Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 10 June 2014
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at City Hall, Little Malop Street in Geelong.
Portfolio: |
Community Development – Cr Fisher |
Source: |
Community Services – Aged and Disability Services |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Disability |
To present to Council for adoption the Disability Action Plan 2014-17, inclusive of information gained through public consultation during April 2014.
In accordance with the Victorian Disability Act 2006, Council has since 2002 developed a series of Disability Action Plans.
The Disability Action Plan (DAP) specifies the actions Council will take to reduce discrimination of people with disabilities in the areas of goods, services and facilities, employment, community participation and attitudes and practices.
Council considered the draft 2014-17 Disability Action Plan in March 2014 and resolved to exhibit it for community comment from 28 March 2014 to 25 April 2014.
Consultation was invited from the community via the Geelong Australia Website and by email.
Feedback was received from the community and Council’s Disability Advisory Committee.
The majority of input was focused on improving clarity of the document as well as noting specific roles and responsibilities within Council.
A copy of the final plan is attached with highlighted changes.
Cr Fisher moved, Cr Ellis seconded -
That Council adopts the Disability Action Plan 2014-2017.
Carried.
Council considered the draft DAP at its meeting on 25 March 2014. At this meeting Council agreed to release the draft document for community comment. The plan was subsequently placed on exhibition for the period 28 March 2014 to 25 April 2014. A total of 3 submissions were received by the closing date.
One submission proposed that Council support for the Visitors Access centre be a high priority. Another recommended that Council take an active role in creating opportunities for people with a disability to make a meaningful contribution by undertaking volunteer work. The Disability Advisory Committee also wished for there to be greater emphasis on Council being proactive in promoting inclusion and participation.
The amended plan with minor changes highlighted to Section eight is attached (See appendix).
In addition to the DAP, Council sustains the process of continuous access and inclusion improvement by the:
Work of the Disability Advisory Committee (DAC): Community members who regularly review policies and plans. Most recent were specific recommendations to the consultant planning the Geelong Station disability access upgrade, lifts across Platforms 1 and 2.
Street Access Committee: Improvement of the accessibility of streets and roads. Community representatives on that committee participate in e.g. reviews of road crossings, parking spaces, footpaths and crossings.
Encouragement for the public to report hazards and faults in the built environment via the Street Access Committee and Customer Service ‘Request for Service - RFS’. A recent example was the reporting of seriously cracked and uneven surfaces on and around an accessible parking bay. An urgent report was lodged by Council and the road surface repaired within 24 hours.
Regular Disability Access working group meetings to prioritise upgrade works to improve community facilities. Examples of the work carried out last financial year include hearing loops in three halls, construction of accessible toilets and ramps at halls and seniors centres, accessible car park works and an adult change table for a fully accessible bathroom.
Support of community groups working to improve community accessibility, for example the Visitor Access Centre working group, resourced by Aged & Disability Services.
This report will not have any discernible impact on the environment. Impacts on the environment, including energy use and green house gas emissions will however be lessened when accessible services and facilities are planned from the outset.
Strategies outlined in the Action Areas of the 2014-2017 Disability Action Plan are generally within current Council budgets.
Any additional resources required will be considered as part of annual budget processes.
The Victorian Disability Act 2006 requires that all services and facilities are accessible to people with disabilities and also that planning approvals conform to this Act. The requirements of the Victorian Disability Act 2006 are reflected in the Disability Action Plan 2014-17.
The plan is referenced in the City Plan and is a component of the Health and Wellbeing actions.
No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct, indirect or personal interest in the subject of this report beyond the general benefit that will accrue to all residents and visitors to the City of Greater Geelong.
The 2014-17 Disability Action Plan will enable Council to address its statutory requirements and the Disability Action Plan may also be viewed as a mitigating circumstance in any instance of a claim.
It is anticipated that there will be considerable ongoing positive impact on people in the community with disabilities and their families as the DAP is implemented. It is also expected that there will be a flow on to the wider community of understanding and consideration for the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of community life. Implementation of the plan promotes the development of sustainable organisational structures to help minimise access and inclusion issues.
There will be enhanced opportunities for people with disabilities to participate in community life and for the community to be enriched by their inclusion. In addition, providing equal access will greatly benefit the growing proportion of ageing residents in the City of Greater Geelong.
The adoption of the plan will assist Council to meet its obligations under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, as well as supporting the principles of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Progress reports on the 2014-17 Disability Action Plan will provide an opportunity for Council to showcase its ongoing commitment and leadership to the community, its commitment to consult with people as well as to work towards building equity of access and inclusion in the community.
Disability Action Plan 2014-2017
Portfolio: |
Planning - Cr Heagney |
Source: |
Planning and Tourism- Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: C298 - Consideration of submissions |
The purpose of this report is to consider submissions about the exhibited rezoning and planning permit application for land at 400 Melbourne Road, North Geelong, being the land containing the McDonalds restaurant.
C298 is a Council initiated planning scheme amendment. The amendment is accompanied by a planning permit application (ref: 782/2013).
The amendment affects land at 400 Melbourne Road, North Geelong, forming part of Deppeler Park. The affected land includes a McDonalds restaurant and associated access and car parking arrangements. (See Appendix 1 for site location plan.)
The land is currently zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone and is owned by the City of Greater Geelong Council.
The amendment proposes to rezone the land from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Commercial 2 Zone and apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (See Appendix 2).
The planning permit application proposes to subdivide the land from the balance of the Deppeler Park Reserve and remove the Reserve Restriction from the land to be subdivided. The plan of subdivision will also create a carriageway easement to Melbourne Road in favour of the land to be subdivided. (See Appendix 3).
At its meeting of 22 October 2013, Council resolved to exhibit the amendment, subject to authorisation from the Minister for Planning.
The combined rezoning and planning permit application was exhibited from 20 March 2014 to 28 April 2014.
Four submissions were received. VicRoads stated it does not object to the Amendment. Three objecting submissions were received from Geelong residents. One submitter formally withdrew their objection after speaking with Council officers.
The two unresolved objecting submissions oppose the rezoning of the park to a commercial site, query who wishes to rezone the site, who will benefit from the sale of the site and state that such green areas should be left alone with the need for upgrading including landscaping.
In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council must now either: change the Amendment in the manner requested by the objecting submissions; refer submissions to and Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning; or abandon the Amendment or part of the Amendment.
This report addresses the issues raised in the submissions and recommends they be referred to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.
Cr Heagney moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Council, having considered all submissions to Amendment C298 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, resolves to:
Request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987;
Refer all submissions to the Independent Panel; and
Submit to the Independent Panel its response to the submissions generally as outlined in this report.
Carried.
Amendment C298 is a combined rezoning and planning permit application (ref: 782/2013) submitted to Council under s96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Council proposes to rezone, subdivide and sell the land that is occupied by the McDonalds restaurant. Prior to selling the land, it is proposed to ‘tidy-up’ the land through the rezoning and subdivision process, thereby, ensuring the appropriate controls are in place.
The amendment proposes to rezone an area of 3278 sq. metres at Deppeler Park from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Commercial 2 Zone and apply the Environmental Audit Overlay over the land to be rezoned (See Appendix 2).
The planning permit application is for the subdivision of the land containing the McDonalds restaurant (3278 sq. metres) from Reserve No.1 on Plan of Subdivision 424106U (Vol 10497 Fol 507), remove the Reserve restriction from Reserve No 1 of Plan of Subdivision 424106U (Vol 10497 Fol 507) as it applies to the lot to be subdivided, and include a carriageway easement in favour of the land to be subdivided for the entire length of the northern boundary (62.2m) extending north to the face of the kerb. (See Appendix 3 Draft Plan of Subdivision.)
On 22 October 2013, Council resolved to exhibit the combined rezoning and planning permit application, subject to authorisation from the Minister for Planning.
On 5 February 2013, Council wrote to the Minister for Planning requesting authorisation to prepare and exhibit the amendment and planning permit application. In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council prepared the amendment without authorisation after 20 February 2014.
A notice of preparation of the amendment appeared in the Victorian Government Gazette on 20 March 2014. Notices also appeared in the City News section of the Independent on 14 March 2014 and the Geelong Advertiser on 15 March 2014. Letters and notices were sent to relevant Ministers and service authorities on 13 March 2014.
The amendment and planning permit application were exhibited from 20 March 2014 to 28 April 2014.
The exhibition period resulted in a total of four submissions. A list of submitters is provided at Appendix 4.
VicRoads advised it has no objection to the amendment.
Three objecting submissions were received from Geelong residents. The submissions raised the following issues: opposed the loss of recreational open space; that the park requires upgrading including landscaping; queried why a new McDonalds restaurant is necessary; the reason for rezoning the land to a commercial zone; and who will profit from the rezoning.
The objectors misinterpreted the purpose of the amendment and planning permit application. During the consideration of submissions stage, Council officers endeavoured to rectify this issue by making contact with submitters.
Council officers were successful in resolving one objection. The objector stated that Geelong has enough McDonalds restaurants and advised that there is no reason for any more junk food outlets. After speaking with the objector and explaining the purpose of the amendment, the objector wrote to Council and requested that the objection be withdrawn on the basis that there is an existing McDonalds outlet at the site. (See Appendix 4).
The two unresolved objections queried a number of matters as detailed below. A Council officer response is also provided.
Opposition to the rezoning of the Park to a commercial site. (The objections were based on the principle that the entire Park Reserve would be rezoned and the loss of public open space.)
Council officer response: The amendment proposes to only rezone the land which holds the McDonalds restaurant. No other part of the Park is being rezoned by Amendment C298.
Council officers attempted to contact the two objectors about this misunderstanding and to explain the purpose and extent of the amendment. Contact was successfully made with one objector who, after being informed about the intent of the amendment, retained their objection on the basis of ongoing litter problems arising from the McDonalds restaurant in the park. Council officers were unsuccessful in contacting the other objector.
The Park needs upgrading and landscaping to make it a more enjoyable place.
Council officer response: The amendment and permit application do not affect the remaining part of the Park. The request for the Park to be upgraded including landscaping works is a matter beyond the scope of this report.
Who wishes to rezone the Park to a commercial zone?
Council officer response: The amendment is Council-initiated. The land is also in Council ownership. The McDonalds restaurant has occupied the site since the 1980’s and has been operating in a Public Use and Recreation Zone.
The justification for the proposed rezoning and subdivision application is confirmed through the conflicting nature of the current commercial use of the land in a Public Park and Recreation Zone and also, through the process of preparing Council owned land for sale.
Who will profit from this move?
Council officer response: Given the land is in Council ownership, the sale of the land and associated financial matters will be handled by Council.
A notice of intention to sell the land was published in the City News section of the Independent and Geelong Advertiser on 21 and 22 March 2014. Under the Local Government Act 1989, Council is required to publish a notice of intention to sell, thus allowing a person to make a submission and be heard before a Submissions Review Panel. The closing date for submissions in respect of the notice of intention to sell was 23 April 2014.
The amendment and planning permit are unlikely to create any adverse environmental issues. The amendment process will ensure that on-site environmental conditions are suitable for sensitive land uses by introducing a planning control, namely the Environmental Audit Overlay.
There will be associated planning scheme amendment costs (amendment fees and panel costs) as part of the implementation process given this is a Council initiated amendment. These costs can be accommodated within the existing department budget.
Amendment C298 is consistent with the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, that comprise part of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, as outlined below.
The State Planning Policy Framework is relevant to the assessment of this proposal in so far as it discusses the use of contaminated and potentially contaminated land, at Clause 13.03-1 and the importance of planning facilitating economic development at Clause 17.
Clause 13.03-1 states that the objective is:
“To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.”
The strategy for Clause 13.03-1 requires applicants to provide adequate information on the potential for contamination to have adverse effect on the future land use, where the subject land is known to have been used for industrial, mining or the storage of chemicals, gas, wastes or liquid fuel.
Clause 17 Economic Development states:
“Planning is to contribute to the economic well-being of communities and the State as a whole by supporting and fostering economic growth and development by providing land, facilitating decisions, and resolving land use conflicts, so that each district may build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential.”
The Amendment satisfies the above requirements of planning in so far as facilitating decisions and resolving land use conflicts so that the City of Greater Geelong can build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential.
The Local Planning Policy Framework is relevant in so far as applying the Environmental Audit Overlay and the application of a commercial zone to recognise an established retail activity.
The introduction of Clause 45.03 Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the land is considered a logical proposal. The purpose of the EAO is:
“To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use which could be significantly adversely affected by any contamination.”
An EAO is required because the Commercial 2 Zone allows sensitive uses such as a childcare centre.
Clause 45.03 requires:
Before a sensitive use (residential use, child care centre, pre-school centre or primary school) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either:
A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or
An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.
Clause 22.03 Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications requires that applications involving a planning scheme amendment in or adjoining existing activity centres clearly establish a retail need for such use and development and demonstrate that there are no adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres hierarchy. The subject land is adjacent to an existing commercial precinct which forms part of the broader Geelong North Homemaker precinct. The proposed rezoning will in effect extend the commercial precinct to include the subject land. Given the historical commercial use of the site, it is considered there will be no adverse impacts on the operation of the homemaker precinct.
The amendment aligns with the City Plan’s strategic direction, How We Do Business, and the priority relating to “Responsible and Sustainable financial management”. The amendment will assist Council in maintaining a strong financial position by rezoning, subdividing and selling the subject land.
No Council officers involved in the proposed rezoning and planning permit have a direct or indirect interest in matters contained in this report.
There are no significant notable risks that would arise as a consequence of the combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit.
Consideration has been given to the previous use of the site, which formed part of a landfill between the 1950’s and 1970’s. It is proposed that the Environmental Audit Overlay will be applied to the affected land to ensure that if a sensitive use is proposed in the future, the requirements of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and Ministerial Direction No.1 Contaminated Land, will be complied with, where relevant.
The preparation of the planning scheme amendment is in accordance with the requirements of Ministerial Direction No.1.
The planning scheme amendment is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts on adjoining land uses. The site has been used by McDonalds Australia Ltd. since the 1980’s and will remain in commercial use as a consequence of the proposed rezoning from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Commercial 2 Zone. One of the purposes of the Commercial 2 Zone is to ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive uses.
The amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms, responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary, obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Planning Panel.
The exhibition of C298 afforded residents an opportunity to make a submission to the exhibited documents.
This report recommends that Council resolve to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to hear all submissions. Once appointed, the Minister for Planning will write to all submitters offering them an opportunity to be heard before the independent panel.
|
Submitter Name |
Submitter Address |
Submission |
Council officer response |
|
Vic Roads |
PO Box 775 GEELONG VIC 3220 |
No objection |
Noted. |
|
Ken Best |
87 Ernest St, BELL POST HILL VIC 3215 |
I am totally opposed to changing a park into a commercial site. We need green spaces for pleasure and good health. It is a park that needs to be upgraded as a park with landscaping to make it more enjoyable place. I still remember Harding Park- what a disaster to sell it. |
See Council report. |
|
Barbara McMahon |
36 St Albans St, ST ALBANS VIC 3219 |
Who wishes to move it to a commercial zone? Who will profit from this move? The residents of this area are entitled to have their green area left alone. |
See Council report. |
|
John Wyllie |
3/53 Isabella Street, GEELONG WEST VIC 3218 |
Geelong has quite enough McDonalds and I see no reason for the City of Greater Geelong to allow more junk food outlets. |
The submission was formally withdrawn on 24 March 2014. |
Portfolio: |
Planning - Cr Heagney |
Source: |
Planning and Tourism- Planning Strategy |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Council Reports 2014 |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the revised scope of this project from what was previously approved by the Council at its meeting on 10 December 2013.
As part of Council’s adoption of the Leopold Structure Plan on 29 January 2013, the Council resolved to request “that the project brief for investigating access to Port Phillip Bay includes the investigation of land uses (other than urban development) in this area, north of the Portarlington Highway”.
The project options were considered by the Council at its meeting on 10 December 2013. The Council resolved at that meeting to undertake a broad land capability analysis of rural land around Leopold to investigate where urban development could be directed in any future structure plan review and to assist in providing direction in relation to realising public access to the bay. The Council also resolved to pursue State Government funding to match the Council’s 2013/14 budget allocation of $100,000 to undertake the land capability/land constraint project. .
Funding for the land capability analysis was sought via a grant application under the Putting Local Firsts program in the Victorian Regional Growth Fund, however the application was unsuccessful.
The scope of work has been revised to reflect the available Council budget of $100,000. The project will provide guidance on issues to be addressed as part of future development proposals and identify locations which offer development opportunities.
The project will identify the opportunities and constraints within the area including views, topography, access, infrastructure provision, drainage, coastal hazards, availability of services, cultural heritage, native vegetation, acid sulphate soils and coastal processes.
Engagement with landowners within the study area will also be undertaken to inform the project.
The land capability analysis will be used to inform the next review of the Leopold Structure Plan and to provide direction to the development industry about the opportunities in Leopold.
Cr Heagney moved, Cr Ellis seconded -
That Council approves the revised scope of work for the Leopold land capability and bay access analysis as outlined in this report.
Carried.
The Leopold Structure Plan includes a direction to provide public access to the Bay. The investigation area is between Clifton Avenue and Grand Scenic Drive north of Portarlington Road.
There is no public land in this area with private freehold extending up to the high water mark. Public access cannot be achieved without the purchase of land or alternatively the negotiation of a public open space contribution as part of a development.
The three options to facilitate public access presented to Council on 10 December 2013 were:
to acquire privately owned foreshore land to build a walking track and or boat ramp;
facilitate a rezoning request (planning scheme amendment) from the interested landowner; or
to undertake detailed work to examine the potential for all rural land around Leopold to accommodate urban development with the intention being to negotiate an open space contribution along the foreshore. This would be dependent of two factors; if the land north of Portarlington Road is deemed to be capable of being developed for urban development and if Council was prepared to change its long standing policy of limiting the growth of Leopold to land south of the Portarlington Road.
Council resolved to pursue option 3 and to apply for matching State funding to undertake this work.
The Council resolution was to
Undertake a broad land use capability and land constraint analysis on all rural zoned areas adjacent to Leopold to inform potential growth options and future structure plan review and to assist in providing direction in relation to realising public access to the bay.
The direction in relation to bay access shall provide detailed recommendations in respect to preferred methodology to pursue bay access in an area approximate to Leopold, and provide clear direction in relation to long term land use in the event that urban development is not considered appropriate.
Pursue funding though the Victorian Regional Growth Plan Fund to match committed budget from Council to undertake the land capability/land constraint project.
Appendix 1 defines the study area for the land capability analysis. It is the rural land to the west and north of Leopold. The study area is used for a variety of land uses including the Leopold shopping centre, caravan parks, rural living housing, farming, rural dwellings and a nursery.
The City is currently considering two planning permit applications to develop land for a caravan park with a market and a boat club in this area. The assessment of the Leopold shopping centre expansion is also underway.
An application for matched funding under the Putting Locals First program under the Victorian Regional Growth Fund was lodged to assist in funding the land capability assessment project. The application was unsuccessful. By necessity the scope of works has been refined to reflect the budget without the matched State funding.
The project will examine views, topography, access, infrastructure provision, drainage, coastal hazards, availability of services, cultural heritage, native vegetation, acid sulphate soils and coastal processes via a desk top analysis of existing information. The project brief will emphasise the need to address in greater detail the needs to manage storm water and flooding in the broader Leopold catchments.
The project brief is currently being finalised and expert assistance will be engaged thereafter.
The project will provide basic information about the potential to develop land within the study area for urban development. It is anticipated that the land capability analysis will show that parts of the study area are constrained and would be difficult to develop whilst other areas are less constrained and would offer opportunities to landowners who may wish to lodge development applications for Council’s consideration.
The project will involve consultation with key agencies and service providers such as VicRoads, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and Barwon Water. The views of landowners in the study area will also be sought through targeted consultations to ensure their input in included.
When complete, the land capability analysis will inform the next review of the Leopold Structure Plan. The land capability analysis will also be a useful starting point for landowners seeking to pursue development opportunities as it will assist in defining the work that would need to be undertaken to support any development proposal.
Residential land supply
Recent analysis suggests that Council is well placed to manage further demand for residential land and to ensure it complies with State planning policies which require a fifteen year supply across the municipality. The supply of zoned residential land on the Bellarine Peninsula is over 25 years (40,000 people) according to the Housing Capacity Analysis undertaken in 2011. The supply of land in Leopold was estimated at 1093 lots in March 2013 (Residential Land Supply Monitoring Project).Depending on take up rates this equates to between 10 and 23 years supply. Dwelling approvals in Leopold declined from 301 in 2011/12 to 212 in 2013, this may have been due to increased land availability at other locations including Armstrong Creek.
Current proposals
Planning applications for a boat club and caravan park have been lodged for land within the subject area. These will be assessed using the current provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
Environmental implications will be considered through the development of the land capability analysis and prior to any planning scheme amendment processes.
The Land Capability Analysis is a Community Priority Project funded under the 2013/14 budget. This budget of $100,000 will be required to be carried over to the 2014/15 financial year if the recommendation is approved.
There are no ongoing costs associated with the project.
Pursuing the land capability analysis will inform future Council decisions in relation to reviews of the Leopold Structure Plan. Leopold is a designated growth location in Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement.
This report aligns with the directions of the Sustainable and Built Environments theme in City Plan.
No Council officer involved in the drafting of this report has any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(C) of the Local Government Act in the land to which this report relates.
Stage two of the land capability analysis will examine in greater detail risks associated with rising sea levels and acid sulphate soils.
Social considerations would be addressed through future reviews of the Leopold Structure Plan.
We have taken into consideration the human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, including rate-payers property rights and the right to a fair hearing.
Consultation on public access to the Bay was undertaken in March 2013 and there was widespread support for some form of access. Community consultation would be undertaken as part of the Leopold Structure Plan review. In addition any future planning scheme amendment would be subject to the statutory one month exhibition period.
Portfolio: |
Community Development - Cr Fisher |
Source: |
Community Services - Aged and Disability Services |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Subject: General Health Promotion |
This report seeks to update Councillors on the implications of the 2014-15 Commonwealth budget plans for cessation of the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health (NPAPH) and Commonwealth funding of the Healthy Together Program.
The announcement of the defunding of the NPAPH program came as a complete surprise to the Victorian State Government and Local Governments’ Healthy Together partners.
The loss of the NPAPH may mean significant cuts to Healthy Together Geelong effective from July 2014.
Fortunately, due to delays in programmatic expenditure to date, and the opportunity to redirect non committed income, Healthy Together Geelong has the potential to continue at a reduced level of operations until 30 June 2015.
Until the budget announcement it was expected that the Healthy Together Victorian initiative would in fact be extended until 2018, albeit at a reduced level.
The early withdrawal of funds will mean that the results of Healthy Together Geelong at a population level may not have the anticipated effect.
This short term budget response will have significant and long term cost implications for the health system in responding to chronic lifestyle conditions such as obesity, poor nutrition and inadequate physical activity.
Councils across Victoria have started approaching local Federal and State Members to seek support for the continuation of the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health.
Cr Fisher moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Council write to local Federal and State Members of Parliament seeking a meeting to seek their support for the continuation of funding to the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health (which funds Healthy Together Victoria and Healthy Together Geelong).
Carried.
The National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health funded States and Territories to combat the obesity epidemic and declining rates of physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake in children and adults. The State Government of Victoria Department of Health rolled out Healthy Together Victoria across 14 Local Governments in Victoria in 2012.
Healthy Together Victoria supports local governments to address the social factors that create health promoting environments and facilitate and measure health promoting behaviours such as increasing physical activity; eating more fruit and vegetables; reducing alcohol consumption and eliminating smoking.
The National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health represented the single biggest investment by Australian governments in primary health promotion and sought to apply systemic change to the local environments of health.
Local government were identified as the key agent in addressing these health issues as it is in the best position to influence and affect the most change in the areas that will impact significantly on people’s lives, eg. in the design of public spaces that create attractive, usable, well maintained environments and connecting to workplaces, schools and child care facilities.
The funding to Geelong was $5.25M over 3.5 years.
As a Barwon Health representative on the Healthy Together Geelong Governance group recently wrote, ‘Healthy Together is like fluoride to oral health, it has been a large upfront investment and we are now seeing some of the benefits to our community members wellbeing. To truly maximise on this investment further time is required.’
The loss of funding will mean that some of the initiatives of Healthy Together Geelong will need to wind up early. The ability to enable sustainability and mainstreaming of the program in the local community beyond the period of funding will be reduced as the program life is shortened.
The immediate impact on Council will be the removal of capacity to engage and support settings to work through the Achievement Program and achieve their full Health Promoting Status. Currently the achievement program reaches over 50,000 (two in every nine people in Geelong).
Achievement Program
Summary of reach to date:
|
|
Registered |
Committed |
Health Promoting Status |
||||||
|
|
Number |
% |
Population |
Number |
% |
Population |
Number |
% |
Population |
|
Workplaces large |
21 |
38 |
22,800 |
1 |
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
Workplaces medium |
35 |
14 |
2230 |
1 |
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
Early learning centres and kindergartens |
76 |
84 |
6905 53% |
29 |
32 |
3513 27% |
13 |
14 |
810 6% |
|
Primary schools |
36 |
54 |
8818 46% |
12 |
18 |
2925 15% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Secondary schools |
7 |
28 |
7940 34% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Workplaces
The current population reach is 25,030, 79.7% of total workers in medium and large businesses in Geelong currently reached through the Achievement Program.
Ninety five per cent of the workers who work in the G21 area live in the G21 area thereby ensuring benefits of any investment in workplace interventions stays within the region and is readily detectable.
There will be a significant impact on the capacity of Council to deliver on the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan and Council’s Physical Activity Strategy. Another significant impact given this cut is the substantial work Healthy Together Geelong has begun to lead in developing a prevention system and leading a G21 wide prevention effort.
At the time of writing this report, no formal advice had been received from the Department of Health regarding the need to terminate or wind down Healthy Together Geelong. The Department of Health has advised Councils to review their cash position, and contracts and programming activities to optimise outcomes pending the cessation of commonwealth funding. It is not known if the State Government will be in a position to maintain its contribution to the program until 2015 or beyond. The Department of Health is, however required as part of its funding and service agreement with Council to give written notice to Council as soon as possible and may terminate the agreement by forwarding reasonable notice.
In response to this uncertainty a transition plan has been developed to manage the existing funds to maximise the impact of the program in the local community and to achieve a level of sustainability in the longer term. This plan has been developed assuming a ‘worst case’ scenario, that is, that no State Government funding will be received in 2014/2015.
The defunding of the initiative will have devastating long term impacts on the acute health system and the health of the community.
The future of Healthy Together Geelong will not significantly impact on the environment.
The transition plan has been developed to achieve optimum outcomes within the existing funding allocation. Unspent grant funds at the end of 2013/2014 will be carried over to 2014/2015. If no further grant income is received, these funds will be managed to deliver optimum outcome while respecting staff contracts and other program commitments where possible.
The transition plan has taken into account Council’s legal and contractual obligations.
The loss of Healthy Together Geelong will impact on the ability of Council to implement City Plan, the Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan and the Physical Activity strategy as well as contributing to the G21 Health and Wellbeing Strategy implementation and expansion to the other Local Government Authorities. Healthy Together Geelong’s ability to contribute and/or take the lead in this Plan and Strategy was on the basis of funding through to 2015 and high likelihood of funding through to 2018 when the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health was to culminate.
No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest in the subject of this report, other than as an officer of Council.
The risks of withdrawing the program and supports prematurely are that maximum positive benefits will not be achieved for the Geelong community. Further, the long term risk of the wider policy issue to withdraw funding from prevention activities will have a costly long term impact on the acute health expenditure of the future, the quality of life and life expectancy.
The premature loss of these Healthy Together Geelong positions will impact on local employment and the opportunities for these skilled staff to work in Geelong. This will in turn impact on the families of these staff and to a small extent on the local economy.
The decision of the Commonwealth to defund the NPAPH has forced the hand of Council to conclude the program commensurate with the resources available.
Council’s Aged and Disability Department is responsible for the communication of this report in conjunction with Council’s Media and Communication Unit.
[Back to List]Portfolio: |
Central Geelong - Cr Heagney |
Source: |
Projects, Recreation & Central Geelong |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee |
To appoint committee members to the Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee consistent with the provisions of the Special Committee terms of Reference.
On the 28 January 2014 Council endorsed the ongoing role of the Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee under Section 86 of the Local Government Act along with a revised Terms of Reference.
The Special Committee Terms of Reference call for the appointment of five external representatives with a range of relevant specialist skills. Four Priority Action Advisory Committees have also been identified to support the work of the Special Committee focusing on the 10 priority projects identified in the Central Geelong Action Plan.
Expressions of Interest have been sought for representation on the Special Committee as well as the Advisory Committees. All expressions of interest were assessed by the selection panel consistent with criteria identified in the Terms of Reference and published application guidelines.
This report recommends the appointment of six candidates as identified by the selection panel be appointed to the Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee and that the Special Committee Terms of Reference be amended to extend the number of panel members to 11 including up to 7 external representatives.
Cr Heagney moved, Cr Richards seconded -
That Council:
Amend the Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee Terms of Reference to increase the total numbers of members from nine (9) to eleven (11) including up to seven (7) independent expert members as per Appendix 1;
Endorses the recommendations of the selection panel and appoints the following members to the Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee:
Rory Costelloe
Todd Devine
Mark Edmonds
Roz Hansen
Nicholas Heath
Dan Simmonds
Acknowledge and thank all Expression of Interest applicants for their interest and efforts in preparing submissions;
Notes the Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee role in appointing Priority Action Advisory Committee members.
Carried
Council on the 28 January 2014 adopted the Central Geelong Action Plan developed by the Central Geelong Task Force. The Action Plan recommended continuation of the Task Force Special Committee under Section 86 of the Local Government Act along with a revised Terms of Reference which proposed a different membership structure and the establishment of four (4) Action Plan Priority Advisory Committees.
The current Terms of Reference for the Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee provides for nine (9) members including the Mayor, Brownbill Ward Councillor/Central Geelong Portfolio holder (Chair), Transport portfolio holder and up to five (5) external independent experts with skills in the one or more of the following areas:
business and investment;
development feasibility;
planning;
marketing and promotions;
place making.
Formal Council approval is required under the Terms of Reference to appoint members to the Special Committee.
The Terms of Reference also provide for the establishment of up to four (4) priority Action Plan Committees to focus on driving delivery of the 10 priority actions:
Transport and infrastructure – Public transport and City loop bus; Connecting people and places;
Health and education – Town and Gown; Integrated health and wellbeing project;
Place making – City heart; Greening Central Geelong; An arts and events city; and
Investment attraction – Investment attraction; Making our assets work harder; Postcode 3220.
Formal Council approval is not required for appointment of members to the Advisory Committees as membership is likely to change from project to project and involve different project timescales. Advisory Committee members will be appointed by the Central Geelong Task Force in consultation with the Special Committee.
An Expression of Interest process was run for a three week period between 22 February - 14 March 2014 for both the Special Committee and Advisory Committees. A selection panel involving the current three councillor members of the Special Committee and CEO reviewed all applications consistent with the Terms of Reference and advertised guideline criteria.
The selection panel has recommended the appointment of the following members:
Rory Costelloe – property developer, currently Executive Director Villawood Properties, director with UDIA, planning and property lecturer RMIT, fellow of VEPLA;
Todd Devine – certified practising valuer and property advisor, currently employed by Costa Asset Management has extensive property experience and knowledge within Central Geelong;
Mark Edmonds – extensive retail experience, currently CEO Faggs Mitre 10 and Vice president Geelong Chamber of Commerce and Central Geelong Marketing Committee member;
Roz Hansen – urban and regional planner with extensive public and private sector project experience, previous member of Central Geelong Task Force Special Committee;
Nicholas Heath – advertising and marketing consultant, Central Geelong landowner and business operator (Pace Advertising), president Tourism Geelong, previous board member Geelong Major Events;
Dan Simmonds – business lawyer, Chairman/Managing principle with Harwood Andrews, brings extensive business law experience as well as experience on a range of boards and committees including Committee for Geelong, Geelong Business Excellence Awards,
Given the breadth of skills offered by the candidates and to retain the option of extending representation to include future skill sets in the future it was considered necessary to include the number of independent experts to seven (7). This will require an amendment to the Special Committee’s Terms of Reference (contained in Appendix 1).
A good cross section of applications was also received for the four Advisory Committees which will be considered by the full Special Committee.
There are no environmental implications relevant to this report.
The establishment of the Special Committee will have financial expenditure implications that are included in Council’s 2014/15 draft budget.
Section 86 of the Local Government Act requires Council to appoint members of the Special Committee.
Successful and Vibrant City Centre is a priority in City Plan under the Growing Our Economy strategic direction. Implementation of the Central Geelong Action Plan is the central tenet of this priority.
No officers associated with the writing of this report have any direct or indirect interest in accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act.
There are no significant risks associated with this report.
The Central Geelong Action Plan implementation will assist in addressing some of the social issues in Central Geelong.
The work of the Taskforce and implementation of an Action Plan does not impact upon the rights and principles identified in the Charter. Ongoing communication with key stakeholders and land owners will be required for a range of Action Plan projects.
An extensive notice and media campaign was run to promote the committee expression of interest process and encourage applications.
Portfolio: |
Sport & Recreation – Cr Irvine |
Source: |
Projects, Recreation & Central Geelong – Sport & Recreation |
General Manager: |
Paul Jane (Acting) |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Sport Leisure & Recreation / Reports |
To provide a strategic approach for the future provision and development of indoor recreation facilities for the next 20 years.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy was undertaken to review the City’s existing provision of indoor recreation facilities and to provide a strategic approach for the future provision and development of indoor recreation facilities for the next 20 years
The strategy provides recommendations relating to the location, enhancement and development of indoor recreation facilities.
The review of the City’s existing provision of indoor recreation facilities indicated that there is currently a significant deficiency in indoor courts available to the community.
The strategy was developed to address the current deficiencies in provision and future needs resulting from future population growth. Key recommendations critical to the strategy that were identified include:
A new Regional Centre at Brearley Reserve, Marshall - New 8 to 10 court facility proposed to meet existing and future southern area facility gaps and future population growth.
Expansion of the Leisuretime Centre, Corio – Plan for up to a four court extension over the outdoor netball courts plus new amenities to meet existing and future northern area population growth
Development of new courts on the Bellarine including proposed new court extensions at Bellarine Aquatic & Sports Centre and Drysdale Secondary College to meet existing and future eastern area population growth
Greater use of existing facilities - Encouraging greater use of underutilised community/school indoor recreation facilities to provide more local area facility use/access.
Develop growth areas indoor facilities – Develop planned new growth areas indoor recreation facilities at Armstrong Creek Precincts (3x2 & 1X3 court facilities) and Lara West (1x3 court facility) as development is taken up and population triggers are met.
The draft strategy was publically exhibited from 7 February to 7 March 2014. The draft strategy received ten public responses from various sporting and/or social groups during the public exhibition period. A summary of feedback received is outlined in Appendix 1.
Cr Irvine moved, Cr Richards, seconded -
That Council endorse the Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy.
Carried.
Current indoor recreation facilities are a mix of Council, school and privately owned and managed venues. Indoor facilities within the City of Greater Geelong have developed and evolved over time in the absence of an integrated approach and overall indoor facility planning framework.
The City is expected to experience significant growth over the next 20 years, with the population expected to reach 297,956 by 2031. This equates to an increase of 76,609 people or 35% of the current population. It is important that future provision and development of indoor recreation facilities is done strategically to account for this expected growth.
Due to the expected population growth and the absence of a strategic framework, Council initiated the creation of the Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy with two key aims:
To review the City’s existing provision of indoor recreation facilities and provide an analysis of indoor facility provision across the Geelong Region, both private and government.
To provide a strategic approach for the future provision and development of indoor recreation facilities for the next 20 years, including recommendations for the location, enhancement and development of indoor recreation facilities, having regard to key partnerships and initiatives.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy found that there is currently a deficiency in indoor courts available to the community within the municipality. Specifically:
There are 46 full or large size courts exist within the City, of which; Council owns eleven (11), education institutions own twenty-five (25) and ten (10) courts are owned by other organisations. Only thirty-four (34) of the forty-six (46) large/full size courts are available to the community.
Indoor recreation facility provision is low, with only (34) large/full size indoor courts available for community use in the municipality, whilst adjoining Council areas (excluding Wyndham) only provided a further six (6) large indoor courts.
Benchmarking against other regional local government areas found that the City has the lowest numbers of useable courts per capita of any areas reviewed including Frankston City Council, City of Greater Bendigo and Ballarat City Council.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy identified a number of major challenges in the provision in indoor recreation facilities. These include:
Useable courts per capita (compared to like municipalities)
Forecasted population growth without strategy to improve provision
Forecasted growth in sport participation numbers
Actions within the strategy were based on the current available indoor recreation facility supply being inadequate for the City’s population needs.
Specific strategy recommendations were based on:
The need to increase use at existing centres that allow community use.
Improved access to indoor recreation facilities at education institutions that do not currently allow community use.
Planning for 8 to 10 courts to be built and operational by 2018 and a further 10 courts planned and operational by 2031.
Continue to operate and manage the facilities under direct Council management to ensure all user groups have access and that maximum facility occupancy is encouraged.
To overcome these deficiencies, the Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy includes five key recommendations:
A new Regional Centre at Brearley Reserve, Marshall - New 8 to 10 court facility proposed to meet existing and future southern area facility gaps and future population growth.
Expansion of the Leisuretime Centre, Corio – Plan for up to a four court extension over the outdoor netball courts plus new amenities to meet existing and future northern area population growth
Development of new courts on the Bellarine including proposed new court extensions at Bellarine Aquatic & Sports Centre and Drysdale Secondary College to meet existing and future eastern area population growth
Greater use of existing facilities - Encouraging greater use of underutilised community/school indoor recreation facilities to provide more local area facility use/access.
Develop growth areas indoor facilities – Develop planned new growth areas indoor recreation facilities at Armstrong Creek Precincts (3x2 & 1X3 court facilities) and Lara West (1x3 court facility) as development is taken up and population triggers are met.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy has no direct impact on the environment; however any future development which may occur as a result of this strategy should seek to support initiatives that facilitate long-term environmental sustainability.
The implementation plan provides a broad estimate of cost specific to each of the recommended actions. These actions are assessed as Mandatory, Critical, High, Medium and Low to guide Council decision making in terms of development.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy outlines the recommended implementation schedule and indicative capital costs for the works identified. The total cost of all works is significant and cannot be funded solely by Council. The adoption of this report does not have any direct financial implications, but acts as guide for Council Officers to explore opportunities for partnership and funding opportunities at all levels of government and private industry to support the plans implementation.
It is expected that the strategy will be implemented over an approximate timeframe of 15-20 years.
The table below summarises the capital estimated cost and the annual operational cost by action priority level.
|
Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy Actions Resources Summary By Priority Level Action Priority Level |
Estimated Capital Cost |
Estimated Operating Cost |
|
Mandatory: Required by legislation or regulation or connected with a developer contribution plans. |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Critical: Relating to risk mitigation or safety or an item that has a serious impact on service delivery. |
$0 |
$0 |
|
High: Important action that underpins the key outcomes connected with the Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy. |
$28M to $30M |
$150,000 |
|
Medium: Action that contributes to meeting overall intent of the Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy |
$27M to $28M |
$330,000 |
|
Low – 2026 to 2031: Action that contributes to overall improvement in indoor sport and recreation. |
$22M to $23M |
$240,000 |
Where implementation of specific recommendations requires a new budget allocation or contribution from Council, above what will be funded through developer contributions or partner agencies a business case will be prepared and considered as part of the overall annual budget process.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy recognises that all community members have equal rights to participate in and enjoy the benefits of sport and physical activity.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy has clear connections to Council’s community well-being objectives. The uptake of indoor sport as recreation and physical activity provides health benefits to the community participants.
No Council staff or persons engaged under contract have a direct or indirect interest in the development of the Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy.
There are no immediate risks associated with this report. Appropriate risk management measures will be established when implementing the recommendations of the report.
The Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy recognises that supporting indoor sport is not just about participation in physical activity.
Indoor sport is recognised as providing a range of broader benefits to the community, including contributions to social capital, community cohesiveness, and community connection. Participation in sport and physical activity brings about a range of personal, social, health and economic benefits for individuals and communities.
This report has no direct impact on the human rights of the residents of the City of Greater Geelong.
The preparation of the Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy has been managed by a three-tiered management structure:
Project Control Group (PCG) consisting of key representatives from the City of Greater Geelong and Sport & Recreation Victoria. The PCG provided high level strategic direction on key issues and opportunities.
Project Reference Group (PRG) – Strategic Partners. Consisting of Council officers and senior management from the following organisations:
Department of Education & Early Childhood Development
Surf Coast Shire
Golden Plains Shire
Deakin University
Leisure Networks
Department of Planning & Community Development
Sport & Recreation Victoria
Project Reference Group (PRG) – Sport. Consisting of representatives from:
Basketball Geelong
Futsal Geelong
Barwon Sports Academy
Football Geelong
Bellarine Basketball Association
Volleyball Geelong
Table Tennis Geelong Incorporated
Gymnastics – YMCA
Badminton Geelong
Centre Court – Indoor Tennis
Geelong Squash Racquets Association
Netball Victoria
The main consultation tasks have included:
Establishment of the PCG, PRG – Strategic Partners, PRG – Sports. These groups have met in the lead up to this report
All avenues of local media will be utilised to highlight the public exhibition of the draft Geelong Indoor Recreation Facilities Strategy. This includes a media release, Community Update, notification and promotion to key stakeholders.
The draft facilities strategy was publically exhibited between and inclusive of 7 February and 7 March 2014.
The draft strategy received ten public responses from various sporting and/or social groups during the public exhibition period.
A summary of the ten public responses inclusive of the consultant response and the changes made to the final report are outlined in Appendix 1.
A meeting was held with Geelong Netball and Basketball Centre on their request following the exhibition to clarify information previously provided by this organisation. Changes were made to the report including noting that registered players had been used to determine demand and that management modelling assessment would take place as part of the feasibility of any new venue.
Portfolio: |
Community Development - Cr Fisher |
Source: |
Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong - Sport and Recreation |
General Manager: |
Paul Jane (Acting) and Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Planning and Strategy – Sport, Leisure & Recreation/Other Sports, Recreation, Leisure Strategies |
The purpose of this report is for Council to formally adopt the Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy 2014-2017.
Regular physical activity is one of the most important things you can do for your health, the Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy 2014-2017 seeks to outline Council’s role in encouraging more people to be more active more often.
The City of Greater Geelong can positively contribute to the health and wellbeing of the community by making physical activity the easy choice.
This can be done through careful and considered design of public spaces and the built environment, and by ensuring the needs of people are paramount when making decisions about the spaces in which they live, learn, work and play.
The Strategy focuses on identifying cost effective physical activity interventions such as facility development, policies, programs and services that are most likely to succeed in increasing people’s ongoing participation in physical activity.
The Strategy provides a clear direction for investing in supporting active travel as the most cost effective approach to increasing participation in physical activity across Greater Geelong.
The Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy delivers on Action 3.1 in the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-2017.
The draft Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy was released for public consultation from 12 March to 9 April 2014. During the consultation period; four submissions were received in favour of the strategy or with general comments regarding physical activity. No changes to the strategy were required.
Cr Irvine moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That Council adopt the Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy 2014-2017.
Carried.
The need to address physical activity in our community beyond the traditional role of sport and recreation facility provision was identified by the City of Greater Geelong and the G21 Sport and Recreation Pillar in their Strategic Directions and Action Plan 2012/2013.
Specific objectives of the strategy are to:
provide the policy context that describes the role of the City of Greater Geelong and other key stakeholders in planning, developing, managing and supporting opportunities that foster physical activity
integrate planning for physical activity at a regional and municipal level
foster partnerships that influence physical activity across the region
identify levels of physical activity at a regional and local level
identify key social and economic determinants of physical inactivity at a regional and local level
identify enablers and barriers to physical activity at a local level
provide evidence to develop guidelines and principles to inform policy and decision making that supports physical activity
provide recommendations for resource allocation to support physical activity.
Development of the Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy has been primarily resourced by VicHealth funding through the BE ACTIVE initiative.
An overall report has been developed for the G21 region with broad recommendations. Specific strategies including local action plans have been developed for the City of Greater Geelong and Colac-Otway Shire.
The main body of the report provides and overview of the importance of physical activity and the ways in which the City of Greater Geelong can help to create environments that support physical activity in the community, based on specific interventions supported by national and/or international literature.
An accompanying Background Report provides a summary of the research and consultation outputs which led to the development of the actions contained within this strategy. An evidence review summaries key points from documents and research papers assessed as part of the project.
Based on a systematic review of incidental physical activity research in order to create a healthier community, a strategic approach needs to be adopted to encourage physical activity at every opportunity in people’s daily lives.
It is imperative, therefore, that the City of Greater Geelong recognises that participation in physical activity is a cornerstone of good health and wellbeing and that such participation contributes to the building of thriving, connected and active communities.
According to VicHealth there are many benefits of physical activity including the prevention of injuries and the onset of non-communicable diseases such as:
cardiovascular disease
breast cancer
colon cancer
type 2 diabetes
obesity
osteoporosis.
The research also demonstrates that physical activity can help:
increase people’s self-esteem and confidence
improve sleep quality
provide people with a greater sense of energy
reduce depression, stress and anxiety
improve mental health
increase life expectancy
enhance social connectedness.
The VicHealth research demonstrates physical inactivity is estimated to cost Australia $13.8 billion annually, and the health sector alone $719 million. In addition to the financial costs, it is estimated that 16,178 premature deaths can be attributed to physical inactivity each year. From a workplace perspective, approximately 1.8 working days per employee per year are lost to physical inactivity, or the equivalent of $458 per employee.
Whilst physical inactivity is a whole of community issue and can affect anyone, those members of the community who are less likely to be active are women, older adults, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with a disability, Indigenous Australians and people with a low socio-economic status.
Specific initiatives need to be implemented that take into consideration the needs of these communities and to address their barriers to participation. In order to assist the City of Greater Geelong to develop an environment that fully supports physical activity, the following principles have been adapted from the Toronto Charter for Physical Activity: A Global Call to Action (2010)
Implement evidence-based strategies
Implement cost-effective strategies
Target whole of population and specific target groups
Address the determinants of physical inactivity
Adopt an equitable approach to physical activity
Develop partnerships
Build organisational capacity
Utilise a whole of life approach
Utilise appropriate settings
Ensure appropriate local and cultural responses
Make physical activity options easy
Advocate for additional resources and commitments
In line with the charter for physical activities, overwhelming research indicates that there is not one simple solution and that several different strategies at once are needed to increase physical activity levels.
The Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy has based its actions around the best investments for physical activity, as determined by the British Journal of Sports Medicine (2012) and Heath et al (2012). These investments include (in no particular order):
Whole of school programs
Transport policies and systems that prioritise walking, cycling and public transport
Urban design
Physical activity and non-communicable disease prevention integrated into primary health care systems.
Public education, including mass media to raise awareness and change social norms of physical activity
Community-wide programs
Sports systems and programs
Although all actions identified are considered important within the suite of interventions and initiatives, they have been initially prioritised on the following basis:
Impact – intervention or initiative is likely to have a positive impact on increasing levels of physical activity participation, based on the evidence review undertaken as part of the Strategy
Feasibility – intervention or initiative can be achieved using existing networks and partners, or such networks and partners will be relatively easy to develop in the short term
Affordability – intervention or initiative can be achieved using existing resource levels, or likelihood of obtaining sufficient resources within the short term is high
Acceptability – intervention or initiative likely to be acceptable and relevant to Council, the target market and the broader communities
Sustainability – intervention or initiative is likely to result in changed behaviours, practices and attitudes, and be sustainable from a cost and ongoing resourcing perspective.
The Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy includes actions that will improve the environment across the City of Greater Geelong.
A key focus and direction of the Strategy is the promotion of Active Travel. Strategies that seek to improve pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, urban design and that facilitate active travel will facilitate more people to choose sustainable modes of transport.
Development of the Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy has been funded through the VicHealth funding initiative BE ACTIVE. City of Greater Geelong and Colac-Otway Shire respectively funded their local action plans.
The appointment of an Active Travel Officer has been identified as critical to the implementation of the Strategy. A budget proposal for this position will be sought in the 2015/2016 budget.
The cost of actioning other components for the Strategy will be the subject of business cases in subsequent budgets. External sources of funding will also be sought.
The development of the Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy is not a statutory requirement but is closely integrated with the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan that is a requirement of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
Specifically the strategy has been developed in response to Action 3.1 in the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan ‘Develop and support implementation of the Geelong Region Physical Activity Strategy’.
The strategy is also identified as a key initiative in the G21 Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-2017 to harness the combined interest across pillar groups to increase levels of physical activity across our population.
The Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy is aligned to City Plan 2013-2017 and seeks to address the City Plan’s three strategic priorities for Community Wellbeing: Healthy Lifestyles, Healthy Environments and Connected, Creative and Strong Communities.
A number of proposed actions also seek to address priorities identified under the strategic priority for Sustainable Built and Natural Environment.
No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest to the advice provided in the report.
The most effective way to achieve many of the objectives and actions contained within this physical activity strategy and to ultimately increase physical activity participation within our community is to appoint an Active Travel Officer.
Participation in physical activity is a cornerstone of good health and wellbeing and that such participation contributes to the building of thriving, connected and active communities.
Not implementing the key recommendations of the Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy risks the development of a happy, healthy and connected community.
The Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy reinforces Council’s commitment to addressing the determinants of physical inactivity and recommends strategies that seek to address the whole population in addition to specific groups who are traditionally not as active as other members of the community.
The strategy recommends actions that will improve participation in physical activity by specific groups in the community so that a more equitable approach to physical activity opportunities and resources can be implemented.
In order to assist the City of Greater Geelong to develop an environment that is fully supportive of Physical Activity, a series of guiding principles have been adapted from the Toronto Charter for Physical Activity: A Global Call to Action (2010). These principles explicitly consider issues relating to diversity, equity and community participation and empowerment.
The Greater Geelong Physical Activity Strategy has involved an evidence review comprising of documents and articles related to physical activity within the City of Greater Geelong and Colac Otway Shire, as well as initiatives and research at a national and international level.
It also involved a review of recent consultation outcomes from a range of studies that were underway concurrently or just completed, including the Greater Geelong City Plan, the City of Greater Geelong Municipal Early Years Plan, and the G21 Health and Wellbeing Plan.
Two stakeholder workshops were conducted in Geelong and Colac with relevant community health, sport and recreation, strategic planning, engineering, transport and disability workers from Local Government Authorities and various community based organisations. Key stakeholder interviews were also held with representatives from these particular areas of expertise.
During the public exhibition period, copies of the draft strategy were made available at all City of Greater Geelong Customer Service centres and online, with the consultation period then being promoted in the following ways:
Media release
City News
‘Have Your Say’ sections of the Geelong Australia website
Four submissions were received in favour of the strategy or with general comments regarding physical activity. No changes to the strategy were required. Appendix 1 contains a summary of the feedback received.
The Strategy was updated post the exhibition period to reflect the new National Physical Activity Guidelines released by the Australian Government’s Department of Health released in February 2014.
Portfolio: |
Community Safety, Youth – Cr Farrell |
Source: |
Community Services / Community Development |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Community and Social Planning / Gambling Geelong Gambling Advisory Committee |
The purpose of this report is to update Council on matters learned from Councillor and staff attendance at the 5th International Gambling Conference and the preceding international think tank held in Auckland New Zealand on 17–21 February 2014.
The 5th International Gambling Conference hosted by the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand (PGFNZ) was held 19–21 February, 2014. It was attended by Cr Farrell, along with an officer.
In accordance with Council Policy, a report of the conference is presented for Council’s information (refer Appendix 1).
More than $108 million was lost on electronic gaming machines (EGMs) in the City of Greater Geelong during the 2012/13 financial year. While this represents an eight percent reduction on the previous year, problem gambling remains a continuing issue for Council in its efforts to reduce harm in the community.
New Zealand is arguably the most progressive jurisdiction in dealing with problem gambling via a Public Health model.
Attending the conference provided Cr Farrell, as chair of the Gambling Advisory Committee, an opportunity to stay abreast of developments on issues relating to problem gambling, as well as engaging with practitioners and researchers from around the world.
The conference provided an excellent networking opportunity for attendees and raises the potential for future collaborations. It was hoped that several of the papers and presentations delivered at the conference would be included in this report. They are not yet available online.
It is expected that conference papers and presentations will be available on the PGFNZ website at a later date.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Fisher seconded -
That Council:
notes the report on the attendance by Councillor Farrell at the 5th International Gambling Conference in New Zealand (Appendix 1);
refers the key messages of the conference report and the actions contained therein to the Geelong Gambling Advisory Committee for consideration.
Carried.
Cr Farrell currently chairs the Geelong Gambling Advisory Committee with secretariat provided by Council staff. The Committee has representation from gambling venues, Gamblers Help, welfare services as well as G21, and the neighbouring municipalities of Surf Coast, Queenscliffe and Golden Plains.
The Committee provides advice to Council on gambling-related matters and co-ordinates activities that promote responsible gambling. It also provides a valuable source of information sharing and networking between the four municipalities and committee members.
In particular, the Committee has provided a valuable conduit for neighbouring Councils by disseminating information on the latest changes in the electronic gambling environment and assisted with their policy development and dealing with EGM applications.
As Committee Chair, Cr Farrell has a leadership role in the promotion of responsible gambling issues in the Geelong region. She also attends the bi-monthly meetings of the Victorian Local Government Working Group on Gambling (LGWGOG), a long-standing policy working group that is auspiced by the Victorian Local Governance Association.
The Council resources the Geelong Gambling Advisory Committee and supports the Committee to deliver an annual Gambling Action Plan. This includes a range of community education activities as well as involvement in Responsible Gambling Awareness Week, held annually in May.
Council officers deal with gambling applications to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) and any subsequent appeals to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Cr Farrell and a Community Development Officer attended the 5th International Conference hosted by the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand (PGFNZ). The organisers claim to be the only international gambling conference that does not accept gambling industry funding.
This is in stark contrast to the Australian organisation, the National Association for Gambling Studies (NAGS), which holds its annual gambling conferences in Australia each year and has strong ties to the gaming industry. In the past NAGS has actually held its conferences in casinos.
While a report from the PGFNZ on the 2014 conference is not as yet available on their website, attendance at previous conferences number around 230 with participants from more than fifteen countries including New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Singapore, Finland, Macau, Singapore, China, Switzerland and the USA.
The conference and its diversity of presentations and attendees provided an outstanding opportunity for increasing Council’s knowledge in the responsible gambling sector. It also provided an opportunity to network and engage with others who are working to minimise the harms caused by gambling. Including the international think tank and pre-conference workshops, the conference took place over five full days (17-21 February 2014.
The papers delivered for the conference are as yet unavailable, however internet links to the Conference presentations have been provided by PGFNZ:
Powerpoint presentations along with the abstracts by conference speakers is available on the International Gambling Conference website.
Videos of many of the presentations
https://www.youtube.com/user/IGCAuckland
The conference sessions were conducted under four general streams:
Treatment
Public health
Research
Regulation.
Some of the key messages from the conference and recommendations for consideration are:
Addiction is not an abnormal reaction to gambling. It is connected to the reward response mechanism in the brain. Some forms of gambling such as electronic gaming machines trigger a higher level response in the brain thus making people more vulnerable to gambling at levels that cause harm.
ACTION: Council will support programs, initiatives and mechanisms that aim to provide consumer protection such as pre-commitment programs and safety improvements on EGMs.
The advent of the internet as a platform for gambling raises the level of risk for problem gambling in the community. Evidence suggests that the developers of gambling sites are taking a keen interest in social gaming sites. These ‘legal’ sites not only provide a means of developing a potential customer base, but also offer the opportunity to provide pseudo casino type games as a means of normalising gambling and developing a sense of confidence as a gambler.
Further to this recent development, the rise of sports betting continues to normalise gambling within the context of Australia’s high level of interest in sport. This ongoing normalisation has the potential to increase the level of problem gambling in the community, especially among young men. Mobile technology and the internet provide a convenient and unsupervised platform for such gambling.
However, the internet also offers the opportunity to provide websites and applications which work with gamblers in deterring them from gambling online. Websites can offer on-line counselling for those who prefer anonymity or who cannot physically attend a problem gambling counselling venue.
ACTION: Council will review its community education program to include specific actions to address internet based gambling.
The provision and promotion of non gambling environments and alternate recreational pursuits offer an important alternative to those experiencing problems with their gambling. This is important when considering the proliferation of ‘pokie’ venues across the Geelong region and the promotion of sports betting in the media. For some years the Responsible Gambling Foundation of New Zealand has promoted a ‘gamble free day’. The gamble free day not only encourages gamblers and non-gamblers to visit gamble free environments, it also serves to promote the issue of problem gambling in the community.
ACTION: The Geelong Gambling Advisory Committee will investigate a regional ‘gamble free day’, similar to that promoted by PGFNZ.
That Council will develop and/or support initiatives that promote alternative venues and activities to gambling.
The gambling industry is increasing its sophistication in marketing its product to the community. This is evident in the advertisements on television promoting sports betting, particularly to young men. Social marketing sites are also now developing more ‘female friendly’ looking games in order to entice women to play. The careful use of words such as ‘play the pokies’ rather than ‘gamble on the pokies’ are aimed at making the activity look less harmful.
ACTION: That Council reviews the wording of its policies, communications and community education programs to avoid any language that promotes the normalisation of gambling in our community.
That Council reviews its policies, communications and community education programs to ensure that the community is made aware of the potential harmful effects of gambling.
The Victorian Local Government Act 1989 requires all local governments to provide the best outcomes for the community, while having regard for the long term and cumulative effects of decisions. The Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act (2008) give Council the responsibility of overseeing the wellbeing of its residents. The Gambling Regulation Act (2003) requires that there is no net detriment to the community as a result of the introduction of electronic gaming machines.
However, the Act does not define net detriment and it is often a combative process between Council and gambling permit applicants in the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation hearings to convince the presiding members that some applications will deliver a net detriment to our community.
Increasing Council’s body of knowledge on how to determine the social and economic impacts of gambling is critical in this process. There is no definitive research which compels tribunal members to support or deny a gambling permit application.
The draft Gambling Action Plan will be reconsidered in the context of the above recommendations from the conference.
Not applicable.
The cost to Council for the travel, accommodation and attendance at the conference for Cr Farrell and the officer was met within budget.
Overseas travel by Councillors is undertaken within the context of the Councillor travel policy which includes endorsement by Council. Council endorsed Cr Farrell’s attendance at its meeting on 12 November 2013. The officer attendance was in accordance with Council policy.
The conference raised ideas for minimising harm from problem gambling. This is consistence with Council’s City Plan in increasing community wellbeing as well as Council’s Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013–2017 in reducing harm from gambling in the community.
No officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
Conference attendance has contributed to Council’s body of knowledge regarding problem gambling and similarly will enhance Council’s capacity to respond to gambling permit applications.
The City of Greater of Geelong has a leadership role in providing for the wellbeing of its residents. The negative impacts of gambling in the community have an enormous impact on some individuals and their families. Attending the international conference offered an excellent opportunity to increase Council’s knowledge on how to best minimise the harm on our community from gambling.
The recommendations contained in this report do not run counter to Council’s Human Rights Charter.
The Community Development Department is responsible for the communication of this report in conjunction with Council’s Media and Communications Unit.
Portfolio: |
Infrastructure - Cr Ellis |
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
General Manager: |
Gary Van Driel |
Index Reference: |
Emergency Planning - Flood Warning |
This report seeks Council approval of Council Policy CPL 275.1 Flood Warning following a standard review process.
The review date for Council Policy on Flood Warnings expired in December 2013.
A review of the policy has been carried out and minor updates of the most relevant reference documents and reference to a new state wide Emergency Alert (EA) system were included.
Cr Ellis moved, Cr Heagney seconded -
That Council adopt the revised Flood Warning policy Version 3 with a further review to be carried out by 31 December 2016.
Carried.
The flood warning policy was introduced to provide guidance for the Flood Warning Officer in providing flood warning information to the community.
Flood Warning Policy:
Reference documents relating to flood warnings are updated on regular intervals in a similar manner to Council Policies. The main review change for the Flood Warning Policy is the date changes brought about by updates to these reference documents. Specifically, recent updates of the Flood Warning Manual and Municipal Emergency Management Plan are now reflected in version 3 of the policy.
Section 5.7 of the policy (System Management Responsibilities of the Flood Warning Officer) has also been amended to reflect the new state wide Emergency Alert (EA) system. This system allows emergency services the use of mobile phones and text messaging to alert the general public to flood emergency situations. This new system has replaced the old FM88 warning system.. This system was first used as an FM radio emergency broadcast system for tourists. It had a limited range of around 10KM from the Geelong CBD and has been relegated to a ‘last resort’ warning system only.
Officer responsibilities:
The current Flood Warning Officer is the Coordinator Engineering Services Design Unit. This officer is responsible for Council’s civil design program and development and management of Council’s Special Rates and Charge Schemes. This officer, along with Coordinator Maintenance and Coordinator Project Implementation are Deputy MERO’s for the City.
The current MERO for the City is the Coordinator Emergency Management and Fire Prevention. This officer is allocated on a full time basis to emergency management planning for the City and the Borough of Queenscliffe. This position is funded by the State Government’s Municipal Emergency Resourcing Program.
Support and Control Agency:
Part 7 of the Emergency Management Manual Victoria stipulates which organisation/government department is allocated to control the response activities to a specific emergency. For example the Control Agency for a bushfire is the Country Fire Authority and the Control Agency during a flood is the State Emergency Service. During the response ‘phase’ to an event, a municipal Council acts as a Support Agency, i.e. an agency which provides essential services, personnel, or material to support or assist a control agency or affected persons. Where an event has no nominated agency, for example a landslide event, then Victoria Police undertakes the Control Agency role.
There are no environmental implications for Council in accepting the recommendation in this report.
There are no financial implications for Council in accepting the recommendation in this report.
The next Flood Warning policy review date is 31 December 2016.
This policy review is in line with Council’s obligation to review and update all Council policies on a regular basis. The policy also enhances Councils plan for Community Wellbeing in that its communities are better informed and protected through emergency plans and processes.
No Council Officer involved with this process has any direct or indirect interest in the review of this policy.
There are no notable risks associated with implementing the recommendation in this report.
A current Flood Warning Policy, in conjunction with all relevant reference documents, provides the flood warning officer with the most up to date information. This will provide the more effective flood warning service to the community and reduce the risk to life and property and asset damage due to flooding.
In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any adverse human rights issues.
The Flood Warning policy review has been overseen by the Coordinator Emergency Management and Municipal Emergency Manager.
Portfolio: |
Governance – Cr Lyons (Mayor) |
Source: |
Corporate Services – Organisation Development |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference: |
Subject – Selection Committee CEO Recruitment |
The purpose of this report is to seek an amendment to the Special Committee of Council, Chief Executive Officer Recruitment.
The Special Committee, CEO Recruitment was formed by resolution of Council on 25 March 2014.
Local Government Victoria has advised that changes to the Local Government Act 1989 are likely to be passed by Parliament on the 18 June 2014. One of the amendments to the Act is that a suitably qualified independent chairperson must be appointed to the Committee when appointing a new CEO.
To ensure that Council compiles with these legislative changes it is recommended that the current Terms of Reference and Instrument of Delegation be amended to include an independent chairperson.
The recommended nominee for the chairperson is Professor Jane den Hollander, Vice-Chancellor, Deakin University.
Cr Heagney moved, Cr Fisher seconded -
That Council:
adopts the amended Instrument of Delegation and Terms of Reference for the Special Committee to include an independent chairperson (refer Appendix 1 and Appendix 2);
endorses the appointment of Professor Jane den Hollander as the independent chairperson for the Special Committee CEO Recruitment.
Carried.
When the previous Chief Executive Officer did not accept a renewal of his employment contract, Council determined that the Mayor, in consultation with Councillors, initiate a recruitment process for a new Chief Executive Officer. It was recommended that a suitable Executive Recruitment consultant should be engaged to assist with this process.
The Special Committee CEO Recruitment Instrument of Delegation and Terms of Reference were established and endorsed by Council on March 25, 2014. The original composition of the Committee was the Mayor (as chairperson) and 4 Councillors nominated by Council.
The composition of the Committee was amended by Notice of Motion, to include 2 independent (non-voting) advisors on April 8, 2014.
The Local Government Amendment (Governance and Conduct) Bill (the Bill) is currently before Parliament. One of the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act is the appointment of an Independent Chairperson for CEO Employment Matters Committee(s). It is anticipated that this amendment will be passed by Parliament as soon as June 18, 2014.
Local Government Victoria has written to Council advising that arrangements for the recruitment process are consistent with the Bill. A copy of the letter from Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure is included as Attachment 1.
Professor Jane den Hollander was previously appointed to the committee as an independent advisor. Professor den Hollander is suitably qualified and cognisant of the current recruitment process being undertaken by Council.
No known environmental implications
No known financial implications
The Local Government Amendment (Governance and Conduct) Bill 2014 states that Council must establish a CEO Employment Matters Committee with an independent suitably qualified chairperson
The Manager Organisation Development, and or the selected Recruitment Consultant will ensure the recruitment brief reflects the strategic initiatives of the City Plan.
No council officer involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest.
The independent chairperson is deemed to be a suitably qualified person in accordance with the Act
No known social considerations.
Human Rights Charter has been considered and no impacts have been identified.
Appointment of the CEO will be communicated to Council and relevant stakeholders at the time of appointment.
Council delegates to the special committee established by resolution of Council passed on 10 June 2014 and known as the “Selection Committee - Chief Executive Recruitment” ("the Committee"), the powers and functions set out in the Terms of Reference, and declares that:
the delegation:
1.1 comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to this Instrument of Delegation;
1.2 remains in force until such time as Council enters a contract for a Chief Executive Officer or Council resolves to vary or revoke the delegation; and
1.3 is to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines or policies which Council from time to time adopts; and
the purposes of the Committee are those set out in the Terms of Reference.
the Committee comprise an independent chairperson, the Mayor, 4 Councillors, and 1 independent advisor.
the Committee is required to report to Council at the intervals as specified in the Terms of Reference.
the quorum for the Committee shall be the independent chairperson and 3 Councillors.
all members of the Committee, except the 1 independent advisor, have voting rights on the Committee.
| THE COMMON SEAL of GREATER | ) | |
| GEELONG CITY COUNCIL was affixed | ) | |
| hereto in the presence of: | ) | |
| Mayor | ||
| Chief Executive Officer |
COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE |
 |
|
Selection Committee - Chief Executive Recruitment |
Document No: |
CTR5.2 |
|
Approval Date: |
10 June 2014 |
|
|
Approved By: |
Council |
|
|
Review Date: |
As per 4.1 |
|
|
Responsible Officer: |
|
|
|
Manager Organisation Development |
Version No: |
|
|
Authorising Officer: |
||
The Selection Committee - Chief Executive Recruitment has been appointed by Council as a Special Committee pursuant to Section 86 & 87 of the Local Government Act 1989 to oversee the recruitment of a Chief Executive Officer.
To recommend to appointment of a Chief Executive Officer through a process which is clear, transparent, open and accountable.
To establish the authority and responsibility conferred by Instrument of Delegation conferred by Council on the Selection Committee - Chief Executive Recruitment.
"Contract" refers to the Chief Executive Officer Employment contract.
“Consultant” means the Executive Recruitment Consultant engaged by Council.
"Instrument of Delegation" refers to the Delegation conferred on the Committee by resolution of Council on 10 June 2014.
“Independent Chairperson” means a suitably qualified person who is not a Councillor or Officer of Council
“Independent Advisor” means a suitably qualified person who is not a Councillor or an Officer of Council, and is a non-voting member of the Committee
1.1 Expected / Definite life of the Committee
The Committee shall cease to function upon the appointment by Council of a Chief Executive Officer to replace the previous incumbent.
1.2. Constituency of the Committee
The Independent Chairperson
The Mayor and 4 Councillors
1 Independent Advisor (non-voting).
1.3. Authority of the Committee
To finalise project brief for the purpose of seeking registrations of interest from Executive Recruitment consultants.
To determine the range of remuneration package to be offered.
To review registrations of interest received from Executive Recruitment consultants, interview and select a firm to assist Council in conducting the process.
In consultation with the appointed consultant:
establish a timetable for the recruitment process,
develop a recruitment profile that identifies core competencies for the position,
arrange advertising of the position,
interview short listed candidates.
All communications with the consultants to be through the Mayor unless otherwise determined by the Council.
The two preferred applicants will be interviewed by the full Council, prior to formal appointment.
To authorise payment of the consultants expenses within the agreed fee structure.
If necessary, authorise reimbursement of out of pocket travel expenses incurred by applicants selected for interview.
To appoint any sub committee deemed necessary to research and provide advice to the Committee.
1.4. Meeting Procedure
The committee shall be chaired by the Independent Chairperson and may determine its meeting procedures.
1.5. Reporting Requirements
The Committee shall report back to the Council at appropriate intervals during the recruitment process to advise the Council on progress. Reporting may include:
advice of appointment of a recruitment consultant to assist Council,
details of remuneration package for the Chief Executive Officer,
at close of applications to provide general information on the level of interest,
upon short listing of applicants by the Committee, the Committee shall report to Council at the earliest opportunity after it has conducted interviews, making its recommendation to Council regarding the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer.
1.6. Secretariat
The consultant shall primarily be responsible for secretarial support to the Committee. Where necessary the Governance Unit may assist.
1.7. Facilities & Resources
Where necessary the Committee may call upon the services of the Manager Organisation Development or other Council staff.
Quality Records shall be retained for at least the period shown below.
|
Record |
Retention/Disposal Responsibility |
Retention Period |
Location |
|
Instrument of Delegation |
Not Applicable |
Permanent |
Council Minutes |
|
Applications for Position CEO |
Manager Human Resources |
Permanent |
Corporate Records |
|
Minutes of Meeting |
Corporate Records |
Permanent |
Dataworks |
Nil
Portfolio: |
Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj |
Source: |
Corporate Services – Property Management |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference: |
Land Sales |
The purpose of this report, is to recommend the sale of two vacant lots at 16-18 Wilkins Close, Corio.
Council owns two unused residential lots in Wilkins Close, Corio. The land has a total area of 1,294m2 and is zoned Residential 1.
The land was acquired for open space in 1980 by the former Shire of Corio, however it has never been improved or used for any particular purpose.
There are alternative conveniently located open space areas in the immediate neighbourhood and it is recommended that the land be sold.
Prior to selling the land Council is required to give public notice of its intention to do so under s189 of the Local Government Act and allow for the hearing of submissions. If submissions are received they will be heard by the Submissions Review Panel and a further report will be put to Council. If no submissions are received the land will be sold by listing.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Council in respect of the land (“the Land”) at 16-18 Wilkins Close Corio:
commence the procedures to sell the Land on the following terms:
the Land being sold by listing through an agent;
the price being no less than a certified valuation of the Land obtained no more than 6 months prior to the date of sale;
other appropriate terms and conditions; and
commence the procedures under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) to sell the Land and that public notice of and the right of a person under section 223 of the Act to make a submission in relation to the proposed sale of the Land be given in the Geelong Advertiser and Geelong Independent; and
appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear and report to the Council on any submissions in relation to the proposed sale of the Land; and
in the event that no submissions are received sell the Land by listing through an agent;
authorise the General Manager – Corporate Services to execute the Contract of Sale; and
authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the Transfer of Land.
Carried.
The two residential lots at 16-18 Wilkins Close Corio were compulsorily acquired by the former Shire of Corio in 1980 for the purposes of “providing a place of public resort and recreation”. The land remains unfenced and unimproved and appears to have never been used for any purpose.
The land exists as two adjacent residential lots on a single title with a combined area of 1,294 m2 and are zoned Residential 1.
There exists a 2,000m2 Council reserve and playground 150m to the west of the land to be sold and other incidental recreation spaces have been created in the immediate area through the closure of through roads. Goldsworthy Reserve is approximately 600m to the east.
The land proposed to be sold contains no significant flora and fauna.
The land will be sold for a price being no less than the certified valuation obtained within six months of the date of sale.
The proceeds from the sale of the land will be non recurrent income for which provision is to be made in the 2014/15 budget. As property assets are disposed of the written down value is adjusted on the asset register.
The Local Government Best Practice Guideline for the Sale and Exchange of Land recommends that land be sold by a public process such as auction or listing. It is proposed that the land will be sold by listing which will be managed by an agent involved in property sales in the area.
Section 189 of the Local Government Act (“LG Act”) requires that Council obtain a certified valuation dated not more than six months prior to the sale of the land being the date of the contract of sale. Prior to sale a certified valuation of the land will be obtained and the final sale price will not be less than the Council’s valuation.
Under the same section of the LG Act the Council is required to give public notice of its intention to sell the land and consider any submissions received. If any submissions are received they will be heard by the Submissions Review Panel followed by a report to Council. If no submissions are received the land will be listed for sale.
There are no restrictions on the title that would prevent the Council from selling the land.
The recommendation supports the action priority relating to Responsible and Sustainable Financial Management where the sale of assets no longer required will support the identified progress indicators.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
The risks associated with the sale of this land are able to be managed following normal management procedures and processes.
There are no social implications associated with the recommendations of this report.
The recommendations of this report will have no effect on the human rights of individuals.
Consultation will occur when notice of Council’s intention to sell the land is given in City News.
Portfolio: |
Governance – Cr Lyons (Mayor) |
Source: |
Corporate Services – Corporate Property Management |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference: |
Sale of Land |
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council commence the process to sell the property at 91 The Parade, Ocean Grove.
The Council is the owner of a property at 91 The Parade (“the land”) Ocean Grove currently occupied by the Ocean Grove Neighbourhood Centre Inc.
The tenant is due to be relocated to the former Surfside Kindergarten in John Dory Drive when renovations are complete at the end of 2014.
The possible sale of this property was foreshadowed in a Council report in May 2011 which set out the development strategy for the Ocean Grove Integrated Early Childhood and Care Centre.
The Council has no identified alternative use for the land and it is recommended that the land be sold by public auction. The premises are suitable for office or residential use subject to minor changes.
Prior to selling the land Council is required to give public notice of its intention to do so under s189 of the Local Government Act and allow for the hearing of submissions. If submissions are received they will be heard by the Submissions Review Panel and a further report will be put to Council. If no submissions are received the land will be sold by public auction.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Council in respect of the land at 91 The Parade Ocean Grove (“the Land”):
commence the procedures to sell the Land on the following terms:
the Land being sold by a public auction;
the price being no less than a certified valuation of the Land obtained no more than 6 months prior to the date of sale;
other appropriate terms and conditions; and
commence the procedures under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) to sell the Land and that public notice of and the right of a person under section 223 of the Act to make a submission in relation to the proposed sale of the Land be given in the Geelong Advertiser and Geelong Independent; and
appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear and report to the Council on any submissions in relation to the proposed sale of the Land; and
in the event that no submissions are received sell the Land by public auction;
authorise the General Manager – Corporate Services to execute the Contracts of Sale; and
authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the Transfer of Land.
Carried.
Formerly a residential building the land at 91 The Parade Ocean Grove has been owned by the Council since 1996 and has undergone several renovations to enable its use as a neighbourhood centre and office. It is currently occupied by the Ocean Grove Neighbourhood Centre Inc under a monthly overholding lease and paying a nominal rent.
The land has an area of 811.7m2 and is zoned Mixed Use.
It is intended that the current of tenant at 91 The Parade will be offered a lease of the former Surfside Kindergarten in John Dory Drive which is currently being renovated for this purpose and is expected to be complete in late 2014. There is no other identified use or requirement for the Council to retain the property.
The possible sale of this property was foreshadowed in a Council report in May 2011 which set out the development strategy for the Ocean Grove Integrated Early Childhood and Care Centre (“the new Centre”). In that report the future of the then Surfside Kindergarten in John Dory Drive was a potential site for the new Centre along with the selected nearby greenfields site. A key factor in selecting the greenfields site for the new Centre was the option of moving the Neighbourhood House from 91 The Parade to the Surfside Kindergarten, avoiding the higher cost of the Neighbourhood House’s eventual relocation to another greenfields site.
The Ocean Grove Township Urban Design Framework (UDF) identifies the land as being appropriate for development of up to 3 storeys and being suitable for office and residential use. The UDF has undergone public review and is scheduled to be considered by Council in late June 2014 for implementation.
The premises at 91 The Parade are suitable, as is or with little improvement, for a range of commercial and residential uses permitted under the zone.
The land proposed to be sold contains no significant flora or fauna.
The land will be sold for a price being no less than the certified valuation obtained within six months of the date of sale.
The proceeds from the sale of the land will be non recurrent income for which provision is to be made in the 2014/15 budget. As property assets are disposed of the written down value is adjusted on the asset register.
The Local Government Best Practice Guideline for the Sale and Exchange of Land recommends that land be sold by a public process such as auction or listing. It is proposed that the land will be sold by public auction which will be managed by an agent involved in property sales in the area.
Section 189 of the Local Government Act (“LG Act”) requires that Council obtain a certified valuation dated not more than six months prior to the sale of the land being the date of the contract of sale. Prior to sale a certified valuation of the land will be obtained and the final sale price will not be less than the Council’s valuation.
Under the same section of the LG Act the Council is required to give public notice of its intention to sell the land and consider any submissions received. If any submissions are received they will be heard by the Submissions Review Panel followed by a report to Council. If no submissions are received the land will be sold by public auction.
There are no restrictions on the title that would prevent the Council from selling the land.
The recommendation supports the action priority relating to Responsible and Sustainable Financial Management where the sale of assets no longer required will support the identified progress indicators.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
The risks associated with the sale of this land are able to be managed following normal management procedures and processes.
There are no social implications associated with the recommendations of this report.
The recommendations of this report will have no effect on the human rights of individuals.
Consultation will occur when notice of Council’s intention to sell the land is given in City News.
Portfolio: |
Finance - Cr Lyons (Mayor) Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj |
Source: |
Corporate Services – Corporate Property Management |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference |
Sale of land |
The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council sell the Old Geelong Gaol (“the Gaol”).
Council purchased the Gaol from the State Government in 1994. Since purchase the property has been leased to Geelong Rotary which operates the main cell block as a tourist attraction and subleases other parts of the complex to a range of tenants.
In recent years the average annual rental income payable by Rotary has been $35,700 and the average annual expenditure on maintenance has been $30,700. Parts of the complex have been shut down due to structural deterioration, non compliance with building regulations and safety risks. The built infrastructure continues to deteriorate.
An estimate of $1,559,000 has been made for required building maintenance. It is likely that a substantial further allocation will be required due to the limited nature of inspections, access restrictions and the need for further detailed audits. No provision has been made for conservation or restoration works.
If the maintenance and compliance backlog is addressed at substantial cost, the Gaol will remain in its current form and use. Any upgrade of buildings and services to allow for new or innovative uses will require additional expenditure.
In June 2013 the Council resolved that the preferred option for the property was not to retain ownership. Noting the cost projections associated with retaining ownership of the Gaol, the Council established a Reference Group for the purpose of receiving a report on potential future uses of the property prior to further considering the sale of the property.
A review of the Conservation Management Plan has been completed which sets a context for future use and development of the complex and will assist potential purchasers to interpret opportunities and respond in an informed manner to the sale process.
It is recommended that the Gaol be sold by expressions of interest which will be assessed by a panel to report back to Council on the recommended purchaser. Prior to offering the property for sale the Council is required to give notice of intention to do so under s189 of the Local Government Act and to consider any submissions received.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Council in relation to the Old Geelong Gaol (“the Gaol”) at 200-202 Myers Street, Geelong:
commence the procedures to sell the Gaol by expressions of interest;
give notice under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) of its intention to sell the Gaol and that public notice of and the right of a person to make a submission be given in the Geelong Advertiser and the Geelong Independent;
appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear any submissions and report to the Council on any submissions received;
if no submissions are received, offer the Gaol for sale by expressions of interest and appoint a Panel as described herein, with the addition of the Finance and Heritage Portfolio holders, to report to the Council on the outcome of the sale process;
make the Conservation Management Plan review publicly available when the property goes on the market.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Fisher seconded –
That Council in relation to the Old Geelong Gaol (“the Gaol”) at 200-202 Myers Street, Geelong:
commence the procedures to sell the Gaol by expressions of interest;
give notice under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) of its intention to sell the Gaol and that public notice of and the right of a person to make a submission be given in the Geelong Advertiser and the Geelong Independent;
appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear any submissions and report to the Council on any submissions received;
make the Conservation Management Plan review publicly available when the property goes on the market.
The amendment was put and carried.
The amendment became the motion.
The motion was put and carried.
In 1991 the State Government decommissioned the Old Geelong Gaol and offered the property for sale by tender in 1994. The Council (under the control of Commissioners) supported a private tender to purchase and use it for a car museum, however the tenderer withdraw shortly after acceptance.
After giving consideration to the Government’s conditions of release for the private tenderer, the Council stepped in as purchaser using an interest free Government loan to purchase the property. Soon after purchase in November 1994 the Council installed Geelong Rotary as the head tenant and since then the property has been sub let to a range of tenants and the main cell block has been operated by Rotary as a tourist attraction.
The title to the Gaol consists of a Crown Grant of estate in fee simple meaning that the land is owned freehold by the Council which may dispose of the property. The Minister for Planning has indicated that the outstanding loan is payable upon disposal of the property.
Over the last seven financial years the average annual rent to Council from Rotary has been $35,700 and the average annual maintenance expenditure for the same period has been $30,700. Apart from replacement of the main gates maintenance expenditure has been minimal and no improvements of any significance have been implemented since the Gaol was decommissioned. Parts of the complex have been shut down due to structural deterioration, non compliance with building regulations and safety risks. The built infrastructure continues to deteriorate, mainly in the non masonry elements.
At present the income from sub tenancies to Rotary is approximately $76,000 per year and under the lease Rotary is responsible for operating and utility costs.
On 25 June 2013 a report on the future of the Gaol was presented and the Council resolved to:
Note the cost projections for the continued ownership of the Gaol:
Note that the projections will fund some outstanding maintenance and achieve a modest level of compliance without providing any improvements that will allow the property to be used for alternative uses;
(Recognise) that the preferred option is that Council does not wish to retain ownership of the subject property;
Establish the Old Geelong Gaol reference group for the purposes of receiving a report on potential future uses by a third party, prior to proceeding with the sale or transfer of ownership.
Maintenance Projections
Technical reports commissioned indicate that maintenance and compliance works required are expected to cost $1,559,000.
The actual backlog amount will exceed the total above for the following reasons:
All the works included in the above estimate were identified on a walk through inspection basis only and some areas remain inaccessible.
Due to the age and construction of the complex and heritage restrictions it is likely that significant contingency allowances will be required for any works programs.
Further detailed audits are required to determine compliance works to meet standards.
No conservation and restoration works have been identified or costed.
If the above works were implemented much of the deteriorating elements of the complex will be stabilised and increased allocations for recurrent maintenance budgets will be required to ensure that maintenance backlogs do not accumulate again. These works will only stabilise the existing infrastructure and will not upgrade the complex to allow any new or innovative uses. Parts of the complex are likely to remain unusable due to non compliance and a lack of services.
Old Geelong Gaol Reference Group (“Reference Group”)
Following the Council’s resolution of 25 June 2013 the Reference Group was formed consisting of:
Crs S Kontelj, Heagney and Ansett
Sue De Guilo (Geelong Rotary)
Jeff Wall and Lindsay Allan (Corporate Services)
Roger Grant (Geelong Otway Tourism)
David Rowe (Heritage Advisor)
The Reference Group met twice and was supported by Peter Brookes (Heritage Victoria), Frank Thompson (Geelong Rotary) and Alan Grant (Corporate Services).
The Reference Group’s main brief was to review the research on alternative uses of other Australian gaols and consider any further possible uses for the complex that would not require the Council to contribute further funds. In doing so the Reference Group:
Noted the conclusion of the research that apart from gaols well positioned in terms of heritage and special interest, there are no examples of successful sustained private or public investment in adapting cell block buildings for alternative uses. Greater success however has been achieved in developing non cell block elements associated with former gaols such as residences, workshops and land.
Noted alternative uses not requiring the commitment of significant funding including a farmer’s market, storage, ghost tours and involvement with The Block television series.
Considered that the highest and best use for the Old Geelong Gaol in its current form is likely to be the current use – subject to maintenance expenditure.
Advised that if the Council was to proceed with the sale of the property it should revise the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) to provide guidelines for the future use and development of the complex.
Conservation Management Plan Review
Conservation consultant Ivar Nelson was engaged to prepare a review of the CMP which is now complete. The main purpose of the review was to take the original 1997 CMP and identify the significance of the structures and parts of structures within the complex.
The following table provides a snapshot of allocation of significance levels by the CMP review.
Level of Significance |
Elements Included in level |
Significant Fabric |
Original fabric and changes up to 1900 including:
|
Fabric of some value |
|
Fabric of little or no significance |
|
The CMP must be interpreted as a whole to understand how the future of the complex is to be managed to retain, maintain and enhance its heritage values. Significantly the review states:
“The conservation of the Geelong gaol must give due regard to its on going and sustainable use and maintenance when considering changes to its fabric.
Change is inevitable. It is not necessarily a threat to conservation but, if directed appropriately, can contribute to the ongoing and sustainable use and maintenance of the Gaol.
Change can be minor changes to Significant Fabric, the removal of Fabric of Some Value and/or the introduction of new fabric to contribute to the use and future of the Gaol.”
The CMP review provides a progressive overview of the complex and provides a framework for change to encourage sustainability and viability of the complex.
Future Ownership Options
The Council is free to consider its options for future ownership of the Old Geelong Gaol including on going ownership or sale.
Should the Council continue to own the complex and not fund the works backlog, access to various parts of the complex over time will be further prevented including the main cell block where the central wooden skylight structure continues to deteriorate. At a minimum it is likely that unsupervised public access to the main cell block will be restricted.
Council could continue to own the Gaol and fund maintenance and compliance works from internal and external sources. External funding sources include State and Federal Government grant programs, however funding from these sources is likely to be limited with the Council remaining exposed to most of the costs and risks.
On going ownership will mean that in addition to the identified works, the cost of unidentified maintenance, changes to compliance requirements and any future conservation works will remain the prime responsibility of the Council. The cost of unidentified works, including capital improvements for alternative uses, is likely to be substantial.
In addition to exposure to building related costs the Council faces risks relating to tenancies and public access.
Addressing the outstanding maintenance and compliance works will not enhance the utility of the complex or the comfort of the tenants. This work will only stabilise the fabric, achieving questionable value for money.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The option of on going arms length management of the Gaol by the Council through a head and sub lease structure, while convenient, is neither generating sufficient funds to meet maintenance and compliance requirements, nor does it represent a sustainable model for long term management.
On going ownership of similar disused prisons in Victoria has not been supported either by the State or Councils, with the State Government having sold many to private owners and the Mt Alexander Shire Council having disposed of the Castlemaine Gaol in 2012. It is difficult to reconcile ownership of a disused Gaol with Council’s primary role as a local government authority.
It is recommended that the Council give notice under s189 of the Local Government Act to sell the Old Geelong Gaol by expressions of interest.
The recommendations of this report have no environmental implications.
The Minister for Planning in June 2013 advised Council that the interest free Government loan of $360,000 given to Council in 1996 for the transfer of the Gaol shall be repayable in full upon sale of the asset. However the Minister also advised that upon repayment of the loan consideration will be given to establishing a Geelong Heritage Restoration Fund for the conservation of heritage places in the City of Greater Geelong.
When selling land the Council is required to obtain and have regard to a certified valuation.
Under s189 of the Local Government Act the Council is required to give public notice of its intention to sell land and consider any submissions received. If any submissions are received they will be heard by the Submissions Review Panel followed by a report to the Council. If there are no submissions the property will be listed for sale by an appointed agent.
When selling land the Council is guided by the Local Government Best Practice Guideline on the Sale and Exchange of Land which provides that land should be sold by a public process. Sale of land by expression of interest satisfies this requirement of the Guideline.
The expression of interest process will proceed through the following steps:
Agent is appointed and prepares a marketing plan in conjunction with the Council and implements the plan.
EOI document is prepared and made available along with the revised CMP.
EOI’s close on a set date.
An assessment panel (“the panel”) is appointed to interview purchasers and make a recommendation to the Council on the outcome of the sale process.
The panel shall consist of the Ward Councillor, General Manager – Corporate Services and the Manager – Corporate Strategy and Property Management.
EOI’s are assessed using price as the primary consideration although other criteria including provision of community benefit will be taken into account.
The property is offered for sale without predetermined vendor conditions, although conditions may be applied as a condition of sale.
The recommendation supports the action priority relating to Responsible and Sustainable Financial Management by avoiding significant maintenance and capital costs through the continuing ownership of the Old Geelong Gaol.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
On going ownership and arms length management of the property by the Council in the absence of a commitment to fund maintenance and improvements represents an unacceptable risk.
Should the Council continue to own the property it will be accepting risk relating to the use of buildings for which they were not designed along with growing and unavoidable cost of maintenance and capital improvements.
The risks associated with the sale of the complex can be managed by obtaining appropriate advice and following normal management procedures.
One of the tenants is providing support services for both mildly and severely disabled people from the complex and any actions to sell the property will have regard to their needs and the needs of other tenants.
The recommendations of this report and the subsequent sale process have no implications relating to the Human Rights Charter.
Discussions have been held with most tenants relating to the possible future sale of the complex and the outcome of those discussions was detailed in the June 2013 report to Council.
The meetings of the Reference Group provided an opportunity for the head tenant Geelong Rotary to be part of the decision making process for the future of the complex.
All persons including tenants will be provided an opportunity to make a submission following the giving of notice of intention to sell the property under s189 of the Local Government Act. Anyone making a submission will have the opportunity to be heard.
Portfolio: |
Infrastructure Parks & Gardens – Cr Ellis |
Source: |
City Services – Engineering Services |
General Manager: |
Gary Van Driel |
Index Reference: |
Project T1400025 |
To provide Council with the requisite information to facilitate the approval of the tender evaluation panel’s recommendation in relation to the supply of the Concrete and Concrete Works tender.
Council has sought tenders for the supply of concrete and concrete works through out the municipality for a period of one year from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 with the option for a further one year term at sole discretion of Council.
The works in this annual contract includes supply and laying of all concrete pedestrian pavements and kerb and channel for construction works, kerb and channel and footpath replacement works and kerb and channel, footpath and other concrete maintenance works within the municipality of the City of Greater Geelong.
Council will appoint a panel of contractors for the supply of concrete and concrete works through out the municipality.
A total of ten (10) companies have provided tender submissions for the supply of concrete and concrete works. Tender submissions include an extensive schedule of rates for all manner of concrete works and the supply of concrete.
The estimated annual value of the works program associated with this contract $2,775,000.
A detailed evaluation of all tender submissions has been undertaken by an evaluation panel of Council officers, as identified in the body of this report.
Following an evaluation of each of the submissions the following suppliers have been recommended for inclusion to the panel of preferred suppliers:-
Aaron McCurdy Concreting Pty Ltd
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd
CCP Group Pty Ltd
CJ Walters Concreting Pty Ltd
Coppards Concreting Pty Ltd
De Fran Concreting Pty Ltd
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd
Zac McGuane t/a Prestige Concrete Services
V.R & A.R Roti Roti Pty Ltd
Cr Ellis moved, Cr Richards seconded -
That Council:
Accept the tender submission/’s from:
Aaron McCurdy Concreting Pty Ltd
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd
CCP Group Pty Ltd
CJ Walters Concreting Pty Ltd
Coppards Concreting Pty Ltd
De Fran Concreting Pty Ltd
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd
Zac McGuane t/a Prestige Concrete Services
V.R & A.R Roti Roti Pty Ltd
for Tender No T01400025 – Panel arrangement for Supply of Concrete and Concrete Works for the associated schedule of rates (exclusive of GST); and
Sign and seal the contract documents.
Carried.
The City of Greater Geelong invited tenders for the supply of concrete and concrete works via public advertisement in Tenderlink, the Geelong Advertiser and The Age on Saturday 8 March 2014.
At the close of tenders on 2 April 2014 the following tender submissions were received:
Tenderer |
Aaron McCurdy Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
Andrew Streeton t/a Andrew Streeton Concreting |
|
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd |
|
CCP Group Pty Ltd |
|
CJ Walters Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
Coppards Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
De Fran Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd |
|
Zac McGuane t/a Prestige Concrete Services |
|
V.R & A.R Roti Roti Pty Ltd |
All tenders have been submitted exclusive of GST.
The tender submissions were evaluated by a panel consisting of:
|
Gary Van Driel |
General Manager City Services |
|
Vicki Shelton |
Manager Engineering Services |
|
Mathew Trezise |
Senior Civil Inspector |
|
Colin Vagg |
Maintenance Officer - Infrastructure NZ |
|
David Neil |
Project Officer Construction |
Stage One – Mandatory Criteria
Mandatory requirements apply to this Tender are:
|
Must comply with OH&S requirements detailed in the tender schedule |
All submissions complied with the mandatory criteria and proceeded to the second stage evaluation.
Stage Two –Comparative Criteria
Tender submissions were assessed based on the respondent’s performance or tender response in the following areas:
|
Criteria |
Weighting |
|
Methodology/plan for performing contract |
10% |
|
Capability and experience |
60% |
|
Proposed Staff, Plant & Equipment, extent of subcontracting |
20% |
|
Economic Contribution to the Geelong Region |
10% |
|
|
100% |
Tenders were assessed against the comparative criteria to determine whether they possess the necessary resources, experience and ability. Suppliers who achieved a rating of acceptable or higher were then evaluated on their ability to provide value for money to Council.
The suppliers who combined the necessary skills while providing the most competitive prices were rated suitable for inclusion on the concrete services panel (refer below).
Recommended Panel of Suppliers
|
Tenderer |
Ranking |
|
Aaron McCurdy Concreting Pty Ltd |
1 |
|
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd |
2 |
|
V.R & A.R Roti Roti Pty Ltd |
3 |
|
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd |
4 |
|
Zac McGuane t/a Prestige Concrete Services |
5 |
|
CJ Walters Concreting Pty Ltd |
6 |
|
Coppards Concreting Pty Ltd |
7 |
|
De Fran Concreting Pty Ltd |
8 |
|
CCP Group Pty Ltd |
9 |
Unsuccessful Tenderers
|
Tenderer |
|
Andrew Streeton t/a Andrew Streeton Concreting |
Andrew Streeton t/a Andrew Streeton Concreting offered limited pricing against the specific tender pricing schedules requested, generally pricing was higher than competitors. Andrew Streeton t/a Andrew Streeton Concreting submitted pricing with a number of exclusions against the scope requirements of the price schedule eg in Schedule A being maintenance and construction of footpaths and driveways excluded preparation of base, remove existing concrete and reinstate nature strip etc.
Overview of Preferred Suppliers
Aaron McCurdy Concreting are a Geelong based supplier who has operated for 8 years and are long term contractors for Council working consistently to a high standard.
Geelong Kerbing is a contracted supplier with 27 years experience offering good quality experienced staff and well maintained equipment. They consistently deliver quality work, on time and with minimal supervision.
VR & AR RotiRoti are also long term Council suppliers offering consistently a high standard outcome based on quality staff and equipment. As Geelong based suppliers they source materials, engage subcontractors and employ staff from within the local community.
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Construction Pty Ltd is a current contractor on the Council’s concreting panel with a reputation for providing excellent work offering an alternative where volume of work necessitates additional capacity is required.
Zac McGuane t/a Prestige Concrete Services has suitable staff and offers an alternative to Geelong Kerbing given they have the specialist equipment to undertake kerbing works, being an integral component of the concrete works required.
CJ Walters Concreting is a Geelong based contractor currently on Council’s Concrete panel. Work practises are good and the standard of work is satisfactory. CJ Walters Contracting are currently contracted to provide concrete footpaths for the Surf Coast Shire.
Coppards Concreting is a local contractor employing local staff, has demonstrated good work practises and work to a satisfactory standard. Although rates are slightly higher Coppards Concreting offers an alternative panel member to support timely completion of works in the north zone.
De Fran Concreting is a current incumbent on the contracted supplier panel performing predominantly footpath work. De Fran Concreting has been a consistent performer for a few years and is supported by adequate staff and equipment.
CCP Group Pty Ltd is a local contractor employing local staff and purchasing product locally. CCP Group have provided enough information that confirms a satisfactory outcome would be achieved.
The evaluation panel agreed that additional contractors be appointed to the panel to support, in particular, the growth in capital works associated with the footpath renewal program. This recommendation supports the addition of two panel members increasing the panel to nine members. In appointing additional members attention has been paid to addressing the requirement for additional Kerbing expertise within the appointed panel.
Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of this service / works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation.
This is a schedule of rates tender and will rely upon the funds allocated in Council’s budget code C02307 for the 2014/15 financial year. The budget allocation for this service is approximately $2,775,000 per annum.
The requirements of Section 186 of the Local Government Act have been complied with for this tender. There are no other policy, legal or statutory implications associated with this tender process.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
There are not considered to be any risks associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions.
There are no social implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.
There are no communication issues associated with the acceptance of this tender. Councils representative will liaise with affected community groups.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item – Consideration of Tender Submissions for Tender T1400025 – Supply of Concrete and Concrete Works in that the successful tenderer is a customer of his employer and left the room prior to discussion at 9:00pm
Portfolio: |
Infrastructure Parks & Gardens – Cr Ellis |
Source: |
City Services – Engineering Services |
General Manager: |
Gary Van Driel |
Index Reference: |
Project T1400026 |
To provide Council with the requisite information to facilitate the approval of the tender evaluation panel’s recommendation in relation to the supply of Asphalt Works Products and Services tender.
Council has sought tenders for the annual supply of asphalt works, reinstatement / maintenance patching works and asphalt products throughout the municipality for a period of one year from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 with the option for a further year dependant on satisfactory performance.
The works in this annual supply contract include three components:
supply and lay of Asphalt works program
supply Asphalt and associated Asphalt products
supply of Asphalt reinstatement / maintenance patching works.
A total of four (4) companies have provided tender submissions for a) the supply and lay of Asphalt works program.
A total of four (4) companies have provided tender submissions for b) the supply of Asphalt and associated Asphalt products.
A total of five (5) companies provided tender submissions for c) the supply of Asphalt reinstatement / maintenance patching works.
The estimated annual value of the a) supply and lay of Asphalt works program associated with this contract is $3,000,000.
The estimated annual value of b) supply of asphalt associated products with this contract is $0.750M.
Maintenance patching works will predominantly relate to a range of reinstatement work carried out by Council for other Authorities throughout the financial year/s. Quantity, timing and value of the portion of this reinstatement work allocated to Council is dependant on periodic maintenance works, capital upgrade programs and urgent maintenance carried out by those Authorities and cannot be accurately predicted in advance.
Following a detailed evaluation of each of the submissions it is considered that the tender submission submitted by Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd for a) supply and lay of Asphalt Works program is preferred.
Following a detailed evaluation of each of the submissions it is considered that the tender submissions submitted by Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd and Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd for b) supply of Asphalt and associated Products are preferred.
Following a detailed evaluation of each of the submissions it is considered that the tender submission submitted by Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd, Hetekaro Pty Ltd trading as Asphalt Paving Services and Econopave Asphalt Services Pty Ltd for supply of Asphalt reinstatement / maintenance patching works are preferred.
Cr Ellis moved, Cr Richards seconded -
That Council:
accept the tender associated with Tender No. T1400026 submitted by Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd for part a -The supply and lay of asphalt works program (part a) in accordance with the rates submitted in their Tender exclusive of GST;
accept the schedule of rates tender associated with Tender No. T1400026 submitted by Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd & Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd for part b -The supply of Asphalt and associated products in accordance with the rates submitted in their Tender exclusive of GST; and
accept the schedule of rates tender associated with Tender No. T1400026 submitted by Hetekaro Pty Ltd trading as Asphalt Paving Services, Econopave Asphalt Services Pty Ltd & Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd for part c - The supply of Asphalt reinstatement / maintenance patching works in accordance with the rates submitted in their Tender exclusive of GST; and
sign and seal the contract documents.
Cr Farrell left the meeting room at 9:09pm
Cr Farrell re-entered the meeting room at 9:11pm
Cr Heagney moved, Cr Farrell seconded –
That Council:
accept the tender associated with Tender No. T1400026 submitted by Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd for part a -The supply and lay of asphalt works program (part a) in accordance with the rates submitted in their Tender exclusive of GST;
accept the schedule of rates tender associated with Tender No. T1400026 submitted by Hetekaro Pty Ltd trading as Asphalt Paving Services, Econopave Asphalt Services Pty Ltd & Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd for part c - The supply of Asphalt reinstatement / maintenance patching works in accordance with the rates submitted in their Tender exclusive of GST; and
sign and seal the contract documents.
Lost.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Heagney seconded –
That consideration of the report be deferred.
Lost.
The motion was then put and carried.
Tenders for the Annual Supply of Asphalt Works, Reinstatement / Maintenance Patching Works and Asphalt Products were invited via public advertisement in the Geelong Advertiser and The Age on Saturday 8 March 2014.
At the close of tenders on Wednesday 2 April 2014 the following tender submissions were received:
|
Tenderer |
|
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd |
|
Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd |
|
Greenhall Pty Ltd |
|
Hetekaro Pty Ltd trading as Asphalt Paving Services |
|
Econopave Asphalt Services Pty Ltd |
|
Alex Fraser Asphalt Pty Ltd |
All tenders have been submitted exclusive of GST.
The tender submissions associated with this (project/service) were evaluated by a panel consisting of:
|
Gary Van Driel |
General Manager City Services |
|
Vicki Shelton |
Manager Engineering Services |
|
Mat Trezise |
Senior Civil Inspector |
|
Colin Vagg |
Maintenance Officer Works NZ |
|
Joshua King |
Co-ordinator Construction |
|
Jeff McArthur |
Contracts Officer ( non voting member ) |
Stage One – Mandatory Criteria
OHS mandatory requirements applies to this Tender.
Each of the submissions responded to the mandatory requirements set down in the Tender documents.
Stage Two –Comparative Criteria
a) Supply and lay of Asphalt Works Program
Tender submissions were assessed based on the respondent’s performance or tender response in the following areas:
|
Criteria |
Weighting |
|
Financial Assessment |
60% |
|
Project Delivery |
25% |
|
Quality |
5% |
|
Economic Contribution to Region |
5% |
|
Customer Service |
5% |
At the conclusion of the evaluation the tenderers were ranked in the following order in accordance with the above criteria:
|
Tenderer |
Ranking |
|
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd |
1 |
|
Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd |
2 |
|
Alex Fraser Asphalt Pty Ltd |
3 |
|
Greenhall Pty Ltd |
4 |
Alex Fraser Asphalt Pty Ltd provided the lowest priced tender submission. Whilst their submission overall was confirming, the evaluation panel determined that when both price and non price criteria were considered that Alex Fraser Asphalt Pty Ltd did not represent best value to Council.
At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the evaluation panel determined that Fulton Hogan, the highest ranked tender, represented best value to Council.
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd has undertaken the works component of this tender for the past fourteen (14) years and during that time has provided excellent service that consistently met quality, time and cost considerations.
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd fully understand Council’s requirements and their costing structure and methodologies are reflected in their competitive pricing. Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd provided an excellent tender submission highlighted by their commitment to quality, customer service, flexibility and responsiveness. Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd have demonstrated their ability to successfully undertake the placement of asphalt under the works component of this contract and the evaluation panel believe that they will continue to provide an excellent quality service to Council.
Therefore, Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd is recommended by the evaluation panel to undertake the Supply and lay of Asphalt Works Program.
b) Supply Asphalt and associated Asphalt Products
Tender submissions were assessed based on the respondent’s performance and tender response in the following areas:
|
Supply Only – Asphalt Products |
|
|
Criteria |
Weighting |
|
Project Delivery |
60% |
|
Quality |
10% |
|
Economic Contribution to Region |
10% |
|
Quality |
10% |
|
Environment & Risk |
10% |
|
Total |
100% |
At the conclusion of the evaluation the tenderers were ranked in the following order in accordance with the above criteria:
|
Tenderer |
Rank |
|
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd |
Equal 1st |
|
Boral Resources Pty Ltd Trading as Boral Asphalt |
Equal 1st |
|
Greenhall Pty Ltd |
3 |
|
Alex Fraser Asphalt Pty Ltd |
4 |
Tenders were assessed against the comparative criteria to determine whether they possess the necessary project delivery resources, experience and ability. Suppliers who achieved a rating of acceptable or higher were then evaluated on their ability to provide value for money to Council.
The suppliers who combined the necessary skills while providing competitive prices were rated suitable for inclusion on the supply panel.
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd and Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd are the incumbent preferred suppliers for the supply of asphalt and associated products to Council. Both companies provided competitive pricing for supply of asphalt and associated products; it was therefore considered that for the supply component of this tender that Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd along with Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd be engaged as the preferred suppliers.
c) Supply of Reinstatement / Maintenance Patching Works and Asphalt Products
Tender submissions were assessed based on the respondent’s performance and tender response in the following areas:
|
Supply of Reinstatement / Patching Works and Asphalt Products |
|
|
Criteria |
Weighting |
|
Project Delivery |
60% |
|
Quality |
10% |
|
Environment & Risk |
10% |
|
Customer Service |
10% |
|
Economic Contribution to Region |
10% |
|
Total |
100% |
At the conclusion of the evaluation the tenderers were ranked in the following order in accordance with the above criteria:
|
Tenderer |
Rank |
|
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd |
1 |
|
Hetekaro Pty Ltd trading as Asphalt Paving Services |
2 |
|
Econopave Asphalt Services |
3 |
|
Alex Fraser Asphalt Pty Ltd |
4 |
|
Greenhall Asphalt Pty Ltd |
5 |
Tenders were assessed against the comparative criteria to determine whether they possess the necessary project delivery resources, experience and ability. Suppliers who achieved a rating of acceptable or higher were then evaluated on their ability to provide value for money to Council.
The suppliers who combined the necessary skills while providing competitive prices were rated suitable for inclusion on the Supply of Reinstatement / Maintenance Patching Works and Asphalt Products panel.
The evaluation panel determined that three (3) tenderers satisfactorily addressed the evaluation criteria and provided competitive pricing for the supply of reinstatement / patching works and asphalt products. Therefore, the evaluation panel recommend that Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd, Hetekaro Pty Ltd trading as Asphalt Paving Services, and Econopave Asphalt Services Pty Ltd be appointed to a Council panel of suppliers.
Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of this service / works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation.
This is a schedule of rates tender and will rely upon the funds allocated in primarily Council’s budget code C02306 for the 2014/15 financial year. The estimated annual costs of this contract are as follows:
Supply and lay of Asphalt Works Program - $3,000,000.00
Supply Asphalt and associated Asphalt Products - $750,000.00
Supply of Reinstatement / Maintenance Patching Works and Asphalt Products - Maintenance patching works will predominantly relate to a range of reinstatement work carried out by Council for other Authorities throughout the financial year/s. Quantity, timing and value of the portion of this reinstatement work allocated to Council is dependant on periodic maintenance works, capital upgrade programs and urgent maintenance carried out by those Authorities and cannot be accurately predicted in advance.
The requirements of Section 186 of the Local Government Act have been complied with for this tender. There are no other policy, legal or statutory implications associated with this tender process.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
There are not considered to be any risks associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions.
There are no social implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.
There is no communication issues associated with the acceptance of this tender. Council’s representative will liaise with affected community groups.
Portfolio: |
Governance – Cr Lyons (Mayor) |
Source: |
Corporate Internal Auditor and Ombudsman |
A/Chief Executive Officer: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Audit CG - Internal |
Cr Richards moved, Cr Nelson seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
