6 November 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Shire of Esperance

 

 

Special Council

NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA

 

A Special Council meeting of the Shire of Esperance will be held at Council Chambers on 8 November 2016 commencing at 2pm to consider the matters set out in the attached agenda.

 

W M (Matthew) Scott

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

 

No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the Shire of Esperance for any act, omission or statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. The Shire of Esperance disclaims any liability for any loss whatsoever and howsoever caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission or statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council or Committee meeting does so at that person’s or legal entity’s own risk.

 

In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by a member or officer of the Shire of Esperance during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the Shire of Esperance. The Shire of Esperance warns that anyone who has any application lodged with the Shire of Esperance must obtain and should only rely on written confirmation of the outcome of the application, and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Shire of Esperance in respect of the application.

 

 

 

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 

Council is committed to a code of conduct and all decisions are based on an honest assessment of the issue, ethical decision-making and personal integrity. Councillors and staff adhere to the statutory requirements to declare financial, proximity and impartiality interests and once declared follow the legislation as required.

      

ATTACHMENTS

 

Please be advised that in order to save printing and paper costs, all attachments referenced in this paper are available in the original Agenda document for this meeting.

 

 

Agenda Briefing ¨            Ordinary Council Meeting ¨                    Both Meetings  ¨

Name of Person Declaring the Interest:

Position:                                                             Date of Meeting:

This form is provided to enable members and officers to disclose an Interest in the matter in accordance with the regulations of Section 5.65, 5.70 and 5.71 of the Local Government Act and Local Government (Administration) Regulation 34C.

Interest Disclosed   Item No:   Subject:   Nature of Interest:   Type of Interest:            Financial                  Proximity                Impartiality

Interest Disclosed   Item No:   Subject:   Nature of Interest:   Type of Interest:            Financial                  Proximity                Impartiality

Interest Disclosed   Item No:   Subject:   Nature of Interest:   Type of Interest:            Financial                  Proximity                Impartiality

 

Signature:                                                                   Date:

Office Use Only: Entered into interest Register:                                                                                                                      Officer                                          Date

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

1.         OFFICIAL OPENING   8

2.         ATTENDANCE  8

3.         APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE  8

4.         DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS: 8

4.1      Declarations of Financial Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60a  8

4.2      Declarations of Proximity Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60b  8

4.3      Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34c  8

5.         PUBLIC QUESTION TIME  8

6.         Purpose of Meeting   9

6.1      Tanker Jetty Petition  9

6.2      Esperance Tanker Jetty Furture  14

7.         Matters behind Closed Doors  24

7.1      0006-16 Demolition Esperance Tanker Jetty  24

8.         CLOSURE  24

 

 

 

1.       OFFICIAL OPENING

2.       ATTENDANCE

Members

Cr V Brown                                      President                  Rural Ward

Cr N Bowman                                  Deputy President     Rural Ward

Cr J Parsons                                                                     Town Ward

Cr P Griffiths                                                                    Town Ward

Cr K Hall                                                                           Town Ward

Cr L McIntyre                                                                   Town Ward

Cr R Padgurskis                                                               Town Ward

Cr B Stewart, JP                                                              Town Ward

Cr B Parker                                                                      Rural Ward

Shire Officers

Mr W M (Matthew) Scott                   Chief Executive Officer

Mr S Burge                                       Director Corporate Resources

Mr M Walker                                     Director Asset Management

Mr T Sargent                                    Director External Services

Mr A Hughes                                    Manager Projects

Miss S Fitzgerald                              Administration Officer

Members of the Public & Press

 

 

3.       APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

 

4.       DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS:

4.1     Declarations of Financial Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60a

4.2     Declarations of Proximity Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60b

4.3     Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34c

 

5.       PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

 

6.       Purpose of Meeting

Item: 6.1  

Tanker Jetty Petition

Author/s	Priscilla Davies	Manager Executive Services
Authorisor/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer

 

File Ref: D16/26621

 

Applicant

The Jetty Group Inc

 

Location/Address

Not Applicable

 

Executive Summary

The Jetty Group Inc has delivered the originals of the document generally titled Save Our Jetty petition for Council to review.

 

Recommendation in Brief

That Council receive the document as presented by The Jetty Group Inc and acknowledge the expression of community and regional interest in the Esperance Tanker Jetty.

 

Background

A petition is a formal written request by at least two members of the community, utilised to appeal a personal or local grievance they may have with Council. A petition generally asks for a decision to be reconsidered and altered in some way. The intent behind the petition presented to Council from the Jetty Group was to request a review of the decision made at a Special Council meeting held on the 2^nd February regarding the future of the Tanker Jetty. The resolution being:

S0216-001

That Council:

1.   Authorise the CEO to initiate the preparation of specifications and tender documents for the demolition of the Tanker Jetty, including all required permits, approvals.

2.   Authorise the CEO to call for tenders for the demolition of the Tanker Jetty.

3.   Authorise the CEO to continue to seek designs and funding for a replacement jetty.

4.   Approve a budget variation as follows –

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
Demolition of Esperance Tanker Jetty	Capital Account	0	1,800,000	1,800,000
Tanker Jetty Repairs	Reserve Transfer in	0	(900,000)	(900,000)
Priority Projects	Reserve Transfer in	0	(900,000)	(900,000)
Net result				0

 

 

The Shire of Esperance Standing Orders 2015 outline the way a petition is be collated and presented to Council. This is reflective of state requirements and other local government’s standing orders.

3.6              Petitions

(1)     A petition, in order to be effective, is to-

(a)     be addressed to the President;

(b)     be made by electors of the district;

(c)     state the request on each page of the petition;

(d)     contain the names, addresses and signatures of the electors making the request, and the date each elector signed;

(e)     contain a summary of the reasons for the request;

(f)      state the name of the person upon whom, and an address at which, notice to the petitioners can be given;

(g)     be in the form prescribed by the Act and Local Government (Constitution) Regulations 1996 if it is-

                   (i)      a proposal to change the method of filling the office of President;

(ii)      a submission about changes to wards, the name of a district or ward or the number of councillors for a district or ward.

(2)     An electronic petition, in order to be effective, is to-

(a)     be addressed to the President;

(b)     be made by electors of the district;

(c)     contain the name, addresses and email address of the electors making the request, and the date each elector completed the petition;

(d)     contain a summary of the reasons for the request;

(e)     state the email address and name of the person upon whom, notice to the petitioners can be given;

(f)      an electronic petition cannot be made for the following:

                   (i)      a proposal to change the method of filling the office of President;

(ii)      a submission about changes to wards, the name of a district or ward or the number of
          councillors for a district or ward.

(3)     A member may at the end of the business of petitions–

(a)     move that a matter be referred to a future Council or committee meeting for reporting; or

(b)     where the matter is the subject of a report in the meeting agenda, move that a change be made to the order of business of the meeting to allow the matter to be debated immediately.

The person presiding will put the question without debate or may defer the question to a future council meeting.

The petition presented to Council does not meet the requirements outlined in the Shire of Esperance Standing Orders 2015.

A review of the submissions received shows a few discrepancies:

·   There are three different versions used for the request to Council, with a number of sheets not displaying the request

·   There are some duplications, where people have signed multiple times or pages have been copied twice

·   There are some fictional names

·   Some sheets have been presented displaying only names and signatures

 

 

Officer’s Comment

While the document presented does not meet the requirements of a petition under the Shire of Esperance Standing Orders 2015, they can be received as an acknowledgement of an expression of local and regional community support for a jetty.

This Special Council Meeting was called by Council to make a determination on the Tanker Jetty, the request made by the Jetty Group Inc in the ‘Save Our Jetty’ submission will be addressed as a part of this determination.

 

Consultation

N/A

 

Financial Implications

N/A

 

Asset Management Implications

N/A

 

Statutory Implications

N/A

 

Policy Implications

N/A

 

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2012 - 2022

Civic Leadership

Ensure open and consistent communication between the Shire and the community

A community who is aware of Council decisions and activities

 

Corporate Business Plan 2013/2014 – 2016/2017

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

 

Environmental Considerations

N/A

 

Attachments

a.	Cover Letter - Petition - Save Our Jetty - The Jetty Group
b.	Petition - Save Our Jetty - The Jetty Group - Received 31/10/2016

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation That Council receive the document as presented by The Jetty Group Inc and acknowledge the expression of community and regional interest in the Esperance Tanker Jetty. Voting Requirement                       Simple Majority

 

 

 

Attachment B

Petition - Save Our Jetty - The Jetty Group - Received 31/10/2016

Due to size constraints the petition has been uploaded to the Shire website under Your Council, Council, Council Meetings (www.esperance.wa.gov.au/council-meetings) for viewing. Alternatively the original can be viewed at the Shire Administration Building during Business Hours.
Item: 6.2

Esperance Tanker Jetty Furture

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

 

File Ref: D16/26611

 

Applicant

Internal

 

Location/Address

Esperance Tanker Jetty

 

Executive Summary

To enable the Council to determine whether there is any basis for reconsidering its decision to proceed with the demolition of the Tanker Jetty.

 

Recommendation in Brief

That Council, receive the Jetty Group Inc. Research Report Bonacci Infrastructure Tanker Jetty, Esperance Remediation Report, GHD Esperance Tanker Jetty Remediation Options Review, Independent Peer Review and determine there is still no feasible and prudent alternative but to continue with the demolition and replacement of the Esperance Tanker Jetty.

 

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 81 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.

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, 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.

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 reconnecting the Tanker Jetty to the headland officers engaged BMTJFA Consultants, who have undertaken the coastal engineering aspects of the Waterfront Project, to complete  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 done 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

The Shire of Esperance undertook community consultation utilising Bevan Besson (Tuna Blue) in late 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 (outcome report available via the Shire’s website).  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);

Based on these workshops, basic concepts designs on possible replacement elements were developed, and displayed at 2014 Esperance Agricultural Show. 

As part of the regular inspections required for the Tanker Jetty. 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).

Esperance Jetties Condition Assessments – Condition Inspection and Maintenance Strategy Report (The Report), identified many serious structural defects that required the immediate closure of the Tanker Jetty.

Following the report Council resolved the following –

On 22 December 2015 S1215-003

That Council:

1.   Endorse the decision to close the Esperance Tanker Jetty based on the current BMT JFA Consultants report.

2.   Defer any action until Council has had an opportunity to discuss further options concerning the Tanker Jetty, no later than 31 January 2016.

The Esperance Tanker Jetty has been deteriorating exponentially since it was closed in November 2015. Since the last report, and based on the level of subsequent deterioration, demolition is now considered a priority.

At the Special Council meeting held on 2 February 2016 Council resolved to:

1.   Authorise the CEO to initiate the preparation of specifications and tender documents for the demolition of the Tanker Jetty, including all required permits, approvals.

2.   Authorise the CEO to call for tenders for the demolition of the Tanker Jetty.

3.   Authorise the CEO to continue to seek designs and funding for a replacement jetty.

4.   Approve a budget variation as follows –

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
Demolition of Esperance Tanker Jetty	Capital Account	0	1,800,000	1,800,000
Tanker Jetty Repairs	Reserve Transfer in	0	(900,000)	(900,000)
Priority Projects	Reserve Transfer in	0	(900,000)	(900,000)
Net result				0

Following the above resolution council received approval for demolition of the jetty by the Heritage Council of Western Australia subject to the following conditions:

·     A detailed archival record of the jetty is created

·     The footprint of the Jetty is retained

·     The interpretation plan for the jetty is updated

·     The Shire shall enter into an agreement with the Heritage Council  for ongoing maintenance of any interpretive installations

 

At the Special Council meeting on the 8 April 2016 Council resolved to:

1.   Advise the Heritage Council that, as per Section 11 (3)(c) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act, there is no feasible or prudent alternative except to demolish the Tanker Jetty, as preserving the current structure would impose unsustainable long-term economic costs to the Esperance Community;

2.  As far as reasonably practicable meet the conditions set out by Heritage Council for the demolition of the Tanker Jetty;

3.   Publish the contents of the letter from the Heritage Council as an attachment to the minutes of this meeting;

4.   Request the CEO to include in the Tender for Demolition documentation advice that alternate tenders that acknowledge the heritage value will be considered; and

5.   Authorise the CEO to investigate suitable public uses for useable Tanker Jetty timbers that are recovered.

Following this resolution the Heritage Council have since advised that the requirements by the Heritage Council for the demolition of the jetty have been met.

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on the 23 August 2016 council considered the Tanker Jetty demolition tender and made the following resolution O0816-044:

That Council:

1.   Determines that the shortlisted tenderers in respect of RFT 0006-16 are - 

a.      Carey Marine and Civil

b.      Crossview Enterprises

c.      SMC Marine

2.   Requests the shortlisted tenderers to extend their tender validity period until 8 November 2016.

3.   In response to the letter from the State Heritage Office to the Shire received on 19 August 2016 -

a.   Accepts the invitation for the Shire to give a presentation to the Heritage Council at its meeting on 9 September 2016; and

b.   Agrees to the request to defer a decision on the successful tenderer under RFT 0006-16, until the Special Council Meeting on 8 November 2016;

4.   Invites the Jetty Group Inc. to provide to the Shire, by close of business on 31 October 2016, an engineering report including whole of life costs and other information relating to the demolition or retention of the Tanker Jetty; and

5.   Proposes that at the Special Council Meeting on 8 November 2016, the Council, subject to any decision in the meantime by the Minister for Heritage on the requested Conservation (Stop Work) Order, considers a report from the CEO dealing with the matters referred to in points 1 - 4 of this resolution so as to enable the Council to determine -

a.   Whether there is any basis for reconsidering its decision to proceed with the demolition of the Tanker Jetty; and

b.    If not, to determine which of the shortlisted tenderers it will accept, for the purpose of entering into a contract for the demolition of the Tanker Jetty.

 

 

Officer’s Comment

The shortlisted tenderers of RFT 0006-16 Demolition Esperance Tanker Jetty were notified in writing and asked to extend their tender validity until the 8^th November 2016. The decision of potential awarding of this tender is presented to Council as a separate item of business included in this Special Council Meeting.

The Shire of Esperance accepted the State Heritage Office invitation to present at its 9^th September 2016 Heritage Council meeting; subsequently given the timeline this item was pushed back to the Heritage Council’s 14^th October 2016 meeting. Following this meeting the Shire received a letter from the Heritage Council included in Attachment A with the following advice from the Heritage Council:

·      It’s advice from 21 March 2016 remains unchanged (if there is no feasible and prudent option but to demolish the Tanker Jetty the Shire can proceed with demolition);

·      Undertake a review of the proposed engineering solutions including an independent  review of the engineering; and

·      Receive and review legal advice on who is the appropriate authority and decision maker for the purpose of the Heritage Act.

Since this letter the Shire has had contact with the Heritage Council who has confirmed that Special Council Meeting on the 8^th November 2016 will enable the Council to consider if the engineering solution from the Jetty Group Inc. is a feasible and prudent alternative. The Shire has also received and reviewed legal advice on the appropriate authority and decision maker for the purpose of the Heritage Act., this advice is included in Attachment B, confirming that it has the authority to make this decision.

The Shire has also sought legal advice on what is “feasible and prudent” in context of the Heritage Act. This advice is included in attachment C. The advice confirms that it is the Council, who after genuinely considering the options; determine what is feasible and prudent and what is not.

As per the resolution of Council on the 26^th August 2016 Council invited the Jetty Group Inc. to provide to the Shire, by close of business on 31^st October 2016, an engineering report (Bonacci Report) including whole of life costs and other information relating to the demolition or retention of the Tanker Jetty. Shire Officers received the hard copy submission on Friday 28^th October 2016 and then an updated electronic copy on the 31^st October 2016. Please see attached the full submission in attachment D. As per the Council resolution Shire officers have had the engineering and whole of life costing evaluated.

Two (2) options are considered in the Bonacci report, being Baseline Case (option 1), involving replacing the substructure of the Jetty with steel (piles and frame), and an Improved Aesthetic and Heritage Case (option 2), being a full wooden restoration, however with the timber piles are wrapped to improved  durability (Full details of these options are discussed in attachment D). It should be noted that the Baseline option is very similar to the BMT JFA option to repile the existing jetty, considered by Council in Feburary 2016. The Bonacci report only provides costing information with regards to the Baseline case, and there is no costing information on the full wooden restoration option.   

An independent peer review was undertaken by GHD of both the BMT JFA report and the Bonacci Infrastructure (Bonacci) report. The peer review focused on the engineering and whole of life costings of both reports. The scope of the peer review was as follows:

·     Deliver review by COB 4 November 2016.

·     GHD to approach Bonacci and BMT independently to obtain verified current/latest copies of both reports.

·     Focus on the engineering aspects of Bonacci report, except as noted next.

·     Obtain brief comment from heritage consultant on the heritage value of what would be left of the original structure if Bonacci proposal was undertaken.

·     Detailed QS costings of Bonacci proposal and BMT JFA report’s

·     Life expectancy of retained materials if Bonacci proposal were adopted, i.e., stringers and deck planks

·     Overall feasibility of Bonacci proposal,

·     Whole life costings of Bonacci option.

·     Comment on construction programmes and timings, Bonacci vs BMT.

 

As a separate item provide:

·    Whole life costings of GHD’s concept options, traditional versus contemporary.

The peer review is included in attachment E. It should be noted that GHD were not able to obtain the verified copy from Bonacci and has had to review the Tanker Jetty, Esperance Remediation Report revised draft B 11/10/2016 as presented by the Shire. 

The details on the feasibility of the Bonacci proposal are detailed in the peer review. With the following summary provided below:

“The details on Overall, there are a lot of queries which would need to be answered prior to confirming whether the proposed reconstruction works are feasible or not. Note that of the original materials, only the timber stringers and timber decking are proposed for reuse, with a question mark around the feasibility of this.”

In considering the feasibility of the Bonacci proposal Council also need to consider the risks associated with the solution given that it is proposed to use existing stringer as structural members and the deck as form work for the new concrete deck. A detailed list of risk is included in the peer review.

A Quantity Survey of each option was undertaken by RBB, who were engaged by GHD an extract of the cost estimates are detailed below. Option 3 in the table a full jetty repair with new vertical piles is the same cost for both BMT JFA and Bonacci as they are both the same concept proposed, also note that this cost has been calculated on the pile size provided by Bonacci, if this pile size were required to be increased as indicated in the peer review the cost of this proposal would increase.

 

	Scope	RBB $	BMT JFA $	BONACCI $
1	Repair whole jetty	$10,930,000	$12,816,600	N/A
2	Repair half jetty/demo half	$7,360,000	$10,212,621	N/A
3	Fully jetty repair, new vertical piles	$11,230,000	$14,571,877	$7,111,756
4	Demo entire jetty	$2,950,000	$4,471,976	N/A
5	New half jetty, demo outer half	$9,480,000	$11,199,000	N/A

Details on the asset management implications are detailed later in this report.

A review of the heritage outcomes of the Bonacci proposals have been measured against the Statement of Significance as detailed as detailed in the State Heritage Places Register by Hocking Heritage Studio included in the peer review. “As a summary, the proposals submitted by Bonacci have a low to moderate heritage outcomes”. Heritage outcomes are listed below:

Positive heritage outcomes:

· Retention of the Tanker Jetty, Esperance in its original location and its current scale and length;

· Continuation of Tanker Jetty, Esperance to be used in a recreational manner by the community and visitors; and

· Retention of a local landmark. 

 

Negative heritage outcomes:

· Substantial loss of existing fabric;

· Altered aesthetic;

· Altered construction methodology;

· Loss of authenticity; and

· Disturbance of potential archaeology.

While it is noted there will be substantial loss of existing fabric, this needs to be hightlighted as the jetty will cease to be one of the three (3) remaining timber jetties in the state if repaired by the proposed method.

The Bonacci option gives a detailed concept of the BMT JFA re-piling option. The high level engineering evaluation on feasibility of the concept does throw up some queries in relation to how it would be implemented and would have to be investigated further before determining if this is a feasible proposal. The prudent side of the equation is considered in Asset Management Implications, where the proposal to demolish and replace has the best economic benefits for the community. Given the capital cost of this option totals approximately $11.2 Million as detailed in the Quantity Survey report and the heritage outcomes are considered low-moderate the Bonacci proposal is not considered to be a feasible and prudent alternative to the demolition and replacement of the Tanker Jetty.

Should Council consider that there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the demolition and replacement of the Esperance Tanker Jetty an alternative recommendation is included as follows:

That Council:

1.    Receive the Esperance Tanker Jetty Options Research Report by the Jetty Group Inc. including the Bonacci Infrastructure Tanker Jetty, Esperance Remediation Report;

2.    Receive the GHD Esperance Tanker Jetty Remediation Options Review, Independent Peer Review;

3.    Acknowledge that the restoration option presented to Council offers a feasible and prudent alternative to demolition of the Tanker Jetty and request the CEO to investigate this option further; and

4.    Request the CEO to present to Council a report that deals with previous Council resolutions regarding the demolition of the Tanker Jetty.

   

Consultation

Heritage Council Western Australia

Department of Transport

Southern Ports Authority, Port of Esperance

McLeods Barristers & Solicitors

Department Environmental Regulation

Community Consultation facilitated by Tuna Blue

LGIS

 

Financial Implications

The Shire of Esperance Long Term Financial Plan includes an allocation of $140,000 pa for the ongoing capital and maintenance costs of the Tanker Jetty.

The Tanker Jetty Reserve currently holds approximately $1.2 Million in reserve with the Tanker Jetty Demotion budget of $1.8 Million.

If the decision is made for the Tanker Jetty to remain in its current form for however long, the Shire insurers LGIS have recommended that the Shire implements a regular inspection regime. Shire Officers anticipate that a weekly inspection regime would likely cost of up to $40,000 per annum.

 

 

Asset Management Implications

The asset management implications for each option are detailed below with the cost detailed in the peer review, with the exception of demolition cost being pulled out of the capital cost. The demolition costs are based on the Shires current budget. As per the peer review recommendation Maintenance costs are based on the 2% rule of the capital cost (excluding any demolition costs). If grant funding is able to be sourced the economic cost of each item can be reduced to 4% of the amount the shire will contribute towards the project.

 

	BMT JFA				Bonacci	GHD
Type of Work	Repair Full	Repair 1/2 Demolish 1/2	Repile	Replace	Repile	Replace
Demolition		$1,000,000		$1,800,000		$1,800,000
Capital (RBB $)	$10,930,000	$6,030,000	$11,230,000	$7,220,000	$11,230,000	$6,000,000
Life Expectancy (Years)	Max 5 Years	Max 5 Years	10-20 Years	50 Years	30-50 Years	50 Years
Life Expectancy Used	5	5	20	50	50	50
Annualised Expenses
Economic Cost @ 4% pa	437,200	281,200	449,200	360,800	449,200	312,000
Depreciation	2,186,000	1,206,000	561,500	144,400	224,600	120,000
Maintenance @ 2%	218,600	120,600	224,600	144,400	224,600	120,000
Total Annualised Expense	$2,841,800	$1,607,800	$1,235,300	$649,600	$898,400	$552,000
$Per Ratepayer	$375.70	$212.56	$163.31	$85.88	$118.77	$72.98
% above lowest option	415%	191%	124%	18%	63%	0%

 

In assessing the annualised expenses the repile assessment has been based on the figures provided by RBB, the Quantity Surveyors engaged by GHD who have assessed all engineering reports, as this is deemed to represent the most prudent approach, given concerns raised with regards to the methodology used by the various marine engineers in their reports.  The above table clearly demonstrates a $346,400 pa difference between the Bonacci proposal and the GHD replacement option (currently factored in the Shire’s Long Term Financial Plan).  This equates to a 1.85% rate increase (based on 2016/17 Rates) above the current provisions in the Shire’s strategic documents. 

 

Statutory Implications

There are no Statutory Implications with this item.

 

Policy Implications

Nil

 

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 2016/2017 – 2019/2020

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

 

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations will be considered as part of the demolition permit process.

 

Attachments

a.	Letter - Heritage Council 19 Oct 2016
b.	Legal Advice - Neil Douglas - McLeods Barristers & Solicitors - Decision Maker - Confidential
c.	Legal Advice - Neil Douglus - McLeods Barristers & Solicitors - Feasible and Prudent - Confidential
d.	Report - Esperance Tanker Jetty Options Research Report Final V2 - Under Separate Cover
e.	Report - GHD - Peer Review of Tanker Jetty Options - Under Separate Cover

 

That Council 1.  Receive the Esperance Tanker Jetty Options Research Report by the Jetty Group Inc. including the Bonacci Infrastructure Tanker Jetty, Esperance Remediation Report; 2.  Receive the GHD Esperance Tanker Jetty Remediation Options Review, Independent Peer Review; 3.  Determine there is still no feasible and prudent alternative but to continue with the demolition and replacement of the Esperance Tanker Jetty; and 4.  Thank the Jetty Group Inc. for time and effort in obtaining another opinion for the restoration of the Esperance Tanker Jetty. Voting Requirement              Simple Majority

 

 

  

 

7.       Matters behind Closed Doors

Officer’s Comment:

It is recommended that the meeting is behind closed doors for the following item, in accordance with section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

Item: 7.1  

0006-16 Demolition Esperance Tanker Jetty

 

Confidential Item

This report is considered confidential in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, as it relates to 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 (Section 5.23(2)(c)).

 

  

8.       CLOSURE