Council Minutes - Section B: Reports (1-7) - 26 March 2013
Contents | Previous Page: Section A – Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section B – Reports 8-14
Contents | Previous Page: Section A – Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section B – Reports 8-14
Reports 1-7, tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday 26 March 2013 held at City Hall, Little Malop Street in Geelong.
Portfolio: |
Finance – Cr S Kontelj |
Source: |
Financial Services |
General Manager: |
Jeff Wall, Corporate Services |
Index Reference: |
Financial Management \ Reporting |
On 16 October 2012 the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012 was proclaimed.
The Act is in response to one of the recommendations made by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission to replace existing insurance-based fire services levy with a property-based levy.
From 1 July 2013 Local Government will be required to bill, receipt and collect the Fire Services Property Levy via the Council rate notice and remit collections to the State Revenue Office on a quarterly basis.
The Levy will consist of a fixed component plus a variable component based on the property’s capital improved value multiplied by a land use classification rate. The rate for each land use classification (residential, commercial, industrial, primary production, public benefit, vacant) will be determined by the Minister on or before 31 May each year.
Property that is currently assessed as non-rateable under Section 154 of the Local Government Act 1989 will also be subject to the levy.
The estimated leviable amount payable by Council is $355,000 and represents the levy payable on Council owned properties as well as property where Council is the lessee.
Land where Council acts as Committee of Management for the Crown is not leviable in 2013-2014.
In order to reduce ‘rates shock’ a communication strategy, which includes direct mail to individual property owners has been developed. The communication will inform all rateable and non-rateable property owners of the introduction of the Fire Services Property Levy and the associated amount of the levy prior to them receiving their rate notice.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That Council notes the:
impact the Fire Services Property Act 2012 will have on rateable and non-rateable properties;
estimated cost to Council of the Fire Services Property levy for all Council owned, controlled or leased properties; and
communication strategy which includes advising property owners by direct mail, print and electronic media of the levy impact prior to receiving the rate notice, in order to reduce a ‘rates shock’.
Carried.
In August 2011 the Department of Treasury & Finance released an options paper in response to one of the recommendations made by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The objective was to ensure that all property owners benefiting from Victoria’s Fire Services should make a contribution to the cost of the service compared with the existing insurance-based levy. The options paper proposed that the current insurance based funding model be replaced with a more equitable and transparent property based levy.
On 16 October 2012 the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012 was proclaimed. The levy is effective from 1 July 2013 and will require local government to bill, receipt and collect a Fire Services Property Levy on rateable and non-rateable properties.
Under the legislation Council will be responsible for:
Calculating and assessing the levy amount for each individual property and billing as part of Council’s rate notice;
Responding to property owner enquiries;
Collecting the fire services property levy;
Recovering any outstanding amounts and late payer interest (where applicable);
Remitting returns and the levy amounts to the Commissioner of State Revenue; and
Keeping records of land subject to fire services property levy.
The levy will contribute 77.5% of the annual funding requirements of the Country Fire Authority (CFA) with the State contributing the remaining 22.5%.
The Levy will consist of a fixed component plus a variable component based on the property’s capital improved value. The fixed component will be $100 for residential properties and $200 for non-residential properties. The variable component will be a rate based on the land use classification for different property types (residential, commercial, industrial, primary production, public benefit, vacant) and will be determined by the Minister on or before 31 May each year. A concession of $50 per property will apply to pensioner concession and Veterans Affairs gold card holders.
Council will also be required to apply the fire services property levy on all Council owned land and buildings. Section 20 of the Act deems that land which is vested in, occupied or under the care, control or management of Council will only incur the fixed charge in respect of some land use classifications. Section 20 refers to Council owned or controlled land that is not operated for commercial purposes, but is available for public use such as halls and service club rooms, community and neighbourhood facilities, sports grounds and parks and gardens.
Property that is currently assessed as non-rateable by Council will also be subject to the levy. A separate rate notice will be required to be issued to non-Council owned non-rateable leviable land. This will be the first time a rate notice is issued to these properties.
A Council project team has been working on implementing the legislative requirements of the Act to assist with the move from an insurance based levy to a property based levy. As part of the implementation, three major areas of concern have been identified:
The impact on rate-exempt (non-rateable) property owners;
The actual cost to Council of a property based levy on Council owned land compared with the cost of insurance premiums for fire services; and
Communicating with rateable and non-rateable property owners to distinguish between the impact of this levy and Council rate movements in order to reduce a ‘rate shock’.
Under Section 154 of the Local Government Act 1989, Council has the power to grant rate exemptions to certain properties based on usage and ownership. The majority of Council owned property is deemed to be rate exempt. Council owned buildings are insured against property damage, including fire. The 2012-2013 amount remitted on insurance premiums for Fire Services was $109,486.
The Fire Services Property Levy, however, requires all Council owned property, as well as other Council deemed non-rateable properties, to be levied. Council, as Committee of Management (COM) also has state owned land under its care, control and/or management. Councils are not required to pay a levy on this land in 2013-2014 nor are other Committees of Management such as Foreshore Committee in 2013-2014.
A summary of non-rateable properties based on ownership and classification is shown in the tables below:
Summary of properties based on ownership (as at 11 January 2013)
|
Property ownership |
Number of properties |
Leviable |
Non Leviable – AVPCC Exempt |
Non Leviable – Commonwealth Land/State owned land |
|
Non-Council owned |
650 |
543 |
96 |
11 |
|
Council owned |
1,465 |
739 |
726 |
0 |
|
Council Committee of Management |
155 |
143 |
12 |
0 |
|
Non Council Committee of Management |
16 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
|
Commonwealth/State owned land |
538 |
0 |
0 |
538 |
|
TOTAL |
2,824 |
1,441 |
834 |
549 |
Summary of non-Council owned properties based on ownership
|
Property ownership |
Number of properties |
|
Religious organisations (including non-government schools) |
258 |
|
Community organisations |
72 |
|
Community organisation (State owned property leased to a third party) |
39 |
|
Barwon Water |
174 |
|
TOTAL |
543 |
Summary of properties based on Fire Services Property Levy classification
|
FSPL Category |
Residential |
|
Industrial |
Primary Production |
Public Benefit |
Vacant |
Totals |
|
Non-Council owned |
149 |
67 |
80 |
2 |
234 |
11 |
543 |
|
Council owned |
19 |
84 |
4 |
1 |
611 |
20 |
739 |
|
Council Committee of Management |
2 |
9 |
6 |
1 |
125 |
0 |
143 |
|
Non-Council Committee of Management |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
16 |
|
Totals |
170 |
160 |
90 |
4 |
986 |
31 |
1,441 |
A total of 1,441 non-rateable properties, 739 Council owned and 543 non-Council owned, will be subject to the levy. The 143 properties where Council acts as Committee of Management are not leviable in 2013-2014 nor are the 16 properties where another body acts as Committee of Management for Crown Land. Additionally, 543 non-Council owned property owners have not previously received a rate notice and may or may not have had to pay insurance premiums for fire services.
The levy amount on 168 residential properties will be $100 plus a variable component based on the property’s capital improved value and for all other classifications $200 plus a variable component based on the property’s capital improved value.
Of the 739 Council owned properties, 534 will incur a fixed charge only of $200 (properties covered under Section 20 of the legislation). The majority of these properties are sports grounds, parks and gardens that Council has not previously paid insurance premium for fire services.
An estimate of the cost to Council owned property is approximately $304,500 as shown in the table below. The variable rate is based on preliminary rates provided by the State Revenue Office. Councils are to be advised of the actual rates on or before 31 May.
![[image]](130326-minutes-2.jpg "130326-minutes-2.jpg")
A further $50,000 has also been estimated for non-Council owned properties where Council is the lessee.
In order to reiterate that this is a State imposed levy and not a Council imposed fee, it is important that information be made available to rateable and non-rateable property owners prior to issuing the Council rate notice in order to communicate this significant change in funding Victoria’s fire services.
A communication strategy has been developed, including print and electronic media, with the following objectives:
To communicate the introduction of the fire services levy as one of the recommendations made by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.
To communicate that the levy will replace the existing insurance based levy.
To encourage ratepayers to check with their insurer that their premium has been adjusted.
To communicate that the fire services levy is a State Government tax.
To communicate the Council is required by law to collect the levy on behalf of the State Government.
To communicate that the fire services levy does not contribute to the Council revenue.
To communicate the means by which residents can find out more about the levy.
To communicate the objection process to ratepayers who are not familiar with the objection process.
To communicate the rates payment options available to ratepayers.
Prior to rate notices being issued in August, individual property owners will be advised by mail of the likely Fire Services Property Levy dollar impact for 2013-2014. The variable rates for each property classification will be available from the State Government by 31 May 2013.
The estimated cost to advise Council’s 110,000 property owners, excluding preparation of the data, is $56,000 for printing of the notice and postage. This equates to an estimated spend of $0.51 per property. This cost would be included as part of Council’s claim to the State Government associated with implementation of the Fire Services Property Levy Act.
Not applicable.
The impact and cost of the Fire Services Levy on Council is significant. The major areas of cost relate to implementation of the Act – systems and processes, administrative costs associated with the collection of the levy, a levy on Council owned and a levy on Non-Council owned property where Council is the lessee.
Under the legislation, the State Government will consider the cost Council may reasonably incur in performing functions under the Act and will pay an annual fee based on a funding formula developed in consultation with the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and the Revenue Management Association (RMA). In the first year there will also be a start up payment to cover implementation costs. These payments are still to be determined by the State Government and the amount is unknown at this point in time.
The cost to make system changes, upgrade and implement systems for Pathway (Infor) will be borne by the State Government.
Council will be reimbursed for work associated with the identification and valuation of the 1,452 non-rateable leviable properties. The Valuer General Victoria has been billed for identification of the 1,452 properties at $10 for each property, for a total of $15,972.00(inc GST).
The Valuer General Victoria will be billed for the valuation of 775 properties at $40 for each property. This will be offset with payment to Westlink Corporation Pty Ltd for the review and completion of required 2012 level valuations for these properties.
A communication strategy is underway and options are being considered. One option is a mail out to all property owners in June 2013 advising of the levy and an estimate of costs per property. The estimated cost for this communication is $56,000.
Another communication option is to include general information with the 4th rate instalment notice due to be issued in May 2013. This would reach approximately 50% of property owners. Other options would have to be in place to notify the remaining property owners.
A project team is managing all tasks to comply with the implementation deadline of 1 July 2013.
The annual rate notice is to be redesigned to be compliant with the FSPL.
It is anticipated there will be a need for more customer service staff to answer the number of queries expected during August and September 2013 once the rate notices have been issued. This impact may be reduced if communications are sent out in June 2013.
Levy amounts payable by Council will be offset against a reduction in the amount payable for fire services within insurance premiums. The levy will however, be greater than the amount remitted by Council in 2012-2013 for fire services by approximately $300,000.
Council will have obligations for compliance relating to implementation, billing, receipting, collecting, remitting and reconciling the levy as legislated in the Act. A Manual of Operating Instructions (Operations Manual) is to be provided by the State Revenue Office outlining administrative requirements and business rules to ensure all Councils adopt consistent processes and procedures in administering the Fire Services Property Levy.
No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest in this matter, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act.
Council will be responsible for all aspects of the introduction and implementation of the Fire Services Property Levy. The State Government will provide Councils with an Operations Manual, information pack/FAQs dealing with responding to enquiries/complaints and an insert explaining the operation of the levy to be included with the rate notice. All contact in relation to the levy however, will be between Council and the property owner and Council and the State Revenue Office.
The risks associated are similar in nature to those experienced by Council as part of its rating process, including issuing the collection notice (rate notice), managing property owner enquiries and objections, granting deferral and/or waiving of the levy and non-payment of the levy by property owners.
The lodgement and reporting of the collected levy to the State Revenue Office on a quarterly basis, as well as an annual return, will be an additional requirement of councils. Council’s balance sheet will show a liability for the total amount billed, total fire services levy payable as part of the rating process and this liability will be reduced on receipt of payment by the ratepayer and remittance to the State Revenue Office.
The State Revenue Office considers that the lodgement of returns will meet the requirements of the Act and unless significant discrepancies exist extensive auditing with not be required.
The Fire Services Property Levy will impact on properties not previously rated including churches, charitable and community organisations. The impact of a property/rating based Fire Services Property Levy relative to the insurance based fire services levy are not yet fully understood as individual property owners will be impacted differently.
A communication strategy has been developed as part of the implementation of the Fire Services Property Levy to inform the community of the changes and to manage ratepayer enquiries/complaints in moving from an insurance-based to a property-based levy.
The first key message will be to inform ratepayers that they will no longer need to pay a fire services levy through their property insurance and that before renewing property insurance, this year, to check with their insurer to understand changes to their insurance premium after 1 July 2013. This communication commenced in February.
The communications plan will also be implemented as part of the annual budget and rating process.
Direct communication with individual properties owners is also recommended in order to distinguish the impact of this levy on property owners from Council rate decisions and movements.
Portfolio: |
Planning - Cr Macdonald |
Source: |
Economic Development, Planning & Tourism - Statutory Planning |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Community and Social Planning |
The purpose of this report is to brief Council on the historic covenant which relates to the sale and manufacture of liquor on land within the part of Ocean Grove commonly known as Old Ocean Grove’.
The secondary purpose is to advise Council and the Ocean Grove community how Council’s Statutory Planning Unit intends to deal with the liquor covenant going forward.
There are many types of covenants that affect land within the Geelong municipality, including:
covenants that prescribe what building materials can be used;
covenants that prescribe the minimum size of dwellings;
covenants that prescribe what uses are not permitted.
Most covenants are placed on title by the developer/land owner and not Council. In this instance, the covenant in ‘Old Ocean Grove’ was put in place by the Methodist Church when the land was originally subdivided in the 1880’s.
Council must have regard to any covenant registered on title when considering a planning permit application. If the granting of a permit would authorise anything that would result in a beach of a covenant, then Council must refuse to grant a permit.
Although the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ liquor covenant was not placed on title by Council, Council does have to give regard to the covenant when considering planning permit applications for liquor licences. This means, Council can not issue a planning permit for a liquor licence in Ocean Grove where the restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale and manufacture of liquor is registered on title.
There are currently three methods to facilitate the removal of a covenant on a title, via
the Supreme Court;
a Planning Scheme Amendment;
a Planning Permit.
Removal by the Supreme Court is initiated by the land owner for individual property(s). The process would normally take approximately 4 months and cost the land owner up to $15,000.
A Planning Scheme Amendment could be initiated by Council, covering some/many/all of the properties affected by the covenant and take up to two years with no guarantee of the desired outcome.
A planning permit application to remove the covenant is initiated by an applicant and relates to an individual property(s). If a beneficiary objects to the planning permit application to remove the covenant, then Council must refuse the application, subject to limited exceptions.
Previously Council has refused planning permit applications for the removal of the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ liquor covenant where it was considered that a beneficiary objected to the application. Following the refusal by Council, some land owners have gone to the Supreme Court to have the covenant removed.
Normally the onus is on an applicant for a liquor licence to demonstrate whether a covenant is valid or not. However, in an effort to provide clear advice to applicants and in response to concerns raised within the Ocean Grove community regarding Council’s perceived inconsistent approaches to applications, Council Officers took a proactive approach to resolving the on going issue of the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ liquor covenant by seeking legal advice.
The legal advice dated 6 February 2013 considered that it is highly likely that the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ liquor covenant is invalid as it does not meet the relevant legal requirements for passing the benefit of a covenant. Put simply, because the Old Ocean Grove liquor covenant does not disclose any beneficiaries, Council is able to support or refuse an application to remove the covenant purely on its planning merits. Even if an objection has been received from a land owner that is also affected by the covenant, that land owner’s objection has the same standing as that of any other resident.
On the basis of this legal advice, in the future Council Officers will deal with a planning permit application which proposes the removal of the covenant like any other planning permit application. Notices will be sent to adjoining owners/occupiers (and not all properties which are bound by the covenant), notices will be placed in the newspaper and sign(s) on site. Any objections received will be considered on their planning merits and the application will not be automatically refused as has been the practice in the past.
If/when the covenant has been removed from the title, consideration will be given to a planning permit for a liquor licence that gives consideration to the planning scheme guidelines, as happens across the rest of the municipality. It should be noted that these processes can run concurrently.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That Council endorses this report.
Carried.
The introduction of the Planning and Environment (Restrictive Covenants) Act 2000 on 12 December 2000 required Councils to have regard to any restrictive covenant(s) that are registered on the title for that land when assessing planning permit applications. Since then Council has not been able to issue a planning permit which would result in a breach of a restrictive covenant (unless a planning permit has already been issued to allow the removal or variation of the covenant).
Council does not enforce restrictive covenants. Rather, in practice, the land owners who benefit from a restrictive covenant (the beneficiaries) are responsible for enforcing the covenant.
The restrictive covenant at ‘Old Ocean Grove’ was put in place when the land was originally subdivided in the 1880’s. The land was subdivided for some 2,500 blocks. The catalyst for the restrictive convent derived from the Methodist Church, who sought to establish a new settlement named “Ocean Grove” based on the original Methodist settlement in New Jersey, United States of America.
Appendix 1 provides a copy of the original subdivision of ‘Old Ocean Grove’. The subdivision plan makes reference to the restrictive covenant, stating:
"Conditions of Sale will absolutely prohibit Sale of Intoxicating liquor on this Estate.”
Appendix 2 provides a recent map of the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ area.
Since 2000 Council has been unable to issue a planning permit for a liquor licence where a restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale and manufacture of liquor is registered on title.
While the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ restrictive covenant has remained largely intact, there are a number of properties where liquor is sold. This is due to a range of factors including:
the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ covenant does not apply to Crown land;
liquor licences being obtained from Liquor Licensing Victoria prior to the state wide Planning Scheme coming into operation in Geelong on 27 July 2000. The need for a planning permit for a liquor licence commenced with this Planning Scheme;
planning permits being issued prior to the introduction of the Planning and Environment (Restrictive Covenants) Act 2000 on 12 December 2000. Before this Act came into effect Council’s did not have to have regard to a covenant registered on title;
the Owner(s) proceeded to the Supreme Court to have the covenant removed and then applied for a liquor licence and;
a planning permit was not required for a packaged liquor licence (e.g. bottle shop) until 8 April 2011.
It should be noted that Council officers have mistakenly issued one planning permit for a liquor licence where the covenant is still on the title. When this anomaly was brought to their attention, Officers began working with the venue operator to resolve this situation, even though the legal advice suggests that the covenant is not enforceable in any case.
Council officers have sought legal advice to assist with matters of interpretation of the restrictive covenant. The outcome of this legal advice forms part of the discussion section below.
Council officers sought legal advice (dated 6 February 2013) in relation to the validity of the restrictive covenant.
Summary of the legal advice:
The legal advice has been provided to Council officers without the benefit of a judgement of a Court. However, it provides an appropriate foundation upon which Council can consider subsequent applications in relation to the affected land and other parcels burdened by covenants with the same wording.
Restrictive covenants represent private planning. They are a contract between an owner and a purchaser, but remain enforceable in equity against future persons who take title of the land with notice of the obligations/restrictions.
For a restrictive covenant to be effective, it must successfully do two things:
Pass the benefit of the covenant; and
Pass the burden of the covenant.
‘Benefited land’ being the land that benefits from the restrictions on the burdened land. ‘Burdened land’ being the land where the restrictions of the covenant apply.
The ‘Old Ocean Grove’ restrictive covenant does not identify any benefited land. The covenant therefore fails one of the above tests.
Council officers have been advised that it is ‘highly likely’ that the Covenant is invalid in so far as it does not appear to meet the equitable requirements for passing the benefit of a restrictive covenant. The advice relates to a specific property in the affected area. Nonetheless, identically worded covenants (save for the address and names of the parties) with different covenant numbers affect a substantial number of other properties in the town of Ocean Grove, and the interpretation of this wording is relevant.
Effectively, this means that the obligations of the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ restrictive covenant do not run in equity with the burdened land to a purchaser with notice of the restriction. Rather, the obligations were only a contractual right between the original purchaser of the land and the original vendor.
Section 61(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states:
“If the grant of a permit would authorise anything which would result in a breach of a registered restrictive covenant, the responsible authority must refuse to grant the permit unless a permit has been issued, or a decision made to grant a permit, to allow the removal or variation of the covenant.”
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 61(4) of the Act, the legal advice confirms that the removal of the restrictive covenant could be dealt with via permit application. Given there are no beneficiaries to the restrictive covenant, the ‘test’ against the potential detrimental impact of the removal of the restrictive covenant on all other beneficiaries does not stand. This removes any potential for objection by other benefited land owners, which could hinder the approval of a permit to remove the covenant.
Where to from here:
Based on this legal advice, it is considered that a Planning Scheme Amendment is not required as Council has the ability to consider individual planning permits to remove the covenant.
Council officers will continue to advertise planning permit applications for the removal of the covenant (by way of notice in the newspaper, sign(s) on site and notices being sent to adjoining land owners/occupiers) and will consider any objections received.
However, officers will now be able to make a decision based on the merits of the application instead of automatically refusing the application whenever an objector is also affected by the same covenant.
Council’s ability to make a decision based purely on the merits of the application for removal of the covenant will now negate the need for individual land owners to have the restriction removed via a costly application to the Supreme Court as their only other option.
There are no environmental implications.
There are no ongoing financial implications to Council given that the legal advice provided precludes Council initiating a costly planning scheme amendment. However, it should be noted that Council obtained that legal advice at a cost.
A planning permit will still be require to remove the covenant from the title. However, in the future any objections received will be considered equally on their merits rather than triggering an automatic refusal of the application in instances where the objector is also affected by the same covenant.
No Council Officers have any direct or indirect interest in the matter to which this report relates in accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act.
There are no risks associated with this.
Council Officers will consider any objections received to a planning permit application to remove the covenant and will make a decision on the application based on its merits.
Planning permit applications for a liquor licence will be considered in the context of the effect on the well-being and amenity of local residents and communities as well as with reference to the planning scheme.
Each planning permit application for the removal of the covenant will be advertised by way of notice in the newspaper, sign(s) on site and notices being sent to adjoining land owners and/or occupiers.
Communication of this report will be undertaken by advertisements in the Ocean Grove media and a letter written to all land owners affected by the ‘Old Ocean Grove’ liquor covenant.
Portfolio: |
Enterprise Geelong- Cr Harwood |
Source: |
Planning Strategy and Economic Development |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
National Transport and Logistics Precinct |
The development of a National Transport and Logistics Precinct based on the integration of the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct (GREP), Avalon Airport and the Port is a key component of the broader Northern Gateway Precinct project identified in the proposed Council funding priorities document.
Recognising that the provision of adequate infrastructure is critical to a freight and logistics precinct, the City consulted with a number of existing businesses to understand their existing and future infrastructure needs.
This work identified that channel access at the Port of Geelong is placing limitations on port users such as Graincorp and Shell. Continued expansion of trade through the port could be constrained in the future unless the access issues are addressed. It is imperative that further analysis of channel access be undertaken now.
Further growth of the port will benefit the wider precinct with the GREP identified as back up land for port related industries and future opportunities for freight connections between the port and Avalon Airport.
The City approached the port operator and a number of port users to form a partnership to oversee the development of an infrastructure plan for the port. The plan will examine the need for infrastructure upgrades to accommodate growth and to attract new trades to the Port, including channel access and road and rail connections. The partnership includes representatives of the City, GeelongPort, the Committee for Geelong, Graincorp, Incitec Pivot and Midway. Other key stakeholders providing technical assistance include Shell and the Victorian Regional Channels Authority.
The partnership agreed to fund development of the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan. GHD and Juturna were appointed recently to deliver the Plan via a tender process.
The Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan will be used for two purposes; to highlight the significance of the port to State and Federal Government and the need for strategic investment in the port’s infrastructure and to showcase the investment potential of the port to the private sector to attract investment and new users to the port. Completion of the plan is due in June 2013 and a further report to Council will be prepared at that time.
Cr Harwood moved, Cr Richards seconded -
That Council notes the progress of the National Transport and Logistics precinct and the appointment of GHD Juturna to develop the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan.
Carried.
The establishment of a National Transport and Logistics Precinct in Northern Geelong was previously identified as one of Council’s thirteen funding priorities. The importance of the project will be reaffirmed in the proposed Council funding priorities as part of the broader Northern Gateway Precinct. The provision of adequate transport infrastructure is critical to the establishment a freight and logistics precinct. Consultation with a number of key businesses already operating in this precinct indicated that they were relatively satisfied with the existing level of infrastructure provision in terms of road and rail access. The exception to this is the channel access at the Port of Geelong. Graincorp and Shell both confirmed that the existing channel access places limitations on ship loading. Limitations on ship loading can have significant impacts on the transportation cost of goods.
The City approached the port manager and other port users to gauge the level of support for further analysis of infrastructure needs at the port. There was broad consensus on the need for an infrastructure plan for the Port and a steering committee was established to oversee its preparation. The committee comprises representatives from GeelongPort, the Committee for Geelong, Graincorp, Incitec Pivot and Midway with each agency agreeing to fund the preparation of the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan. The Plan will; analyse future infrastructure needs based on existing and future trade forecasts; include supply chain analysis to identify potential new port users and will provide recommendations and strategic justification for future investment in infrastructure at the port. The plan will also identify necessary upgrades to road and rail infrastructure which may be required. Taking a 50 year time horizon the plan will set out the vision for how the port can maximise capacity and realise the opportunities for growth. The steering committee also includes representatives from Shell and the Victorian Regional Channels Authority who provide technical support.
A representative from Infrastructure Australia (IA), the statutory body appointed by the Federal Government to advise government, investors and infrastructure owners on infrastructure needs and financing investment in infrastructure visited Geelong and highlighted the need to take a long term view of planning for the port.
The Victorian Regional Channels Authority commissioned a study which considers global bulk shipping trends and the implications for the Port of Geelong. The Desktop Study of Global Shipping Trends in the Trades Currently Linked to the Port of Geelong reports that ships calling in to the Port of Geelong are getting larger in both dimensions and tonnage. It noted that ship owners responded to the global financial crisis by scrapping older, smaller ships in record numbers. This is predicted to continue until 2015 “by which time the global bulk fleet will have reshaped itself with a more modern, but notably larger sized fleet profile”. This increase in the size of the worlds shipping fleet will have implications for trade through the Port of Geelong.
The Geelong shipping channel can accommodate ships with a draught of 10.8 metres and up to 11.7 metres with tidal assistance. The channel is maintained to a depth of 12.3 metres. Oil tankers accessing Geelong have an average draught of 16 metres. The draught limitation at Geelong means that these vessels are restricted by as much as 27% of the their maximum draught. Vessels transporting grain are facing similar restrictions with the average draught being 14 metres. The inability to accommodate fully laden vessels places the Port of Geelong at a significant disadvantage and adds to transport costs. The study of global shipping trends referred to the draught limitation as “a significant market disadvantage. If this restrictive situation were to persist in the long term, prominent shippers in some important trades may consider using alternative ports”.
The channel into the Port of Melbourne was deepened to provide for a draught of 14 metres in 2009. The Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan will address the issue of channel deepening at the Port of Geelong at a strategic level. The Plan will also consider hinterland issues including the location of potential new bulk trades which could utilise the Port of Geelong and what road and rail connections would be used for transport to the port. This would include recommendations for rail and road upgrades and other mechanisms to increase the capacity of existing networks such as the use of High Productivity Freight Vehicles (HPFVs).
The economic benefits that the port provides to the Geelong region are significant. The Port of Geelong is Victoria’s premier bulk cargo port handling 12.2 million tonnes in 2010/2011. Direct employment generated by port activities is around 612 FTEs with up to 1310 indirect FTEs. The City is continuing to work with the port owner and port users to ensure they can continue to grow their businesses in Geelong. The Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan is an important first step in ensuring the ongoing vitality of the port and also in strengthening the foundations of the broader National Transport and Logistics precinct.
Channel improvements will require significant investment, with this in mind, the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan is being prepared to inform State and Federal governments about the significant economic contribution the port makes to the broader economy. It will also aim to appeal to investors and potential new users of the port to highlight its investment potential. The Plan will also be provided to IA to inform their advice.
The State Government is preparing a new policy which will set out its vision for the future of freight transport; the Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan are due for imminent release. Through consultation with State Government departments, the City and GHD Juturna will ensure that the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan is complementary to the Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan.
Environmental impacts will be considered through the preparation of the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan.
The City’s contribution to the development of the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan is fully funded from the existing 2012/13 budget allocations. The City is contributing $70,000 to fund the project and GeelongPort, Graincorp, Committee for Geelong, Incitec Pivot, Midway are contributing $85,000.
A $50,000 budget concept for the 2013/14 financial year is currently under consideration. This allocation would be used for further analysis of the infrastructure directions identified in the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan. Dependent on additional contributions from other funding partners, this allocation will be used for additional scoping and preliminary design and the development of a business case to be presented to Infrastructure Australia to advocate for further investment in infrastructure.
The preparation of the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan will not result in legal or statutory implications for the City. The Plan will indicate future assessment processes which may be required for channel improvements and other infrastructure upgrades.
No Council officers have a direct or indirect interest in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act in the issue to which this report relates.
The development of the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan will not result in any risks to Council. The Plan will include a risk assessment of the Plan’s recommendations.
Further development at the Port of Geelong will have positive social impacts through the potential for increased employment. Social impacts will be considered through further assessment processes which will include examination of other issues such as traffic impacts, noise and environmental safety.
Preparation of the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan will include consultation with key industry stakeholder. Given the technical nature of the project, consultation with the wider community is not proposed at this stage.
Portfolio: |
Arts & Culture - Cr Heagney |
Source: |
Community Services - Arts & Culture |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Arts & Culture Libraries |
The purpose of this report is to present the Geelong Regional Library Corporation (GRLC) Annual Report (Attachment 1- previously distributed with briefing papers).
The GRLC outlines the key achievements for the past 12 months.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That Council note the Annual Report of the Geelong Regional Library Corporation 2011/2012.
Carried.
The City of Greater Geelong in partnership with Surf Coast Shire, Golden Plains Shire and Borough of Queenscliffe established the Geelong Regional Library Corporation (GRLC) in March 1997 to operate library services in the region.
In 2011/2012 the GRLC operated a total of 16 branches in the region, three mobile libraries and the community library service for people unable to physically access public libraries. The City of Greater Geelong’s 13 libraries are located in: Barwon Heads; Belmont; Chilwell; Corio; Drysdale; Geelong; Geelong West; Highton; Lara, Newcomb, Ocean Grove, Waurn Ponds and Western Heights College. The mobile library service visits Anakie on a fortnightly basis and Leopold, Portarlington and St Leonards on a weekly basis.
The GRLC Annual Report is prepared annually in accordance with the Act. The report details the performance against KPI’s, identifies achievements, provides details on membership and loans. There is a section that highlights infrastructure projects for the period, programs and events conducted during 2011-2012, legislative compliance, staff and training and a financial report for the period ending June 30th 2012.
There are no environmental implications for Council in the adoption of this report.
There are no financial implications associated with the adoption of the report. Council’s contribution to the GRLC will be considered as part of the impending Annual Budget process.
The 2011/12 activities were in accordance with the GRLC Strategic Plan 2008/2013. Council was represented on the GRLC by Cr Andy Richards (Chair from 30 January 2012), Cr Rod Macdonald (Chair 1 July 2011 to 30 January 2012), Cr Barbara Abley and Cr Cameron Granger.
No Council officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest in this matter.
Section 196(7A) of the Local Government Act exempts a member of the governing body of a regional library from having a conflict of interest if their only interest is as a Councillor or member of Council staff, who was appointed to the board by Council.
The Annual Report of GRLC has been subject to financial audit and approved by Auditor General of Victoria.
There are no social considerations associated with the recommendation.
The Arts & Culture department, in consultation with Marketing and Administration, will be responsible for communicating this report.
Portfolio: |
Arts & Culture – Cr Heagney |
Source: |
Community Services / Arts & Culture |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Customer: Geelong Regional Library Corporation |
This report seeks to inform Council of the proposed 2013 Geelong Regional Library Corporation (GRLC) Study Tour for April 10-12, 2013.
The tour is an activity that provides a learning experience for board members and staff and assists in team building, development of common understanding and improved decision making.
The formal library board tours have last taken place in 2007 and 2009.
The 2013 tour itinerary includes two nights accommodation, travel and expenses and includes visits to four libraries in Melbourne, three libraries and a heritage centre in Sydney and two libraries in Brisbane.
Councillors Richards, Macdonald and Fisher have expressed a desire to participate in the 2013 study tour.
Council’s approval is sought for the payment of the tour cost, being $1,800 per person for each of Crs Richards and Macdonald as both have exceeded their annual Councillor allowance.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That Council approve the request from Cr Richards and Cr Macdonald to have the cost of the study tour met from the 2012-13 Council budget.
Amendment
Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That Council support Cr Kylie Fisher attend the Public Library Study Tour.
The amendment was put and lost.
Division Requested:
For: Crs Ansett, Nelson, E Kontelj, Farrell, S Kontelj
Against: Crs Harwood, Ellis, Fisher, Richards, Macdonald, Fagg
The motion was carried.
Library study tours are a very effective way to learn about public libraries, to see and understand trends impacting on libraries and to travel outside the local region and learn from others. Three such tours have been held previously with strong support including funding from Council. The learnings from these tours have informed the GRLC’s strategic and service plans as well as library building developments.
The proposed tour for 2013 includes visits to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
Day 1 Melbourne
Boyd Library (recently opened Southbank branch of Melbourne City Library Service)
State Library of Victoria (recent changes included new State Librarian and unveiling of Strategic Directions)
Eltham Library (recently expanded and redeveloped)
Mill Park Library (Digital Media Hub funded through Federal NBN grant)
Day 2 Sydney
Surrey Hills Library (6 star ESD designed and part of community hub)
State Library of NSW (recently redeveloped including IT spaces, Study areas, café and retail space)
Lane Cove (recently redeveloped)
North Sydney Heritage Centre
Day 3 Brisbane
Brisbane Square Library
State Library of QLD
There are no environmental implications of these recommendations.
The cost of the tour for the two Councillors is $3,600 which is unbudgeted.
There are no policy or legal implications of Council making this decision.
No officer involved in writing this report has any direct or indirect interest in the matter.
There are no significant risks associated with the recommendation.
The tour will provide an opportunity for the board to learn about other libraries and their operations and to benefit the local GRLC.
A report on the findings of the tour will be provided.
Portfolio: |
Arts & Culture – Cr Heagney |
Source: |
Projects, Recreation & Central Geelong |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Projects: Geelong Library & Heritage Centre and |
The Geelong Library and Heritage Centre project is jointly funded with Council contributing $20M, the State Government $15M and the Federal Government $10M.
The project is now in the Design Documentation phase.
The project architects have presented Council with colour schemes and treatments for the external building facade.
The project managers have presented Council with a procurement strategy for the delivery of the construction phase of the project.
Planning and heritage permits are being obtained.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That Council note the status of the Geelong Library & Heritage Centre Project.
Carried.
In April 2012 Council appointed architecture firm Ashton Raggatt McDougall (ARM) as its lead design consultant for the $45m Geelong Library Heritage Centre Project.
In addition to the architectural consultancy, Council also engaged Davis Langdon AECOM as the project manager and Slattery Australia as the quantity surveyor.
A Project Control Group (PCG), which includes 5 Councillors, has been overseeing and reviewing the design process. This group has been ensuring that the designs developed by the architect meet with Council’s expectations for a contemporary Library & Heritage Centre.
In September 2012 Council endorsed a ‘domed’ concept proposal for the Geelong Library & Heritage Centre. This concept concentrated on the key themes of ‘The Landscape’, ‘The Garden’ and ‘The Street’.
Following the adoption of a concept design, the project team have continued to work with user groups to refine the internal layouts and have completed the schematic design phase.
The design development phase of the project is nearing completion.
The pending completion of the design development phase marks a significant milestone in the project and is the trigger for several major project components to commence.
Planning & Heritage
A key requirement of the project and our grant funding agreements are that Council obtain planning and heritage permits for the project. The project managers and design team have held preliminary meetings with both planning and heritage authorities and have lodged these permits.
Given the nature of the project the planning process is being undertaken as a planning scheme amendment process under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act (ministerial amendment).
The planning permit will be lodged through the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) who will process the application for the minister. As part of this process the application is referred to Council’s planning department for comment.
Procurement
The finalisation of the detailed design process marks the point at which the two main procurement processes can commence.
These are the selective tender for the demolition of the existing library and heritage centre, and the Expression of Interest (EOI) for the construction of the new Library & Heritage Centre. The EOI process would then be followed by a selective tender for the construction of the centre by short listed construction companies.
As part of the construction procurement process, Council will hold an industry briefing session for local contractors and subcontractors. The purpose of these sessions is to provide information to contractors who may be involved in quoting either the main, or sub contracts associated with the project.
Given the size of construction tender a probity auditor has been engaged to oversee the entire construction EOI and tender process.
Temporary Accommodation
As Council progresses towards the demolition stage of the project, arrangements for the temporary relocation of the Library and Heritage Centre Services are also being finalised.
The library service is being relocated into the ground level of the State Government Offices in Little Malop Street. The lease agreements for this tenancy are almost finalised and a planning application to support a library use in the building has been made.
The Heritage Centre reading room is being relocated to the National Wool Museum.
Design
At each key design stage Council has met with the State Government Design Review Panel and they have provided design advice. The design team has continued to respond to both the panel and clients requests as part of the review and design refinement processes.
The architects have completed their studies in relation to the dome colour and pattern, and believe they have a resolution which meets Council design criteria and the Office of the Victorian Government Architects requirements.
They have recommended a dome made of coloured GRC (Glass Reinforced Concrete) tiles. The tiles would be coloured in 4 individual colour tints, be articulated as a series of hexagonal tiles, and be subdivided on their face into 3 sub-tiles which are parallelograms.
The four colours will be selected from a range of 6 colours, being Inca Gold, Light Sandy Beige, Champagne, Glo Peach, Mushroom, and Yellow CAC. The four shades articulate the “domeness” and add a richness to the overall appearance, eliminating the dullness of plain concrete.
The reason for nominating the wider colour range is that coloured concrete varies dependent on manufacture and conditions. Therefore Council needs to prototype the colours and make final selections under real conditions.
The architects believe that their recommendation provides the right balance of scale and constructability. Whilst they have experimented with additional subdivision of the hexagon they believe that this over-elaborates the surface, creating a pattern which breaks the link between the crystalline façade and the dome.
The preferred surface finish is shown in the renders at the end of the report.
The new Library and Heritage Centre is being developed as a ‘5 star’ Greenstar design certified building.
The project is registered under the Greenstar process and we are able to promote its Greenstar status.
The Geelong Library Heritage Centre Project is jointly funded with Council committing $20M, the State Government $15M, and the Federal Government $10M.
The Council contribution to the Geelong Library Heritage Centre is divided into two discrete projects. These are a $15M contribution towards the construction of the facility and a $5M contribution towards the provision of parking and book stock.
All funding commitments have been confirmed and some grant payments have been received.
There are no policy, legal or statutory implications. However, Council is required to obtain planning consent before it can begin the construction phase of this project.
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have declared a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
As with all capital projects there have been numerous risks identified which are being mitigated through various control measures.
The risk profile for this project includes financial risks associated with each of the funding agreements.
At selected phases in the project, workshops are held to asses potential OH&S issues with the buildings.
The Geelong Library Heritage Centre Project will deliver a significant community benefit for all age groupings and facilitate the delivery of quality services.
This project builds upon the Geelong Cultural Precinct Masterplan (GCPM) which aims to develop a cultural hub in Central Geelong.
Council have held a number of community information sessions and a website has been created which provided information on the project.
Community updates and information on the project will continue to be provided as the project progresses.
Portfolio: |
Education & Youth – Cr Farrell |
Source: |
Community Services/Community Development |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Youth Services |
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the outcomes of the GEEYOUNG Project: Geelong Community Youth Strategy – a strategy for planning the future through a new understanding and practice of youth participation.
In 2011 Council engaged MoHow consultants and commenced a significant youth participation/engagement project aimed at informing and shaping a Geelong Community Youth Strategy. This project, given the title ‘GEEYOUNG Project’, has over the past 12 months, extensively engaged and consulted with young people, stakeholders, community organisations and business through surveys, social media, workshops, public forums and one-on-one meetings. The result of this work has produced a strategy for planning the future through a new understanding and practice of youth participation.
The GEEYOUNG Project builds upon the process and outcomes of the Geelong Better Youth Services Pilot (BYSP) that was lead by the City of Greater Geelong in partnership with the Department of Planning and Community Development. The BYSP has resulted in a range of initiatives and investment in services and programs through the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Youth Partnership programs. The BYSP was completed in 2011.
The GEEYOUNG Project focused on young people contributing to:
A better understanding of what is working well for young people in Geelong
A better understanding of what young people aspire to achieve in Geelong
Ideas for developing and supporting a collaborative approach between young people and their community, and the business and education communities to achieve a bright and wonderful future in Geelong.
The GEEYOUNG Project identifies a range of initiatives aimed at ensuring continued youth participation in the ongoing development of vision, culture, services and opportunity for young people in Geelong. The recommendations are innovative, and build on the research and thinking of the BYSP. To date the recommendations and process of the GEEYOUNG Project has received widespread support from young people, community and business leaders, and service providers.
The GEEYOUNG team found that young people want Geelong to offer career and employment opportunities, diversity and a positive youth culture. It was discovered that many education providers and the business community want to involve young people in the future of Geelong. Young people confirmed that they want time, space and support to be involved in creating the culture and community that they want to experience.
Key recommendations of the project include:
Development of a Creative Space (incubator) for young people
Continued facilitation of the GEEYOUNG Youth participation model by the City of Greater Geelong
Resourcing the GEEYOUNG website and social networking tools
Investigating the establishment of a youth network
Seeking funding partners to further develop the GEEYOUNG Project.
The GEEYOUNG Project final draft report (Appendix 1) proposes a range of actions to continue and extend the participation of young people in the development of an overarching framework and strategic approach for a Geelong Community Youth Strategy and ultimately a Geelong Youth Strategy Plan.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Harwood seconded -
That Council:
adopts the GEEYOUNG Project: Geelong Community Youth Strategy report (Appendix 1);
considers actions and recommendations of the GEEYOUNG Project as part of future budget processes.uncil:
Carried.
Council committed funds in its 2010/11 budget for the development of a new Community Youth Strategy entitled – GEEYOUNG Project – a broad community visioning project that will provide the context and direction for Council’s next Youth Strategy.
Core to the idea of community youth strategy planning is a youth participation process. The engagement of young people in the GEEYOUNG Project has harnessed the energy and expertise of a small team of young people identified through the work of the Council’s Youth Development team. Connecting local business interests and individuals into the youth participation and development process of the GEEYOUNG Project has been a major focus.
The GEEYOUNG Project builds on the process and outcomes from the Better Youth Services Project (BYSP) that was undertaken in 2010–2011. The BYSP itself was based on the State Government’s Vulnerable Youth Framework and focused on system development and reform. The three questions for the BYSP initiatives were:
How can vulnerable young people be identified and supported earlier and more systematically?
What data is needed to enable better planning of local services to improve outcomes for vulnerable young people?
What can be done to improve existing government-funded youth service coordination and delivery?
Geelong’s approach, lead by the City of Greater Geelong, worked through a participatory process to formulate how the Geelong community might be able to respond to these issues. The BYSP final report recommended a range of projects; these projects included:
Community Youth Strategic Plan
Organisational model development
Youth brand
Communications
Data and research
Youth participation
Inter-sectoral professional development
Funding.
As a result of the BYSP a number of projects have commenced under the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) Youth Partnerships initiative, including research undertaken by Swinburne University ($350,000 over two years) and the successful launch of ‘The Geelong Project’ with major funding from the Department of Human Services ($1.5m) and DEECD. The Geelong Project is of great interest to the Victorian Government and outside Victoria as an exemplar for how communities can more effectively address disadvantage and get better outcomes for vulnerable young people.
The Community Youth Strategy process and ‘youth participation’, as identified in the BYSP, has been prioritised by Council in the form of the GEEYOUNG Project, part of which was the idea to create a ‘youth brand’ for Geelong. The GEEYOUNG Project has worked on a broader basis, not just focusing on disadvantage and the issues of vulnerable youth, but on how the future for young people in Geelong might be constructed with their active involvement. In this, ‘youth participation’ has not been a means to an end, but core to the idea of planning a community youth strategy as a youth participation process.
The GEEYOUNG Project process has been innovative and a first for Geelong. The ultimate vision is for a Community Youth Strategy that is not just a plan for Council, but the wider municipality. Responsibility for the development of the strategy has been put in the hands of young people. A core team of local young people were trained and employed as youth facilitators. One of their tasks was essentially to find out if others want to be involved and if so, how to sustain their involvement. Another was to help gather the evidence that shaped the emergent youth vision and to work out next steps.
GEEYOUNG Project – report recommendations
The GEEYOUNG Project in its development focused on engagement and participation of young people and developed a set of six key recommendations as outlined below.
Support the emerging network of young people and business leaders who are interested in working on the development of a plan and a creative space for Geelong’s young people. This would be built on the foundations of ‘youth participation’, whereby young people are increasingly empowered through the process and in all its subsequent activities and consequences.
Provide for continued dedicated facilitation of the GEEYOUNG PROJECT process in whatever way is possible within existing budget constraints and supported by Council’s Youth Development staff.
Resource the GEEYOUNG Project team to take the invitation in the form of the GEEYOUNG Youth Prospectus to schools and other venues and sites where young people can be reached to build the cadre and network of community youth activists.
Support the maintenance and functioning of the GEEYOUNG Project website and social networking tools by the GEEYOUNG Project.
Support the GEEYOUNG Project teams and COGG Youth Development staff to research the practical feasibility and financial dimensions of creating a self-acting youth network with its own space for presentation to COGG for the 2013 –2014 budget cycle.
Seek other partners who might be able to invest financially, including the philanthropic and business sector, in addition to financial commitments that COGG is able to make for the 2013-2014 financial year.
It is recommended that Council adopts the GEEYOUNG Project: Geelong Community Youth Strategy report (Appendix 1) and considers the actions and recommendations of the report for future budget processes.
Youth planning is often conducted in relation to developing and reviewing service responses to ‘youth problems’. The GEEYOUNG Project instead focuses on young people contributing to:
A better understanding of what is working well for young people in Geelong
A better understanding of what young people aspire to achieve in Geelong
Ideas for developing and supporting a collaborative approach between young people and their community, and the business and education community to achieve a bright and wonderful future in Geelong.
The consultations with young people were undertaken as an exemplar of how youth participation might be developed more deeply and on a larger scale. Social networking tools, including Facebook and Twitter, were used, and much was learnt about using such tools. Their use should be considered as part of any further consultations with the youth population.
The 161 attendees at the Youth Forum at Simonds Stadium on 14 August 2012 highlighted the quality and enthusiasm of the input from young people, and was a clear demonstration of the desire of young people to be involved.
Attendees identified ideas for achieving their vision and the importance of working together in an ideas space where they can raise their own awareness and develop positive culture.
Connecting local business interests and individuals into the youth participation and development process was a major achievement. This engagement needs to be maintained in the interim and should not be allowed to lapse or dissipate.
The education sector has started to engage. This has happened at a school level as well as at regional and higher levels. The objectives of the education sector’s Youth Partnership program intersect with those informing the GEEYOUNG Project.
The GEEYOUNG Project has put young people at the centre of planning for the future of Geelong in all areas of their life and in partnership with their community. This has involved a team of young facilitators finding out from their peers what their vision for the future of Geelong is and how they want to be involved in achieving it.
The GEEYOUNG team found that young people want Geelong to offer career and employment opportunities, diversity and a positive youth culture. It was discovered that many education providers and the business community want to involve young people in the future of Geelong. Young people confirmed that they want time, space and support to be involved in creating the culture and community that they want to experience.
The result is a long-term strategy that provides a structure and process for young people to refine and achieve their vision and for the whole community to involve them in significant planning and learning opportunities that go along with it.
The GEEYOUNG Project methodology has harnessed the energy and expertise of a small team of young people, who had been identified already through the work of Council’s Youth Development team. How this team of young people has worked over a nine-month period has become a model for what is envisaged in terms of future structures and processes that would embody the youth participation vision.
Extensive trialling and implementation of social media and web2.0 based tools for consultation was undertaken. This included development of the GEEYOUNG Project brand and social media plan and then moderation of website and social media engagement by young people.
Peer-to-peer consultations were supplemented by consultations and conversations with diverse young people led by the COGG Youth Unit. This enabled engagement of young people from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds and young people from out-of-home care and flexible learning settings.
The Community Youth Strategy 2013–2017 will provide a far reaching understanding of young people in our communities and provide a strategic planning tool for all who are engaged with young people in Geelong.
Through planning and built responses, actions contained within the Community Youth Strategy may impact on the natural and built environment, including provision of public and open spaces that are responsive to and inclusive of the needs of young people.
Any actions will be carried out in accordance with Council policies and procedures relating to environmental management.
Development of the GEEYOUNG Project was carried out utilising funds in the 2011/12 Budget. Any financial implications of the report for Council will be considered as part of future budget processes.
The development of the GEEYOUNG Project was carried out in accordance with City of Greater Geelong policies and procedures. Any future issues with policy, legal or statutory implications for Council will be subject to further Council reports.
No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest to declare.
Any programs/activities implemented as a result of the Community Youth Strategy will be covered by Council and Youth Development Unit risk management procedures.
The development of the GEEYOUNG Project: Geelong Community Youth Strategy considers specifically the role of Council and local government in providing an environment in the City of Greater Geelong where young people can achieve and recognise their aspirations and needs. The strategy builds upon the contribution of Council, service providers, agencies, other levels of government, business, individuals and the wider community to develop responses and approaches to young people in the municipality.
The GEEYOUNG Project identified that young people strongly desire the opportunity to be known for having the kind of positive culture they envisage into the future. Rather than focusing on what is not working and trying to fix it, they want to be part of creating a new community culture – a Geelong of the future known for being a happy and creative community for its youth and recognised for its celebration and respect for diversity.
The GEEYOUNG Project presents a framework for potential youth participation and engagement in the City of Greater Geelong.
The communication of this report and the GEEYOUNG Project: Geelong Community Youth Strategy Prospectus is the responsibility of the Community Development Department and the Youth Development Unit.
Contents | Previous Page: Section A – Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section B – Reports 8-14
