of the various properties within each rating category, plus a conservative estimate of interim rates of $100,000, results in an estimated total rate of $23.94M, which is 100% of the $23.94M budget deficiency. This percentage satisfies the requirements of section 6.34 of the LGA.

Detailed calculations illustrating the resulting rates for all differential rating categories and associated minimum payments are summarised in Attachment 3 of this report.

The proposed objects and reasons for Differential Rating for 2021/22 is found in Attachment 2.

From a statutory perspective, it is important to note that section 6.35 of the LGA requires a local government to ensure that the general rate is imposed on not less than 50% of the number of separately rated properties or 50% of the number of properties in a differential general rate category. This requirement has been achieved in all categories except in GRV – Vacant. It is proposed that Ministerial approval be sought in this circumstance to ensure a consistent rate increase is applied to all properties within this category.

In line with previous years, Ministerial approval must also be sought under section 6.33 of the LGA for the proposed UV-Mining and UV-Commercial differential general rates as these are more than twice the lowest UV general rate.

It is acknowledged that the UV-Mining revaluations will require analysis upon receipt. However, it is intended to ensure a comparable rate yield from each UV category, thus not impacting the proposed total revenue.

Council will need to consider these valuations before formally adopting differential rates and adjust the UV rates accordingly. To progress the timely adoption of the budget, it is proposed to seek public comments on the proposed UV differential rates indicating a 1.83% rate increase subject to review upon receipt of UV-Mining valuations.

The Required Public Notice of Certain Rates

Section 6.36 of the LGA requires the Council to give local public notice of its intention to impose general differential rates or a minimum payment applying to a differential rate category. This allows the ratepayers to see how properties are rated across the district.

As per section 1.7 and 6.36 of the LGA, the local public notice of differential rates must:

· be published at least once in a newspaper circulating generally in the district;

· be displayed on a notice board at the local government’s offices;

· be displayed on a notice board at each local government library;

· contain details of each rate or minimum payment the Council proposes to impose;

· advise where a document can be inspected that provides the objects of and reasons for each proposed rate and minimum payment;

· contain an invitation for electors or ratepayers to lodge submissions on any of the proposals within 21 days from the date of the notice (i.e. the 21-day submission period excludes the first day of publishing); and

· be published within two months before 1 July 2021 (i.e. not earlier than 1 May).

Council must then consider any submissions received before seeking the Minister’s approval (should this be required) before formally adopting the differential rates and minimum payments as part of the annual budget process.

CONSULTATION

Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries

Moore Australia

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Act 1995

1.7 Local public notice

(1) Where under this Act local public notice of a matter is required to be given, a notice of the matter is to be —

(a) published in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the district; and

(b) exhibited to the public on a notice board at the local government’s offices; and

(c) exhibited to the public on a notice board at every local government library in the district.

(2) Unless expressly stated otherwise it is sufficient if the notice is —

(a) published under subsection (1)(a) on at least one occasion; and

(b) exhibited under subsection (1)(b) and (c) for a reasonable time, being not less than —

(i) the time prescribed for this paragraph; or

(ii) if no time is prescribed, 7 days.

6.28 Basis of Rates

1). The Minister is to -

(a) determine the method of valuation of land to be used by a local government as the basis for a rate; and

(b) publish a notice of the determination in the government gazette.

2). In determining the method of valuation of land to be used by a local government the Minister is to have regard to the general principle that the basis for a rate on any land is to be –

(a) where the land is used predominantly for rural purposes, the unimproved value of the land, and

(b) where the land is used predominantly for non-rural purposes, the gross rental value of the land.

6.32 Rates and service charges

(1) When adopting the annual budget, a local government —

(a) to make up the budget deficiency, is to impose* a general rate on rateable land within its district, which rate may be imposed either —

(i) uniformly; or

(ii) differentially; and

(b) may impose* on rateable land within its district —

(i) a specified area rate; or

(ii) a minimum payment; and

(c) may impose* a service charge on land within its district.

* Absolute majority required.

(2) Where a local government resolves to impose a rate it is required to —

(a) set a rate which is expressed as a rate in the dollar of the gross rental value of rateable land within its district to be rated on gross rental value; and

(b) set a rate which is expressed as a rate in the dollar of the unimproved value of rateable land within its district to be rated on unimproved value.

6.33 Differential general rates

(1) A local government may impose differential general rates according to any or a combination, of the following characteristics -

(a) the purpose for which the land is zoned under a local planning scheme in force under the Planning and Development Act 2005;

(b) the predominant purpose for which the land is held or used as determined by the local government;

(c) whether or not the land is vacant land; or

(d) any other characteristic or combination of characteristics prescribed.

6.34 Limit on revenue or income from general rates

Unless the Minister otherwise approves, the amount shown in the annual budget as being the amount it is estimated will be yielded by the general rate is not to —

(a) be more than 110% of the amount of the budget deficiency; or

(b) be less than 90% of the amount of the budget deficiency.

6.35. Minimum payment

(1) Subject to this section, a local government may impose on any rateable land in its district a minimum payment which is greater than the general rate which would otherwise be payable on that land.

(2) A minimum payment is to be a general minimum but, subject to subsection (3), a lesser minimum may be imposed in respect of any portion of the district.

(3) In applying subsection (2) the local government is to ensure the general minimum is imposed on not less than —

(a) 50% of the total number of separately rated properties in the district; or

(b) 50% of the number of properties in each category referred to in subsection (6),

on which a minimum payment is imposed.

(4) A minimum payment is not to be imposed on more than the prescribed percentage of —

(a) the number of separately rated properties in the district; or

(b) the number of properties in each category referred to in subsection (6),

unless the general minimum does not exceed the prescribed amount.

(5) If a local government imposes a differential general rate on any land on the basis that the land is vacant land it may, with the approval of the Minister, impose a minimum payment in a manner that does not comply with subsections (2), (3) and (4) for that land.

(6) For the purposes of this section a minimum payment is to be applied separately, in accordance with the principles set forth in subsections (2), (3) and (4) in respect of each of the following categories —

(a) to land rated on gross rental value; and

(b) to land rated on unimproved value; and

(c) to each differential rating category where a differential general rate is imposed.

[Section 6.35 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 61.]

6.36 Local government to give notice of certain rates

(1) Before imposing any differential general rates or a minimum payment applying to a differential rate category under section 6.35(6)(c) a local government is to give local public notice of its intention to do so.

(2) A local government is required to ensure that a notice referred to in subsection (1) is published in sufficient time to allow compliance with the requirements specified in this section and section 6.2(1).

(3) A notice referred to in subsection (1) —

(a) may be published within the period of 2 months preceding the commencement of the financial year to which the proposed rates are to apply on the basis of the local government’s estimate of the budget deficiency; and

(b) is to contain —

(i) details of each rate or minimum payment the local government intends to impose; and

(ii) an invitation for submissions to be made by an elector or a ratepayer in respect of the proposed rate or minimum payment and any related matters within 21 days (or such longer period as is specified in the notice) of the notice; and

(iii) any further information in relation to the matters specified in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) which may be prescribed; and

(c) is to advise electors and ratepayers of the time and place where a document describing the objects of, and reasons for, each proposed rate and minimum payment may be inspected.

(4) The local government is required to consider any submissions received before imposing the proposed rate or minimum payment with or without modification.

(5) Where a local government —

(a) in an emergency, proposes to impose a supplementary general rate or specified area rate under section 6.32(3)(a); or

(b) proposes to modify the proposed rates or minimum payments after considering any submissions under subsection (4),

it is not required to give local public notice of that proposed supplementary general rate, specified area rate, modified rate or minimum payment.

6.47 Concessions

Subject to the Rates and Charges (Rebates and Deferments) Act 1992, a local government may at the time of imposing a rate or service charge or at a later date resolve to waive* a rate or service charge or resolve to grant other concessions in relation to a rate or service charge.

* Absolute majority required

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Rating Policy

Tourism Administration Policy

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed differential rates and minimum payments for the 2021/22 financial year will raise estimated rates revenue of $23.94M. A detailed rates model is in Attachment 3.

RISK

Decisions on this matter impact the rates levied on the ratepayers of the district.

There is a possible moderate risk of non-compliance with the LGA, potential moderate level public embarrassment and almost certain significant financial implications to Council. It is advised that the Council support the recommendations of this report to mitigate these risks.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

People – We will continue to enjoy Broome-time, our special way of life. It’s laid-back but bursting with energy, inclusive, safe and healthy, for everyone:

Affordable services and initiatives to satisfy community need

Place – We will grow and develop responsibly, caring for our natural, cultural and built heritage, for everyone:

Core asset management to optimise the Shire’s infrastructure whilst minimising life cycle costs.

Prosperity – Together, we will build a strong, diversified and growing economy with work opportunities for everyone:

Affordable and equitable services and infrastructure

Affordable land for residential, industrial, commercial and community use

Performance - We will deliver excellent governance, service and value, for everyone.:

Sustainable and integrated strategic and operational plans

Responsible resource allocation

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority

Motion: Minute No. C/0421/006

Moved: Cr F West Seconded: Cr E Foy

That Council requests the Chief Executive Officer to review the Draft 2021/22 Shire of Broome Budget by reducing the allocation for the Cable Beach Foreshore Redevelopment and increasing the allocation for the Community Safety Plan and thereby recalculates the rates such that the rate revenue increase is limited to 0.5%, whilst maintaining a balanced budget.

LOST 2/5

Council Resolution:

(REPORT Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/007

Moved: Cr D Male Seconded: Cr B Rudeforth

That Council:

1. Publishes a local public notice proposing the 2021/22 differential general rates and minimum payments set out in the table below and invites electors or ratepayers to lodge submissions about this proposal within 21 days from the date of notice:

*DIFFERENTIAL RATE CATEGORY*	*RATE IN THE DOLLAR* *(cents)*	*MINIMUM PAYMENT*
*Residential (GRV)*	*11.0204*	*$1,220*
*Vacant (GRV)*	*20.1729*	*$1,220*
*Commercial (GRV)*	*11.4171*	*$1,220*
*Tourism (GRV)*	*14.9349*	*$1,220*
*Mining (UV)*	*11.9883*	*$500*
*Rural (UV)*	*0.7763*	*$1,220*
*Commercial Rural (UV)*	*3.2458*	*$1,220*

2. Adopts the Objects and Reasons presented in Attachment 2 for each of the proposed differential general rates and minimum payments in point 1 above; and

3. Following the close of the public submission period, requests the Chief Executive Officer to report back to Council, presenting any submissions for formal consideration before seeking Minister’s Approval:

(a) Under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 to impose differential rates which are more than twice the lowest differential rate; and

(b) Under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 to impose a minimum payment of $1,220 on GRV - Vacant properties as an exemption to subsections 2, 3 and 4 of section 6.35 of the Local Government Act 1995.

CARRIED 5/2

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 - Proposed Local Public Notice on Differential Rates
2.	Attachment 2 - 2021/22 Proposed Differential Rates Objects and Reasons
3.	Attachment 3 - 2021/22 Proposed Differential Rates Model

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 29 April 2021 Page 1 of 2

9.3.2 REVIEW OF THE TOURISM ADMINISTRATION POLICY

LOCATION/ADDRESS: Nil

APPLICANT: Nil

FILE: ECI05.1

AUTHOR: Manager Community and Economic Development

CONTRIBUTOR/S: Nil

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Acting Director Development and Community

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: Nil

SUMMARY:

Officers have undertaken a review of the Shire’s Tourism Administration Policy. Minor changes are recommended - including a new funding application timeline to align with the Shire’s annual budget process.

BACKGROUND

The objective of the Tourism Administration Policy (TAP) is to realise the benefits from tourism, promote coordination, infrastructure sharing opportunities and integration of tourism with other business sectors to optimise benefits and minimise any adverse impacts to the community and other industries.

The TAP identifies that Council funding will focus on the following areas:

1. Visitor Information Services: Council will work collaboratively with the Broome Visitor Centre (BVC) for the provision of visitor servicing and determining of high-level tourism priorities for the district.

2. Destination Marketing: Council will work collaboratively with Australia’s North West (ANW) for the promotion of the Broome local government area as a visitor destination to external markets and determining of associated high-level tourism priorities for the district.

3. Cruise Ship Services: Council will work collaboratively with Cruise Broome to respond to the opportunities offered by cruise shipping, including the servicing the visitation of cruise ship passengers and work towards attracting more cruise ships annually.

4. Other Tourism Initiatives: Council will work collaboratively with organisations for the promotion and development of the district as a visitor destination on initiatives to meet the high-level tourism priorities for the district.

COMMENT

Following a desktop review by Shire officers, aligning the funding process with the Shire’s annual budget process was a key consideration. The submission timeline is the most significant change proposed, and is explored in further detail under Financial Implications below.

Consultation was subsequently undertaken with ANW, BVC and Cruise Broome on April 13 and 14. Three key themes emerged:

- In-principle support of providing submissions and a funding request to the Shire as per the new timeline;

- Only limited operational and budget information would be able to be provided at this time, with detailed information to be submitted closer to the commencement of the financial year; and

- Strong desire for multi-year agreements to achieve administrative efficiencies for the organisations and the Shire.

The table below summarises the proposed changes to the content of the Tourism Administration Policy. A ‘clean’ copy of the policy is included as Attachment 1 to this report. A ‘tracked changes’ copy is included as Attachment 2 to demonstrate revisions to the original version of the policy.

Proposed Change		Rationale
1	Revised submission timeline for nominated organisations	Alignment with the Shire’s annual budget process
2	Clarity regarding multi-year agreements	Provides opportunity to achieve administrative efficiencies and a level of funding certainty
3	Delegation for CEO to approve ad hoc allocations to $10,000 for Other Tourism Initiatives	Provides opportunity to achieve administrative efficiencies and increased responsiveness
4	Minor edits (various)	Various minor edits and corrections

CONSULTATION

- Councillors Male, Foy, Mitchell, Taylor (Concept Forum on April 13)

- Australia’s North West

- Broome Visitors Centre

- Cruise Broome

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Act 1995

6.2. Local government to prepare annual budget

(1) During the period from 1 June in a financial year to 31 August in the next financial year, or such extended time as the Minister allows, each local government is to prepare and adopt*, in the form and manner prescribed, a budget for its municipal fund for the financial year ending on the 30 June next following that 31 August.

* Absolute majority required.

(2) In the preparation of the annual budget the local government is to have regard to the contents of the plan for the future of the district made in accordance with section 5.56 and to prepare a detailed estimate for the current year of —

(a) the expenditure by the local government; and

(b) the revenue and income, independent of general rates, of the local government; and

(c) the amount required to make up the deficiency, if any, shown by comparing the estimated expenditure with the estimated revenue and income.

(3) For the purposes of subsections (2)(a) and (b) all expenditure, revenue and income of the local government is to be considered unless otherwise prescribed.

(4) The annual budget is to incorporate —

(a) particulars of the estimated expenditure proposed to be incurred by the local government; and

(b) detailed information relating to the rates and service charges which will apply to land within the district including —

(i) the amount it is estimated will be yielded by the general rate; and

(ii) the rate of interest (if any) to be charged by the local government on unpaid rates and service charges;

and

(c) the fees and charges proposed to be imposed by the local government; and

(d) the particulars of borrowings and other financial accommodation proposed to be entered by the local government; and

(e) details of the amounts to be set aside in, or used from, reserve accounts and of the purpose for which they are to be set aside or used; and

(f) particulars of proposed land transactions and trading undertakings (as those terms are defined in and for the purpose of section 3.59) of the local government; and

(g) such other matters as are prescribed.

(5) Regulations may provide for —

(a) the form of the annual budget; and

(b) the contents of the annual budget; and

(c) the information to be contained in or to accompany the annual budget.

[Section 6.2 amended: No. 49 of 2004 s. 42(8) and 56.]

6.7. Municipal fund

(1) All money and the value of all assets received or receivable by a local government are to be held and brought to account in its municipal fund unless required by this Act or any other written law to be held in the trust fund.

(2) Money held in the municipal fund may be applied towards the performance of the functions and the exercise of the powers conferred on the local government by this Act or any other written law.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Tourism Administration

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Under the existing TAP, funding applications are invited from nominated organisations (Australia’s North West, Broome Visitors Centre, Cruise Broome) and for ‘ad hoc’ tourism initiatives.

Nominated organisations are required to complete a formal request for Shire funding by 31 March for the proceeding financial year. Given that this date falls towards the later stages of the Shire’s annual budget development and allocation process (also for the proceeding financial year), an indicative budget amount or sum certain has been included in the budget to cover funding to the nominated organisations, and a balance for minor tourism initiatives and opportunities that may arise throughout the year.

Recognising increased allocations to the Broome Visitors Centre in recent years, the sum certain approach is no longer considered appropriate given the decreasing balance of funding that would have been available for other purposes or tourism initiatives under the policy.

A snapshot of TAP funding since 2016-2017 is outlined in the following table and demonstrates the changing nature of allocations:

Applicant	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21	Total
Australia's North West	$175,000	$175,000	$175,000	$175,000	No allocation due to COVID-19 impacts	$700,000
Broome Visitor Centre**	$258,178	$308,178	$477,090	$494,178	$473,178	$2,010,802
Cruise Broome			$27,000	$44,000		$71,000
Cable Beach Polo	$17,761	$20,000	EETDF*	Event cancelled	Event cancelled due to COVID-19 impacts	$37,761
Broome International Charter (Singapore flights)			$57,657			$57,657
Fat Bike Championships		$2,000				$2,000
Kimberley Land Council		$20,000				$20,000
FitEvents	$10,000					$10,000
Broome Tourism Leadership Group	$20,000					$20,000
Total	$480,939	$525,178	$736,747	$713,178	$473,178	$2,929,220

NOTES
Requested
Indicative budget
*EETDF: Economic, Events and Tourism Development Funding
*The BVC allocation includes: - Cash funding* - Rental value of facility - Garden servicing - Write-off of overheads

The new timeline and process articulated in the policy will allow for funding applications from the nominated organisations to be considered individually and endorsed as appropriate early in the budget cycle. Critically, an accurate and endorsed total funding allocation to be included in the budget for the next financial year.

RISK

Option	Risk	Type	Impact	Mitigation
Endorse changes to timeline	Limited information for proceeding financial year available in November.	Financial Reputational	Medium	Funding is conditioned, or administration process streamlined through multi year agreements.
Consideration of multi year agreements	Economic climate or performance may change over life of agreement.	Financial	Medium	Funding is conditioned to include ongoing review and consideration of said factors.
Council does not endorse changes	Budget does not accurately reflect funding allocations to nominated organisations.	Financial	Medium	Endorse changes to the timeline.
Council does not endorse changes	Ability to maximise use of funding gathered through the differential rating scheme	Financial	Medium	Endorse changes to the timeline.

STRATEGIC CORPORATE PLAN OBJECTIVES

Prosperity – Together, we will build a strong, diversified and growing economy with work opportunities for everyone.

Outcome Nine – A strong, diverse and inclusive economy where all can participate:

9.1 Increase Broome’s domestic and international trade in tourism, agriculture,

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority

Council Resolution:

(Report Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/008

Moved: Cr C Mitchell Seconded: Cr D Male

That Council endorses the reviewed Tourism Administration Policy (Attachment 1) which is inclusive of minor changes.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1: Tourism Administration - Policy CLEAN
2.	Attachment 2: Tourism Administration - Policy REVISED TRACKED

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 29 April 2021 Page 1 of 2

10. Reports of Committees

10.1 YAWURU PARK COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2021

LOCATION/ADDRESS: Nil

APPLICANT: Nil

FILE: NAT55.1; NAT55.3

AUTHOR: Land Tenure Officer

CONTRIBUTOR/S: Nil

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Acting Director Development and Community

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: Nil

SUMMARY:

This report presents Council with a progress report for the Yawuru Park Council (YPC), comprising the draft minutes and associated recommendations of the YPC meeting held 17 March 2021.

BACKGROUND

Previous Considerations

The Yawuru Park Council (YPC) has been formed in accordance with the two Yawuru Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) and is comprised of Yawuru Registered Native Title Body Corporate/Nyamba Buru Yawuru Representatives (Yawuru), delegates from the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) and Shire of Broome representatives. Through the YPC, these three organisations are responsible for jointly managing land within the Yawuru Conservation Estate in accordance with the ILUAs.

The following table outlines the four land/sea management areas within the Conservation Estate, including the bodies with direct management responsibility for each area:

Conservation Estate Area	Management responsibility
Minyirr Buru (Townsite Areas)	Yawuru and the Shire
Guniyan Binba (located approximately 600 metres north of the rocks at Cable Beach) (Cable Beach Intertidal Zone)	Yawuru, the Shire and DBCA
Birragun (Out of town Areas)	Yawuru and DBCA
Nagulagun (Marine Park Areas)	Yawuru and DBCA

The following are the current representatives on the YPC:

Yawuru Representatives: Debra Pigram (Chair), Ben Dolby and Dean Mathews.

Yawuru Proxies: Eduardo Maher, Kevin Puertollano and Johani Mamid

Shire Representatives: Cr Harold Tracey (Shire President), Chief Executive Officer (Sam Mastrolembo) and Acting Director Development and Community Services (James Watt)

Shire Proxies: Cr Elsta Foy, Cr Nik Wevers, Manager Planning and Building Services (Director Development and Community Services) and Land Tenure Officer (CEO)

DBCA Representatives: Robert Blok (District Manager), Wil Bennett (Yawuru Parks Coordinator) and Luke Puertollano (Operations Officer)

DBCA Proxies: Nil

The Joint Management Agreement and Assistant Agreement form part of the ILUA’s. In accordance with section 9.3 of the Management Agreement, the Parties (Yawuru RNTBC, DBCA and Shire of Broome) must ensure their Representative Members and proxies are available and authorised to carry out their functions as set out in the Joint Management Agreement and the Terms of Reference, therefore, Minutes are for Council’s noting.

YPC minutes were last presented to Council for noting at the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) on 10 December 2020 which included minutes for the YPC meeting held on
18 November 2020. Since the OMC on 10 December 2020 the YPC met on 17 March 2021

COMMENT

YPC Meeting on 17 March 2021

The Agenda (Attachment 1) and Minutes (Attachment 2) of the YPC meeting held on 17 March 2021 are attached. At the meeting, the YPC considered the following items:

3. Matters across all tenure

3.1 Update: Management strategy prioritisation review – Conservation Action Planning methodology

Verbal update provided by Nyamba Buru Yawuru (NBY).

A revised work plan and timetable has been provided by Conservation Management Pty Ltd to commence Conservation Action Planning (CAP) and Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) framework for the three terrestrial Yawuru Conservation Park management plans.

Stage One: Desk top analysis of Management Plans                  29 March – 20 April
Stage Two: Workshops (3x hour sessions)                                       11 – 12 May
Stage Three: Draft implementation / workshops                           31 May – 4 June
Stage Four: Training                                                                           7 – 25 June

3.2 Update: Yawuru Recreation Master Plan review

Verbal update provided by DBCA.

One and half day desk top review of Recreation Master Plan completed 18-19 February 2021. Prioritisation and risk ranking workshop scheduled for 16 April 2021.

4. Minyirr Buru (In-Town Conservation Estate) (Yawuru & Shire)

4.1 Update: Request for possible installation of lifesaving rings at Gantheaume Point.

Verbal update provided by Shire of Broome.

In February 2021, Shire of Broome, in collaboration with YPC, installed life rings at Gantheaume Point, following public petition presented to the Broome Shire Council in May 2020. Media release regarding installation published 16 March 2021.

The Yawuru cultural messaging has been ordered and will be installed by DBCA Yawuru Rangers upon receival.

Update: Reddell Beach precinct grant funding

Verbal update provided by DBCA.

Funding of $800,000 for the upgrade of Reddell Beach precinct awarded by the Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, COVID-19 Relief and Recovery funding for conservation, tourism and infrastructure upgrades at National and World Heritage places to be expended by end of June 2022.

Further consultations, project designs and management will be required to progress this project. YPC Working Group project kick-off 24 March 2021.

5. Guniyan Binba (Northern Intertidal Zone) (Yawuru, Shire and DBCA)

5.1 Cable Beach turtle nesting – vehicle access review

Verbal update provided by DBCA.

5.2 YPC Working Group workshop scheduled 28 April 202, to consider ongoing management and protection of turtles during nesting / hatching season. Recommendation, taking into consideration impacts of any proposed closures, to be presented to the YPC for support / consideration and then Broome Shire Council.

6. Birragun (Out-of-Town Conservation Estate) (Yawuru and DBCA)

6.1 Update: Gurlbinwila precinct works

Verbal update provided by DBCA.

Man-galagun road maintenance work complete. Gurlbinwila ablution construction delayed due to rain / road closures, expected completion first week April 2021.

7. Reports

7.1 Financial Statement

Royalties for Regions (Operational) February 2021:

· YTD Actual $618,326

· YTD Budget $1,100,000

· YTD percentage spend 56%

Yawuru Trust Account (Capital) February 2021:

· YTD Actual: $10,096 (Gurlbinwila ablutions and Man-galagun Road maintenance)

· YTD Budget: No budget – pending prioritisation of capital projects

· YTD percentage spend 0%

DBCA to review outstanding accruals and advise YPC Working Group of any forecast underspend.

8. Other Business

Recent announcement by Minister Papalia (24 February 2021) of $4.5 million commitment to provide facilities and upgrade roads to meet visitor demand and environmental management, in partnership with Yawuru and joint managers (Shire of Broome and DBCA) in the Yawuru Conservation Parks.

DBCA to confirm process to receive funds and any criteria or expectations of how funded is to be utilised.

CONSULTATION

The YPC comprises representatives from Yawuru, the Shire and DBCA, working collaboratively to manage the Yawuru Conservation Estate.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Act

5.23 Meetings generally open to public

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

(a) all council meetings; and

(b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has been delegated.

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

(a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; and

(b) the personal affairs of any person; and

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; and

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

(e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal —

(i) a trade secret; or

(ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or

(iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person,

where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government; and

(f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to —

(i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law; or

(ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or

(iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for protecting public safety;

and

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

(h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

RISK

Nil.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

People – We will continue to enjoy Broome-time, our special way of life. It’s laid-back but bursting with energy, inclusive, safe and healthy, for everyone:

Effective communication

Accessible and safe community spaces

Participation in recreational and leisure activity

A healthy and safe environment

Place – We will grow and develop responsibly, caring for our natural, cultural and built heritage, for everyone:

Realistic and sustainable land use strategies for the Shire within state and national frameworks and in consultation with the community

A natural environment for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations

A preserved, historical and cultural heritage of Broome

Retention and expansion of Broome’s iconic tourism assets and reputation

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority

Council Resolution:

(Report Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/013

Moved: Cr N Wevers Seconded: Cr C Mitchell

That Council notes the minutes of the Yawuru Park Council meeting held on 17 March 2021 as attached.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 - Yawuru Park Council Agenda
2.	Draft Minutes 17 March 2021

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 29 April 2021 Page 1 of 2

10.2 AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 19 APRIL 2021

LOCATION/ADDRESS: Nil

APPLICANT: Nil

FILE: COA01;RCG01

AUTHOR: Manager Financial Services

CONTRIBUTOR/S: Nil

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Acting Director Corporate Services

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: Nil

SUMMARY:

This report requests the Council to consider outcomes of the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) meeting held on 19 April 2021 and seek adoption of the Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review (FACR) and Risk Management Policy update.

BACKGROUND

Previous Considerations

Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review

OMC 25 June 2020 Item 9.3.2

OMC 19 November 2020 Item 10.1

OMC 25 February 2021 Item 9.4.8

The Shire of Broome has carried out its 3rd Quarter FACR for the 2020-21 financial year. This review of the 2020-21 Annual Budget is based on actuals and commitments for the nine months ending 31 March 2021, and forecasts for the remainder of the financial year.

The FACR aims to highlight over and under expenditure of funds and over and under achievement of income targets for the benefit of Executive and Responsible Officers to ensure good fiscal management of their projects and programs.

Once this process is completed, a report is compiled identifying budgets requiring amendments to be adopted by Council. Additionally, a summary provides the financial impact of all proposed budget amendments to the Shire of Broome’s adopted end-of-year forecast, to assist Council to make informed decision.

It should be noted that the 2020-21 annual budget was adopted at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 June 2020 as a balanced budget.

Risk Management Policy Review and Update

The Shire first adopted a risk management policy in October 2010. The Policy has largely remained the same since this time. The Policy was supported by a Risk Management Strategy that described the detailed process of implementing a Risk Management Framework and associated systems and processes across the Shire.

The Risk Management Policy and Strategy were based on the principles, framework, and guidelines detailed in the AS/NZS Risk Management Standard; 31000:2009. This Standard was updated in 2018.

COMMENT

Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review

The Quarter 3 FACR occurred on 8 April 2021. The results from this process indicated a forecast deficit financial position to 30 June 2021 of $173,509 should Council approve the proposed budget amendments. This is down $166,080 from the Q2 FACR forecast net deficit of $339,589.

The above figure represents a budget forecast should all expenditure and income occur as expected. It does not represent the actual end-of-year position, which can only be determined as part of the financial year’s normal annual financial processes.

The $166,080 savings is net of $168,940 of organisational savings that the Shire would typically quarantine to reserves rather than offsetting against departmental surplus of deficit. However, the $339,589 starting net deficit referred to above included $230,018 of organisational expenses. Rather than transferring the organisational savings identified in Q3 to reserve, this was used to reduce the organisational expenses identified to date.

Management will focus on controlling the forecast deficit and is confident that through strong financial management and controls the deficit can be addressed by 30 June.

A comprehensive list of accounts (refer to Attachment 1) has been included for perusal by the committee, summarised by Directorate.

A summary of the results is as follows:

Income Items	Deficit/(Surplus)
Fees & Charges Levied Rec'd	(165,940)
Other Revenue Rec'd	(26,186)
Transfer From Reserves (Cap Accts)	(22,000)
Interest Rec'd From All Sources	(12,000)
Operating Grants, Subsidies, Contributions, & Reimb Rec'd	16,460
Non Operating Grants & Subsidies Rec'd	155,721

Expense Items
Materials & Contracts	(684,510)
Utilities Expenses	(24,000)
Other Expenses	13,500
Insurance Exps (Not Workers Comp)	60,000
Employee Exps (Inc Workers Comp, Excl. Overheads)	74,348
Transfer to Reserve (Cap Accts)	448,527

Net Deficit/(Surplus)	(166,080)

A total of 107 budget amendments were proposed at Q3 FACR, which made up the $166,080 net surplus for the quarter. There is no single transaction to which this net surplus is attributed. However, the most significant amendments among these are as follows:

Income Items

· $165K net increase in fees and charges revenue due to additional interim rates, building and planning fees from increased subdivisions and residential property improvements. Sport and recreation fees are also expected to increase, leading to the sporting season.

· $26K increase in other revenue due to workers’ compensation and government parental leave reimbursements

· $22K reserve transferred in to fund the BRAC and Civic Centre improved business systems

· $12K reduction in operating grants expected to be received from the State Library due to change in the funding structure

· $155K reduction in capital grants for McDaniel and Herbert-Saville roundabout projects upon completing the projects at a lower total cost

Expense Items

· $155K reduction in capital grants for Herbert-Saville and McDaniel projects

· $685K net savings in materials and contracts

o $271K savings from Herbert-Saville and McDaniel

o $165K Air Conditioner renewals transferred to reserves

o $150K Frederick Street drainage savings transferred to reserves

· $24K savings to date in power and water charges

· $13K net increase in other expenses due to $80K increase in tip fees despite $66K savings in various community sponsorship expenditure for Cable Beach Polo and Broome Visitor Centre

· $60K increase in insurance due to increase in reinsurance rates of assets above the 26^th parallel, insurance for new infrastructure and property together with increased declared values of the Shire’s fleet

· $74K increase in employment costs (funded from relief staff budget).

· $449K additional transfer to reserves from savings from Air Conditioner Renewals and Frederick Street drainage work.

Risk Management Policy Review and Update

Many organisations including the Shire of Broome, have found the implementation of a risk management framework a challenging process, and one that has not developed into a business as usual process that can be clearly linked to a reduction in risk events and more importantly being used as a integral tool in the assessment of Shire priorities.

With that in mind, a change of approach was required and to that end during 2020 the Shire commenced working remotely with a Risk Management consultant based in Canberra, to refresh the Shire approach to risk management.

Unfortunately, the Coronavirus pandemic has prevented the consultant from visiting Broome to complete staff and elected member risk management training, but it is hoped that this will be possible in June of this year.

In the meantime, the Risk Management Policy has been completely rewritten, to provide a concise snapshot of what risk management is, why it is important to the Shire of Broome, the commitment required, an explanation of the approach that will be taken, how the Policy will be measured, and the roles and responsibilities for risk management within Council.

Approach

Not all risks are the same and for that reason the Policy breaks risks into three distinct focus groups:

Strategic Risks: defined in the context of Shire of Broome as risks where the causes/contributing factors are outside the control of Council, but, if they were to occur, they may be serious enough to require a revision of the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan.

Enterprise (Operational) Risks: are those where the causes are either inside or outside the control of the Shire of Broome, but, if they occur, they will impact on the achievement of the current Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan strategies.

Project Risks: requires a unique approach, given the significant difference in context. The assessment of project risk requires consideration of schedule, cost and performance within the context of the project. Therefore, the use of a typical risk reference table based on likelihood and consequence is not appropriate.

Rather than one Risk Management Strategy to support the implementation of the Risk Management Policy separate Risk Management Plans for Strategic, Enterprise and Project Risks will be developed. These are currently being drafted and will be presented to the Audit and Risk Committee for endorsement at the next opportunity. The separate Risk Management Plans identify that likelihood needs to be assessed differently between strategic, enterprise and project risk when determining a suitable risk assessment matrix.

Finally, a Strategic Risk Register and Enterprise Risk Register will be established. This is aimed at ensuring that the risk context is set at the correct level and that the focus of control assurance and investment in risk management improvements is aligned to the highest level of risk areas identified.

CONSULTATION

Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review

All amendments have been proposed after consultation with the Executive and responsible officers at the Shire.

Risk Management Policy Review and Update

Paladin Risk Management

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1996

r33A. Review of Budget

(1) Between 1 January and 31 March in each financial year a local government is to carry out a review of its annual budget for that year.

(2A) The review of an annual budget for a financial year must —

(a) consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and

(b) consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and

(c) review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget.

(2) Within 30 days after a review of the annual budget of a local government is carried out it is to be submitted to the Council.

(3) A council is to consider a review submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review.

*Absolute majority required.

(4) Within 30 days after a council has made a determination, a copy of the review and determination is to be provided to the Department.

Local Government Act 1995

6.8. Expenditure from municipal fund not included in annual budget

1) A local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure —

(a) is incurred in a financial year before the adoption of the annual budget by the local government;

(b) is authorised in advance by resolution*; or

(c) is authorised in advance by the mayor or president in an emergency.

(1a) In subsection (1) —

“additional purpose” means a purpose for which no expenditure estimate is included in the local government’s annual budget.

Risk Management Policy Review and Update

Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996

Regulation 17. CEO to review certain systems and procedures

The CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of risk management, internal controls and legislative compliance once in every 3 financial years and report results to the audit committee.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review

Nil.

It should be noted that according to the materiality threshold set at the budget adoption, should a deficit achieve 1% of Shire’s operating revenue ($394,804) the Shire must formulate an action plan to remedy the over expenditure.

Risk Management Policy Review and Update

This report recommends the updating of an existing policy of Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review

The Quarter 3 FACR estimated net result is a budget deficit position of $173,509 to 30 June 2021.

Risk Management Policy Review and Update

Nil

RISK

Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review

The Finance and Costing Review (FACR) seeks to provide the best estimate of the end-of-year position for the Shire of Broome at 30 June 2021. The report contains recommendations of amendments to budgets that have financial implications on the estimate of the end-of-year position.

The review does not, however, seek to make amendments below the materiality threshold unless strictly necessary. The materiality thresholds are set at $10,000 for operating budgets and $20,000 for capital budgets. Should several accounts exceed their budget within these thresholds, it poses a risk that the predicted final end-of-year position may be understated.

To mitigate this risk, the CEO enacted the FACRs to run quarterly, and the Executive Management Group examine each job and account to ensure compliance. Also, the monthly report provides variance reporting highlighting any discrepancies against budget.

It should also be noted that should Council decide not to adopt the recommendations. It could lead to some initiatives being delayed or cancelled to offset the additional expenditure associated with running the Shire’s operations.

Risk Management Policy Review and Update

Nil

STRATEGIC CORPORATE PLAN OBJECTIVES

Performance – We will deliver excellent governance, service and value, for everyone.

Outcome Eleven – Effective leadership, advocacy and governance:

11.2 Deliver best practice governance and risk management

Outcome Thirteen - Value for money from rates and long-term financial sustainability:

13.1 Plan effectively for short and long term financial sustainability

Outcome Fourteen – Excellence in organisational performance and service delivery:

14.3 Monitor and continuously improve performance levels.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority

Council Resolution:

(COMMITTEE Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/014

Moved: Cr D Male Seconded: Cr N Wevers

That Council adopts the attached updated Risk Management Policy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority

Council Resolution:

(COMMITTEE Recommendation) Minute No. C/0421/015

Moved: Cr D Male Seconded: Cr N Wevers

That Council:

1. Receives the Quarter 3 Finance and Costing Review Report for the period ended 31 March 2021;

2. Adopts the operating and capital budget amendment recommendations for the year ended 30 June 2021 as attached; and

3. Notes a forecast end-of-year deficit position to 30 June 2021 of $173,509.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 7/0

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 - Audit and Risk Committee Minutes 19 April 2021

· *LOA (Leave of Absence)*	· *NA (Non Attendance)*
· *A (Apologies)*	· *R (Resignation)*

Councillor Attendance Register
Councillor		Cr H Tracey	Cr D Male	Cr E Foy	Cr P Matsumoto	Cr C Mitchell	Cr B Rudeforth	Cr P Taylor	Cr N Wevers	Cr F West
2020	26 March
2020	30 April			LOA
2020	28 May									LOA
2020	25 June	LOA
2020	30 July		A	LOA
2020	27 August			LOA	LOA
2020	23 September				LOA					LOA
2020	29 October				LOA
2020	19 November			LOA	A
2020	10 December
2021	25 February	A
2021	25 March	LOA			LOA

1.	DA2021_15 - Amended Plans for Approval
2.	DA2019-111 Plans to be superseded
3.	Notice of Determination DA2019_111

2.25. Disqualification for failure to attend meetings