Declaration of Interest (Notes for Your Guidance)

A member who has a Financial Interest in any matter to be discussed at a Council or Committee Meeting, which will be attended by the member, must disclose the nature of the interest:

a) In a written notice given to the Chief Executive Officers before the Meeting or;

b) At the Meeting, immediately before the matter is discussed.

A member, who makes a disclosure in respect to an interest, must not:

c) Preside at the part of the Meeting, relation to the matter or;

d) Participate in, or be present during any discussion or decision-making procedure relative to the matter, unless to the extent that the disclosing member is allowed to do so under Section 5.68 or Section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Notes on Financial Interest (For your Guidance)

The following notes are a basic guide for Councillors when they are considering whether they have a Financial Interest in a matter.

1. A Financial Interest requiring disclosure occurs when a Council decision might advantageously or detrimentally affect the Councillor or a person closely associated with the Councillor and is capable of being measured in money terms. There are expectations in the Local Government Act 1995 but they should not be relied on without advice, unless the situation is very clear.

2. If a Councillor is a member of an Association (which is a Body Corporate) with not less than 10 members i.e sporting, social, religious ect, and the Councillor is not a holder of office of profit or a guarantor, and has not leased land to or from the club, i.e, if the Councillor is an ordinary member of the Association, the Councillor has a common and not a financial interest in any matter to that Association.

3. If an interest is shared in common with a significant number of electors and ratepayers, then the obligation to disclose that interest does not arise. Each case need to be considered.

4. If in doubt declare.

5. As stated in (b) above, if written notice disclosing the interest has not been given to the Chief Executive Officer before the meeting, then it must be given when the matter arises in the Agenda, and immediately before the matter is discussed.

6. Ordinarily the disclosing Councillor must leave the meeting room before discussion commences. The only exceptions are:

6.1 Where the Councillor discloses the extent of the interest, and Council carries a motion under s.5.68(1)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Act; or

6.2 Where the Minister allows the Councillor to participate under s.5.69(3) of the Local Government Act, with or without conditions.

Interests Affecting Proximity

1) For the purposes of this subdivision, a person has a proximity interest in a matter if the matter concerns;

a) a proposed change to a planning scheme affecting land that adjoins the person’s land;

b) a proposed change to the zoning or use of land that adjoins the person’s land; or

c) a proposed development (as defined in section 5.63(5)) of land that adjoins the person’s land.

2) In this section, land (the proposal land) adjoins a person’s land if;

a) The proposal land, not being a thoroughfare, has a common boundary with the person’s land;

b) The proposal land, or any part of it, is directly across a thoroughfare from, the person’s land; or

c) The proposal land is that part of a thoroughfare that has a common boundary with the person’s land.

3) In this section a reference to a person’s land is a reference to any land owned by the person or in which the person has any estate or interest.

Interests Affecting Impartiality

Definition: An interest that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the impartiality of the person having the interest would be adversely affected, but does not include an interest as referred to in Section 5.60 of the ‘Act’.

A member who has an Interest Affecting Impartiality in any matter to be discussed at a Council or Committee Meeting, which will be attended by the member, must disclose the nature of the interest;

a) In a written notice given to the Chief Executive Officers before the Meeting or;

b) At the Meeting, immediately before the matter is discussed.

Impact of an Impartiality Closure

There are very different outcomes resulting from disclosing an interest affecting impartiality compared to that of a financial interest. With the declaration of a financial interest, an elected member leaves the room and does not vote.

With the declaration of this new type of interest, the elected member stays in the room, participates in the debate and votes. In effect then, following disclosure of an interest affecting impartiality, the member’s involvement in the Meeting continues as if no interest existed.

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

Special Council: Agenda

22 December 2015 Page 9

6. Purpose of Meeting

Item: 6.1

Esperance Tanker Jetty Future

Author/s	Mathew Walker	Acting Director Asset Management
Authorisor/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D15/30802

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

Esperance Tanker Jetty

Executive Summary

To allow Council to make an informed decision in regards to future of the Esperance Tanker Jetty

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Endorse the decision to permanently close the Esperance Tanker Jetty;

2. Prioritise the Tanker Jetty Replacement project, at a notional value of $10,000,000 (inclusive of demolition), subject to detail design and specifications;

3. Pursue all external funding opportunities to minimize the cost of the Tanker Jetty Replacement to the ratepayers;

4. Authorise the CEO to undertake the Design, Geotechnical Investigation, Specification documentation and Business Case for a replacement Jetty; and

5. Approve a budget variation as follows –

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
New Jetty Documentation	Capital Account	0	580,000	580,000
Tanker Jetty Structural Improvement	Reserve Transfer in	0	(580,000)	(580,000)
Net result				0

Background

Construction of the Tanker Jetty commenced in 1934 and was completed in 1935. The original jetty comprised of 192 piers, but was reduced to 143 piers with an overall length of 656m (average width of 4.5m) following a large storm in 1988. The Jetty is now 80 years old with timber jetty structures typically being designed for a 50 year life span.

Council originally engaged BG&E Consultants to undertake a detailed structural assessment of the Esperance Tanker Jetty in 2010 & 2011. The report looked at condition rating individual elements of the jetty. The report indicated that the first 80m of the jetty was in the worst condition and subsequently the commencement of the Esperance Waterfront Project involved the removal of the first 80m.

Since this time, officers have been monitoring the Jetty on a monthly basis with visual inspections. Any major issues have been dealt with as they occurred, including the loss of a pier 136.5m from the start of the jetty.

Following the report Council resolved the following three decisions –

On 11 July 2011 SO177-1646 –

That Council;

1. Receives the Esperance Tanker Jetty Structural Analysis Report as presented

2. Requests the CEO prepare and present to Council a policy on the use of, and access to the Tanker Jetty once a LGIS Risk Assessment report is received.

On 16 August 2011 AP0811-396 –

That Council adopt the attached Policy on the Use and Access to the Esperance Tanker Jetty.

On 16 August 2011 AP0811-397 –

That Council:

1. Accepts the existing Tanker Jetty is now beyond its useful life and supports its complete replacement as a priority.

2. Request the CEO prepare preliminary designs for a new jetty based on community consultation.

3. Requests the CEO to prepare a business case (including capital costs, whole of life costs, operational costs and renewal costs) for the development of a new jetty structure based on the agreed jetty design.

4. Requests the CEO commence lobbying the Western Australian and Australian Government for the funding to replace the Tanker Jetty.

5. Requests the CEO seek expressions of interest from heritage consultants to prepare a Heritage Impact Statement for the proposed demolition of the Tanker Jetty and the replacement Jetty.

6. Refer the proposal to demolish the Tanker Jetty and plans for a new jetty, together with a Heritage Impact Statement to the Office of Heritage.

Since this time, the Esperance Waterfront Project has been developed consisting of the following four (4) stages –

1. Seawall and Tanker Jetty Headland and Community Infrastructure

2. Southern Section Community Infrastructure

3. Tanker Jetty Replacement

4. Commercial Development

Prior to the reconnecting the Tanker Jetty to the headland officers engaged BMTJFA Consultants, who have undertaken the coastal engineering aspects of the Waterfront Project, to undertake an assessment of the Tanker Jetty before reopening the Jetty.

BMTJFA Consultants undertook a visual assessment of the superstructure on the 22 and 23 July 2013 and a visual inspection of the substructure occurred on 3 August 2013. The result of the inspections is a position paper outlining work that needs to be undertaken on the Tanker Jetty and an overall assessment of the Jetty condition.

The report states –

The overall condition may be described as severe but sound in calm to moderate conditions. A storm event could cause the weak and damaged sections of the jetty to fail. The location of such failure would depend on particular characteristics of the storm. A lesser storm could also cause significant damage to weak points in the structure

The weak points in the structure identified in the BG&E report and backed up by this condition report are –

· The piles

· The connection between piles and halfcaps

· The lack of effective bracing.

The report outlines issues that need to be addressed prior to opening the Jetty and with 12-24 months of the jetty being opened

On 24 September 2013 O0913-001

That Council

1. Agree to allocate $70,000 to undertake the repair of 6 piles to allow the reopening of the Tanker Jetty

2. Agree to allocate $25,000 to undertake community consultation to determine the requirements of a new Jetty.

3. Approve a budget variation as follows –

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
Tanker Jetty Structural Improvements	Capital Account	70,000	140,000	70,000
Tanker Jetty Community Consultation	Operational Account	0	25,000	25,000
Tanker Jetty Structural Improvement	Reserve Transfer in	0	(95,000)	(95,000)
Net result				0

The Shire of Esperance undertook community consultation utilising Bevan Besson (Tuna Blue) on the 29 to 30 October 2013 to discuss the replacement of the Esperance Tanker Jetty. Four consultation sessions were held including two community forums, a targeted Stakeholders forum and a meeting with Council and Executive of the Shire. In all 136 people attended the forums.

The outcomes from each of the workshops reflected a wide range of perspectives and opinions. However common themes are recognisable and although not supported by every participant, the common themes are the basis of the majority view of the 136 participants who attended the workshops.

The top three views from the participants were –

· Acceptance that the current Tanker Jetty is at the end of its useable life;

· Participants want a replacement structure;

· The replacement structure should be in the same location (ie: the Headland);

Following the report Council resolved the following three decisions –

On 25 March 2014 O0314-002

That Council,

1. Receive the Tanker Jetty Replacement Project Community Consultation Summary of Outcomes Report,

2. Directs the Chief Executive Officer to commence the development of design concepts and cost estimates for the replacement of the Esperance Tanker Jetty as per the Summary of Outcomes Report

3. Adopts the budget amendment as follows –

Description	Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
Tanker Jetty Design	0	40,000	40,000
Tanker Jetty Reserve	812,257	772,257	(40,000)
Net result			0

Officer’s Comment

BMTJFA Consultants undertook a visual assessment of the superstructure on the 17^th and 19^th of November 2015 and a visual inspection of the substructure occurred on 11^th of November 2015. The result of the inspections outlined in the attached report Esperance Jetties Condition Assessments – Condition Inspection and Maintenance Strategy Report (The Report).

The Report outlines:

· The jetty inspection and condition assessments carried out found that as a result of aggregation of poor and failed component condition that the structure had insufficient structural capacity to ensure public safety.

· Urgent repairs of components highlighted as immediate priority are required to Piles and Half Caps.

· Full detailed inspection of all piles is required to fully establish the rate of deterioration of these components.

The Report recommends:

· The Tanker Jetty is closed until at least the immediate priority repairs have been undertaken.

· Consideration be given to reducing the length of the jetty to reduce the backlog repair liability and cost.

· Stage 2 services focus on further definition of repair methodologies and cost estimates of the remaining half of the structure landward of Pier 87.

A condition heat map is located in Appendix A of The Report showing the location and spread of the issues on the Tanker Jetty.

The Report identified many serious structural defects that required the immediate closure of the Tanker Jetty, these include:

Failure of Piers

Failure of Half Caps

Failure of Corbels

There are four option options that have been proposed in The Report for the future of the Tanker Jetty:

· Option 1 – Retain the existing Tanker Jetty for the full length

· Option 2 – Retain the Tanker Jetty to pier 87 which would give a length of 248 meters

· Option 3 - Retain the full length and re-pile

· Option 4 – Permanently close the Tanker Jetty and plan to build a new a Jetty

Option 1– Retain the existing Tanker Jetty for the full length involves the undertaking critical maintenance identified over the over the next year for an estimated maximum life extension of 5 years.

Minimum works required:

· 42 Pile repairs

· 50 Half Cap repairs

· 39 Corbel repairs

· 5 Stringer repairs

· Replace all bolts

Option 2 – Retain the Tanker Jetty to pier 87 which would give a length of 248 meters involves the undertaking critical maintenance identified over the over the next year for an estimated maximum life extension of 5 years. Minimum works required:

· 27 Pile repairs

· 26 Half Cap repairs

· 17 Corbel repairs

· 2 Stringer repairs

· Replace all bolts

Option 3 – Retain the Tanker Jetty full length and re-pile and undertake critical maintenance, this option would give a life extension between 10-20 years. The works would require:

· 224 Re-piles

· 224 New Half Caps

· 39 Corbel repairs

· 5 Stringer repairs

· Replace all bolts

Option 4 – Permanently close the Tanker Jetty and plan to build a new a basic Jetty at a cost of $10,000,000 including demolition. This would allow for the building of a new basic Jetty at 4.5m wide for as long as possible including a hammer head end for Vehicle turn around. Other facilities and extras including a lower fishing platform, shade structures and seating would be applied for under separate funding and grants that are available and have been estimated at a cost of $1,123,000. The life expectancy of a new jetty would be 50 years.

The recommended option is number four (4) to permanently close the Tanker Jetty and plan to build a new a basic Jetty provides the best opportunities going forward based on the Asset Management Implications and financial considerations. Prior to this option to be considered for funding and grant opportunities the Design, Geotechnical Investigation, Specification documentation and Business Case need to be completed.

Consultation

Tanker Jetty Replacement Project Community Consultation was undertaken by Blue Tuna in October 2013 with a report received by council March 2014 - Tanker Jetty Outcomes Report from Community Consultation

The top three views from the participants were –

· Acceptance that the current Tanker Jetty is at the end of its useable life;

· Participants want a replacement structure;

· The replacement structure should be in the same location (ie: the Headland);

Financial Implications

The Tanker Jetty Reserve has approximately $1,893,000 available. This amount would not cover the full demolition of the existing structure. The cost to undertake the Design, Geotechnical Investigation, Specification documentation and Business Case for a new Jetty is estimated to cost $580,000 as detailed in The Report.

Budget variation required to undertake the Design, Geotechnical Investigation, Specification documentation and Business Case.

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
New Jetty Design and Specification	Capital Account	0	580,000	580,000
Tanker Jetty Structural Improvement	Reserve Transfer in	0	(580,000)	(580,000)
Net result				0

Asset Management Implications

The table below shows the Asset Management implication of each option.

· Option 1 – Retain the existing Tanker Jetty for the full length

· Option 2 – Retain the Tanker Jetty to pier 87 which would give a length of 248 meters

· Option 3 - Retain the full length and re-pile

· Option 4 – Permanently close the Tanker Jetty and plan to build a new a Jetty

Capital	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4
Immediate	490,000	306,000	74,000
6 Month	713,800	349,200	8,804,877	570,000
12 Months	2,879,000	4,571,221	133,000	4,714,000
24 Months	2,778,000	1,423,000	2,060,000	1,123,000
Demolition at end of life	4,792,000	2,966,221	4,792,000	4,792,000
TOTAL	$11,652,800	$9,615,642	$15,863,877	$11,199,000
Life Expectancy (Years)	Max 5 Years	Max 5 Years	10-20 Years	50 Years
Life Expectancy Used	5	5	15	50
Annualised Expenses
Economic Cost @ 4% pa	466,112	384,626	634,555	447,960
Depreciation	2,330,560	1,923,128	1,057,592	223,980
Inspections	200,000	120,000	100,000	20,000
Maintenance / Operation	100,000	100,000	75,000	50,000
Total Annualised Expense	$3,096,672	$2,527,754	$1,867,147	$741,940

As can be seen in the table above the most economical decision available is Option 4 – Permanently close the Tanker Jetty and plan to build a new a Jetty.

Policy Implications

Policy ENG 017 Esperance Tanker Jetty Use will need to be reviewed.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022

Social

Strategy

1.2 Create a vibrant built environment that is accessible and inclusive and reflects the Shire’s identity and local heritage

1.6 Develop and promote active and passive sport and recreation opportunities for all ages

Economic

Strategy

3.1 Deliver a diverse range of affordable services and infrastructure across the Shire

3.2 Ensure essential services and infrastructure are aligned to community needs now and in the future

3.4 Create and strengthen partnerships to advocate for and deliver community facilities, and services and major infrastructure

3.5 Maintain the Shire’s robust asset management practices and maintenance programs

Corporate Business Plan 2013/2014 – 2016/2017

Action 3.2.2 Plan for and seek funding for Esperance Waterfront Stage 3 – Tanker Jetty Replacement

Environmental Considerations

There are no Environmental Considerations with this item.

Attachments

a .

Esperance Jetties Condition Assesments - Condition Inspection and Mainteance Strategy Report

That Council:

1. Endorse the decision to permanently close the Esperance Tanker Jetty;

2. Prioritise the Tanker Jetty Replacement project, at a notional value of $10,000,000 (inclusive of demolition), subject to detail design and specifications;

3. Pursue all external funding opportunities to minimize the cost of the Tanker Jetty Replacement to the ratepayers;

4. Authorise the CEO to undertake the Design, Geotechnical Investigation, Specification documentation and Business Case for a replacement Jetty; and

5. Approve a budget variation as follows –

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
New Jetty Documentation	Capital Account	0	580,000	580,000
Tanker Jetty Structural Improvement	Reserve Transfer in	0	(580,000)	(580,000)
Net result				0

Voting Requirement Absolute Majority

Special Council: Agenda

22 December 2015 Page 70

Item: 6.2

Airport Fees and Charges

Author/s	Trevor Ayers	Executive Manager Commercial Division
Authorisor/s	Terry Sargent	Director External Services

File Ref: D15/31078

Applicant

N/A

Executive Summary

This item seeks to confirm the fees that will apply to Regional Express Holding Limited (REX) at the Esperance Airport when they replace Virgin Airlines (VARA) as the provider of regulated passenger services between Esperance and Perth. It also seeks to authorize the CEO to negotiate a lease for terminal facilities that will no longer be required by REX to provide that service.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council

1. Advise Regional Express Holding Limited (REX)

a. That the existing aerodrome passenger fee will continue to apply for the remainder of the current financial year, and

b. That the aerodrome screening charge will only apply in the event that security screening is undertaken.

2. Request the CEO to review the 20 year financial projections for the airport prior to the next municipal budget being finalised.

3. Authorize the CEO to negotiate a lease with REX for the use of airport terminal facilities at a commercial rate that is not less that that provided by an independent valuer.

Background

Council recently hosted a meeting with the Minister for Transport and REX. The minister confirmed that a deed had been executed, appointing REX as the airline servicing the regulated passenger route between Esperance and Perth. At this meeting the shire was requested to confirm the fees that would apply when REX replaces VARA on the 28^th of February 2016.

REX has advised that it will be utilising aircraft with a mass of less than 20,000kg, which will negate the need for security screening under current requirements. It will also be operating three flights per weekday and three each weekend, overnighting a plane in Esperance six out of seven nights of the week.

This item seeks to confirm the fees for REX for the remainder of the current financial year and to enable the CEO to negotiate a lease with REX to enable it to use the facilities currently leased by VARA. (The terminal space lease expires on the same date as the deed which appointed VARA.)

Officer’s Comment

The airport fees and charges are calculated with the aim of maintaining it as a self-funded operation.

They are calculated to cover both the operational costs and provide for future major maintenance and replacement requirements.

Any significant operational changes, such as those expected between the current operations and anticipated requirements under the proposed REX model have the potential impact to the net operating cost of the airport. However, on the information currently available an accurate assessment is just not possible.

Currently a charge of $23 per passenger is levied, along with a screening charge of $41 for each outgoing passenger. The screening charge is only levied if screening is undertaken, and will therefore not be a requirement under the current proposal from REX.

With only four months of the current financial year remaining it seems prudent to retain the current fees while assessing the cost implications of the new operations before adjusting (increasing or decreasing) the fees to achieve Council’s self-funding objective. The data gained can inform a review of the impacts of the new airline operations on the 20 year financial projections of the airport. Any increase or decrease in costs (including adjustment for any unforeseen losses or gains can then be factored in to future passenger fees during the normal Council budget process.

Consultation

This item has had input from the CEO, Director External Services, Manager Commercial Enterprises and Airport Coordinator.

The recommendation has also been informed by discussions with the Department of Transport and REX as well as the recent presentation to Council by the Minister for Transport and REX representatives.

Financial Implications

There will be financial implications arising from changes to the regulated passenger air service (by the Minister for Transport) that necessitates the discontinuation of security screening at the airport. These will be addressed at budget review.

Retention of the existing passenger fee and negotiation of a lease with the new service provider is not expected to have a significant financial implication.

Asset Management Implications

Asset Management implications, should any be identified, will be considered as part of the review of 20 year financial projections for the airport.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2012 - 2022

Economic

Deliver a diverse range of affordable services and infrastructure across the Shire

A range of services, facilities and programs that the broadest community can access

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

1. Advise Regional Express Holding Limited (REX)

a. That the existing aerodrome passenger fee will continue to apply for the remainder of the current financial year, and

b. That the aerodrome screening charge will only apply in the event that security screening is undertaken.

2. Request the CEO to review the 20 year financial projections for the airport prior to the next municipal budget being finalised.

3. Authorize the CEO to negotiate a lease with REX for the use of airport terminal facilities at a commercial rate that is not less that that provided by an independent valuer.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Item: 6.3

Napier Road Intersection

Author/s	Amelia Rolton	Personal Assistant - Asset Management
Authorisor/s	Mathew Walker	Acting Director Asset Management

File Ref: D15/31091

Applicant

Asset Management

Location/Address

Executive Summary

To inform Council on the progress of the Napier Road intersection safety improvements

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Note the correspondence from Main Roads rejecting Council’s request to lower the speed limit on South Coast Highway to 80km/hr at Napier Road intersection;

2. Request the CEO to submit a Black Spot funding application in conjunction with Main Roads to improve visibility at the Napier Road intersection; and

3. Request the CEO advise Napier Road and Old Ford Road residents of Council’s resolution.

Background

At the Council Meeting held on the 26th August 2014, Council resolved

That Council

1. Close the intersection of Murray Road and South Coast Highway in accordance with the Local Government Act 1991 Section 3.50 and attached plan as approved by Main Roads WA.

2. Remove all mail boxes currently located at the intersection of Murray Road and South Coast Highway to either Chartwell Land or Napier Road dependant on where the owner of the mail box resides.

3. Once the closure is complete undertake a Road Safety Audit on the intersection of South Coast Highway and Napier Road.

The latest traffic counts taken between 29 January and the 5 February 2015 show that the average daily vehicle count was 47 vehicles per day with 91.5% being cars or small trucks (2 axle trucks).

At the Council Meeting held on the 26 May 2015, Council resolved

That Council

1. Request Main Roads WA to reduce the speed limit to 80km/hr on the South Coast Highway in the vicinity of Napier Road based on the following –

1. Substandard safe intersection site distances when exiting Napier Road.

2. At 80km/hr the existing site distances meet the required safe intersection site distances as defined by Austroads.

3. The vertical alignment of South Coast Highway does not meet the Austroads standards for 110km/hr.

2. Seek the support of local Members of State Government in regards to the Shire’s request to Main Roads.

Officer’s Comment

Correspondence was forwarded to Main Roads on the 9 June 2015 advising them of the Council resolution requesting Main Roads to reduce the speed limit, on South Coast Highway, to 80km/hr adjacent to the intersection with Napier Road. A copy of the correspondence and previous Council report was sent to members of parliament from the Mining and Pastoral Region electorate seeking their support of the request to Main Roads.

A response from Main Roads was received on 18 November 2015 advising that “Lowering the legal speed limit is a departure from the standards and principles followed in setting speed limits and Main Roads does not support this proposal.”

Main Roads advised that “the Approach Sight Distance (ASD) and Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) at the intersection can be improved to mitigate the risk, but not eliminate it. TO achieve this however, significant reconstruction works are required on both the highway and Napier Road. The justification to undertake this work is low in the absence of any crash history involving vehicles from Napier Road and the low traffic volume on that road.

It is for Council to decide whether Napier Road should remain open or closed to traffic. If the intersection does remain open Main Roads will consider what other treatments could be undertaken at the intersection to improve its visibility. However such treatments would not necessarily correct the geometric deficiencies at the intersection that contribute to the low sight distance. While Napier Road remains open to traffic an element of risk will always be present for motorists at the intersection.”

In August 2015, the Shire of Esperance in conjunction with Main Roads submitted a co-contribution submission for the 2016/2017 Federal and State Black Spot programs. This submission is for National or State Black Spot funding to improve the intersection of Napier Road and South Coast Highway. The submission was recommended by Main Roads and the State Government. It was recommended that the joint submission to the Federal Black Spot program was submitted by Main Roads only. The Main Roads application for the National funding application will be evaluated with an announcement expected in May 2016.

Consultation

Main Roads WA

A letter and a copy of this report will been sent to the 17 property owners on Napier Road and Old Ford Road

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are associated with MRWA, who is the statutory agency responsible for the setting of speed limits on the road network.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2012 – 2022

Economic

3.3 Deliver and advocate for a diverse and safe transport system which is efficient and meets the needs of all users.

Attachments

Response - Main Roads

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1. Note the correspondence from Main Roads rejecting Council’s request to lower the speed limit on South Coast Highway to 80km/hr at Napier Road intersection;

2. Request the CEO to submit a Black Spot funding application in conjunction with Main Roads to improve visibility at the Napier Road intersection; and

3. Request that the CEO advise Napier Road and Old Ford Road residents of Council’s resolution.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Disclosure of Financial, Proximity or Impartiality Interests

Local Government Act 1995 – Section 5.65, 5.70 and 5.71 and Local Government (Administration) Regulation 34C

Declaration of Interest (Notes for Your Guidance)