KWRLFPD AC Minutes
Date
12 March 2014
Time
4:00pm Location
MW KWR Office
Chairperson
Bruce Turner
Meeting Subject
Attendees
Con Raffa, Matthew Coleman, Frank Rovers, Frank Butera, Rosemary
Zurrer, Ian Anderson, Bernard Dillon, Mark Howard, Evan Nisbet, Gavan
O'Neill (GO), Jarrod Mitchell (JM), Mark Chicoine (MC)
Apologies
David Young
Note Taker
Mark Chicoine
Topic
Advisory Committee
Meeting 2
Presenter
1. 1. Welcome and introductions
Bruce Turner
Time
allott
ed
4.00
Di Discussion
Bruce welcomed everyone to the meeting and suggested a round of introductions for the
benefit of members who were not in attendance at the first meeting in December.
Bruce asked if there we any issues or items for General Business (Item 6 on the
Agenda) – these are all discussed under item 6 of the Minutes.
2. 2. Actions from previous meeting
Bruce Turner
4:05
Di Discussion
The status of actions:
1. MC to amend the TOR in track changes as noted in the discussion and to circulate a
revision for the endorsement of the Committee at the March meeting.
Status – action completed - revision available on Melbourne Water website.
2. MW to liaise with Cardinia Shire to produce a good map of all assets in the area and
who’s responsible for what.
Status – action completed. It was explained that producing combined mapping at a
meaningful scale would be impractical. It was agreed to work with existing suite of
maps, copies of which were provided at the meeting with a view to developing an
on-line mapping capability.
3. MW to develop a quarterly financial report on works spending within the District to
1
Topic
Presenter
discuss at each Committee meeting.
Time
allott
ed
Status – High level summary is included in discussion of today’s Agenda Item 3.
4. MW to approach other suitable Koo Wee Rup candidates as a potential committee
member.
Status – A call for expressions of interest at the Township committee meeting has
resulted in 4 applications being submitted. These are now being assessed and a
decision will follow within weeks.
5. MW to contact Baw Baw Shire to confirm a spot for them on the Committee.
Status – action completed. Council has accepted membership to the Committee and
appointed Vishal Gupta as their representative. Evan Nisbet from the Shire attended
on behalf of Vishal.
6. MW to report to the next meeting on how the $4.5 million System Improvement
Works ‘refund’ of regional function/role of carrier drains has been spent.
Status – To be discussed in today’s Agenda Item 3.
7. Future meeting topic: how MW prioritises the work it does in the District – where
and why.
Status – To be discussed in today’s Agenda Item 3.
8. Committee to consider the scope of a future field trip (~April) in light of MW’s report
on the priority works.
Status – To be discussed in today’s Agenda Item 5.
3. 3. Works Program and Budget
Jarrod
4:45
Di Discussion
Jarrod presented a series of slides setting out:

how the $4.5 million cost sharing allocation came to be and budget update of
what has been spent to date.
Gavan also explained the background and how the additional revenue came
about as a result of the previous Advisory Committee identifying the fact that
carrier drains provide a service to the wider area. MW accepted a determination
that it should pay for 50% of carrier drain works as backdated resulting in $4.5
mil.

a financial report of annual OPEX for District maintenance since 2010/11 for
precept and carrier drains by works activity.
It was noted that the ‘Other – Grant Funding – Natural Disaster Relief Funding' of
over $550k was a significant achievement and added benefit to the District.
Bernie queried whether the entire Grant funding was spent last year. Jarrod
responded that it had and that it is a requirement to have the allocated funds
spent within the year.

the Categories and Ratings used in the current works prioritisation process.
Matt commented that properties at the periphery of the District would tend to
rate as 'lower priority' because of their distance and ‘lower’ impact relative to
2
Topic
Presenter
Time
allott
more central or downstream assets. Gavan responded that MW has to be cleared
about the level of service for any given asset and relate this back to the
Customer Service Charter. He said this raised questions of who pays and how
much for any given level of service expectations. Frank queried whether MW
could foresee a change of rate to meet higher expectations. Gavan responded
that this has been raised in the past and MW would be prepared to have that
discussion if there was a demand for it either overall or in certain areas.
Con queried MW's ability to de-silt channels when a suitably dry opportunity
arises. Jarrod responded that this would come down to the established level of
service for any particular channel however the scheduling will focus on efficiently
delivering the programmed works during the drier months.

A map illustrating the 2013/14 Annual Works Program Update.
Jarrod explained that this was not set in stone and would evolve over time as it
was based on the risk matrix being applied leading to priorities and current
revenue/expenditure.

MW’s Asset Management Pilot Project aimed at taking a more strategic approach
to works in the District and improving the efficiency and value for money for
customers.
Jarrod explained that MW’s in-house engineers have modelled and undertaken
new surveys of many drains to determine actual capacities. Gavan noted that
this was important to identify ‘choke points’ / areas to intervene in future with
upgrades in the interests of the whole system. Jarrod explained that the capacity
assessment used Lidar technology and on-ground surveys done by in-house
survey teams. (Lidar is a remote sensing technology that measures distance by
illuminating a target with a laser and analysing the reflected light.) Together this
provides justification for the annual maintenance program – in the future its
planned about 80% being programmed works to maintain the drains to the
agreed level of service with the remaining 20% unscheduled for flood response
or other priorities that come up.. If desilting of a drain has been completed and
conclusion is that asset is still not adequate – any improvement would have to
become a capital project with funding (and possibly Federal environmental
approvals) being sought. Gavan indicated that MW would be coming to the next
meeting with next year’s draft annual maintenance program and budget.

A map illustrating the current drainage capacity of the drains based on a multicriteria assessment.
Rosemary queried why Mackie Drain upstream of the rail line was not coloured
on the map. She said this section needed to be cleaned as it was the main drain
protecting Longwarry Township. Jarrod responded MW would investigate whether
it needs to be included and should it have a higher level of protection given its
importance. Frank R suggested that during desilting work there is a need to be
measuring the level, rather than just ‘scraping along’ which can result in bumps
and 'over-cleared' spots. Matt also queried why some drains below Yallock Outfall
Drain were not shown. –
Actions:
1. MW to investigate asset ownership of Mackie Drain in Longwarry and
communicate to Rosemary asap and the Committee and the following meeting
2. MW to investigate the need for works on Mackie Drain upstream of the rail line
3
Topic
Presenter
and respond back to Rosemary.
Time
allott
ed
3. MW to discuss with Anthony J. the potential inclusion of drains below Yallock
Outfall Drain as these were not shown on the map.
4. 4. Customer Charter
Bruce / Mark
5:20
Di Discussion
Bruce checked with the Committee that there was no need to go over the contextsetting sections of the Charter in detail. He suggested that, in the time available, it
seemed best to focus on the Levels of Service and following sections which would likely
be of most interest. Feedback on the Charter was generally positive and Committee
members were encouraged to forward any comments they may have on these sections
to Mark.
Rosemary queried the use of the word ‘timeframe’ in the second paragraph of the
explanation of ‘What is a 1 in 100 year flood event’ on page 17. After discussion, it was
agreed to substitute the word ‘timeframe’ with ‘year’.
Jarrod noted that the ‘levels of service’ section set out what MW believed is achievable
based on current precept rate revenue. Gavan stated that in future the use of the
capacities map and works program would guide progress and would be revised as levels
of service are better understood.
Bruce asked members about the service levels for de-silting – should it done by
program or as needed? Members commented that it is dependent on how much channel
weed spraying is done and that it isn’t always just silt but related to bank erosion and
vegetation as well. Gavan noted that service levels could be different in different areas.
Matt suggested that with the right communications, there would be an appetite for
higher rates to support higher levels of service. He noted the cost was minimal
compared to most other farm inputs. Gavan added that this is where the asset
management approach to justifying works is so important, and in demonstrating the
achievement of outcomes.
Rosemary queried the statement regarding ‘maintaining your drains’ on page 23 that
says property owners are responsible providing stormwater ‘connections to the district
drainage system’. She suggested that this implied a responsibility for drainage works
beyond the property boundary. Mark H. responded that it is the owner’s responsibility to
work with Council and MW to ensure proper connection is made between properties and
public drains.
It was agreed that the reference to ‘your retail water provider’ under ‘Making payments’
on page 24 should be changed to ‘South East Water’. MW’s Koo Wee Rup email address
should also be added to the ‘Where to find more information’ and ‘Through social media’
sections on pages 25 and 28.
The Committee was asked how they believed the community should be consulted on the
Charter. The Committee’s preference was to use existing channels, e.g. special bulletin
and put the Charter on the MW web site, and in local/ regional offices, for comment.
Mark suggested an electronic feedback form. The Committee was not in favour of
having information or drop-in sessions unless requested on feedback forms as few
would likely attend. It was suggested this type of forum could be more useful when the
new works plan was released, to link this to MW's level of service commitments.
4
Topic
Presenter
Actions
Time
allott
ed
1. MW to amend the second paragraph of the explanation of ‘What is a 1 in 100 year
flood event’ on page 17 by substituting the word ‘timeframe’ with ‘year’.
2. MW to amend the reference to ‘your retail water provider’ under ‘Making payments’
on page 24 to ‘South East Water’.
3. MW to add MW’s Koo Wee Rup email address to pages 25 and 28.
5. 5. April Field Trip
Bruce / all
5:40
Di Discussion
Areas of interest to see on the tour include the outlets to Westernport Bay, Cora Lyn
Ford, ‘choke points’ / areas that historically have held water during floods Murray Road,
bridges, culverts/crossings.
It was agreed that the field trip would be organised for Friday 2 May at 12:30 on a bus
departing from the MW Koo Wee Rup office. A boxed lunch would be provided.
Actions:
1. MW organise a bus and box lunch, and will prepare and circulate a draft itinerary
for comment and finalisation.
6. 6. General Business
5:45
Discussion
Bruce asked the Committee for direction on publishing their details given the Terms of
Reference expectation that members are to engage in the community. It was agreed
that only member names would appear on the MW website and that the MW Koo Wee
Rup email address be listed on the website as a means of contacting members. There
was an acknowledgement that many members are known in the community so residents
could and will likely get in touch with them via other means as well.
Bernie queried whether it was fair that the Waterways and Drainage Charge applies as
well as the Precept Rate in the District. Gavan advised that the Waterways and Drainage
Charge was not paid by Precept Ratepayers.
Matt queried how the boundary of the Flood Protection District was determined and
suggested it should be expanded to included drains which are outside the district but
drain into the district and therefore act as carriers. Matt said he had drains across his
property that begin as private drains outside the district then become precept drains
inside the District. He said he believed the District should cover the full extent of the
catchment (which it currently does not). He pointed to large areas to the south of the
District that drain into or through the district but were not included in the boundary. He
also pointed to an area that was included in the district but did not drain into it. Gavan
suggested that a preliminary response be prepared by MW that will identify any such
drains and estimate how much those drains contribute to flows, as well as determine
how the District boundaries were first established.
Ian and Bernie also noted that due to upstream development in some areas, some drains
were contributing more now than they have in the past which helped explain why some
areas now flood. Gavan noted that upstream development particularly around Drouin was
5
Topic
Presenter
Time
allott
occurring and that planning for this was important which is tracked and managed by ed
MW’s Developer Works Team. Gavin agreed to discuss this issue in more detail at the next
meeting and particularly the process MW uses to manage the drainage impacts of
development and its proposed approach to mitigating the impacts.
Actions:
1. MW to publish the names of Committee members along with the MW Koo Wee Rup
email address on the MW Koo Wee Rup page of website.
2. That MW identify drains which are outside the district but drain into the district,
estimate how much those drains contribute to flows, as well as determine how the
District boundaries were first established.
3. MW to provide additional detail at the next meeting on the process MW uses to
manage the drainage impacts of development and its proposed approach to
mitigating the impacts.
7. 7. Next meeting
5:55
Next formal meeting to be scheduled for 1:00 – 3:00pm, Thursday 5 June 2014.
8. Meeting Close
Bruce Turner
Bruce thanked the committee and brought the meeting to a
close.
6
6:00