July 2009 - District Council of Elliston

The District Council of Elliston
Monday 20 July 2009
Elliston Council Chambers

The District Council of Elliston
Date: Monday 20 July 2009
Time: 9.30am
Venue: Elliston Council Chambers
........................................................
ROB GREGOR
Chief Executive Officer
AGENDA
9.30am
Welcome
1 Public Question Time
9.40am 2 Apologies
9.45am 3 Confirmation of Minutes
That the minutes of the Special Meeting held on the 4 June 2009, Ordinary
Meeting held on 15 June 2009 as circulated and tabled in the minute book be
taken as read and confirmed.
9.50am 4 Conflict of Interest
Elected Member and Officers Declaration of matters that may constitute
Conflict of Interest, in relation to the Agenda business of this meeting.
5 Business Arising from Minutes
Lock & District Heritage Museum
275.2008 That a information flyer be distributed to the Lock and districts community
followed by a community information meeting to be held in February 2009 to
inform the public of the current issues with a public survey to then be
distributed outlining the background of the situation and future management
options.
Cr Burrows/ Cr Hancock
CARRIED
Motion 275.2008-Lock & District Heritage Museum
285.2008 That action on motion 275.2008 be deferred until September 2009.
Cr Ridgway/Cr Hancock
CARRIED
Commodity Route Applications
008.2009 That the Question lay on the Table until after the planned roads assessment has
been completed.
Cr Burrows/Cr Hancock
CARRIED
National Urban Water and Desalination Plan
022.2009 That administration closely monitors the National Water Security Plan for Cities
and Towns website for information on the new program.
Cr Hitchcock/Cr Ridgway
CARRIED

Rates Exemption Request
That Council authorise the write off of rates amounting to $269.10 on Assessment
Number 93 70435504, being allotment 3 Railway Terrace, Lock due to the
property being exempt from rates pursuant to the Railways (Operation & Access)
Act 1997.
195.2009 That the motion lay on the table, until further investigation on use of the land is
undertaken.
Cr Hancock /Cr Hitchcock
CARRIED
6 Rescinding of Resolutions
Nil
7 Motion with Notice
Nil
10.00am 8 Environmental Development Assessment Manager Report
* Information and Action
o Delegated Powers
o Glendale Pastoral Draft Licence
o CWMS Agreement
o Musgrave Groundwater Observation Network – Inspecting & Monitoring
Agreements
o Coastal Development Plan Amendment – Coastal Conservation Zone
o Development Application 933/003/09 – B Rogers
o Correspondence in Relation to the Development Application
* Information Only
o Planning & Building Approvals
o Food & Health Inspections
o SA Health - Food Act 2007
o Mount Camel Staircase – Wirangu # 2
That the Environmental Development Assessment Manager’s Report as printed
in the Agenda, circulated and tabled be accepted
10.30 am Morning Tea
10.45am 9 Works Co-ordinator Report
* Information and Action
o Road Rubble for Terre Dam Road
o Amendment to Dog Management Fees
o Amendment to Lock Transfer Station Opening Times
o Letter from Kristy Newton regarding Wooden Boat Request
o Draft Scope of Works Lone Graves
o Letter received from Mr Andrew Polkinghorne regarding Roadside
Vegetation Clearance
o Letter from Meyers Household
* For Information Only
o Email received from Ron Hope regarding Proposed State Road Names,
Rural Property Addressing Project for Council Comment
o Letter received from Mr Paul Wright regarding Waste Collection Service
for Spindrift Road
o Letter received from MK & BA Sheridan regarding Signage on Tooligie
Road, Missing Mallee Fowl Road Sign & Waste Service Charge
o Letter received from Mr Noel Grace requesting Funding be Allocated for
Sealing of Elliston Aerodrome Runway
o Letter sent to Fosters Earthmoving congratulating on Work at the Lock
Hall Toilets
o Road Program July 2009
o Letters and Correspondence

* Reports
o Road Construction Expenditure
- Resheeting
- Profiling/Variation
- R2R Projects
o Road Maintenance – Grading & Other
o RCLIP
That the Works Co-ordinator Report, as printed in the Agenda, circulated and
tabled, be accepted.
11.30am 10
11.31am 11
12.00noon 12
12.30pm
1.30pm
Relieving Deputy CEO Report’s
No Report at time of Printing Agendas
Corporate Services Manager Report
* Information and Action
o Suggestion on Annual Business Plan
o Council’s Agreement with Regional Development Australia (RDA)
o Letter from Tramountanas – North Association Inc (T-NA)
* Information Only
o $ 220 million – Community Infrastructure Program
o Budget Meeting Date
* Financial Reports
o Monthly Income Statement and Balance Sheet
o Monthly Income and Expenditure by Function
o Community Support Register
That the Corporate Services Manager Report, as printed in the Agenda,
circulated and tabled, be accepted.
Chief Executive Officers Report
* Information and Action
o Court appeal & Award Modernisation
* Information Only
o DC Elliston sets an all Time Record for Unsealed Road Construction
o Independent Assessment Undertaken on DC Elliston Road Network
o Storm Water Disruption
o ECIC/Elliston Hall Committee Toilets
o Maintenance of Port Kenny Town Firebreak
o Lone Graves Project
o WJ & RD Southern, Venus Bay Caravan Park. – Proposal to Change
Lease/Sale Conditions
o Risk Management- Gap Analysis
o Three Interesting Letters
o
That the Chief Executive Officers Report, as printed in the Agenda, circulated
and tabled, be accepted.
LUNCH BREAK
CEO Report Continued
2.15pm 13 Chairman’s Report
14 Petitions:
Nil
15 Tenders / Expression of Interests:
Nil

2.20pm 16 Questions with Notice
17 Questions without Notice
2.30pm 18 Other Business
2.55pm 19 Date of Next Meeting
3.00pm 20 Closure

The District Council of Elliston
Environmental Development Assessment
Managers Report
To Council Meeting
20 th July 2009
INFORMATION & ACTION
Delegated Powers
Moved Cr. xxx, Seconded Cr. xxx that the development applications as approved by the
Environmental & Development Assessment Manager, in accordance to Section 20 of the
Development Act, 1993 as amended, be ratified by Council.
Assessment
Number
933/032/09
Planning Only
Applicant Address Development
C SAMPSON Lot 57 English St, Venus Bay SA 5607 Extensions to
Existing
Residence
933/010/09 LOCK RACING CLUB Pt Sec 118, Hd McLachlan, Lock SA 5633 Ablution Block -
Jockeys Room
933/010/09 (s) LOCK RACING CLUB Pt Sec 118, Hd McLachlan, Lock SA 5633 Septic System &
Soakage Trench
933/013/09 T DALTON Lot 2, South West Tce, Sheringa SA 5670 Shed
Glendale Pastoral Draft Licence
As per Council resolution 271.2008, a template water licence has been produced for Glendale
Pastoral to locate equipment on the Thulnippie Water Reserve at Port Kenny.
This licence is based on the template provided by The Local Government Association, which were
originally developed by Norman Waterhouse Lawyers. The section of land where the water
reserve is situated is listed on Councils Community Lands Register therefore the standard
community lands licence template has been used.
Recommendation: That Council accepts the Draft Licence between the District Council of Elliston
and Glendale Pastoral for Thulnippie Water Reserve as tabled. Further the licence is provided to
Glendale Pastoral for countersigning.
CWMS Agreement
The Agreement between Furnell Plumbing and the Council has been renewed to undertake the
tank de-sludging of the CWMS at Lock for stage 2 in 2009 and stage 3 in 2010.
Recommendation: That Council directs the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to sign the
Agreements and affix the Common Seal of the District Council of Elliston.
Musgrave Groundwater Observation Network – Inspecting & Monitoring Agreements
The Agreement between the Department of Water, Land & Biodiversity Conservation and Council
has been renewed 12 months. The annual service charge has been increased in line with the
Local Government CPI. Council has subcontracted the Agreement to Mr Graham Spiers for the
Elliston area and Mr Stefan Sach & Ms Sue Burns for the Venus Bay area. The subcontracted
Agreement’s have been increased accordingly to the Local Government CPI.
Recommendation: That Council directs the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to sign the
three Agreements and affix the Common Seal of the District Council of Elliston.

Coastal Development Plan Amendment – Coastal Conservation Zone
On the 16 th of June 2009, the CEO and Council’s Trainee EDAM met with the Planning SA staff to
discuss the development and progress of the Coastal Development Plan Amendment for the
District Council of Elliston.
Planning SA is proposing a modified version of their original Coastal Development Plan which it
presented to Council firstly in November 2007 and then again in March 2008, some of the potential
changes which were discussed are below;
(1) In the original concept plan, if an owner wanted to demolish an existing dwelling in the
Coastal Conservation Zone (CCZ) they were unable to replace it. However, Planning SA is
now suggesting to it to be changed to the “existing use clause” and new dwelling may be
constructed however it will need to be located in the same location and consist of the same
size.
(2) In the original concept there was to be no modification to existing buildings and no
construction of new buildings e.g. outbuildings. However, Planning SA is now suggesting
modification of the buildings, plus 20% replacement and also the construction of
outbuildings to be allowed.
(3) With the original concept there was to be no installation of dams, tanks or windmills
however, the department is now suggesting that the landowner will be able to install these
items and this clause would be removed from the Coastal Development Plan Amendment
in the CCZ.
Planning SA brought their reviewed maps for the whole coastal region for the Council and it
appears that the CCZ has now been reduced by 50% from the original concept which the Council
received in November 2007. It emerged that Planning SA has now used GPS points to determine
the zones and boundaries which is important to the Council and the landowners to determine the
exact locations in question. However, without undertaking a full cadastral survey it is hard to
determine the correct locations.
While Planning SA was present, their personal informed administration that the Council will need to
propose the ratification of its camping locations at Sheringa, Walkers, Talia and Locks Well for it to
be included in the Development Plan Amendment. This would therefore enable the Council to
undertake any future development and modification of its facilities at these locations.
Planning SA has been requested to present the modified plans and maps to Administration Staff in
the near future for comment and review. It will then be presented to Council for examination.
Council may also be required to contract its consultant planners at Aurecon (Connell Wagner) to
examine the maps and the development plan amendments, due to EDAM’s absence.
While examining the maps and discussing the plan with Planning SA the following points were
raised:
(1) It appears that the proposal concept is not too excessive with the restrictions on existing
dwellings and the Council infrastructure which will be within the CCZ. However, the
concept has not been formally approved by other government departments and it will be
important for Council to examine the changes against the present Council resolution, which
may need to be rescinded or modified if Council agrees to the proposal. If Council does not
accept the changes and prefers the Councils proposed draft CCZ, then it is possible that
the Development Plan Amendment proposed by Planning SA will be ratified by the Minister
or departments and may be implemented via a ministerial PAR.
(2) This modified plan does not comply with Councils resolution 56.2008 and the decision
facing the council is that most of the Eyre Peninsula Councils appear to have signed off on
some compromise.
(3) The alternative is to say NO to the proposal from Planning SA and continue with the original
Councils Draft Proposal.

However this will probably force the Minister for Planning and Local Government to
consider the support from the other EP Councils and apply versions of other Council’s
concepts to the District Council of Elliston Development Plan.
Please note:
The recent Planning SA proposal will not meet all present Landowners aspirations
(however there is an exemption for owners who have Developments Applications lodged
with Council or footings in place). However, the proposal from Planning SA seems to be
more flexible on existing dwellings and the moving of the boundaries back is a significant
compromised offer.
If the Council feels that this should be accepted subject to; final review of the PSA proposal (plans
and clauses) the current resolution would need to be rescinded and replaced with another motion.
Recommendation: That Council directs the CEO to arrange for correspondence to be sent to the
stakeholders involved with an update on the progress of the Coastal Development Plan
Amendment.
Further the Council directs the CEO to inform Planning SA that the District Council of Elliston will
be unable to examine this proposal until after the budget process.
Development Application 933 / 003 / 09 – B Rogers
Council will recently have received correspondence from Mr Bruce Rogers, in relation to
Development Application 933-003-09, for backfill at Lot 31 Wandana Road, Elliston.
The following report has been prepared by Aurecon on behalf of the District Council of Elliston to
provide background detail in response to this letter, and to obtain a Council resolution as to the
preferred course of action.
Please note that Mr Rogers’s correspondence also raises a number of other issues in relation to
the Native Vegetation Council and the Category 3 assessment process, which has been addressed
via a reply from Joanne Stevens, dated 6 th July 2009.
Background
Mr and Mrs Rogers purchased Lot 31 Wandana Road, Elliston in 2007, this property is located
within the Links sub division and as such there is a Land Management Agreement (LMA) (Elliston
Links Development) registered on the title. Mr and Mrs Rogers have obtained approval from the
Native Vegetation Council to clear the allotment. Development approval to locate a transportable
style dwelling on the allotment has also been obtained. Mr Rogers was advised during the
assessment process for the dwelling that Development Approval for the associated earthworks
would be required; Mr Rogers chose to do this via a separate application.
In January 2009 an application was received for 450m3 of backfill (detail which was not included in
their initial application). Under the provisions of the Development Act (1993) the application was
determined to be a Category 3 application for public notification purposes and was duly notified.
Three representations were received in response to these notification and the applicant (Mr
Rogers) responded to the issues raised. No contoured site plans were provided with the
application.
During the final assessment process, it was established that the height of the proposed fill at 1.5
metres does not fulfil the requirements of the LMA; dot point 10 of Annexure B to the LMA reads:
No excavation for construction will exceed one metre in cut and fill unless approved by Council.
Finished Floor levels of all buildings will not exceed the average level by more than 0.15 metres.
As Lot 31 Wandana Road is a sloping allotment the backfill is intended to fill the sloped area to
create a level house site, and as such not all of the required fill will exceed the one metre limit.

The proposed fill is likely to exceed one metre at its highest point but overall may be an ‘average’
of one metre. A legal opinion was sought to determine whether or not excavation with an ‘average’
level of one metre would fulfil the requirements of the LMA.
The opinion provided by Mr Paul Leadbeter of Norman Waterhouse Lawyers, concurred with that
of the EDAM that the provision relates to a maximum height and not an average height, and the
proposal in its current form does not fulfil the requirements established in the LMA.
Mr Leadbeter also advised that an LMA requires all clauses contained within it to be considered,
and that Annexure B is concerned with the importance of views within the subdivision and seeks to
prevent building heights and forms from restricting such views.
Mr Rogers is now seeking Council approval to vary the LMA in order to allow for backfill up to a
maximum height of 1.5 metres for his allotment.
Inspection and Assessment Detail
The subject land at Lot 31 Wandana Road is approximately 900m 2 in size, the application detail
indicates that 24.5 metres of the allotment will be backfilled to some degree. This provides for
450m 3 of fill over approximately 54.4 per cent of the allotment. The applicant has advised that the
height of the dwelling, inclusive of fill, will be 950mm below the height requirements stipulated
within LMA.
Mr Rogers has indicated in his application that the maximum height will be approximately 1.5
metres high, although drawings provided with and forming part of the application do not make this
completely clear.
• Drawing One - dated 15 January 2009 and titled ‘side view of pad and dwelling at lot 31
Wandana Rd Elliston” shows backfill at ‘approximately 1.5 metres high”.
• Drawing Two – which is unnamed and undated, shows what appears to be the footprint of
the dwelling on the subject land. It also indicates that the fall from the footprint to natural
ground is 1.45metres in the north eastern corner and 1.75 metres in the north western
corner.
An inspection of the site undertaken by Council staff raised concerns regarding the slope of the
allotment and the ability for the site to be levelled by using a maximum of 1.5 metres of fill. A visual
inspection suggests that the height of the fill required would actually be much higher possibly to a
height of between 1.7 and 2 metres.
The site inspection also highlighted that in order to provide for a maximum of 1.5 metres of ‘fill’
then some amount of ‘cut’ may be required at the higher end of the allotment. There is no detail of
‘cut’ within the application documents.
Council should note that under the provisions of the Development Act (1993) it is the responsibility
of the applicant to provide the appropriate level of detail required to undertake a full and proper
assessment of their proposal
Land Management Agreements and Development Approval
Council are aware that LMA’s and development approval are two separate although intertwined
processes. The Development Act (1993) allows for parties to enter into a Land Management
Agreement in order to provide further mechanisms for controlling appropriate development over
one or more parcels of land. The LMA in this instance is an agreement between individual land
owners within the Elliston Links Development, and Council. Land owners agree to the provisions of
the LMA when they purchase an allotment.
The Development Act requires that a full and proper assessment be undertaken of a proposal. If a
LMA exists on a title then the application must conform with the provisions of the LMA before an
assessment can be finalised.

In this particular instance, as a Category 3 application, the decision regarding the application itself
will be made by Councils Development Assessment Panel, who will make their decision in line with
the District Council of Elliston Development Plan.
Council’s is currently being asked is to determine whether or not they will allow a variation to the
existing LMA in order for the development assessment process to continue.
Should Council determine not to vary the LMA the applicant is able to amend the current
application or submit a new dwelling application that will meet the requirements of LMA.
Due process and Potential Delays
In the Correspondence received from Mr Rogers he has expressed his frustration at the long
process involved with his development application process. However, what may not be clear to Mr
Rogers is that in seeking to obtain approval for house, he is involved in more than one process.
Although these processes are often interlinked they are separate processes and must be managed
separately and handled by different authorities.
Firstly, as Mr and Mrs Rogers purchased an allotment that contained a considerable amount of
remnant native vegetation, they must obtain approval from the Native Vegetation Council for
clearance of this vegetation before they can undertake development on the property. This process
is out of Councils control and is managed by the Native Vegetation Council.
Secondly, Mr and Mrs Rogers purchased an allotment on which there was a LMA registered on the
title. On purchasing this allotment Mr and Mrs Rogers should have familiarised themselves with the
requirements of the LMA. As described above, LMA’s add an additional layer of complexity to the
development assessment process, as an application for development must meet the provisions of
the LMA as well as the requirements of the development plan.
Additionally, the allotment purchased by Mr and Mrs Rogers contains a steep slope. In purchasing
this allotment it is not known whether or not Mr and Mrs Rogers made themselves aware of the
construction issues that are inherent with constructing a dwelling on such a slope. The slope of an
allotment can have significant impacts on stormwater drainage issues, the amount of cut and fill
required and the design of any dwelling.
Mr and Mrs Rodgers have chosen a dwelling type that when sited on the allotment requires a
considerable amount of backfill. Under the provisions of the Development Act (1993) when
assessing an application for this degree of fill, Category 3 public notification is required. The
Development Act (1993) therefore requires that the final decision for this application be made by
Councils Development Assessment Panel (CDAP), this is a body formed by Council but which acts
independently to the Council and is required under Legislation. Had the amount of fill required
been less it is unlikely this stage would be required.
As Mr and Mrs Rogers submitted an application that does not meet the provisions of the LMA on
their title, a further layer of complexity has been added. That is, the requirement for Council to
agree to amend the LMA before any assessment of the current application can be completed. Had
Mr and Mrs Rogers application met the provisions of the LMA this stage would not be necessary.
Please note Mr and Mrs Rogers have the option of altering their existing application, or submitting
a new application should they desire and should Council not agree to vary the LMA
It is unfortunate that this process is so complex, but this is outside of Council’s control and it is
understandable that Mr and Mrs Rogers have become frustrated with the process. Ultimately
however the onus is on the purchaser when buying land to ensure they are fully aware of the
requirements and legislative processes involved. Further Council can not be held responsible for
the dwelling type Mr and Mrs Rogers have chosen to place on their property and the further flow on
impacts this has had.

Options for Council
Clause 3.6 of the LMA allows that:
The Council may waive compliance by the Owner with the whole or any part of the obligations on
the Owner’s part herein contained provided that no such waiver shall be effective unless expressed
in writing and signed by the Council.
Council should seek to satisfy themselves that in waiving the whole or any part Owners obligations
they are not allowing a major change to the intent of the LMA itself.
Due to the discrepancy between the details provided in the application and opinion formed from
visual inspections it is strongly recommended that Council view the site to assist them in the
decision making progress.
It is further suggested that Council require the applicant to provide either an engineers report or a
surveyed contoured site plan to fully clarify the amount and level of fill required prior to making a
decision. The degree of fill required could not only impact upon visual amenity and views but also
on stormwater runoff and slump risks upon adjoining owners and others within the locality. The
provision of a contoured site plan is standard practice when submitting an application, particularly
where earthworks are involved.
Council should also take note of Clause 2.14 of the LMA which reads:
When undertaking any development on the land the Owner shall ensure that such development is
undertaken with the minimum effect on the natural features and topography of the land.
Recommendations:
That Council undertake a site visit to the Lot 31 Wandana Road Elliston in order to gain a proper
understanding of slope of the allotment.
a) Require Mr Rogers to provide an engineers report, detailing the exact amount, height and level
of fill required and potential impacts upon stormwater and slump risk within the locality.
OR
b) Require Mr Rogers to provide a contoured site plan prepared by qualified and independent
surveyor showing the location of the proposed dwelling and details of the required cut and fill at a
level .548 below existing road level. Additionally a side elevation plan to be provided, showing land
contours, finished floor levels and details of proposed cut and fill.
Upon receipt of this additional information Council should feel satisfied they have sufficient detail in
order to make a decision in relation to varying the existing LMA on Lot 31 Wandana Road Elliston.
Correspondence in Relation to the Development Application
Please find attached correspondence in relation to the Development Application for the Backfill of
Allotment 31 Wandana Road, Elliston SA 5670.
• Letter sent to all Councillors via email 25 th June 09, from Mr B Rogers with complaints in
regards to his Development Application.
• Response from Trainee EDAM which was sent on the 6 th July 09, in regards to Mr Roger’s
letter outlining his concerns raised in relation to the following points;
Native Vegetation Clearance,
The Submission letters which Council received in relation to the Development
Application,
The Stipulated Height of the allotment,
Council’s Development Assessment Panel
Altering the Land Management Agreement which is on the Lands Title.

• Email received from Mr Rogers dated 7 th July 2009 requesting staff seek exemption on his
behalf for the LMA.
• Email response sent to Mr Rogers 8 th July 2009, explaining that administration are unable
to apply for the LMA exemption on his behalf and that it is his responsibility to seek this
from the Council.
INFORMATION ONLY
Planning & Building Approvals
Administration has received notification from District Council of Ceduna that their building inspector
will assess the Building Approvals during Environmental Development Assessment Manager’s
absence. Please find attached a copy of the correspondence which has been forwarded to DC
Ceduna in regards to the delegations.
Aurecon (formally Connell Wagner) will be assisting and undertaking the major planning
development applications and approvals during Environmental Development Assessment
Manager’s absence. Please find attached a copy of the correspondence which has been forwarded
to Aurecon in regards to the delegations.
Food & Health Inspections
Administration has received confirmation from the District Council of Tumby Bay that their
Environmental Health officer will assist the Council with the onsite food inspections until the end of
the year and also with Environmental Health issues during Environmental Development
Assessment Manager’s Absence. Please find attached a copy of the correspondence which has
been forwarded to DC Tumby Bay in regards to the delegations.
SA Health – Food Act 2007
Please find attached correspondence from SA Health in relation to the increasing demand for Local
Government to release information relating to the food business’ how have been issues
improvement notices, Prohibition Orders, or Expiations.
Under the Food Act 2001 Section 93 (2) Councils are required to forward relevant information in
regards to food business that are being prosecuted by the Council. As from the 1 st July 2009 the
Council must provide the relevant information to the Food Policy & Programs Branch of any
breaches and then this is displayed on a public website.
Mount Camel Staircase – Wirangu # 2
Please find attached correspondence from the Native Title Solicitors whom represents the Wirangu
# 2 claimants in regards to the proposed boardwalk at the Mount Camel Beach area. Included is a
letter of reply from the Council’s Chief Executive Officer in relation to the Native Title claim for that
area.
Recommendation: That the Environmental Development Assessment Manager’s Report as
printed in the Agenda, circulated and tabled be accepted.
Rob Gregor
(Currently supervising the EDAM position)

The District Council of Elliston
Works Coordinator’s Report
INFORMATION AND ACTION
To Council Meeting
20 July 2009
Road Rubble for Terre Dam Road
The Road rubble chosen for the Terre Dam Road meets the conditions of Council’s Road Infrastructure
Policy. The full details of the rubble assessment will not arrive until next week.
I seek councils authorisation for the use of rubble from XXX ‘s property for the construction on Terre Dam
Road (Rubble assessment will be provided as a late agenda item)
Action: That council authorise the use of rubble from XXX’s property for the resheeting on Terre Dam
Road.
Amendment to Dog Management Fees
The Dog Management Act and regulations provide provision for Councils to charge impound and kennel
fees to recover costs of impoundment.
As Council currently has no provision in place to charge fees to recover costs, it is recommended that a
$30 impound fee plus $10 kennel fee (per day) be included in Councils schedule of fees and that
administration advise the Dog and Cat Management Board of the fees and update.
Dog and Cat Management Act 1995
Section 62-Limits on entitlement to return of dog
A person is not entitled to the return of a dog seized under this Division unless the person—
(b) pays—
(i) the charges that are payable under the regulations in relation to the seizure and detention
of the dog; and
(ii) any other outstanding charges or fees payable under this Act in relation to the dog; and
(c) in the case of an unregistered dog—registers the dog if so requested by the person responsible
for the dog while detained.
Action: I recommend that Council adopt a Dog impound fee of $30.00 plus a Kennel fee of $10 per day
and the fees be included in the schedule of fees and charges in the final budget process.
Amendment to Lock Transfer Station Opening Times
The Lock transfer station is currently opened by Council staff on Wednesdays for 2 hours and Saturdays for
2 hours, however due to the lack of public utilisation of the facility during the Wednesday opening it is
recommended that the Wednesday opening is cancelled and the Lock Transfer Station only opens on
Saturdays.
Action: I seek Council’s direction to amend the Lock Transfer Station site opening times to open from
9am to11am on Saturdays and issue public notices advising of the changes.
Letter from Kristy Newton regarding Wooden Boat Request
Please find attached letter received from Kristy Newton requesting that Council donate the old wooden boat
to the Elliston Sports Complex. The boat was removed from the Elliston playground due to potential risk
management issues. Kristy has advised that if Council donated the boat, that they would make necessary
repairs to the equipment to ensure safety to users.

If Council was to donate the boat, a letter of agreement must be signed by the Sports Centre stating that
the equipment is no longer compliant with relevant standards and that the Sports Centre accepts all risk
associated from use of the equipment.
Action: I seek Council’s direction regarding this matter.
Draft Scope of Works Lone Graves
Please find attached a draft scope of works for the Council’s Lone Graves project. Please also refer to the
attached correspondence from Mrs Wiseman and a response email to her regarding Council resolutions.
Action:
a) That Council approve or modify the scope of works as they feel fit
b) That Council direct the CEO to arrange for new public notices asking for expressions of
interest for the lone graves project, to be placed in local newspapers regarding this project
and that the final scope of works is to be provided to those persons/ organisations
expressing interest.
Letter received from Mr Andrew Polkinghorne regarding Roadside Vegetation Clearance
The letter received from Mr Andrew Polkinghorne regarding roadside vegetation clearance carried out by
Council (copy of letter and response included in the Information Pack).
Please refer to Council’s Native Vegetation Plan for Roadworks Policy in the Councillor Information Pack.
Council’s policy allows clearance of up to three meters from the edge of the road and all commodity routes
should be a minimum of 12 meters wide.
Last financial year, Council cleared approximately 60km of roadside vegetation with the available budget of
$15000 (approx $250 per kilometre).
The current process involves Contractors removing vegetation and offending limbs with an articulated
loader and stump rake bucket from the roadside as required and depositing them on the verge between the
road and the adjoining property where appropriate.
Council has previously utilised the services of a contractor with an arm mounted rotating saw as a trial on
the Murlong Murdinga Road several years ago, however although this process is very tidy leaving the area
neat and clean with minimal damage to the vegetation, the foliage has grown back vigorously and the saw
does not remove problem trees on the shoulders and the trimmed foliage remains on the verge unless a
chipper is used or the trimmings are removed to another area adding additional cost. A flailing machine is
also available to cut off shrubs and low foliage at additional cost.
Two contractors with a rotating, extendable arm mounted saw were contacted and pricing ranged from
between $260- $500 per km depending on the density of the vegetation. This figure does not include
relocation costs.
Action: I seek Councils direction on this issue and which practice it would prefer the works department to
undertake.
Letter from Meyers Household
Mrs Meyers has requested that council install a gate to stop unauthorised use of the closed section of
Waratah Road, the following information is provided for Councils information:
• Waratah road was closed by Council many years ago and it is a closed road corridor
• No bike track exists on the corridor, however staff have raised to Council requests for a bike track to
be installed on the corridor on several occasions but it has never become a budget priority
• A gate can be installed by Council at Mrs Meyers expense
• Council can budget to place a gate on the corridor
• If a gate is placed on the corridor the utilities with services on the corridor will require keys.
Action: I seek Councils direction on this issue.

INFORMATION ONLY
Email received from Ron Hope regarding Proposed State Road Names, Rural Property Addressing
Project for Council Comment
Please find attached email and spreadsheet and unless Council has any objections a response will be
provided to Mr Hope accepting the proposed state road names.
Letter received from Mr Paul Wright regarding Waste Collection Service for Spindrift Road
Please find attached letter and response sent to Mr Paul Wright regarding waste collection at Spindrift
Road.
Letter received from MK & BA Sheridan regarding Signage on Tooligie Road, Missing Mallee Fowl
Road Sign & Waste Service Charge
Please find attached letter and response sent to Mr and Mrs Sheridan regarding the above matters.
Letter received from Mr Noel Grace requesting Funding be Allocated for Sealing of Elliston
Aerodrome Runway
Please find attached letter and response sent to Mr Grace regarding this matter (included in CEO budget
items in recent budget meeting).
Letter sent to Fosters Earthmoving congratulating on Work at the Lock Hall Toilets
Please find attached congratulations sent to Contractors who carried out good work at the Lock Hall Toilets
(noted in May Council minutes).
Road Program July 2009
Gantt chart attached.
Construction
Reports Attached
Road Construction Expenditure
- Resheeting
- Profiling/Variation
- R2R Projects
Road Maintenance – Grading & Other
RLCIP Projects Expenditure
Letters and Correspondence
Letter From:
Regarding:
Response:
Letter From:
Regarding:
Response:
Letter From:
Regarding:
Response:
Letter From:
Regarding:
Response:
Mrs Kristy Newton
Redundent playground equipment
Awaiting Councils decision
The Meyers Household
Installation of gate on Waratah
Acknowledgement and awaiting Councils decision
Mr Paul Wright
Waste collection service for Spindrift Road Elliston
Letter attached
MK & BA Sheridan
Signage on Tooligie Road
Letter attached

Letter From:
Regarding:
Response:
Mr Noel Grace
Allocating budget to Aerodrome runway sealing
Acknowledgement
Recommendation: That the Works Coordinator’s Report as printed in the Agenda, circulated and tabled
be accepted.
Wayne Scholz
Works Coordinator
Ian Miller
Relieving Works Manager

INFORMATION & ACTION
The District Council of Elliston
Corporate Services Manager Report
To Council Meeting
20 July 2009
Suggestion on Annual Business Plan
As per Local Government Regulation Act, each Council needs to complete their Rates
Declaration process by 31 August 2009 and before this date each Council needs to adopt
their Annual Business Plan.
Action: That, I seek Council’s suggestion on items/points to be included so that I can resent
the Final Copy of 2009 /10 Annual Business Plan in the next Budget Meeting.
Council’s Agreement with Regional Development Australia (RDA) (Four related letters
are attached)
The Council had received four letters in regards to Council’s agreement with RDA.
Letter 1: From Jan Lowe, Acting Director of “Office of Small Business and Regional
Development” (Dated 23 June 2009), asking Council to amend the payments to allow the
new RDA to be placed. (Note: We assume this actually means transfer the residual payment
to the new body however it does not provide any content on the new agreement).
Letter 2: From Timothy Deer (DTED) (Dated 02 July, 2009) .This letter ask for Council’s
support to provide residual fund to maintain services during the transition.
Letter 3: From Chris Russel LGA (Dated June 30, 2009) – The letter is regarding
Memorandum of Understanding for RDA. This e-mail is self explanatory. If the Council is
satisfied and agreed with MOU proposed by LGA it should formally advised EPLGA as the
matter is also discuss in that organisation. At this point of time we do not have the copy of
LGA’s proposed MOU, however it is summarised in their E-mail.
Letter 4: From Diana Laube, Executive Officer, Eyre Peninsula Local Government Assoc.
(Dated : 04,June ,2009). This letter highlights on the recent developments on RDA.
Action: That I seek Council’s direction in this matter.
Letter from Tramountanas – North Association Inc (T-NA) (A copy Attached)
The representatives from Tramountanas North Association wishes to discuss with Council
regarding the Panegyri Greek Festival funds which is kept in the Elliston Airport Reserve
Account and as per T-NA’s letter it seems, they wants to finance a most suitable community
project with their Panegyri Greek Festival funds which is kept in the Elliston Airport Reserve
Fund. In this regard they wish to involve in a discussion with Council.
Action: That I seek Council’s direction in this matter, so that I can response to T-NA’s letter
accordingly.

INFORMATION ONLY
$ 220 million – Community Infrastructure Program (Detail attached)
As per Cr Hitchcock’s information on Community Infrastructure Program, I have looked into
the matter and the information regarding Community Infrastructure Program was published
in “West Coast Sentinel”, Thursday 2 July 2009 and it was also published in the official
website of Australian Council of Local Government (link: www.aclg.gov.au/cip/index.aspx )
This funding will assist Councils to build and modernise community facilities, including town
halls, libraries, community centres, sports grounds and environmental infrastructure .
According to the published information, this funding will help to complete and acquit the
Council’s current projects. However, till now no guidelines have been given to DC of
Elliston in this regards. Under this funding $ 30,000 has been allocated for DC Elliston and
Council should consider what projects it may wish to Fund, however, it does so in the
knowledge that they may then need to adjust them to fit the eventual Guild lines.
Budget Meeting Date
A consensus Budget meeting date is needed to be fixed up in the coming 20th July Ordinary
meeting.
Financial Reports:
• Monthly Income Statement and Balance Sheet.
• Monthly Income and Expenditure by Function.
• Community Support Register
Recommendation: That the Financial Reports which compare Actual with Budgets for the
period to 31 June 2009 and the Community Support Register, be received .
Corporate Services Manager Report
Recommendation: That the Corporate Services Manager Report as printed in the Agenda,
circulated and tabled be accepted.
Kuntal Goswami
Corporate Services Manager

District Council of Elliston
Chief Executive Officer's Report
FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION
To Council Meeting
20 July 2009
Court appeal & Award Modernisation
As per the attached letter from the Local Government Association (LGA) a recent Industrial
court decision has left many Council’s potentially at risk of substantial claims for back-pay.
This is an important and potentially costly issue and the LGA is mounting a challenge to the
decision and is seeking a contribution from all Council’s based on the agreed LGA subscription
formulae.
At this point in time, I do not have a cost from them for the DC Elliston apportionment; however,
I seek Council’s permission to indicate an ‘in principle” agreement to the LGA..
Action: I seek Council’s direction on this matter.
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
DC Elliston sets an all Time Record for Unsealed Road Construction
The attached e-mail confirms the excellent results of the 2008/09 roads re-sheeting program,
with Council Works Staff and its regular Contractors having achieved 54.3 Km of road
construction.
This work has been completed using one of the smallest work groups amongst the Eyre
Peninsula Councils and as recently confirmed by an independent and qualified assessor, it has
been done to a high standard and with excellent unit cost being achieved for all categories of
roads.
All Council staff (from administration through to Works gang and contractors) are congratulated
for this achievement and they should be justifiably proud of their efforts; as I am.
Independent Assessment Undertaken on DC Elliston Road Network
This is the second voluntary and independent assessment that has been arranged. The
complete and detailed report is available to Councillors by request and the Executive Summary
is attached.
The first assessment was related to the traffic safety requirements for Council’s busy and in
some places, somewhat unique coastal Roads. The second assessment was broader and it
involved (in summary) an independent and qualified engineer assessing the following:
• The effectiveness of Council’s road works operation
• Compliance to Council’s Roads infrastructure Policy
• Assessing Council’s Commodity routes for general road safety compliance
• Re-assessing the changes made to Council’s coastal road network
• Provision of advice on variances and make recommendations which might further
improve the roads and the operation (within the limit of Council’s finances)

The findings of this report are very positive regarding the Council’s road construction operation
and Key Points are listed in the report. In summary, they are:
• The Policy is well formulated
• Roads made prior to a policy being introduced had greater variation in build and quality
• The quality control process is good
• The work presently being done by Council staff and its core contractors is to a high
standard
• The road making operations are efficient
• The unit costs are excellent
• In general, the DC Elliston roads are slightly above the average standard when
compared with other Councils of a small and medium size.
• The presently life cycle being used for the roads can be safely extended
On the negative side, the assessor has pointed out the following important and potentially costly
issues:
• The Council is running out of easily accessible good quality road rubble.
• Many of its roads have historically been constructed to the natural terrain and some
sections lay at the lowest drainage points in the surrounding landscape which
exaggerates moisture problems/damage.
• Most of the present Commodity routes will require some upgrading to meet DTEI
standards and specific traffic management controls will need to be implemented.
Storm Water Disruption
The figures provided from the Elliston Post Office indicate that during June, the rainfall recorded
was 156.6 mm higher than for the same period in 2008. And generally rainfall across the district
has been higher than average. The result of this has been short periods of localised flooding on
various roads plus in the town of Elliston itself.
The attached report graphically illustrates just how widespread the problems were within the
District Council of Elliston area, and the occasional flooding plus erosion damage to sections of
DTEI’s high quality Flinders Highway demonstrates that it is simply unrealistic for any person to
expect that every kilometre of Council’s 1,100 (Plus) kilometres of unsealed road network can
be built to meet “all weather” standards.
The Council also has areas in the towns of Elliston and Venus Bay that are prone to flooding
after heavy thunderstorms and while the risk at Venus Bay have been largely alleviated by
increasing drainage swales and containment areas behind the town; occasional large scale
flushing of silt into drainage conduits still presents a risk
Many Council roads have been badly affected by the heavy rains and amongst the worst were:
• Colton Back Road
• Rocky Valley Road
• Nowhere else Road
• Sheringa Beach road
• Locks well road
• Hundred Line Road
• Siviour Road
• Barwell Road

Despite the DTEI roads being sealed and built to a very high standard, for short periods they too
were cut by flooding at:
• Colton
• Near Talia
• Just East of Elliston
• Near Mount Wedge
• Near Bramfield
• At Sheringa
Relativity of risk and cost impacts:
The Elliston town was twice affected by high stormwater flow filling the town swamp and the
storm drains subsequently backed up into the parklands, then flooding into Memorial Drive.
Very fortunately, the storms subsided just when water was flowing across the kerbing and that
avoided serious flood damage occurring to the Elliston Supermarket, Bakery and Motel. At this
point in time, we are unsure of what damage may have occurred to the Memorial Kindergarten.
The Sheringa Roadhouse was inundated and areas of Pt Kenny Township had some of its low
properties flooded just short of houses being inundated.
The resulting damage to Council roads will add a reasonable cost to its annual maintenance
budget, particularly in those areas where roads have been built on the natural terrain in low
lying areas.
As the damage is still continuing, it is difficult to accurately determine a figure, but present
estimates suggest that $30,000 to $40,000 will now have to be diverted from the road resheeting
schedule just to cover reactive maintenance that is required as a result of storm-water
damage. Administration will provide an adjustment to the draft 3 budget.
Several letters regarding risk to premises, conditions of school bus routes and slippery roads
have been received and they are included in the report.
Perspective:
All the concerns raised and the frustrations expressed within the various letters/e-mails are
genuinely felt and often the individual feels their particular situation has the highest priority for a
remedy.
However, because I manage Councils operations, its risk, understand the costs involved in
remedying the problem plus also feel genuine concern at the present deficit budget position, it is
my job to bring proper perspective to Council’s attention.
While the standard of Councils roads receives constant scrutiny and in some areas, a steady
demand for greater build quality; the entire road works operation has just been found by an
independent assessor to be of a high quality and the road network within this Council district is
generally better on average when compared with similar sized and even larger Council’s.
Whenever complaints are received or discussion occurs in chambers regarding the condition of
Council’s unsealed road network, the fact that the present maintenance cost of the network
already consumes close to 50 cents in every Dollar that the Council receives by way of all
revenues, should be kept in mind.
That cost is extremely taxing on ratepayers and yet the Council still cannot yet afford to
maintain its roads to the targets that it has set in its own policy.

I believe the risk posed by stormwater flooding to town properties/businesses is presently higher
in priority than those on Council’s road network and that is because a relatively straightforward
fix, can be put in place by adding a twin pump system, adjustable sluice and a rising main out to
the large lake area. While that is an expensive option, it is also well overdue and needs to
remain as a number one priority for the 2009/10 budget.
Regarding the problems on Council roads, this is spread widely across its district and a
complete cure to the problem is beyond the Council’s present financial ability. Given the normal
public reaction to previous rate increases it is evidently beyond the willingness of its citizens to
pay the added cost of the build quality which some of them are demanding.
Risk Management:
District road maintenance and upgrading programs are well established and each year, various
road sections continue to be upgraded on a priority basis.
The risk that may be presented to drivers travelling on wet roads is being managed in
accordance with Council’s Risk management practices E.G. the Council closes roads that get
into a particularly bad state and it is increasing the “slippery when wet” signposting on sections
of low lying roads. Note: This does not mean that no incidents will occur on wet or slippery
roads, but it does mean that Council has a remedial program in place plus suitable risk
management practices have been implemented.
In almost all cases, an alternative route exists for regular road users that present s considerably
less risk, but it is obviously much more inconvenient to take the longer and much slower way
than it is to travel the shortest distance at reasonable speeds.
Regarding the claim of “risk to School Buses” from flooded and slippery Council roads and the
supposed risk of subsequent lawsuits which are raised to Council from time to time: - the district
road conditions are well known to the Schools and that includes the knowledge that a number of
sections of some of their regular routes are signposted as ‘slippery when wet” and that these
regularly become so immediately after heavy rainstorms occur.
I am not familiar with the view taken by the DECS Insurer and its Risk Managers but if it is
similar to Council’s own insurer, then they would probably be quite concerned to learn that
apparently School Buses are still being regularly sent into areas of known risk following rainstorm
events.
That particular view would arise from the knowledge that safer alternatives do exist, but
apparently no formal risk assessment has been done and no routine risk avoidance action has
been put in place (apparently the re-routing of School Buses only occurs after road conditions
deteriorate).
In the event of children or staff being hurt under those circumstances, it is quite probable that
the first claim for damages would fall on the School/DECS and not the Council, who would
simply be included in a later Solicitors “trawling exercise”.
Finances and priorities
I also refer Councillors to the attached e-mail response provided to Cr Hitchcock. When
considering this matter.
Given the Council’s present financial position, it has few realistic options but to continue with
making decisions based on priority of need and within a strictly budgeted regime that does not
further jeopardise its financial stability.

Given that council has just set a record for the amount of unsealed roads it has re-sheeted in
any one year and that doing so has consumed almost half of its budget and it is presently facing
a sizeable deficit, I strongly recommend that it does not now make any reactive decisions, but
sticks with a managed program that is based on priority of need and equity being achieved,
within a carefully thought out expenditure budget.
If any further action should be taken, it is the taking of decisions to reduce the size of the deficit
that is required.
ECIC/Elliston Hall Committee Toilets
In the most recent Budget meeting, Cr Hancock requested that administration recheck the
recent Council resolutions/actions on this matter.
I have attached the series of recent resolutions relating to this matter plus excerpts of an EDAM
report on the condition of various public/Council infrastructure.
Motion 102:2008 was rescinded and the actions in resolution 308:2008 have been carried out.
Additionally, the Council is making sufficient allocation in its Community Support Budget to
assist the ECIC with its ongoing maintenance costs.
The estimated cost for upgrading the ECIC Toilets was put at $35,650 in 2007 and it was based
on Council having put in a rising main and effluent dispersal system which would allow treated
waste water to be dispersed in accordance with SA Public Health Regulations.
Such a system is anticipated to be quite costly but it would cater for Councils Foreshore Toilets
plus all of the sporting and business premises, as they upgraded their systems.
This project is amongst the important projects that I have mentioned in this agenda as overdue
and requiring action.
I remind the Council that it still has to find the funds for such projects and to do that it must
ensure that it does not budget for non essential items plus it will need to further trim expenditure
on unsealed roads. Alternatively, it will not be able to undertake those important projects and
remain financially viable, unless it opts to seriously increase its property rates.
Maintenance of Port Kenny Town Firebreak
Please find recent correspondence from Mrs I Campbell replying to previous Council requests to
access section 20.
Mrs Campbell believes that the Firebreak is maintained in a satisfactory condition without the
need to use chemical sprays or back-burning and she has not provided consent for Council
contractors to enter her property. However, she has offered to sell the property to Council but
has not named a price.
Note: it is not practical or cost effective to manage the firebreak in the manner that Mrs
Campbell is suggesting.
Please also note, a check of property maps against Arial photo’s has shown that another
section of this firebreak crosses over a further section of privately owned land and the owners
have also been approached by Administration regarding implementation of a formal access
agreement.
The present situation is quite unfortunate because the Firebreaks do have a benefit, however, it
is another example of the Council having historically gained informal agreement for
infrastructure being placed on private property but no attention was being paid to the need for a
formal agreement/encumbrances being put in place that would allow continued maintenance to
be done.

Inevitably with the passing of time, the property ownership changes hands and new owners
then want changes to the informally agreed system or they simply do not want the
inconvenience of the arrangement at all, as is their right. I stress that these poor practices
should not be repeated by the Council.
The importance of maintaining the firebreak has been thoroughly explained to Mrs Campbell as
has the Councils willingness to pay the cost of a formal agreement being put in place for access
across her property to attend maintenance of the firebreak. Either the Council can achieve a
sensible and formal access agreement with her and within reasonable time frame and cost, or it
cannot. If it cannot, then it needs to move on and attend to other more pressing needs.
Many people are understanding of the difficulty Council has in stretching its limited budgets and
they have patiently waited for their needs to be attended to. I believe it is now time to make
appropriate adjustments and set the final budget to include attending to some of the needs of
those considerate people.
Lone Graves Project
The earlier resolution (number 186:2009) was rescinded at Council’s 15 June meeting and a
further resolution (number 187:2009) was formulated which directed (amongst other things) a
budget of $5,000 be put in place for this project in 2009/10 and the work undertaken to that
point in time by Mrs Wiseman be paid from that budgeted amount.
Mrs Wiseman has submitted an invoice for $3,000. It itemises her work from 15 May 2009 to 13
June 2009.
The first Council resolution relating to this matter was only formulated on 18 May 2009 and I do
not believe that travel and time involved in preparing a submission for that particular meeting is
reimbursable under later resolution number 187: 2009, therefore it is my intention to adjust the
payment accordingly and advise Mrs Wiseman that as per the resolution, the payment will be
made following the setting of Council’s budget for 2009/10 financial Year.
If the Council believes any other interpretation of its resolution is valid, then please provide that
direction to me by majority resolution.
WJ & RD Southern, Venus Bay Caravan Park. – Proposal to Change Lease/Sale
Conditions
Correspondence from the Solicitor assisting Mr and Mrs Southern was received previously,
which requested various changes be made to the proposed Lease/sale documents.
Advice on the likely consequences from those changes being implemented was provided by
Council’s own Solicitor. That advice was then considered under the provisions of Section 90 of
the Local Government Act, as is the normal practice for briefings between Solicitors and their
clients.
As per Councils previous resolution (which requires that negotiations on this matter are to be
done in the Public) I have included a copy of the Council response to the Southern’s in this
agenda.
I appreciate the Southern’s had indicated in a previous public deputation to the Council; that
they did not have issues with this procedure, however, I have some concern that information of
a commercial nature, is being provided in the Public Agenda which may have potential to
compromise the future sale price of their business and I wonder if perhaps they did not properly
considered that risk?

Risk Management- Gap Analysis
The attachment is from our Risk Manager/insurer. It lists in the first column, all of the actions
which they desires Council administration to undertake.
The second column is the evidence we have supplied of the activities that administration
regularly carry out simply in order to prove that good policies and practices are in effect. The
third column is for our own requests and comments.
On the Fourth page I have highlighted their wish for Council administration to undertake a prepurchase
risk assessment and control process. That requirement is additional to all of the
stringent quality control and safety standards which manufactures must meet when constructing
and selling plant and equipment in Australia and my understanding is that it will apply to lawn
mowers, brush cutters and chainsaws, in addition to major plant.
While I am a strong believer in good Risk Management Practices and have a long record of
being both prudent in my decisions and successful in my management of Risk and OHS, the
time/resources now required of Council administration simply to record its actions in meeting
compliance requirements, has become so great that it is absurd.
Please note:- tit is my firm belief that it is not simply ongoing and successful litigation through
the judicial system that is to blame for this situation, it is also the prevailing culture of “no blame”
(i.e. the philosophy and practice of not holding individuals responsible for their own decisions)
that has bought insurers and Risk managers to this point.
Six of the best seminar:
The attached is the summary items that were included in a recent course that was open to
senior staff and Councillors.
The course was intensive, important and very well done and it clearly highlighted that those who
do not play be the rules, then fall victim because of them. It also illustrated why our Risk
Managers are so pedantic about having written demonstration of policies and practices.
Three Interesting Letters
The attached letters are all “repeats” of previous complaints put to this Council and they are
provided to illustrate the irregular administration tasks required of Council staff which are quite
time consuming, but rarely seen or appreciated.
The first item had a signature that is difficult to decipher and the repeats have never contained
contact details, therefore Councils administration cannot advise the complainant the matter has
been investigated and appropriate action was taken.
The second and third letters are from regular customers who do not appear to understand that
Council does not have the power to grant their requests. However, it still has an obligation to
respond to their repeated inquiries/complaints, all of which takes time and costs money.
Recommendation: That the Chief Executive Officer’s Report as printed in the Agenda,
circulated and tabled, be accepted.
Rob Gregor
Chief Executive Officer