Agenda of Water, Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee Meeting

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Local Government Act (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

§ The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

§ The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a) the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b) the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

§ If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

§ Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

§ Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

§ A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

§ The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b) at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

A Councillor is not prevented from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or from voting on, any of the matters/questions detailed in Section 452 of the Local Government Act.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with. Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

§ It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal. However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

§ Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa). Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

§ Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

§ Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in S451 of the Local Government Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1) In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a) including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b) not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

(2) The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3) For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4) Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5) This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 4.1 State Government Water and Sewerage Performance Reports

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2017/1234

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Water Supplies

Summary:

The attached documents are the Department of Primary Industries (Water) triple bottom line Performance Report for Byron Shire Council’s Water and Sewerage operations in 2015-16. This report is prepared by the DPI Water for all Local Government water and sewerage authorities. It is prepared from data submitted by Councils through financial special schedules and operational data annual submissions.

The Best Practice Guidelines and performance reports have proved to be valuable tools for assessing the performance of the Water Supply and Sewerage operations. The performance reports provide a benchmark tool for setting operational targets and continuously improving performance. Water and Sewerage operations have embedded the key KPIs in monthly management reports. This has streamlined the data collating and analysis process and provided significant benefits to the overall performance of the group.

It forms part of the National Water Initiative of the Federal Government for Water Utilities with greater than 10,000 assessments.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Water Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee note the continuing improving performance in both cost and service delivery for the Water and Sewer services.

Attachments:

1 Water Supply TBL 2015-16 BYRON, E2017/82391 , page 10⇩

2 Water Supply Action Plan 2015-16 - Byron Shire Council, E2017/82390 , page 12⇩

3 SewerageTBL 2015-16 BYRON, E2017/82389 , page 15⇩

4 Sewerage Action Plan 2015-16 - Byron Shire Council, E2017/82388 , page 17⇩

Report

The NSW Best Practice Management Guidelines for Water Supply and Sewerage were developed to encourage effective and efficient delivery of water supply and sewerage services. The guidelines set out six criteria for achievement of best practice management. Byron Shire Council has conducted audits and achieved compliance with all of the best practice guidelines for both Water and Sewerage.

It should be noted however, to continue to achieve BPM Council needs to prepare a new 30 year Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy. Utilities has commenced this process and expect to finalise a draft early in the new year.

Performance reporting is one of the best practice criteria. The data submitted covers the triple bottom line concept of performance measurement. The triple bottom line concepts are economic, environmental and social. One key element of the compilation of the performance report is the collection of accurate data. The water and sewerage business has, over the past fifteen years, progressively implemented systems to enable the accurate and timely collection of the required data. The businesses utilize this performance data to produce monthly production reports that measure the performance of the operations.

The performance data for 2015-16 was submitted to DPI Water in the time frames required. Copies of the Water Supply and Sewerage 2015-16 Performance Reports are included as attachments to this report. Also included in the report this year are recommended action plans as a result of the reported data.

Characteristics

A significant indicator in this group is the number of employees per 1000 properties. Byron Shire has a slightly higher than average result for sewerage operations with 1.8 employees per 1000 properties, whereas water operations has a lower than average with 0.8 employees per 1000 properties. In Byron Shire however, there is a high degree of multi skilling with many employees working across both areas of operation. If the groups are combined there are a total of 2.6 employees per 1000 properties compared to the state median of 3.2.

A key characteristic of Byron Shire’s water and sewerage employee profile is the high proportion of staff in the field versus staff in the office (Engineers and Managers). In the operations section we have 29 field staff and 4 office based staff; with 10% of the field staff being apprentices and trainees.

Social – Charges & Bills

Byron Shire has been rated as satisfactory to very good in all Social – Charges performance indicators. The typical residential bill for water is less than the state median. The typical residential bill for sewerage remains significantly higher but the gap will close over the coming years.

Social – Health

Byron Shire’s social – health performance remains in the highest performance percentile for all the water indicators. For sewerage the ratings were satisfactory to very good.

Social – Levels of Service

Byron Shire continues to achieve excellent results in both the water and sewerage key indicators of customer service. For water the result 0 complaints per 1000 properties versus a state median of 3. For sewerage the result was 1 versus a state median of 0.9. For water supply, quality performance still outperforms the state median with only 1.0 complaint per 1000 properties versus 3 across the state.

One area of concern that continues to require monitoring is odour complaints in the sewerage performance. Council’s result has improved in recent years from 2.1 to 1.0 complaints per 1000 properties compared to a state median of 0.9. These complaints are associated with sewer pump stations. Council has several pump stations located in heavily populated areas. Odour control devices have been installed on all of these sites however more work is required.

Environmental

Water – The “Average Annual Residential Water Consumption” for coastal LWUs indicator has fallen to 169 kL/property. The Real Losses/ Leakage indicator curiously however, has increased from 50 litres/service connection/day to 90. This data requires more analysis.

Sewer – The key sewer environmental performance was positive with most key indicators being rated as good to very good. Compliance with Suspended Solids in EPA licences was highlighted as “may require review”. This result was entirely attributable to the aging Ocean Shores STP. Council has prepared a process review and has commenced the project to either upgrade this facility – which would require a total rebuild – or transfer to the new Brunswick Valley STP.

The latter option has the potential to reduce the whole of life NPV of the required Ocean Shores STP upgrade project by approximately $12.6 million as well as allowing the construction of the originally proposed wetlands and effluent storage ponds for the Brunswick Valley Sewage Augmentation scheme. Council is progressing the project and has resolved to undertake a Risk Assessment analysis of the transfer option. This work is in progress.

Another indicator that has reduced in relative terms is the percentage of effluent recycled. This has fallen from 14% in 2014-15 to 11% in 2015-16. This is due to one of the two farmers utilising the Main Arm scheme not using water and the maturation of both the Byron bay 24 Hectare Melaleuca and the Bangalow Bamboo plantations reducing the volume of water required.

It should be noted however, these figures do not include the water recycled in Councils 27 hectares of wetlands at Byron Bay and Ocean Shores. It is estimated that approximately 300 megalitres per annum of recycled water is utilised by these schemes. This usage has not been reported – an oversight that will be corrected in the current year reporting. If this figure is included, Council’s percentage of effluent recycled would increase to approximately 20%.

Economic

Water – The water fund is free from debt and is forecast to be cash positive for the foreseeable future with significant levels of cash to be generated that will provide flexibility when considering capital projects such as the Mullumbimby Water Treatment Plant upgrade.

The water economic efficiency was excellent with all the key measures (Management, Treatment, and Water Mains) at less than the State median cost. The break up of the total Operations and Maintenance Cost per property is

Rous Bulk Water $211

Management $137

Operations $89

Maintenance $30

Chemicals $5

Clearly the largest cost source is Rous Water which has been the sole driver of the increase in this cost indicator over the past 10 years. During this time O&M and Management costs controlled by Council have actually decreased.

Sewer – The sewer financial economic performance achieved significant improvement this year with loan repayments dropping from $489 to $347 per property; return on assets increasing to 3.6% (up from 1.6%) and the Economic Real Rate of Return increasing from 4% to 6% this year. This is due in part to rationalising of the loan portfolio and active management of the financial assets by Council’s Finance Manager.

The Sewer Fund still has a large outstanding debt due to the $80 million capital upgrade programme completed in 2011. The recently completed Strategic Business Plan indicates the Sewer Fund could become debt free by 2021. As with the Water Fund this will provide flexibility when planning for the next round of major capital works of the Ocean Shores STP upgrade (2020) and the Byron Bay STP upgrade (2025).

One issue that needs to be considered is the rehabilitation of the decommissioned sewage treatment plant sites at South Byron, Brunswick Heads and Mullumbimby. It has always been assumed these would be revenue neutral. This currently does not look like being achieved and will need to be factored into future planning although it is not expected to have a material impact.

The sewer economic efficiency has also demonstrated significant improvement with the all key indicators either static or falling. The operating cost per property / per 100 km of main / per kilolitre all fell this year and continue to show a 10 year downward trend. The graph of the OMA over the past 10 years clearly demonstrates Council has held costs static over this time which represents a real reduction after inflation.

This compares favourably to the state situation where overall costs have been increasing and has been achieved without compromising the outputs of lower overflows, improved odour complaints, higher safety standards and higher standards of sewage treatment. It is expected Council will achieve a quantum reduction in OMA if the aging Ocean Shores treatment plant is closed and transferred to the new Brunswick Valley facility.

This overall financial health is due to the economic efficiency of the day to day operations and the efficient execution of the major capital projects. Council recently commissioned 2 new reservoirs (Cooper Shoot and Bangalow) which were both completed within the forecast budget of $5 million. This reflects the active approach to overall cost control in the Water and Sewer Services.

Financial Implications

The continued good performance in the water and sewerage operations is contributing to the overall health of the water and sewerage funds. This provides Council with the financial capacity to implement community aspirations in these areas.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

It is a requirement of the NSW DPI Water Best Practice Management Guidelines that these performance reports are reported to Council.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1 - Attachment 2

WS Action Plan 2015-16 - Byron Shire Council Byron Shire Council Water Supply – Action Plan Page 1
Summary In 2015-16, Byron Shire Council implemented all the water supply outcomes required by the NSW Best-Practice Management Framework and its performance has been [to be completed by Council]. Key actions from Council's Strategic Business Plan: - Insert achievements for Key Action 1 here for Byron Shire Council - Insert achievements for Key Action 2 here for Byron Shire Council

*INDICATOR*		*RESULT²*		*COMMENT/DRIVERS*	*ACTION*
	*Best-Practice Management Framework*	Implemented all the Best-Practice Required Outcomes¹	Very good	Implementation demonstrates effectiveness and sustainability of water supply business. 100% implementation is required for eligibility to pay an ‘efficiency dividend’.	Prepare a new 30-year IWCM Strategy, Financial Plan and Report in accordance with the July 2014 IWCM Check List (www.water.nsw.gov.au).
*CHARACTERISTICS*
5	Connected property density	43 per km of main		A connected property density below 30 can significantly increase the cost per property of providing services, as will also a high number of small discrete water supply schemes.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
9	Renewals expenditure	2.9%	Very good	Adequate funds must be programmed for works outlined in the Asset Management Plan – page 3 of the 2014-15 NSW Performance Monitoring Report.	*FOR INDICATORS 9 to 56* Where ranking is low, investigate reasons including past performance and trends, develop remedial action plan and summarise in this column.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
10	Employees	0.8 per 1,000 props
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
*SOCIAL - CHARGES*
12	Residential water usage charge	247 c/kL	Good	Benefits of strong pricing signals are shown on page 5 of the 2014-15 NSW Performance Monitoring Report.
		High ranking (2, 2)
13	Residential access charges	$179 per assessment	Good		See 16.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
14	Typical residential bill³ (TRB)	$596 per assessment	Good	TRB should be consistent with projection in the financial plan. Drivers – OMA Management Cost and Capital Expenditure.	See 43.
		High ranking (2, 2)
15	Typical developer charges	$3600 per ET
		Low ranking (4, 4)
16	Residential revenue from usage charges	70% of residential bills	Satisfactory	≥ 75% of residential revenue should be generated through usage charges.
		Median ranking (3, 3)
*SOCIAL – HEALTH*
19	Physical quality compliance	Yes	Very good
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
19a	Chemical quality compliance	Yes	Very good
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
20	Microbiological compliance⁴	Yes	Very good	Critical indicator. LWUs should annually review their DWMS in accordance with NSW guidelines⁴.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)

1. Council needs to annually ‘roll forward’, review and update its 30-year total asset management plan (TAMP) and 30-year financial plan, review

Council's TBL Performance Report and prepare an Action Plan to Council. The Action Plan is to include any actions identified in Council’s annual review of its DWMS (Indicator 20) and any section 61 Reports from DPI Water. Refer to pages 21, 98 and 102 of the 2015-16 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Performance Monitoring Report.

2. The ranking relative to similar size LWUs is shown first (Col. 2 of TBL Report) followed by the ranking relative to all LWUs (Col. 3 of TBL Report).

3. Review and comparison of the 2016-17 Typical Residential Bill (Indicator 14) with the projection in the later of your IWCM Strategy and financial
plan and your Strategic Business Plan is mandatory.
In addition, if both indicators 43 and 44 are negative, you must report your proposed 2017-18 typical residential bill to achieve full cost recovery.

4. Microbiological compliance (Indicator 20) is a high priority for each NSW LWU. Corrective action for non-compliance (≤97%), or any ‘boil water
alerts’ must be reported in your Action Plan. Refer to pages 5, 6 and 21 of the 2015-16 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Performance Monitoring
Report (www.water.nsw.gov.au) and NSW Guidelines for drinking water quality management systems, NSW Health and NSW Office of Water, 2013.

Byron Shire Council Water Supply – Action Plan Page 2

*INDICATOR*		*RESULT*		*COMMENT/DRIVERS*	*ACTION*
*SOCIAL – LEVELS OF SERVICE*
25	Water quality complaints	1.4 per 1,000 props	Satisfactory	Critical indicator of customer service.
		Median ranking (3, 3)
26	Service complaints	0 per 1,000 props	Very good	Key indicator of customer service.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
27	Average frequency of unplanned interruptions	13 per 1,000 props	Good	Key indicator of customer service, condition of network and effectiveness of operation.
		High ranking (2, 3)
30	Number of main breaks	7 per 100km of main	Good	Drivers – condition and age of water mains, ground conditions.
		High ranking (2, 2)
32	Total Days Lost	0.3%	Good
		High ranking (2, 2)
*ENVIRONMENTAL*
33	Average annual residential water supplied	169 kL per prop		Drivers – available water supply, climate, location (Inland or coastal), pricing signals (Indicator 3), restrictions.
		Median ranking (3, 2)
34	Real losses (leakage)	90 L/c/d	May require review	Loss reduction is important where an LWU is facing drought water restrictions or the need to augment its water supply system.
		Low ranking (4, 3)
*ECONOMIC*
43	Economic Real Rate of Return (ERRR)	3.1%	Good	Reflects the rate of return generated from operating activities (excluding interest income and grants). An ERRR or ROA of ≥ 0% is required for full cost recovery.
		High ranking (2, 1)
44	Return on assets (ROA)	3.6%		See 43.
		High ranking (2, 2)
45	Net debt to equity	11%	Good	LWUs facing significant capital investment are encouraged to make greater use of borrowings – page 13 of the 2014-15 NSW Performance Monitoring Report.
		High ranking (2, 1)
46	Interest cover	3		Drivers – in general, an interest cover > 2 is satisfactory.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
47	Loan payment	$0 per prop		The component of TRB required to meet debt payments. Drivers – expenditure on capital works, short term loans.
		Low ranking (4, 3)
49	Operating cost (OMA)	$471 per prop	May require review	Prime indicator of the financial performance of an LWU. Drivers – development density, level of treatment, management cost, topography, number of discrete schemes and economies of scale.	Review components carefully to ensure efficient operating cost.
		Low ranking (4, 2)
51	Management cost	$137 per prop	Good	Typically about 40% of the OMA. Drivers – No. of employees. No. of small discrete water schemes.
		High ranking (2, 2)
52	Treatment cost	$21 per prop	Very good	Drivers – type and quality of water source. Size of treatment works
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
53	Pumping cost		Not reported	Drivers – topography, development density and location of water source.

55	Water main cost	$54 per prop	Very good	Drivers – age and condition of mains. Ground conditions. Development density.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
56	Capital expenditure	$243 per prop	Satisfactory	An indicator of the level of investment in the business. Drivers – age and condition of assets, asset life cycle and water source.
		Median ranking (3, 2)

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1 - Attachment 4

SGE Action Plan 2015-16 - Byron Shire Council Byron Shire Council Sewerage – Action Plan Page 1
Summary In 2015-16, Byron Shire Council implemented all the sewerage outcomes required by the NSW Best-Practice Management Framework and its performance has been [to be completed by Council]. Key actions from Council's Strategic Business Plan: - Insert achievements for Key Action 1 here for Byron Shire Council - Insert achievements for Key Action 2 here for Byron Shire Council

*INDICATOR*		*RESULT²*		*COMMENT/DRIVERS*	*ACTION*
	*Best-Practice Management Framework*	Implemented all the Best Practice Required Outcomes¹	Very good	Implementation demonstrates effectiveness and sustainability of water supply and sewerage business. 100% implementation is required for eligibility to pay an ‘efficiency dividend’.	Prepare a new 30-year IWCM Strategy, Financial Plan and Report in accordance with the July 2014 IWCM Check List (www.water.nsw.gov.au).
*CHARACTERISTICS*
5	Connected property density	38 per km of main	Similar to the statewide median of 38	A connected property density below about 30 can significantly increase the cost per property of providing services.
7	Renewals expenditure	0.6%	Good	Adequate funds must be programmed for works outlined in the Asset Management Plan – page 3 of the 2014-15 NSW Performance Monitoring Report.	*FOR INDICATORS 7 to 57* Where ranking is low, investigate reasons including past performance and trends, develop remedial action plan and summarise in this column.
		High ranking (2, 3)
8	Employees	1.8 per 1,000 props	Satisfactory
		Median ranking (3, 3)
*SOCIAL – CHARGES*
12	Typical residential bill³ (TRB)	$1149 per assessment		TRB should be consistent with projection in the financial plan. Drivers – OMA Management Cost and Capital Expenditure.
		Lowest ranking (5, 5)
13	Typical Developer Charges	$9990 per ET	Good
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
14	Non-residential sewer usage charge	247c/kL	Good	Similar to OMA cost of 221c/kL.
		High ranking (2, 1)
*SOCIAL - HEALTH*
16	Sewerage coverage	99.6%	Very good
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
17	Percent sewage treated to tertiary level	100%	Good
		High ranking (2, 2)
18	Percent of sewage volume that complied	94%	Satisfactory	Key indicator of compliance with regulator.
		Median ranking (3, 3)
19	Sewage treatment works compliant at all times	1 of 4		Key indicator of compliance with regulator.

*SOCIAL – LEVELS OF SERVICE*
21	Odour Complaints	1 per 1,000 props	May require review	Critical indicator of customer service and operation of treatment works.
		Low ranking (4, 4)
22	Service complaints	1 per 1,000 props	Very good	Key indicator of customer service.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
23a	Average Duration of Interruption	60 minutes	Very good	Key indicator of customer service, condition of network and effectiveness of operation.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
25	Total Days Lost	0.3%	Good
		High ranking (2, 2)

1. Council needs to annually ‘roll forward’, review and update its 30-year total asset management plan (TAMP) and 30-year financial plan, review

Council's TBL Performance Report and prepare an Action Plan to Council. The Action Plan is to include any actions identified in Council’s section 61 Reports from DPI Water. Refer to pages 21, 98 and 102 of the 2015-16 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Performance Monitoring Report.

Byron Shire Council Sewerage – Action Plan Page 2

*INDICATOR*		*RESULT*		*COMMENT/DRIVERS*	*ACTION*
*ENVIRONMENTAL*
26	Volume of sewage collected per property	299 kL		Compare sewage collected to water supplied.
		Lowest ranking (5, 5)
27	Percentage effluent recycled	11%	Satisfactory	Key environmental indicator. Drivers – availability of potable water, demand, proximity to customers, environment.
		Median ranking (3, 3)
28	Biosolids reuse	100%	Very good	Key environmental indicator.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
32	Net Greenhouse gas emissions (WS & Sge)	170 t CO2/1000 props	Very good	Drivers – gravity vs pumped networks, topography, extent of treatment.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
34	Compliance with BOD in licence	100%	Very good	Key indicator of compliance with regulator requirements.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
35	Compliance with SS in licence	98%	May require review	Drivers – algae in maturation ponds, impact of drought.
		Lowest ranking (5, 4)
36	Sewer main breaks and chokes	21 per 100km of main	Good	Drivers – condition and age of assets, ground conditions.
		High ranking (2, 2)
37a	Sewer overflows to the environment	2 per 100km of main	Very good	Drivers – condition of assets, wet weather and flooding.
		Highest ranking (1, 3)
39	Non-residential percentage of sewage collected	25%		For non-residential, compare % of sewage collected to indicator 43 (% of revenue).
		Median ranking (3, 2)
*ECONOMIC*
43	Non-residential revenue	25%	Good	See 39 above.
		High ranking (2, 2)
46	Economic Real Rate of Return (ERRR)	6%	Good	Reflects the rate of return generated from operating activities (excluding interest income and grants). An ERRR or ROA of ≥ 0% is required for full cost recovery.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
46a	Return on assets	3.6%		See 46.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
47	Net debt to equity	11%	Good	LWUs facing significant capital investment are encouraged to make greater use of borrowings – page 14 of the 2014-15 NSW Performance Monitoring Report.
		High ranking (2, 1)
48	Interest cover	3		Drivers – in general, an interest cover of > 2 is satisfactory.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
48a	Loan payment	$347 per prop	Good	The component of TRB required to meet debt payments. Drivers – expenditure on capital works, short term loans.
		Highest ranking (1, 1)
50	Operating cost (OMA)	$662 per prop	May require review	Prime indicator of the financial performance of an LWU. Drivers – development density, level of treatment, management cost, topography, number of discrete schemes and economies of scale.	Review carefully to ensure efficient operating cost.
		Lowest ranking (5, 5)
52	Management cost	$158 per prop	Good	Drivers –number of discrete schemes, number of employees. Typically about 40% of OMA.
		High ranking (2, 3)
53	Treatment cost	$268 per prop	May require review	Drivers – type and level of treatment, economies of scale.
		Lowest ranking (5, 5)
54	Pumping cost	$117 per prop	May require review	Drivers – topography, development density, effluent recycling.
		Lowest ranking (5, 5)
56	Sewer main cost	$103 per prop	May require review	Drivers – topography, development density, effluent recycling.
		Lowest ranking (5, 5)
57	Capital expenditure	$110 per prop	May require review	An indicator of the level of investment in the business. Drivers – age and condition of assets, asset life cycle.
		Lowest ranking (5, 4)

2. The ranking relative to similar size LWUs is shown first (Col. 2 of TBL Report) followed by the ranking relative to all LWUs (Col. 3 of TBL Report).

3. Review and comparison of the 2016-17 Typical Residential Bill (Indicator 12) with the projection in your Strategic Business Plan is mandatory.

In addition, if both indicators 46 and 46a are negative, you must report your proposed 2017-18 typical residential bill to achieve full cost recovery.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.2

Report No. 4.2 Byron Shire Effluent Management Strategy (Draft)

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2017/1235

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Sewerage Services

Summary:

The attached document has been prepared as a shire wide effluent management strategy replacing the 2006 adopted Byron Bay Effluent Management Strategy. The Byron Bay strategy focussed on 3 streams of recycled water use:-

- Urban Reuse Corridor

- Regeneration Projects

- Rural Lands Project

Of these streams, the urban reuse corridor has been the most successful in terms of identified connections with over 70% of the identified users being connected. The quantity of recycled water used however has been low with the largest user being the Byron Bay Golf Course.

Regeneration projects have been the most successful as far as recycled water usage particularly if the wetlands are considered for their water usage. The number of projects, however, has been limited with only the West Byron Wetlands and the Melaleuca Plantation being implemented.

The largest identified project in the 2006 strategy was the Tyagarah Turf Farm. The project was put on hold by Council in 2007 when the Turf Farm pulled out of the project and it became unviable. Ironically, the new owner of the Turf farm has approached Council to restart the project.

For the shire wide strategy, it is therefore recommended Regeneration and Rural lands (including Biomass cropping) projects be the mainstay of the Effluent Management Strategy with continued expansion of the Byron Bay Urban Reuse corridor.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Water Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee note the Byron Shire Effluent Management Strategy and recommend its adoption by Council.

The Committee have an extraordinary meeting to workshop the strategy.

Attachments:

1 Byron Shire Effluent Management Strategy Rev 2, E2017/86469 , page 22 ⇩

Report

In 2006 Council adopted the Byron Bay Effluent Management Strategy which has directed Council’s recycled water schemes. When expanding the Byron Bay urban recycled water scheme in 2016, it was suggested by the General Manager that it was an appropriate time to review the strategy and consider the whole shire when doing so.

The draft strategy has been developed for the next 10 years and is attached. It has built on Council’s successes to date and also the general industry progression in recycled water use. For Byron Shire’s strategy the important points to note are

Urban recycled water schemes (dual reticulation) generally do not provide the biggest volume of recycled water usage. The strategy therefore does not propose development of any further schemes in the Shire other than maximising the usage of the existing scheme in Byron Bay.

The strategy pursues schemes that provide Council with a large degree of control of the amount of recycled water usage – projects such as wetlands and biomass cropping.

The key points of the draft strategy are therefore:-

· Dual reticulation has been allowed for in the new West Byron development in accordance with the current draft DCP for the area.

· Expansion of the urban scheme west along Ewingsdale Road to the farm and the Hospital site.

· Reactivation of the Tyagarah Turf Farm recycled water project following discussions with the new owner.

· Wetland expansion in the Belongil catchment.

· Wetland expansion at Brunswick Valley STP

· Wetland expansion at the old Ocean Shores STP

· Biomass crops at Brunswick Valley and Bangalow STPs.

The draft strategy has to date been driven by staff and is now ready to be workshopped through the Councillors and the Water Waste and Sewer Committee.

Financial Implications

Not applicable

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Not applicable

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.3

Report No. 4.3 Vallances Road Plan of Management

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2017/1259

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Sewerage Services

Summary:

At the 23 February 2017 ordinary meeting Council resolved to prepare a Plan of Management (POM) for the 108 hectare Vallances Road site encompassing a suite of sustainability initiatives that demonstrate a virtuous cycle that would be a showcase for the area and our community’s values.

The attached draft document presents the proposed Plan of Management for the site. It should be noted, as discussed at the February 2017 Strategic Planning Workshop, it is proposed to undertake extensive community consultation to identify activities to be undertaken on the Affordable Housing and Community Initiatives project area.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Water Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee note the Vallances Road Plan of Management.

Attachments:

1 Vallances Road Plan of Management - Rev 1, E2017/86476 , page 46 ⇩

Report

At the 23 February 2017 meeting, Council resolution 17-054 resolved:

1. That Council note the report.

2. That the proposed POM be prepared in conjunction with the Waste Water and Sewerage Committee.

3. That the terms of reference for the POM include the following:

a) Estimated costing for the initiatives and their budgetary feasibility in light of related projects in water and sewerage.

b) Possible timeframes for their implementation.

c) Financial viability of the potentially positive fiscal options.

d) Environmental advantages and costs.

e) The implications of not including the replacement of the Mullumbimby sewer system.

f) The marginal utility of improving the quality of current treatment (without wetland polishing) and utilising it in an effective reuse system.

g) considers options for agricultural enterprises that utilises effluent reuse on the property.

4. The POM should clearly examine and advise on all and each of the initiatives in the staff report in a holistic manner as they are part of a much bigger system with increasing demands.

5. That the Vallances Road Agistment contract review include eligibility criteria which seeks to ensure that appointed contractors are of good character and have acted lawfully and appropriately in previous contract activities

The attached document is the draft Plan of Management (POM) for the Valances Rd site. The POM has essentially added more detail to the original proposal presented to Council in February this year. The draft document also complies with the State Government requirements for development of a Plan of Management for Community Land.

The POM has divided the area into 7 key activity areas as follows

1. Brunswick Valley STP Project areas – this includes the process plant and proposed wetlands and effluent storage areas

2. Solar Farms – this is actually 2 areas with one for the BVSTP solar farm and the other for a community solar farm

3. Biomass project areas – for growing of biomass crops utilising biosolids and recycled water and using the crops for power generation

4. Environmental land use project areas – this will be a combination of revegetation areas; rehabilitation of mangroves and billabongs; river bank stabilisation works

5. Affordable Housing and Community Initiatives project area – it is recommended this area be put out for public consultation to determine the best use alternatives. Some immediate land use options that are available are eco tourism; educational/interpretative centres; and community gardens. It has not as yet been determined if the existing structures on the site including the 2 existing dwellings are a benefit or a hindrance at this stage.

6. Community access – possibly somewhat controversially, the POM has identified the main access thoroughfare to the site as being via the existing rail line and bridge that connects to an inactive road reserve into the western boundary. This would require significant will on the part of Council to bring to fruition. Parking would be at Lot 4 at the end of Station Street with access along the rail / road corridor by foot / bicycle / electric cars.

7. Throughout the site would be a network of walkways and information portals explaining the “virtuous cycle” of waste conversion to energy; solar power; carbon sequestration; environmental habitat; mangroves and riparian protection.

The site has real potential to be both a showcase for the area and our community’s values.

A catalyst to bringing the project alive is the proposed closing of the Ocean Shores STP and transferring the effluent to the Brunswick Valley site. The will initiate a $10 million plus spend that, given the healthy financial position of the Sewer Fund, can be expanded to include many of the ancillary projects identified in the draft POM.

In relation to Item 3(e) it should also be noted the issue of reducing stormwater entering the gravity sewer system in Mullumbimby is a separate project and has no impact on this proposed Plan of Management.

In relation to Item 3(f) there is considered to be no marginal utility in removing wetlands and in lieu upgrading the BVSTP recycled water system to include dual reticulation standard. These effluent streams can happen in parallel as occurs at the Byron Bay STP.

Financial Implications

The implementation of the draft Plan of Management for valances Rd could occur under the umbrella of the OSSTP transfer project with little material impact on the sewer reserve funds. Depending on the final configuration of the Affordable Housing and Community Initiatives project area; and the power generation projects, the site could in effect generate income that would be beneficial to the sewer reserve funds.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The draft Vallances Rd Plan of Management document has attempted to embody Council’s strategic objectives embodied in

· Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

· Sustainable Agriculture Strategy

· Low Carbon Strategy 2014

· Climate Change Strategic Planning Policy

· Community Gardens Policy

· Corporate Sustainability Policy

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.5

Report No. 4.5 Response to Alan Dickens Questions

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2017/1268

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Sewerage Services

Summary:

Mr Alan Dickens as a member of the Water Sewer and Waste Advisory Committee asked for questions to be tabled at the next committee meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee note the report.

Attachments:

1 Ocean Shores STS EPA Licence 784 Non compliance events 1999 to 2017, E2017/86814 , page 109 ⇩

Report

On July 27 2017, Mr Alan Dickens as a member of the Water Sewer and Waste Advisory Committee asked for questions to be tabled at the next committee meeting. Please find below the questions and responses for each.

How many EPA license breeches including dates and types of breeches plus location have occurred at Ocean Shores Treatment Plant?

Please refer to the attached file for the requested information.

The upgrading of Ocean Shores sewer pump stations 5004 and 5009, how will this effect the hydraulic load on Ocean Shores STP?

The upgrades have no effect on the hydraulic loading of the Ocean Shores STP – 5009 is being retrofitted with a pump to take care of lower flows, 5004 renewal is for the civil structures [existing pumps being utilised].

Why when asked by a member of Brunswick Progress Association in 2016 did the utility manager supply that the Design size for Ocean Shores STP was 1.9 ML/day when he had a report from GH&D presented in 2005 stating Ocean Shores could only treat 1.1 ML/day?

The Manager Utilities did not have access to the 2005 report at the time of preparing the response.

The Manager Utilities role was created in 2014/15 and was an amalgamation of Strategic Planning and Operations of Water and Sewerage under the one role.

Financial Implications

Nil

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Nil

Venue	Conference Room, Station Street, Mullumbimby
Date	Tuesday, 10 October 2017
Time	4.00pm