Council Minutes - Section B: Reports (11-12) - 27 May 2014
Contents | Previous Page: Section B - Reports (6-10) | Next Page: Section B - Reports (13-15)
Contents | Previous Page: Section B - Reports (6-10) | Next Page: Section B - Reports (13-15)
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at the Geelong Greyhound Racing Club, Princes Freeway, Corio.
Portfolio: |
Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj |
Source: |
Corporate Services - Financial Services |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference: |
Financial Management \ Financial Reporting 2013-2014 |
The Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending 31 March 2014 is prepared as a requirement of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989.
Council approved amendments to the adopted Budget on 27 August 2013 and variances are reported based on comparing actuals to amended budget.
The recurrent operating deficit for the nine months is ($1.2M), being $12.7M favourable to amended budget and reflects favourable performance and timing issues.
The non-recurrent surplus for the nine months is $27.7M, being ($6.2M) unfavourable to budget with unfavourable Recognition of Infrastructure.
Capital expenditure for the year to date is $45.4M against a year to date projection of $66.1M, which is $20.7M underspent to projection.
The cash and investment balance of $92.0M is $14.4M favourable to budget.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr Harwood seconded -
That the Quarterly Financial Management Report to 31 March 2014 be endorsed by Council.
Carried.
The report is prepared as a requirement of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 which requires that at least every three months a statement be presented to Council comparing the budget with the actual revenue and expense for the financial year-to-date.
Summary
|
YTD Actual |
YTD Am. Bgt |
YTD Var Fav/(UnFav) |
FY Proj |
FY Am. Bgt |
FY Var Fav/(UnFav) |
Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
(1.20) |
(13.95) |
12.75 |
(17.63) |
(17.93) |
0.30 |
Non-Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
27.68 |
33.90 |
(6.22) |
50.24 |
47.28 |
2.96 |
Net Surplus/(Deficit) |
26.48 |
19.95 |
6.53 |
32.61 |
29.35 |
3.26 |
Capital Expenditure |
45.41 |
66.10 |
20.69 |
101.88 |
98.85 |
(3.03) |
Closing Net Cash Positive/(Neg) |
91.99 |
77.58 |
14.41 |
|
51.23 |
|
The Adopted Budget was amended by Council on 27 August 2013 to include Carryover Capital and discretionary projects, plus other Capital and recurrent amendments.
The impact on the Recurrent Expenditure Budget is ($16.92M), consisting of carryover discretionary projects funded in 2012-2013, plus other budget amendments including adjustment for early receipt of first two quarters Grants Commission funding in June 2013.
The impact on Non Recurrent income was $1.60M for carryover of capital income from 2012‑2013 projects, plus other budget amendments.
The amended capital expenditure budget included an additional $40.39M to complete 2012-2013 Projects, including Corio Landfill Rehabilitation, Ocean Grove Integrated Children’s Centre, Leopold Community Hub and Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre.
Other budget amendments reduced total budget by $0.69M.
|
||||||
|
YTD Actual |
YTD Am. Bgt |
YTD Var Fav/(UnFav) |
FY Proj |
FY Am. Bgt |
FY Var Fav/(UnFav) |
Recurrent Income |
200.50 |
199.32 |
1.18 |
266.10 |
265.59 |
0.51 |
Recurrent Expenditure |
201.70 |
213.27 |
11.57 |
283.73 |
283.52 |
(0.21) |
Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
(1.20) |
(13.95) |
12.75 |
(17.63) |
(17.93) |
(0.30) |
YTD Variance - $12.75M Favourable |
||||||
The following major variances to budget contributed to this result:
Recurrent Income |
$ |
General Rates and Charges – Favourable rates generation and supplementary rates YTD, expected to be offset by objections in full year. |
0.40 |
Government Grants Main favourable variances consist of:
|
1.04 |
User Charges Main unfavourable variances consist of:
Other favourable variances:
|
(1.59) |
Other Fees & Charges Favourable mainly due to:
|
0.18 |
Sundry Income Favourable mainly due to Reimbursements & Recoveries $457K – higher than budgeted Fire Services Levy funding $110K (offset by expenditure), Simonds Stadium $267K (offset by expenditure) and Sundry Income $249K. Offset by Infringements Withdrawn ($155K) unfavourable. |
0.58 |
Interest on Investments Higher than budgeted cash balances. |
0.57 |
Recurrent Income Sub-total |
$1.18M |
Recurrent Expenditure |
|
|
$ |
Employee Related Expenditure – Favourable salary costs $3,378K mainly relating to unfilled vacancies. Partially offset by unfavourable supplementary labour costs ($1,139K) (see external services). |
3.52 |
General Works: Materials $556K favourable with the main variance being Ground Maintenance Materials $357K (minimal ground renovations performed to date), Road Making Materials $195K, Other $4K. Plant / Equip / Vehicle Costs $379K favourable with the main variances being External Plant & Equipment Hire $142K and Repairs & Maintenance $178K (all phasing only), Other $59K favourable. External Services is $2,317K favourable mainly due to:
|
3.25 |
Administration costs $1,355K favourable mainly due to :
|
1.35 |
Professional Services costs $604K favourable mainly due to:
|
0.60 |
Utility costs are $1,366K favourable mainly due to Water usage costs $822K (seasonal factors and some amounts not accrued) and Electricity $474K (phasing only), and Communications $45K. |
1.37 |
Depreciation costs $1,700K favourable (mainly phasing). |
1.70 |
Gain/(Loss) on Sale of Plant and Equipment ($217K) unfavourable. |
(0.22) |
Recurrent Expenditure Sub-total |
$11.57M |
Full Year Recurrent Projection – $0.30M favourable to Amended Budget |
|
The main projection changes are favourable / (unfavourable): |
$M |
Grants Commission decrease. |
(0.08) |
Recycling Income reduction. |
(0.42) |
Legal Expenses – unbudgeted. Barwon River Dredging – COGG Contribution. Waste Cartage – Diversion to Wyndham. Election Costs – Directly Elected Mayor. Leisure Centre – Net Income / Expenditure. Parking Fines. Green Waste Disposal. Salaries / Supp Labour. Depreciation. Reduction in Interest Payments on Loans (Deferred loans). Interest on Investments increase. Waste Commercial Income. |
(0.42) (0.20) (0.80) (0.55) (0.80) (0.45) (0.40) 1.30 0.98 0.74 0.67 0.45 |
Other. |
0.28 |
|
$0.30M |
|
||||||
|
YTD Actual |
YTD Projection |
YTD Var Fav/(UnFav) |
FY Proj |
FY Am. Bgt $M* |
FY Var Fav/(UnFav) |
Non-Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
27.68 |
33.90 |
(6.22) |
50.24 |
47.28 |
2.96 |
YTD Variance – ($6.22M) unfavourable |
||||||
|
$ |
Capital Grants & Income $1,001K favourable. |
1.00 |
Recognition of Infrastructure ($9,790K) unfavourable. |
(9.79) |
Developer Contributions $1,111K favourable. |
1.11 |
Gain/(Loss) on Sale of Property ($94K) unfavourable. |
(0.09) |
Loss on Disposal of Infrastructure $1,697K favourable. Prior Year Adjustments ($838K) expensing of incomplete capital WIP. Insurance Recovery $690K favourable – Saleyards. |
1.70 (0.84) 0.69 |
| ||||||
|
YTD Actual |
YTD Projection |
YTD Var Fav/(UnFav) |
FY Proj |
FY Am. Bgt* |
FY Var Fav/(UnFav) |
Capital Expenditure |
45.41 |
66.10 |
20.69 |
101.88 |
98.85 |
(3.03) |
YTD Variance – $20.69M favourable |
||||||
The capital program is $20.69M underspent compared to Projection year to date, with projects behind Budget schedule as follows:
|
|
$M |
Geelong Library & Heritage Centre. |
2.71 |
|
Corio Landfill Rehabilitation. |
2.62 |
|
Central Geelong Revitalisation. |
1.85 |
|
Ocean Grove Integrated Children’s Centre. |
1.53 |
|
Drysdale Landfill Cell 6. |
1.31 |
|
Stead Park Hockey Precinct. |
0.84 |
|
Grovedale Integrated Children’s Centre. |
0.59 |
|
Heavy & Dedicated Vehicles. |
0.54 |
|
Other. |
8.70 |
|
|
|
$20.69M |
|
||||||
|
YTD Actual |
YTD Projection |
YTD Var Fav/(UnFav) |
FY Proj |
FY Am. Bgt* |
FY Var Fav/(UnFav) |
Closing Net Cash Positive/(Neg) |
91.99 |
77.58 |
14.41 |
|
51.23 |
|
YTD Variance – $14.41 favourable |
||||||
The month end cash and investments balance was $91.99M. This was $14.41M favourable to budget, mainly due to favourable recurrent surplus $12.75M, underspend on Capital $20.69M, offset by deferred loans ($17.3M).
Council has future commitments for $24.9M, which are fully cashed back:
| Long Service Leave | $17.7M |
| Statutory Reserves | $ 1.0M |
| Refundable Deposits | $ 3.8M |
| Income in Advance | $ 1.4M |
| Asset Development | $ 1.0M |
| Total | $24.9M |
The Landfill Provision balance is currently $19.3M.
There are no environmental implications arising from this report.
As detailed in the attached report.
The report is provided in accordance with requirements under the Local Government Act 1989.
This report contributes to responsible and sustainable financial management as aligned in Council’s City Plan objective on How We Do Business.
Council staff preparing this report have no direct or indirect interest.
There are no risk implications arising from this report.
There are no social implications arising from this report.
There are no known positive or negative effects.
The attached report is provided for information and public record and is available from the Council Governance or Financial Reporting units.
[Back to Top]
Portfolio: |
Heritage – Cr Ansett |
Source: |
Corporate Services - Communications and Marketing |
A/General Manager: |
Corporate Services - Communications and Marketing |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Communication and Marketing |
To seek Council endorsement for a heritage themed Council crest based on former Geelong crests. The crest will be used in formal correspondence and at civic events.
Since amalgamation in 1993 the City of Greater Geelong has been without a city crest. Earlier crest designs were linked to previous Councils including the former City of Geelong.
The new crest takes elements from earlier crest designs, and incorporates one of the original proposed mottoes; ‘Boldly, Faithfully, Successfully’.
In 1850, what was then the City of Geelong, commissioned a crest which featured images of a sheep, sailing ship, sheaf of wheat and bunch of grapes to reflect Geelong’s origins as a city built on shipping, wool, wheat and wine production. A kangaroo also featured in the centre of the shield.
The original 1850 design was altered in the intervening years. In order to conform with protocol rules governed by the College of Arms a design was created that retained the sheep, wheat and grapes but saw the removal of the sailing ship and kangaroo. The latter images have specific meaning according to armorial language. A stag’s head was added to commemorate the first elected Mayor of Geelong Dr Alexander Thomson.
The crest design of 1977 was registered with the College of Arms in London.
The new design will be used as a ceremonial logo but it is not intended to register it as a formal armorial seal with the College of Arms.
Cr Ansett moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Council adopt the amended crest design for further development into finished artwork and implementation.
Carried.
Since amalgamation in 1993 the City of Greater Geelong has not had an official crest. The original City of Geelong commissioned a crest in 1850 to reflect the city’s growing prosperity and confidence.
The circa 1850 design featured images of Geelong’s early industries; sailing, wool, wine and wheat production.
As additional local shires were formed each developed their own crest design.
None of these designs were adopted to represent the City of Greater Geelong following amalgamation in 1993.
In the absence of an official crest a new design has been developed that builds on elements of the earlier City of Geelong designs.
The new City of Greater Geelong crest will be used on official correspondence originating from the Mayor and Councillor’s office. It will also be used at official civic events.
The crest will not be formally registered with the College of Arms as an armorial shield. It will serve as a formal logo for official Mayor and Councillor correspondence and activities.
The new design comprises a shield with a sheep, sheaf of wheat, bunch of grapes and sailing ship in each quadrant and a kangaroo in the centre. These elements featured in the original shield adopted by the City of Geelong in 1850.
The new design places a rampant lion either side of the shield. The lion motif exists in a version of the shield that is featured on the façade of City Hall.
The new design adopts one of the mottoes that was prepared when the original crest was adopted in 1850: ‘Boldly, Faithfully, Successfully’.
The new crest will not replace the City of Greater Geelong pennant logo. A set of usage guidelines will be developed to prescribe how the two logos will work together.
 |
 |
 |
Figure 2: Left to Right, City of Geelong Crest circa 1850, City of Geelong crest circa 1960, current City of Greater Geelong pennant logo
There are no environmental implications arising from the development of a new city crest. Preference will be given to electronic correspondence over printed material as per the City’s normal guidelines.
The design of the new crest was undertaken by the Communications and Marketing department. Based on current usage of envelopes, letterhead and business cards the annual stationery costs are estimated at $4,500.
The new crest logo will be subject to the usage guidelines contained within the existing City of Greater Geelong style guide. The logo will only be available for official Council activities and correspondence.
The logo will align with Community Wellbeing and align with the City Plan theme Growing the Economy.
No Council Officers have any direct or indirect interest that impacts on this report.
There are no notable risks.
The adoption of the new crest celebrates the long history of local government in Geelong. The crest draws on the legacy of previous Councils and acknowledges the key industries that helped shaped Geelong’s formative economy.
The introduction of a new crest for the City of Greater Geelong encourages people to consider the heritage of Geelong and understand its place in history.
The crest supports article 18 of the charter, the right of people to take part in public life, by promoting the activities and purpose of local government.
There was ongoing consultation with the Mayor and Heritage portfolio holder throughout the development of the design. The manager of the Geelong Heritage Centre was also consulted. Advice was sought from the College of Arms in London on what protocols need to be considered as part of the design process and for the implementation of the new design.
The adoption of the new crest will be promoted on the City of Greater Geelong’s website, via social media and in local media.
Contents | Previous Page: Section B - Reports (6-10) | Next Page: Section B - Reports (13-15)
Copyright CoGG 2012
Last Update: 10 June 2014